/lit/ - Literature

†

''He who seeks to keep his life, shall lose it''
Jesus was a nihilist zen monk

Sure is Glenn Beck in here.

Protip: Acts 4:32-35, Matthew 19:21, Matthew 25:32-36, Revelation 7:9.

>>415576
> Jesus was a nihilist zen monk

that makes about as much sense as me describing Charles Bukowski as a feminist hermetic upholsterer

>>415576
Nonsense abounds in holy text and pop music.

If it's presented right, a self-contradiction rattles back and forth in your mind until your rationality gives up on it and you decide it means something very important.

This is very true OP.

It's totally not fitting with Jesus' teachings, though. We should not JUDGE people because we are all sinners, but we have to acknowledge that sin exists and, if possible, we should help sinners. We shouldn't condone sin - that would itself be a very serious sin.

It's nothing inherent in Christianity. When you read real early Christians, they were not "mushy-minded" and they certainly believed in sin. This is modern bullshit invented by Mainline Protestants to fit 20th century biases.

>>415600

What's your point? What does this have to do with a damn thing?

Seriously? What does this have to do with the existence of sin?

I agree with every word of it. A HUGE part of our judgment will be based upon how we have helped the poor.

>>415576

>based on a handful of verses

You have a very superficial understanding of both Christianity and Zen Buddhism.

>>415631
It's important to recall, however, that sin is not limited to sexual deviance; indeed, it's hard to argue that the main category of sin that we should care about is related to sex at all. Exploitation, political oppression, violent crime, the works of evil men - that is what we should combat, with the sword if necessary.

>>415631

>We shouldn't condone sin

We shouldn't condone sinners.
We should very much condone sin though.

>>415645

Meh. Jesus talks about sexual sin though, I mean we need to acknowledge it. Remember that section from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew? Jesus makes lustful thoughts equal to adultery. Those are pretty high standards to follow, but that's clearly what Jesus meant, especially taken in conjunction with patristic commentaries.

St. Paul also talks about sexual sin a fair amount (and if you accept the gospels you should accept St. Paul since the validity of both stems from the same authority - that of the Catholic/Orthodox Church).

I can't say which is worse. I do think sins against the poor are probably the worst. But there are several "lists of serious sins" in the Gospels and Epistles and fornication is nearly always among them.

>>415668

Well said.

OP is going to hell for visting 4chan.

Basically we need to understand: Jesus' relation to sinners was not "it's okay, keep having anal sex with men." It was "it's okay, your sins are forgiven, leave your sins and come follow me." That's a really important distinction. God is merciful but that does not mean that he turns a blind eye to serious sin, which, according to the Bible, homosexuality and whatnot are.

Who created God?

In any case we mustn’t end up “loving the sin” because of our rightful, indeed obligatory, efforts to “love the sinner”. I’m thinking, of course, of Saint Augustine, who tells us that we shouldn’t hate the sinner on account of his sin (as defenders of traditional precepts have too often done), nor should we love the sin on account of the sinner (as the political correctness of our times demands). On the contrary, we should love the sinner and hate the sin. As in so many areas of the spiritual life, the correct approach is a balancing act.

Read about religions older than christianity.

>>415668
It's interesting.

I'm an atheist. However, I have a habit of getting involved in theological debates. I enjoy them a lot, and I'm pretty well versed in my theology. Usually, I am able to treat them as arguments about systems, and divorce myself from my lack of belief in God. It helps that I am not particularly anti-religion, although I am an atheist.

This is the first time I am completely unable to argue as though I were a believer. I simply cannot argue that it is the sinfulness of an act that determines whether or not action should be taken to halt it. It is the justice or injustice, the harm being done to the innocent, that we ought to take action to stop. And I can't get away from that.

>>415695

Yaddayaddayadda. I've seen that before. We all have.

It's full of bullshit and misrepresentations of fact. Seriously. This whole "4chan-atheist-circlejerk" thing has led to you people stagnating horribly. I doubt that more than a handful of you could give an educated Christian apologist any trouble at all.

Of course there are smart atheists. But you fuckers here are just stagnated. You need to read moar, and in particular you need to read moar Christians. I recommend Chesterton.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

>>415705
Yea, you cast the first stone. You stay holy.

>>415702

Well I suppose this just stems from our different moral backgrounds.

