/lit/ - Literature

>>5036558
What's with all the Protestants flipping on gay marriage and letting women into the clerical hierarchy? What's with the Marxist pope?

Which group should I join if I actually want traditionalist, orthodox Christian religion and not a bunch of reeds who bend to the wind of the fads of secular culture?

Who was the Holy Ghost before he died? And could Jesus bring him back to life and he would be just the Holy Dude?

>>5036583
Russian Orthodoxy

>>5036558
If free will is thought to be a tool for God to tell the good people from the bad or whatever, why christians are always trying to ban sin? Isn't that taking that tool away from God? A lot of people is going to be saved not because they want to but because they are afraid of being raped in jail because of the christian laws

I'm torn on whether it's okay for me to look down on people for actions that are universally seen as bad (greed or superficiality for example) or whether I should just forgive them, even if they're not sorry. This is vaguely connected to the "turn the other cheek" thing. What if the other person metaphorically slaps the other cheek as well, how should you react?

>>5036583
>What's with all the Protestants flipping on gay marriage and letting women into the clerical hierarchy?

Protestants just doing as they want and folding to social pressure without giving even the Bible a closer examination. They're prone to not listen to the Bible or misunderstand it greatly.

>What's with the Marxist pope?

He isn't Marxist.

>Which group should I join if I actually want traditionalist, orthodox Christian religion and not a bunch of reeds who bend to the wind of the fads of secular culture?

Orthodox (Russian) or Catholicism.

>>5036591
>funniest thing I've heard all day
>thread just started
We're off to a good start.

>>5036593
>>5036601
What makes the Russian Orthodox Church different from the other ethnic Orthodox churches?

I once masturbated and came on a little statue of Jesus' face.

if fundaMENTAList christians don't believe in evolution, what about their religion evolving? well over 41k different versions of 'christianity'

>>5036611
Oh, how would god look upon this, OP?

OP, is it a sin to masturbate and cum on a little statue of Jesus' face?

If heaven can exist with free will but also without evil and suffering, why didn't God set up earth to be like that?

>>5036617
Who said any of that about heaven?

>>5036621

You're saying there's no free will in heaven?

Is there bacon in heaven?

>>5036623
By definition we cannot know heaven while on Earth, otherwise it would be possible to build heaven on Earth.

>>5036598
Nonsense, sin exists within the heart as much as anything else. Though I am not a fan of making laws to enforce Christian morality. A major part of Jesus' clarification of laws was the inclusion of "sin of the heart" rather than physical sin. You could make a person not do something and you can make it a law but that wouldn't change their heart on the matter. Laws don't make a people good.

>>5036600
Mary Magdalene is a good example here. She is accepted and loved all the same but her sin is confronted directly and done so in a tone of "helping her".

>>5036611
>>5036613
Pretty poorly, you'd imagine.

>>5036617
We know little of Heaven so I'll ignore that bit. Your main comment is about the problem of evil. Mankind's mission is to learn to be good, which cannot happen without evil and suffering.

Do muslims really get 72 virgins in heaven? And if so, as a Christian can I at least masturbate to them fucking them?

Is Jesus down for gay sex in heaven, OP?

Will my dog go to heaven, OP? And if so, can I fuck it?

>>5036636
>Mankind's mission is to learn to be good, which cannot happen without evil and suffering.
Then why are there retards, OP?

Are people with Down's syndrome just props, OP?

>>5036583
>What's with the Marxist pope?

Do you even know what a Marxist is?

Are there sharks in heaven, OP? Or are they just props, too, like people with Down's syndrome?

>>5036636
so african children are starving or dying of curable diseases and just plain suffering all so some christians can learn a valuable lesson? Do you want that blood in your hands? do you want a god that operates this way?

>>5036637
>>5036642
>>5036644
>>5036661

We know precious little of heaven.

>>5036652
That can have a myriad of answers but from Christian or Judaic teachings we don't the smaller details of our mission. We just know the mission itself.

>>5036665
>some Christians

God affects all people and his revelation exists in all manners of life. It is the mission of all to better the world and to learn to be good.

You seem a bit antagonizing but I feel you just don't understand the picture yet.

>>5036677
Does stoning gays to death increase or decrease the amount of good in the world?

>>5036690
I'd say decrease.

>>5036677
>We know precious little of heaven.
>We know nothing of heaven.

FTFY, btw god is real, and is a unicorn.

How does it feel to be a spiritual snake oil merchant?

>>5036696
Why would god instruct his followers to decrease the amount of good in the world?