I know what you mean about an interest in theology as an intellectual system. This is actually something Thomas a Kempis warns about a lot to believers in his De Imatitione Christi - "You will not be asked on Judgment Day what books you have read but what deads you have done" etc.

But yeah, I mean, this is just something Christians believe. We believe there are sins besides simple material harm. Hell we believe there are sins of thought. I know that sounds disturbing to an atheist but we come from a totally different perspective.

>>415702

>the harm being done to the innocent

The perpetrator of injustice is worse off than the victim of it. I see no problem with focusing on the sinful acts rather than the "victims" of them.

>>415705
HELL yeah Chesterton. I knew there was a reason I liked you.

It's true; most of the atheists on here are dumb as hell.

>>415716

I never said I was holier than you dude. I didn't say anything about that.

I just pointed out that you guys aren't very convincing anymore. Some atheists give me pause and are interesting to read (because they challenge me), but you people are rather cartoonish.

I'm not calling you immoral. I'm calling you uneducated and poor arguers. Though you are immoral, of course, atheism is a sin and I would be lying (and sinning) if I didn't acknowledge that. I do not judge you though, I used to be an atheist too, I can only hope that you find God and, if not, that you live as righteous a life as you can and that God will have mercy on you.

That sounds self-righteous, but it's not. That's what every Christian would believe. It's supposed to be a merciful sentiment, not a judgmental one. We're all sinners.

ITT: Brainwashed sheep afraid to die.

>>415730

Were the martyrs afraid of death?

>>415719
Oh, I know that and I understand that. It's just interesting to me that this is the point where I cannot argue religion anymore.
>>415721
Again, I'm an atheist, so I'm not sure what standing I have to talk about religion.

But it seems to me that the belief in a life hereafter, in which the meek and the suffering will have eternal life, should not preclude the possibility of working for social justice on Earth. Charity and justice are, after all, virtues; and I think that it would be an inhuman and cold system that did not include them.

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

* God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
* Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

* Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
* One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?

* Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
* Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

* Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
* Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

* Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
* Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

* Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
* Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

* Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
* Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

* Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
* Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)

9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

* After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
* Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

* Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
* Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

>>415730

Fuck that. Remember the parable of the "narrow way"? Most of us don't make it to Heaven. Most *believing church-goers* do not go to Heaven. Most of us are headed for eternal damnation. That's fucking terrifying. That's a lot more terrifying than the prospect of a cessation of consciousness, which is . . . painless, why would one be scared of that?

11. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?

* One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
* Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)

12. How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?

* Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)
* Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)

13. In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

* Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 - 16:8)
* Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)

14. How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

* Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)
* Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)

15. Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

* Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)
* Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)

16. Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

* Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)
* Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)

17. How many were the children of Zattu?

* Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
* Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)

18. How many were the children of Azgad?

* One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)
* Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)

19. How many were the children of Adin?

* Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
* Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)

20. How many were the children of Hashum?

* Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)
* Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)

21. How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

* Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
* One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)

22. Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

* 29,818 (Ezra)
* 31,089 (Nehemiah)

23. How many singers accompanied the assembly?

* Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)
* Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)

24. What was the name of King Abijahs mother?

* Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
* Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)

25. Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

* Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
* No (Joshua 15:63)

26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

* Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
* Hell (Luke 3:23)

27. Jesus descended from which son of David?

* Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
* Nathan(Luke3:31)

28. Who was the father of Shealtiel?

* Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
* Neri (Luke 3:27)

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

* Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
* Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

30. Who was the father of Uzziah?

* Joram (Matthew 1:8)
* Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

>>415343
Fuck that image is gorgeous.

The one on the left

just

beginning to fap

Matthew is a very incoherent and incongruent book. Beautiful, but impossible to understand as an ethical or political tract.

>>415737

>should not preclude the possibility of working for social justice on Earth. Charity and justice are, after all, virtues

I'm in total agreement, and I think most Christians would agree too.

>>415739
>>415745
I am completely at a loss how anyone could assume, after reading this thread, that the believers in here (I'm not one of them) are stupid enough never to have realized that there are inconsistencies in the Bible.

>>415750
Doesn't seem like it, sometimes.

>>415737

Yes, Christian here who agrees. Christianity without social justice is as empty as Buddhism without meditation. Almsgiving is an extremely central act for Christians (and Muslims and Jews etc.).

The problem is that sometimes "social justice" is used as a mask for "political correctness" which goes against Christian doctrine and which orthodox Christians shouldn't support. But other than that definitely. There's a reason so many Christians vote for the Democrats.

>>415739

Do you realize that we've had the new testament for a good 1900 years now? You think we haven't worked out the contradictions? Seriously, people noticed this a LONG fucking time ago and debated over it and reached agreements over it.

If you did some simple googling you would find Christian responses to each and every one of those. Some of them you may not agree with but you can't pretend that some stupid list from Skeptics or whatever will seriously challenge Christians, especially when most Christians do not take (and have never taken, viz. St. Augustine) a literalist fundamentalist view of scripture

>>415748

>stupid enough never to have realized that there are inconsistencies in the Bible

The church fathers themselves pointed out a ton of inconsistencies before attempting to reconcile them.

Just a question. I'm not Christian so I don't really know this.
Do Christians believe the Bible (Hebrew & New) to be the Word of God? Or a Holy Book written by divinely inspired person, but not necessarily the Word of God himself (in accordance to His Will though).

Religion is the easiest way to control people. Promise them they can live forever if they follow your rules.

>>415789

The Bible is divinely inspired.

If I loved Jesus so much that I wanted to make love to him... Would that make me gay and go to hell?

Religion thread?

>>415789

The Word of God directly. At least that is the traditional view. The human authors/compilers/redactors/etc. did only precisely what the Holy Spirit intended.

Now that doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit didn't use human modes of speech to convey truths. Jesus' parables, for example, aren't meant to be taken literally. Neither are prophecies by-and-large. And most Christians extend this yet further to say that, for example, the Primeval Histories in Genesis are more pious legends and prophecies than stories meant to be interpreted as literally true (for example Noah and the Ark represented Christ and the Church/Kingdom)

>>415791

>Religion is the easiest way to control people

Bishops may have sought political power, but theologians certainly didn't. To paint the whole church as some sort of monstrous tool of enslavement is far from fair.

>>415831
Maybe.

>>415849
That makes absolutely no sense. How could a story written before the birth of Jesus symbolize Jesus? And why would a bunch of Jews write a story symbolizing Jesus.

>>415826

Longing and lusting are two very different things.
Love doesn't have to entail impure thoughts.

>>415870

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29

>>415870

The Jews have a prophecy that the Messiah will come. Some Jews thought that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. They became Christians. Some Jews didn't. They stayed Jews.

>>415889
O.K. So it symbolizes the messiah, whoever that may be. I guess that makes a little more sense.

For the Christians, what is your denomination? I don't want to start an argument, we're all brothers (remember Jesus' prayers for the Church, and the unity of the apostolic Church in Acts, and the exorcist in Galilee who cast out demons in the name of Christ without being a disciple?) I am just curious. Also if you're, say, an Episcopalian, specify what sort you are since there are everything from Anglo-Catholics to near-Unitarians.

Catholic here, Latin Rite.

>>415870
you are stupid and you should feel stupid.

im goin to bed, gonna read the Gospel of Luke though.

I'm on Chapter 15. It's pretty good. I dunno. I have to reread the synoptics a few times before I appreciate them. Like with Mark, when I first read it I was like "meh" but after the third time I could see its humble artfulness. It doesn't have much material but it is organized in a very tight structure with simple and solid literary devices. Characterization serves its purpose of glorifying the Son of Man.

Anyway, see ya, and God bless.

>>415983
And why should I feel stupid for wondering how a story written centuries before Jesus' birth could symbolize Jesus? The person to whom I was replying didn't include the fact that the story symbolized the concept of the messiah, which existed long before Jesus was born.

>>415966

Roman Catholic here.

hi, guise! i'll just leave this here.

(all religions are the same. hail eris!)

>>416051
Who da fuck is Eris?

>>416051
One religion is not.
Hail Satan!

Give me a dollar!

"Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them Bring them here and kill them in front of me"
[Jesus, (Luke 19:27)]

Give me $30!

>>416013

'Nother Christian here. He also didn't point out that typology is a sort of Christian thing.

Typology being a belief that earlier biblical figures are "prefigurements" of later ones, particularly the Messiah. The Christians really extended this idea. For example, Elijah is a type of John (or was it Elishah? I forget).

Still, contrary to what some people tell you, typology wasn't "invented by Christians" to "make the Bible work". There are typological prophecies all over the place in the Old Testament which the Jews accepted as typological in the same way that the Christians did. After Jesus, the Jews changed their understanding of some of these verses (ex: Isaiah 7:14) to stay away from Jesus because his religion had become a big challenger to Judaism (before Christianity, Judaism had tons of gentile converts).