Are there not ways to interpret the Bible as being gay accepting? Why do most Christians follow only a few of Leviticus' laws and not all the other awful ones? What is their justification?

>>5036558
Why are you such a fucking idiot?

>>5036677
this is a ruse
abandon thread.

How many roads must a god walk down before you can call him a god?

When/how did you become a Christian?

>>5036704
Moses did, God did not. As said when Jesus was asked about divorce papers, Moses gave bits of the law to the people of Israel but only as much as they could handle at the time. Their hearts being "hard". That is also why you see things on slavery.

>>5036706
We should try to read the bible to get what we want out of it, Anon. However, I would say there is a lot of fighting over homosexuals that isn't part of doctrine. Homosexuals, by the time the writing occured, were simply people who lay with the other sex and that sex part is the core of the sin, nothing else. That is why you hear about "homosexual acts". It is a vague term but it mainly is to mean just homosexual sex. This is just a part of the rule that sex without intent of procreation is a sin, which affects everyone and is something not much talked about now, sadly.

>Why do most Christians follow only a few of Leviticus' laws and not all the other awful ones?

I'd argue that is most protestants and I'd argue that's because of the lack of understanding of the bible you see in decentralized churches and people who use the bible incorrectly to justify themselves. That said, we shouldn't be following Leviticus at all. Any argument that hinges their laws is pointless to a Christian.

>>5036735
Jesus specifically stated that he did not come to change the laws that existed.

>>5036761
Yes, God's Law. He did not change it at all. He fulfilled it. Moses' law was an incomplete picture of God's Law. What are you getting at?

>>5036768
What is your reference for claiming such things? After stating that he is fulfilling God's law, he states that the parisees and teachers of law are correct.

>>5036779
>he states that the parisees and teachers of law are correct.

Where can I see this?

It's abundantly clear during the scene where Jesus is asked about Moses giving divorce papers that Moses' Law differs from God's Law and that Jesus is dealing in God's law.

There is righteousness in following the law given to you, even if you are not aware it is incomplete. Sin is a conscious choice.

>>5036800
Seems like a pretty big mistake
"Oops, we werent supposed to murder all those people"

>>5036802
Mistake? You're talking bronze age here. A lot of things, even the bit about detesting shellfish, has some justification to it. Especially seeing the extent of medicine in that age.

>>5036809
There's a lot of stuff that makes sense in the context of the world that created it, but that makes no sense in terms of a morally perfect being. It seems like people just interpret god's word to apply to whatever they already believe rather than basing their morality off of scripture.

>>5036819
>There's a lot of stuff that makes sense in the context of the world that created it, but that makes no sense in terms of a morally perfect being.

Oh yes. I'd say that this was morally upstanding by the standards of the time but their law was too steeped in its own era, which is what Jesus' law as outstanding as it is and began the "opened for us the way to heaven" bit.

>It seems like people just interpret god's word to apply to whatever they already believe rather than basing their morality off of scripture.

I don't know how that's relevant to what we're just were talking about. We definitely get a lot of that today though, yes. It's sad. I wouldn't say that is a revelant statement to Israel during the time of Moses.

I have about 30 minutes left, /lit/, I'm sorry.

>>5036904
you're not doing much convincing here

>>5036908
What? What convincing are you talking about?

Anonymous Christian, you've done well. Christianity threads usually don't go this well on /lit/.

if the only unforgivable sin is not believing, why not just off yourself and ask for forgiveness?

Doesn't have to be deliberate suicide, but putting yourself in a situation that 'god' controls, like high tight rope without safety measures.

is it because your faith is not strong? you guise sure make heaven sound good, in fact too good to be true.

>>5036919
Well thanks. I was expecting a bit more complex questions but I'll try again later.

>>5036928
>if the only unforgivable sin is not believing, why not just off yourself and ask for forgiveness?

The only unforgivable sin is the rejection of the holy spirit, which is in essence the "spirit of good".

>the question of suicide
Intent. If you come deliberately looking for it it is a sin as if you did it physically. Sin of the heart and everything.

>why don't you ask forgiveness

Because it'd have to be an honest one and this is obviously just trying to abuse the system.

>>5036941
rejection of holy spirit and not believing is the same thing, no?

I said not deliberate, as in you don't plan to die - just cross the tight rope.

If you pray, and get what you want - good, if you pray and not get what you want - you say it was gods will. Well if it was gods will in the first place and it was going to do what it wanted anyways, why protest?

>>5036966
>rejection of holy spirit and not believing is the same thing, no?

No. The holy spirit is welcomed by many people, believer and otherwise. You can look into it for a clearer answer than I'll give since I have to go but the simplest answer is that it is the essence and force of "good". Many people welcome a search for good, a striving for grace, etc, and thus do not reject the spirit. Not believing in it in it's form or whatever does not change that.

>I said not deliberate, as in you don't plan to die - just cross the tight rope.

You tempt God having the intent to even get on it with those purposes. Stop this silliness.

>If you pray, and get what you want - good, if you pray and not get what you want - you say it was gods will. Well if it was gods will in the first place and it was going to do what it wanted anyways, why protest?

>If you pray, and get what you want - good, if you pray and not get what you want - you say it was gods will. Well if it was gods will in the first place and it was going to do what it wanted anyways, why protest?

Prayer is often used for wishing. It's awful. Prayer has sometimes been used in the bible as protest but have often been against God's better judgement. Prayer's proper use it a kind of meditation and to give thanks. The thanks part is obvious but the meditation part is hardly ever touched on nowadays. We ask got not to change his will but to open up to us the reason(s) for his will so we can better understand the world.

>>5036997
But to add to this, I have to leave now. You all have a nice night. I'll continue this the same time tomorrow.

>>5036997
>You tempt God having the intent to even get on it with those purposes.


no intent to kill yourself, again you merely put your life in 'god' (noodly) appendages. in fact, you approach the tight rope with the intention of crossing to the other side.


so a christan man rapes an atheist woman, man is forgiven and allowed in heaven, while woman is destined for hell, seems like a good god to me.

>>5037034
Not OP but why would you be walking the tight rope?

>>5036997
>The holy spirit is welcomed by anyone. It is the essence and force of "good".

>tips bible

do you christians believe that god (the christian god) is real? do you have real faith that the christian story is True?

this has been a big roadbloack for me even though i'm spiritually sick and could benefit from a little religious study

>>5037065
>you approach the tight rope with the intention of crossing to the other side.

>>5037034
Why are there three Jesuses in that pic?

>>5037162
um are you not aware of the two guys crucified along with christ? or are you doing a thing?

>>5037162
This is why I'm weaning myself off of /lit/

>>5037165

you can count on this happening

>>5036941
>>5036997

Why do you even want to make this thread anyway? You can't speak of the entirely of Christianity and you are either preaching to the choir and moping about lost causes. And people think philosophy threads are pointless when chri ... i mean religion threads are far more pointless

If god is omnipotent, omniscient and purely benevolent, then why does evil exist?

>inb4 satan did id
If god is omnipotent, he can stop satan.

>inb4 god wants to test us
If god is onniscient, he knows the result of the test already.

>inb4 god wants to make us learn
If god is omnipotent, he could just change us without making us suffer.

>inb4 god wants to punish us
A purely benevolvent being doesn't punish.

>inb4 we caused it ourselves with our free will
If god is omnipotent and omniscient, free will cannot exist as it would contradict the aforementioned properties.

Why do so many sects of your religion value piety over faith and preach a literal interpretation of the texts?

>>5036558
What are the main things I need to actually practice? I don't want theory and story, I want real world.

Right now I just try to fear God. Is that enough?

>>5036637
We don't get 72 virgins in heaven. That comes from a very poorly cited Hadith that most muslims don't accept.

>>5037457


look at all these unexamined premises and myopic definitions.

Why do completely and totally devout Christians fear death? I imagine that if I completely believed that heaven existed, that I wouldn't be too torn up about a loved one dying, and I wouldn't be fearful at all of losing my life.

Death would just be the equivalent of moving to a nicer place, yet when someone we care about dies, it crushes us whether we believe in an after-life or not.

Why is this? Is there a certain amount of doubt as to an after-life?

What is it that brought you to accept Christianity (particularly, your sect of Christianity) over the countless other choices? What about Christianity seems more truthful than Islam or Hinduism?

>>5037639
Like a group of drug users that shoot up at night, and in the light of day denounce it: Christians have to keep up appearances to each other.

>>5037639
>>5037639
Do you think anyone, deep down, actually believes in the story of Jesus fucking Christ? Really?

>>5037786
Yes. FYI most people consider humility a virtue.

>>5037150
>why even walk a tightrope in your daily life
At some point in the practice of this you will be doing it with the intent of seeing if you die

>>5037034

>so a christan man rapes an atheist woman, man is forgiven and allowed in heaven, while woman is destined for hell, seems like a good god to me.

This is never the case and I have no idea where this comes from.