>>416151

Good point! Just kidding, you fail.

Read the damn story with your brain turned on. It is a parable of eschatological judgment and the condemnation of the wicked. There are stories like that everywhere in the synoptics and they're talking about judgment day (example: in Matthew when John is baptizing and telling people that Jesus was going to "come in for his harvest" and store up the wheat in his barn but burn the chaff in a huge fire, etc. It wasn't saying there was going to be a fucking genocide. It was talking about Judgment day.

Idiot.

I don't see how anyone manages to remain a Catholic. I mean, maybe buy into most of the doctrine or something, but as an organization the Vatican is comical in its level of corruption and decadence.

>>417272

It's the one true church, what choice do I have?

>>417742
Staying separate...?

>>417742 It's the one true church, what choice do I have?

Well, you could start thinking for yourself.

There's a reason why Christian dogma continually uses references to and images of shepherds and flocks and so forth. Referring to the faithful as sheep has been going on for so long, you don't even notice it anymore.

>>417742

Well, if it's the one true church, the question becomes one of why God, who according to most Christians wants us to know and love and worship him and all that jazz, would allow his "one true church" to become such a den of iniquity. I guess you could handwave the issue away with free will, but isn't the Catholic hierarchy meant to serve as a direct line to God?

How does this pertain to literature again?

I have a couple question for the Christians.


Why do you have faith in your religion? There are literally thousands of other religions around the world, what makes yours any more valid?

Most people say its the catholics that are retarded but if you were to look into all the christian faiths Catholicism makes the most sense.

Catholic: When I sin I must ask God to forgive my sins. In the end if my sins are forgiven and the lord sees it in his heart I will make it into his kingdom

Protestant: HUUURRRR IF YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS THEN THERE IS A POINT IN YOUR LIFE WHERE YOU WILL BECOME "SAVED" AND NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO YOU WILL MAKE IT TO HEAVEN! DUUURRRR

I have asked them they say that you could become "saved" and then you can kill thousands of people, rape, and steal and you will make it to heaven when you die because you were saved.

The media is against catholics so they cover up all the molestation stories about protestants and only show the stories about the catholics. Also the Catholic church used to be super badass with Gregorian chant and latin masses.

I fucking hate when 4chan bring up religion.

>>417898
As someone who agrees wholeheartedly with whoever it was who said, ""The only little difficulty that I have about joining the Catholic Church is that I do not think I believe in God," it has to be said that, although the Church is awesome, most Protestants would say that someone who truly believed in Christ would not kill thousands of people, rape, steal, etc.

>>417898

Christians are hilarious in general. Yes, there might be a God, but I doubt Jesus was a direct link to him, and I also highly doubt most of the shit that is in the Bible. How do you know he loves you? How do you know what the afterlife is going to be like? Because some jew a 2000 years ago said so? WTF how does that make any damn sense.

Maybe God just got bored and fucking made us just to watch us. Who knows? Not you. Not me. You may think you know but you truly don't.

>>417911
yea but he became an atheist after he was saved and it does not matter.

>>417898

No one said that protestants are good. They said that the Catholic church (at least as an institution) is bad. And yeah, there are protestants who molest kids too, but the difference is that there isn't a hierarchy in place to shuffle them around to another area so they don't get in trouble, at least not to the same extent. You sound like you have a massive persecution complex.

>>417916
i don't think many protestants would say that a person who was saved, and then became an atheist, would go to heaven

>>417912

Oh and if God knows everything, wouldn't he then know if we were going to become criminals/serial killers etc. why would he allow that to happen? And if he truly does know everything and it's all in his "plan" then do we truly have free will. We would just be pawns in his fucking game.

>>417912
and I agree with you. Who fucking knows. There might not even be god. personally i dont give a fuck. Thats why i try to be a good person and maybe it will pay off in another life and maybe it wont.

>>>417921
I have discussed it with them and that is what they believe. My uncle was an atheist and my grandma was a protestant and after my uncle died she told us he was saved so he went to heaven. I also go to school with a lot of protestants and that is what they believe.

>>417922
God doesnt prevent everything in this world from happening. he wants followers that have a choice to believe in him or not and still choose to believe in him.

>>417938

So do you believe we don't follow the rules of causality of the universe, and that we truly possess free will? I'm really skeptical of this.

>>417947
imo human free will is pretty crucial to christianity.

of course it's hard to resolve the contradiction between human free will and god's omniscience, but very smart people have been working away at it for centuries.

.>>417947
I dont know. None of us truly know. Even the Catholic church admits that there are still many mysteries still left unsolved. Me growing up catholic is just trying to answer these questions. I am actually agnostic. But I know a lot of really smart catholics who know what they are talking about I just thought I would answer some of the questions you guys had.

>>417947

God exists outside of time, so he knows what we will do, but this doesn't mean we don't have free will.

Imagine if you watch a video of somebody rolling the dice backwards. You know what the number rolled on the dice will be because you can see it. But that doesn't mean the rolling of the dice wasn't random.

Does that make sense? It's hard to explain but this is basically what Christian theologians say. God created time and exists outside of it.

As for Catholicism, well, I myself am Catholic because I think they and the Eastern Orthodox are the only ones with any sort of claim to descent from the original Jerusalem Church. There is extensive evidence that the apostles practiced a "laying-on-of-hands" which conferred their charisms (like the ability to forgive sins with confession) upon the faithful. The basics of orthodoxy/catholicism, like confession, prayers to Mary, the hierarchy, etc. etc. can virtually all be proven to have existed by the 2nd century. Transubstantiation is explicitly defined in the Didache which is contemporaneous with the New Testament.

I just really don't think Protestants have a leg to stand on. Orthodox do, to a certain extent. Honestly the reason that I am Catholic and not Orthodox is because my ancestors were Catholic. They're both apostolic churches and I don't know who is right about Peter. If I were born in Greece, I'm sure I would be Orthodox. I also don't think this would be a bad thing necessarily (God will not punish you for being raised in a different faith, as that is not a willful rejection of him).

Oh yes and as for corruption in the hierarchy, well this is true. The hierarchy is corrupt in some sectors and has been very corrupt in the past. That doesn't mean it's totally corrupt, I'd say most people involved are actually very sincere.

This is the way a human institution would end up and God knows it. He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, not that they wouldn't damn well try to do so. Also, ever read the Old Testament? I mean, God founded the Temple-cult in Jerusalem too, and their priests were every bit as corrupt as Renaissance Popes, or at least they were at times. It's a sad fact, but it is not theologically troubling to me, at least not outside its place in the general "problem of evil."

>>418347
>>418361

Thank you for the informative replies.

Why is the internet full of christianfags?
Go back to church, there's enough nihilism in the real world to fill the internet with it.

>>418361

>as for corruption in the hierarchy, well this is true. The hierarchy is corrupt in some sectors and has been very corrupt in the past. That doesn't mean it's totally corrupt

Yes it does. In order to NOT be corrupt, you must STOP being corrupt. TOTALLY.

Otherwise, you are still corrupt.

>>415641
Most Zen Buddhists also have a very superficial understanding of Zen Buddhism.

Eastern Orthodox confirmed for coolest looking idolatry.

>>418499

Idolatry?

Explain.

>>418523
Blind worship or extreme religious zeal.

>>418579

That's certainly not the standard definition.

>>418523

They depict religious characters A LOT. Every square inch of the interior of their churches are covered in scenes. And the halos were made with gold foil!

>>418614

That's not necessarily idolatrous.

>>418627

>>418639

I hate iconoclastic prots so much.

They tried to remove angels from Christianity.
They went around smashing up anything with an angel on it with hammers.

>>418658

THEY CHISELED THE PEN0R OFF OF DAVID!

(that is a substitute pen0r added at a later date)

>>418701

Better than adding a fig leaf.

>>418727

When I was a young child and saw sculpures of male nudes I wondered why my pen0r did not look like a fig leaf.

Was I deformed?

ITT: Statements arguments relying on conflicting definitions of "most" "Christians" "God" "Christian belief" and "time" to state a few. Those of you who are not trolling are pursuing disorganized and attributive arguments and you should be ashamed of yourselves. I have come to enjoy the rationalistic and eloquent atmosphere of /lit/, and I would very much prefer it if we could all admit to ourselves as a board that we are neither C.S. Lewis nor Bertrand Russel, and either get our shit together or move on. That is all.

>>418787

None of us were pretending to give a cogent defense of Christianity. Better people have already done that (though their efforts need updating). We're just answering questions as they come.

>>415343

The forbidden fruit was not an apple. OP and apparently Matthew has already failed at that point.