>>5037162
>this guy

>>5037121
I believe that the Christian god is real and the bible is, for the most part, true. When dealing with the OT you have to come to terms with mythical bits and ethnic biases, though.

I'd assume most, if not all Christians believe God to be real so protestantism has screwed with people's understanding of the bible horribly.

>>5037457
>If god is onniscient, he knows the result of the test already.

The test isn't just for God (if even for him) but for us as well.

>omniscience disrupts free will

Forward viewing in no way affects it, I don't think.

>>5037485
I'm not sure what you mean by piety over faith here but the literalism is just ignorance begetting more ignorance.

>>5037436
It's fun for myself and others.

>>5037639
Well there is always a

>>5037657
I took several months looking into other religions and foreign cultures, particularly isolated ones, to see which one would connect best to the understanding of "natural moral law". I ended up with Christianity. Nondenominational at the time. That was many years ago, though.

>>5036677
>feel you just don't understand the picture yet
typical 'you don't get it' response from the christian side. what is the child that is dying from hunger supposed to learn from God?

>>5036558
Check your ressentiment. And it's not heaven if I can't make love with Nietzsche up there in front of God himself.

>>5036558
Why condemn homosexuality when the Biblical text obviously implies that Jesus had sexual relationships with the apostles. They were basically his harem.

>>5038342
Not OP, but where does it imply this?

>>5037495
I think the right pastor could explain this better than me, though I'm not sure which one would give you the least amount of vague linguist tricks. to try to sound profound. I'd recommend:

>living your life through God's law and recommending that kind of morality to others while using that morality to try better the world and its inhabitants

>Live with the understanding of God's will, testing and training the people so they may learn to grow and be good on an individual level and a collective level

>Prayer is a form of communion with God not simply to give praise (which is customary and compulsory but not needed in daily life) (it's just to show thankfulness of life and its blessings in this case) but also as a form of meditation so you can be blessed with understanding of God's will. It's recommended both for reaffirming faith and for getting through harder times in life.

>remember when you "fear God" that fear in those terms back then meant to be at awe with. To revere. Don't in the modern sense "fear God" but revere God and his work. The world is amazing.

>Church is compulsory as well. I've had nothing but had experiences with protestant churches and decent ones with Catholic churches (with no experience with Orthodox ones) but none of them go beyond giving thanks by learning to appreciate God's creation more, stories, and theory. Good if you can find a pastor you like and religious holidays are obvious.

That really is all that comes to mind.

>>5036558
Do you follow Torah law like the Messianic Jews/Hebraic Roots Christians?

>>5038406
OP here and I'm wondering the same thing.

>>5038324
>typical 'you don't get it' response from the christian side

Well you made a big misrepresentation in your last point so I had to say something about you not understanding.

>what is the child that is dying from hunger supposed to learn from God?

That's a bit vague but if we were to talk about the traditional image of starving kids in Africa (just bones, hardly living) then there is nothing learning of the world does for at that state. Thankfully many people of many different religious beliefs come to give help to those people. Once they are up and moving and have something we could even call a society they would be greatly benefited by learning about God's will, as long as those in power abuse their power, which is sadly common in Africa.

>>5038440
No, I follow God's Law.

What exactly does a man need to do to become accepted by Jesus/God?
Once I heard a priest say that you only needed to accept Jesus as your savior and you would be cleansed of sin.

Do you see the fact that Christianity stopped observing certain commitments toward God, commitments that twin religions such as Judaism still observes, as a simplification, in order to make it easier to follow? Religions that, when they refer to 'God' are talking about the same entity and even read the same books. Is Christianity a watered down, simpler version of Judaism or Islamism?

Why are 30 years of the life of Christ hidden from His followers? Shouldn't they be told as means so other Sons could get closer to God? A path to enlightenment accessible to all willing to follow their hearts toward it's natural path?

>>5038451
Isn't Torah hebrew for "God's Law"? What commandments in the Bible do you follow then?

>>5038497

Oh, and what is the name of God, and do you remember why most people don't even know it? Would you say His name? For exemple, if you where His <i> witness <i/>

>>5038451
is it the fault of that child, after the suffering and squalor she went through, if she doesn't accept christ as her lord/savior? What about the countless more that never get the help? If you think corruption alone is what's leaving these people in such a bad way you are truly ill-informed on the matter.

>>5036611
I laughed like an idiot, thanks

What can you tell me about Christian Mysticism, and has any Christian Mysticism survived into the modern age?

>>5039884
>is it the fault of that child, after the suffering and squalor she went through, if she doesn't accept christ as her lord/savior?