>>418964

>The forbidden fruit was not an apple
Is another fruit specified in the bible then?

>>418980
dates i think... they did not even have apples in the mid east

>>418980

Genesis does not specify the type of fruit it only says "fruit", however it would be extremely unlikely that it was an apple, considering the fact that apple trees did not grow in the area at the time the Bible was written.

It was the Garden of Eden; could've been anything, or it could've been some sort of unique fruit.

I'm taking a New Testament class right now.

It is very interesting, honestly. I plan to write my final paper on ecclesiastical polity in the 1st century (i.e. looking at the NT and contemporary sources, as well as comparisons with Judaism etc, to get an idea of what the Church was like back then, if there even was such a Church).

Bump for the sake of the trolls.

>>418980
it was most likely a fig.

>>420276

>ecclesiastical polity in the 1st century

Interesting.
Do we have written non-NT contemporary sources from that period? I'm not really familiar with early Christianity. What about archaeological evidence? I know the roman catacombs are considered very informative by scholars, but these come later than the 1st century if I'm not mistaken.

>>420303

>Do we have written non-NT contemporary sources from that period?

Maybe the Romans jotted down a few notes

>>420303

Oh yes quite a bit actually.

For example, there is the Didache which was probably written before the Gospels. It's basically a manual for running church services (and talks about transubstantiation).

Then there's the Epistle of Barnabus (same guy who wrote Hebrews though this epistle did not end up in the canon), and the Epistle of Clement (fourth bishop of Rome), and some other documents which are less extensive. This is all pre-100 AD if you go to the 2nd century you have a veritable library of texts, a fair number of which date to the earlier part of the 2nd century, when disciples of the Apostles lived and wrote. And there's also, as you pointed out, archaeological evidence, as well as evidence in later church writers who quote supposedly ancient texts (though some of these may actually be pseudonymous etc.)

People have the idea that early Christianity was very dark and we don't know much about it but the truth is that we have more evidence for the state of the earliest decades of Christianity than we do for any of the great pagan Mystery Religions which so dominated the Empire of that time. The problem is that these documents largely confirm an orthodox understanding of early Church history, and such an interpretation is not in vogue in popular culture (everybody wants to be a danged Gnostic for some reason!).

>>420420

Most of our sources are Christian. The Romans did make some passing references and they were very negative but vague.

>>420504

Very interesting. Thank you.

>>420661

No probs.

>>417910
>I fucking hate when 4chan bring up religion.
Me too. I'm an atheist, yet I find Christianity interesting and enjoy learning about it to a certain degree. Sadly, whenever it's brought up here we have people like this

>>417888
>Why do you have faith in your religion? There are literally thousands of other religions around the world, what makes yours any more valid?

attempting to prove their point as if they have something new and fresh to bring to the conversation.

Arguing against faith is largely futile. It's faith - you either have it or you don't.

>>420631

So history doesn't matter if it's not christian?

>>420709

No, you're right I should have explained.

There are like brief, one-sentence references in a handful of roman writers (I think Tacitus was one). However they're, like I said, "in passing". They don't explain what's bad about it. Also the early Christians wrote really detailed defenses of Christianity against Roman charges so we can learn a lot from those. The Romans basically hated Christianity because Christians wouldn't acknowledge the deities of the state.

For example. there's the Apology of St. Justin Martyr which was addressed to the Senate and written in the early 2nd century, that's a good palce to start.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

You can find a ton of other writings on that page also.

>>420724

Christians = Jews

The Romans didn't differentiate between the different cults of the Jews. The Christians were just another bunch of Jews who were troublesome, rebellious, ungrateful primitives who hated civilization and bathing.

Not like the Egyptians.

Josephus.

You can't create a separate history for Christians. It would be untrue.

>>421119

>Christians = Jews

>>421126
Judenschwein detected

>>421126
as far as the Romans were concerned, there was no difference. Remember, most Romans weren't sure whether jews avoided pork because they hated pigs, or because they worshiped them.

The worm in the Christian apple is the idea that mankind has intrinsically sinned just by existing.

>>421182

Saying all men are born evil is like saying no one is perfect. What's wrong with that?

>>421224
it's like taking nobody's perfect entirely too far. they're not the same at all.

>>421160

The most accurate depiction of Roman Judea is probably "Life of Brian".

Particularly that part about the row of desert prophets.