After? You mean after they aren't starving children and their area is a bit more stable? If that was the case then possibly, yes. Sin like this relies on the two points of:

>complete consent
>full knowledge

If the woes of earthly matters distract him from even learning of God then it isn't a mortal sin since sin is a conscious choice. It's a complex matter, especially when you get into what "full knowledge" means. I'd recommend you read more into that. It's written up as "full knowledge" so you can google it easily.

>>5040007
I do so want to call the crazier bits of American Christianity (snake-kissing, those "be healed!" people) a kind of mysticism but I'm not really sure. If you want more serious bits of mysticism you can get them from Catholicism and Eastern Christianity. Padre Pio is great for Christian meditation but I'd also recommend Lucia Santos and Thomas Merton. I'm been wanting to read from modern day Christian Kaballists but I can't find any. I'm sorry that I'm not well-versed in the mysticism.

>>5040000
You're welcome.

>>5036558
what if hypothetically i cheated on my god damn wife with my neighbor's wife on a sunday, killed her with a stolen gun, then regretted it afterwards and covered her dead body in gold and proceeded to worship it as a goddess, and then lied about it to my mom and dad when they confronted me about it

>>5040634
I think that's a sin, anon. Maybe two sins.

>>5040634
I'd worry about you.

>pre-modern recording

HOLY SHIT LOOK AT ALL THESE MIRACLES AH YEAH MY BROTHER JUST GOT BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE OH LOOK OVER THERE THE SEAS ARE PARTING OH MY GOD THE SUN IS LITERALLY SPINNING IN THE SKY THIS IS CRAZY

>cameras, modern science

Uhhhh

There have been many miracles in the modern era, just it hasn't been many that keep up with it in the modern western world as much as the religious part of the world. Many miracles also unexplained.

I can explain more later on when I'm back home.

>>5040816
"religious part of the world"

when christianity was mainstream, we called that time the "dark ages"

>are you implying if a miracle happens in western world we deny it?
or prove it not to be a miracle?

James Randi - will give you or a charity of your choice a cool million if you can do magic, aka miracle in a controlled setting i.e. NO CHEATING

>>5040641
Three, actually.

>>5040634
Then you would have to suffer in hell.

Killing is an arch sin that can't be forgiven. Except killing tyrants is fine. And heathens in some cases.

>>5040816
>There have been many miracles in the modern era

Give me one. Just one.

>it hasn't been many that keep up with it in the modern western world as much as the religious part of the world.

Lord, I hope you're not talking about Mexican women finding the face of the Virgin Mary on their sticky buns.

>Many miracles also unexplained.

"Mysteries are not necessarily miracles."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

>>5040989
>Lord, I hope you're not talking about Mexican women finding the face of the Virgin Mary on their sticky buns.

lol
is pic related a 'modern miracle'?

>>5036558
What's the best version of the bible?

>>5041014
no, I think it was more virgin births.

>>5040939
No historian of any quality uses the dark ages as a term unless they confine it to a very narrow time period and not for 1000 years of history. Also christianity was "mainstream" during the renaissance and the enlightenment and the industrial revolution, pretty much mainstream even before the so called dark ages. I'm not even christian but this is stupid shit you're spouting.

>>5041052

>>5041098
Well thanks for proving my point, no decent historian only polemical graphs. What are the inventions of the late roman empire that means they were double the scientific advance of the late republic era as the graph suggests?

>>5041238
do you think the crusades advanced society?

or killed people smart enough to deny foolishness?

>>5036558
>christian
>think he can understand yahweh's ways
>book distinctly says we are not to understand his ways
>believes a book about a god written by man just like every other religion prior
>is this dumb


I don't think you can answer anything at all.

>>5041098

>scientific advancement

lel what a measurement

>>5041263
When in the crusades were people killed because they denied god? Most people thought of the Crusades as a pilgrimage

>>5041263
>do you think the crusades advanced society?

yes

>>5040816
All right. I'd like to hear about some of these "miracles" that the Western world (the majority of whom identify as religious) have decided to ignore for no reason.

>>5036558
If you're not living your life like Ferapont, then you fail as a Christian

>>5041301
some people thought the same about the holocaust or Mao Zedong's revolution.

>>5041408
Who thought of the holocaust as a pilgrimage?

>>5036558
Why your god is a children who kill all those who don't think like him?

>>5041413
again, do you think killing people refusing to believe in foolishness advanced society?

>>5041413
The millions of tourists that visit Auschwitz every year.