>>421231

The idea that man is somehow fallen is found in most--if not all--religions. Original sin is just one crystallized manifestation of this universal insight.

>>421254

The problem is that man has "ascended" above the animals.

>>421307

I don't follow.

Let's talk about the First Council of Nicea

I GOT A BETTER IDEA CHUCK, LET'S TALK ABOUT FOOD

dangit lamar i'm not gonna do it that's turble

COME ON CHUCK DO IT FOR MY WOMAN

fine here we go

THE FIVE BUCK BOX
IT ROCKS IT ROCKS

>>421327

We have not fallen from a higher state of being. We have transcended the lower and less intelligent and capable forms of animal life and become something truly unique on this planet, and, as far as we have evidence of , in the entire universe.

>>421119

This is simply inaccurate. The ROmans of the 1st century considered the Christians to be a particularly annoying Jewish sect, this is true, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a concept of them as a separate group. The Romans didn't know much about them but they knew that there were "Christians" and "other Jews" because they explicitly refer to "Christiani" and "Judaei" in their writings.

>>421231

Yeah it's an idea that has been abused, particularly by Calvinists and other Protestants but even the Catholics had the whole Jansenist thing. FOr the record, most Christians do not believe that original sin = total depravity. Human beings have a natural capacity to do good, but their nature has been damaged by the sin of Adam. Not destroyed, just damaged. THis is why so many pagans/atheits/etc. did (and continue to) live virtuous lives: we do still have a certain natural capacity for the good, a natural grace.

>>415733

Of course the martyrs were afraid to fucking die. Even Jesus didn't relish the thought.

Nice try OP, but every smart anon knows by now, god is dead.


1.5/10

>thread that has nothing to do with /lit/
>been going for 3 days now

>>422411
>Even Jesus didn't relish the thought.
he fucking sweat blood, that's how nervous he was. For the christians in the thread, think about it: The Son of God, perfection incarnate, actually DID hesitate to fulfill the grand master plan or whatever.

That stuff is pretty telling on human nature. Ghandi was right when he said something along the lines of "Christianity is a good religion, too bad Christians are fuckfaces". At one time Jesus said, "be perfect as I am" but we take away any and all humanity Jesus had in that context, we idolize the SUBMISSION of Jesus in the stance he took (giving his life for the greater good) and miss the actual value, being the BRAVERY it took to volunteer to the receiving end of a day of torture and a painful death.

That's pretty stupid, I'm catholic, which is perhaps the most "pious" flavor of Christianity out there, and I've met people who've even said to me that they don't believe Jesus even suffered during his trial and execution "because he was the son of God". Which again, it's just wiping out most of the point of the Christ figure itself.

I bring the fire because hell has no fury like my fatherbif you doubt me or my father let it be known I will make you burn in the 13 levels. Talk sjit about my father or me I will make you burn

>>422452

Yeah, evangelical types in particular REALLY de-emphasize the humanity of Jesus.

Like you said, he sweat blood. THis was an agonizing ordeal for him in more ways than one. It was almost a separation from God ("why have you forsaken me?"), which is Hell by definition.

I don't know why some Protestants fall into these sort of pseudo-Gnostic ideas about the Christ but I have seen what you're talking about. Jesus had a human and divine nature, and his human nature was just as capable of terror and temptation and suffering as any of us.

I have one priest who talks about this a fair amount - basically how Christianity tends to go through periods of "over-emphasizing the human nature of Jesus" and "over-emphasizing the divine", and how either side can lead to serious error.

Father for every heathen that doubts your existance in this thread make their flesh burn

>>422452

> I'm catholic, which is perhaps the most "pious" flavor of Christianity out there...


apparently you are also a huge douche.

>>422471

I should modify this, not all Evangelicals do that, Evangelicals are diverse as *shit*. It's just that I have heard similar opinions being expressed by Evangelicals before, not so much by Catholics/Episcopalians/etc.

>>422478

I think he was just referring to . . . actually I don't know what he was referring to exactly.

Maybe the whole Catholic "lifetime of penance" stuff?

>>422478
apparently you don't understand the meaning of the world pious in a religious context, do you?

>>422483


As an ex-Catholic I can attest. Catholics who still believe in a god (the vast minority of them) are huge douches, one and all.

>>422489

Catholic here, sorry dude I'm really not trying to be a dick but what exactly do you mean? Like I said not trolling I just don't understand what you meant by pious in that sentence.