>>5041445
No, I never intended to answer that anyway. I was talking about the Crusades

>>5041457
well, jesus died for HIS sins, not mine.

>>5041098
so this is the level that /lit/ reaches during summer, or it can go even lower?

>>5041457
Whats that got to do with anything?

>>5041506
are you implying after the roman collapse the christians didn't burn books and deny science?

because they did.

Is the holy ghost your soul
Should bread be unleavened or leavened and why
List all sacraments

What do you think of people like Ken Ham who are trying to create an empirical (or rational) basis for christianity in relation to the whole thing about faith being the ability to believe despite there being no evidence or considerable evidence?

I find it weird, because although I would never be able to disprove the existence of god or provide any evidence in favor of atheism, my conscience dictates that there is no god. I do not "feel" as if there is a god despite all the evidence that might suggest there is. Is this faith? If not, what is it?

Is it actually possible to speak with god? have you ever heard god talking to you? I heard many people talking at length about how they have spoken to god, yet the bible warns against asking for signs. I wish I could hear god talk. What's the deal with these people?

>>5042260
faith is believing in something, despite no proof of it.

what ken ham is doing is what they did during the crusades, except if you didn't believe in fairy dust they killed you.

saying this had no effect on modern technology is baffling, fundamentalist christans serve no purpose in society. They go to 3rd world countries and deny aid (that they are there for) until the people needing aid say they believe in jebus.

It is possible to speak with god, we are all god.

Asking god though...no you are just talking to yourself, those that belive they are not talking to themselves are mentally insane.

"if you wake up tomorrow and think saying some latin words over you pancakes will turn them into the body of elvis presley, you have lost your mind, but if you believe the same thing more or less with a cracker and body of jesus, your just a christian." - Dr. Sam Harris.

>>5042260
You need to pray more, son. Repeat after me: "Oh Lord, I do believe, help thou my unbelief."

>>5036612
Yep, Jesus even said that God pulls out a men in black style mind wiper and erases everything from your mind.

>>5037639
>Why do completely and totally devout Christians fear death?
>>5037639
>Is there a certain amount of doubt as to an after-life?


I think they are attached to their current lives, their friends, their material goods, their families, hobbies, etc...

Even if they are promised a "happy ride" in the afterlife they still fear losing these earthly attachments.

Fear of death is really just fear of losing earthly goods. Christians aren't supposed to be attached to earthly goods much at all

>>5042426
>faith is believing in something, despite no proof of it.
>what ken ham is doing is what they did during the crusades

You are right about faith, unfortunately Ken Ham doesn't subscribe to that idea... Like most rationalists he uses "reason" to get to God and argue about the Bible, he doesn't use "faith"

You can't form arguments using faith and saying "just believe because you are free to and God loves you!" that doesn't work, that's no argument.

Ken Ham, william lane craig, kent hovind, dinesh d'zsoua, and all those other apologist guys subscribe to the idea that there are GOOD reasons and GOOD proof to believe in God and the bible. Hence they argue with atheists about a million different reasons to believe or disbelieve...

Both sides miss the point though.

>>5042475
umm...ken ham quotes the bible.

and when he says he has DOZENS of people, they quote the bible, that is his reason, circular reason.

Ken ham, among the others DO form arguments with this circular reasoning, that's why the world laughs at them now.

during ken ham vs bill nye, ken showed a picture of animals evolving, from older than the bible - even he fails at comprehension.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/13/1215940/-New-Jersey-Catholic-Church-lobbies-to-keep-victims-of-abuse-silent
>"Protect the child molesters" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible that I know of, but the New Jersey Catholic Conference seems to be acting like it does, hiring the most expensive and powerful lobbying firm in Trenton, Princeton Public Affairs, to fight against Vitale's bill.

TL:DR, Christian church lobbing to keep child molesters out of jail, GG chrisitans.

I honestly believe the vatican will kill this current pope, for he condemns child molesters and actually walks the life jesus spoke of.

>>5042426
>we are all god.
>Sam Harris.

I got a baaaaaaaaaaaaad feeling about this one.

>>5042550
>that is his reason, circular reason.

all reason that tries to make a point is circular, fallacious or inductive or fails in some way, unless it's a tautology.

Sure he uses bad arguments, but he's still trying to be rational.

>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/13/1215940/-New-Jersey-Catholic-Church-lobbies-to-keep-victims-of-abuse-silent

Churches are typically aberrations of Christianity.
I think the Pope is against that sort of thing though, he's been stirring some trouble

>>5036558
Why do so many christian groups fail to have a rudimentary understanding of the bible?
Why are Satan and the Snake considered to be the same dude?

Two questions.

What does it exactly mean to reject the holy spirit? As in, what would a person have to do for that to happen?

And

Why did god create sin?

>>5036677
>you just don't understand the picture yet.
Mysterious ways! Wooooo
I like Greek Paganism better. So much easier to answer questions.
>Why x?
Because <god> is a drunken asshole who was trying to get laid.

>>5042653
>Why do so many christian groups fail to have a rudimentary understanding of the bible?

because they don't read their the new testament individually, they read it as a group, and listen to commentaries, and really don't read the new testament much at all

>snake is satan

convenience, satan represents temptation away from God. the snake filled that role in the garden.

>>5042556
do you see a difference here?

OP here. I'm back for one post. I'll continue in a bit.

>>5040989
Padre Pio and his thoroughly tested stigmata.
If that is not interesting enough for you I could provide another.

>when christianity was mainstream, we called that time the "dark ages"

No we didn't. You have no concept of history if you acknowledge the "dark ages" or do so and blame the church.


>are you implying if a miracle happens in western world we deny it?

Most definitely, though ignore or deny it. The idea of things being "miracles" is thoroughly ignored by the populace in most of the western world. I'd say more the idea of miracles occurring is more forgotten about than anything.


>>5040989

>"Mysteries are not necessarily miracles."

Then you deny miracles from ever being proven. Seriously now, how do you expect someone to prove a miracle since it is not testable?

Few things are testable in this case though, like the unexplained oil in the miracle of Our Lady of Soufanieh, (the apparition is obviously not) the oddly shaped flesh from a heart in the Miracle of Lanciano, and Padre's wounds.

I suppose we could both learn something by looking into the work the church takes to claim something to be a miracle. The church is rigorous about anything, usually.

>>5042678

A follow up, since I couldn't fit it all on one post. I'll respond to everyone else when I get back. I'm sorry for the wait.

>>5042215
I have no problem stating the early bits of Genesis are mythic bits of Israeli lore passed on poorly, much like the poorly kept together Israeli lineage. It's the idea that the texts are all divinely inspired which makes people want to think there is more to it than that. And of course things like Revelation were never meant to be taken literally.

>>5042677
In other words, "science > faith because science isn't faith." Very insightful.

>>5042682
And now using a trip for clarity, by the way.
See you soon.

Why is christianity losing against islam?

So, what's the deal with Leviticus? Are we all going to hell secretly?

>>5042690
Because nowhere in the world will people stone you to death if you apostate from Christianity

>>5042677
>do you see a difference here?

Yes, but the questions that faith asks are beyond anything reason can ever grapple with.

As far as I'm concerned those apologists don't have faith, they are playing the rationalist game of science & logic with their religion and doing it poorly, very poorly.

>>5042690
>Why is christianity losing against islam?

Christianity is growing like wildfire in China.

I live in Vancouver and I see churches packed with asians more than white people lol...it's weird, I expected asians to be buddhist but apparently not

>>5042696
A few african countries will. The more you know!

>>5036735
Is having sex if you're infertile, because of age or disability, while in a loving marriage a sin?

>>5036558

1. How do you reconcile Angry eye-for-an-eye Jehova God in the OT ordering entire cities to be genocided, with turn-the-cheek, love and forgiveness Jesus in the NT

2. can you be christian if you don't really feel any guilt or need for "repentence" ? I really haven't done anything wrong in life, and I can't get worked up over telling a white lie or lusting after traps, etc...

3. How do you reconcile the entire shittiness of life and an all-good, all powerful God that apparently cares about our well being? Sure humans are responsible for some bad, but not all of it.

>>5042686
Not sure if bait or just typical christian.

>>5042701

>lol...it's weird, I expected asians to be buddhist but apparently not

>>5042807

grass is always greener I suppose....white hipsters love buddhism and asians love christianity

>>5041098
>this is what people actually think

>>5042260

>What do you think of people like Ken Ham who are trying to create an empirical (or rational) basis for christianity in relation to the whole thing about faith being the ability to believe despite there being no evidence or considerable evidence?

I wouldn't say it is the first time this has happened, seeing things like the argument of natural moral law, but I have very little faith in his work and think he will, in the fullest extent of the word, 'create' evidence

>Is this faith?

I'd say so, yes. You have nothing to base it on but our own conscience.

I'm usually iffy about saying things are not one way simply because of the lack of evidence for them, because thinking the only way to examine truth is purely by scientific inquiry relies on the faith that we live in a world where everything is observable to us so I tend to get along better with the agnostic atheists than the gnostic ones, somewhat of the same case with theists. It's nice to have an open mind.