If you just mean "Catholics are on the stricter side of things" then yeah definitely.

>>422493

Catholic here, yar there is a certain amount of arrogance and judgmentalism in some circles D:

But we're not all like that, in fact most of us aren't (though most of us *do* fall into those sins sometimes but we're aware of it and try to avoid it and etc. etc.)

>>422506

There's a certain amount of arrogance and judgmentalism in most Christian denominations. It kind of comes with the territory.

>>422483
it usually means we tend to believe a pious or God given explanation as long as it makes the lives of everybody involved a bit easier. Like God rewarding effort or pain merely because after all, you're just but suffering.

Catholics have the most fleshed out theology of the purgatory, for example. It's kind of a "one hopes this is how it goes" logic. Since no sin can penetrate heaven, and all men are sinners, surely there must be a different "place" were you can purge them, right?

It's a "I hope I'm not completely fucked" or a "I'd be cool of God worked in this way" wishful thinking.

>>422493
>I am also 14

>>422525
>>422525

Ah yeah I know what you mean then. I do this too. I don't know if it's actually rational (from a Christian standpoint) but when bad things happen to me I often think "oh God is punishing me for my sins". A lot of Protestant denominations think like that too, of course, but yeah I know what you mean in terms of Catholics tending to "divinize" normal day-to-day life.

>>422513
true, but it's also a stereotype.

Everybody wants to think they're right, I mean if life is subjectively experienced, you're right until proven otherwise. It's human nature

>>422531
>Catholics tending to "divinize" normal day-to-day life.
thanks, this is a much better definition.

ITT: reasonable Christians have an informative discussion with reasonable atheists.

O.O

Never once in all my time on 4chan have I seen this.

>>422659

>my face when I read your post and realized what site I was on.

>>422659

Yeah it really says a lot for the quality of /lit/'s user base.

Enjoy it while it lasts, more shitty /b/fags are joining every day.

Also I think the main reason this didn't devolve into shit is because we've basically avoided the issue of whether God exists, whether Jesus exists, whether the Gospels are accurate, etc, and have stuck to conversations about what Christianity *is* rather than whether it's correct or not.

BAMP

But what about these guys?

> reasonable Christians

Oxymoron.

Christfag here, this thread is great. Good points, /lit/, good points.

>>415603

I mean, maybe the zen monk part.

so anyway, this is an interesting perspective. I guess.

>>423577

Damn it /lit/ I said WHAT ABOUT THESE GUYS!

>>423639

No, my friend.

Remember Hellenism ethics?

>>423639

1. Go on /b/
2. Start a shit religion thread
3. Read all the atheists
4. ???
5. They look like morons!

>>425430
Thanks for bumping this armpit of a thread.

>>425430

1. Base your entire life on an ancient book and every one of its arbitrary rules
2. Become an absolutely boring, lifeless shell of a human being who would rather confine themselves to a preset of ideals instead of thinking for themselves.
3. Get mad when someone calls you on this, then fail to make a proper "??? profit!" post.
4. ???
5. Profit!

>>415341
ｍesｓａGe-iＤ: <4b6Ｂ90Ep.8030701@4ChＡN.ＯrＧ>
fＲｏm: moＯt <ＭOot@4cｈＡn.OＲG>
Ｕｓｅｒ-ＡgEnt: mｏＺｉLｌＡ/5.0 (MＡcIｎＴosH; U; ＩＮＴeｌ ｍＡｃ oS ｘ 10.5; Eｎ-uｓ; rｖ:1.9.1.7) ｇＥcKO/20100111 tHＵnｄＥRBｉＲＤ/3.0.1
Ｔｏ: sＹＳOｐ@AｎｏNｔAlK.CoＭ
ｓＵBｊｅｃＴ: ＥNJｏYＩＮＧ yｏUr ＤOｗnTｉｍE ＦａｇＧｏT?

THｅＹ BLInＤLｙ bElｉEＶe evｅryｔＨing i fＥＥd tＨEm, ｆAkＥ Oｒ not, yＯuＲ ＢOＡｒｄ'S ＧＯＩＮＧ ＤＯｗn. DｏＮ'ｔ BotｈeＲ ｐuBLisＨＩnｇ ｔhiＳ, NＯ ＯｎE WIll ｂＥLiEＶｅ ｙｏU ａｎＹＷＡｙ oN ＡＮt Oｒ /Ｂ/ :)

>>425463
>>425437

bump :3