>Is it actually possible to speak with god?

I don't know, nor do I care to try. I tend to think listening is better than speaking but if my grievances are thought then I suppose it could be taken as "speaking". I tend to side with using prayer as meditation, allowing you to receive knowledge from God of his will so you can better understand his will and, thus, reality.

Even from a secular point of view I'd think it's a pretty optimistic religion.

>>5036612
>well over 41k different versions of 'christianity'

Would call that a devolution, honestly. It's sad.

>>5042653
>Why do so many christian groups fail to have a rudimentary understanding of the bible?

Decentralized authority on the bible, lack of research resources, lack of education in the protestant masses, and ignorance begetting itself.

I'd say that answers the second question too.

>>5042656
>What does it exactly mean to reject the holy spirit? As in, what would a person have to do for that to happen?

I find it pretty difficult to reject the holy spirit. Most people just reject the name of it. To put it as simply as possible, it's the spirit of holiness given a character, akin to how spirits possess, this spirit works through you and guides you towards "good".

So yeah, try to think about rejecting that. It's pretty difficult.

>>5042659
>Mysterious ways! Wooooo

This is in no way referring to "God works in mysterious ways". This is that person just not knowing doctrine and making accusations.

>>5042690
Because it's new and cool in the west and Islam hasn't had a schism yet.

>>5042692
>So, what's the deal with Leviticus?
Leviticus is the incomplete Law of God. It is explained by Jesus that Moses only gave Israel as much law as they were ready for because of the times they lived in (he says their hearts were hard). It is thoroughly useless now by Christian standards, is openly dismissed in the New Testament, and it replaced with the full law.

>>5042930
>Islam hasn't had a schism yet

Confirmed for knowledgeless pleb. They fucking had a schism the second Mohammed died.

>>5042989
I knew I made a huge mistake saying this, especially with the infighting that occurs. I'll just fold my opinion on the matter then.

>>5042726
>1. How do you reconcile Angry eye-for-an-eye Jehova God in the OT ordering entire cities to be genocided, with turn-the-cheek, love and forgiveness Jesus in the NT

I spoke of things like the law Moses gave, the laws of Leviticus and so on, in a previous post. The law in the OT is called the Law of Moses often because he only gave as much law as the people were ready for at the time. A lot of it is time-specific and security-focused.

Things like the killings in the time of Samuel are a different matter as there is no clear answer and we have educated guesses. The most common assumption being they were also meant to be security-focused, with probably more details depending on the specific instance. I'd say some things get lost in the change of language, though. We think of an intimidating god when we hear "Fear God" in the OT but fear at that time answer meant to be in awe of them. A reverential awe.

As for the NT loving image of God we see, it is simply the people being ready for the word fully.

>2.

You could believe in and follow the law, of course, but being apathetic of your bad actions shows a weakness in your belief of that morality.

I don't know what you quantify as not having done "anything wrong" or "getting worked up" so I don't know how we can reach a determination there, but while there is always an expectation of sin that will occur a Christian who doesn't seek to refine themselves in some way isn't much of one.

>>5042706
Pls respond OP. Would also like to revise to:

Would having loving sex with your spouse in a heterosexual, and otherwise Christian marriage, be considered a sin if you were infertile due to age, or disability?

>>5042726
>3.

God creates evil. That is said plainly in the OT. From the Book of Job and his accuser angel we can assume pretty well that evil exists as tests, both to the individual and to society as a whole for us to use to strengthen the good in us.

This usually gets me responses about specific instances and that ends up having not enough personal information for me to answer with any clarity but I'd say that is the case from the evidence presented to us.

Like with life, God seems to deal in evolutions. From our creation to our general Jesus' teachings are, allowing for society to take simple, general concepts and find how to work it in more and more in our lives. That's just my views, however.

>>5036558

Should Gnostic Christianity, Suffism, ,Jainism, Zen Budhism, Kaballah all be merged into one religion?

pic related?

>>5043006
>security focused, time dependent

Why would that be the case? Christ's disciples were not security focused, were not family focused, were not supposed to cling to security much at all...

Why didn't he teach the Jews the loving way from the very start?

>As for the NT loving image of God we see, it is simply the people being ready for the word fully.


Clearly that isn't really true since most, 90%+ of christians don't follow Jesus much at all, don't turn the cheek, don't give all their money to the poor, and are desperately attached to family, wealth, comfort, etc....

>but being apathetic of your bad actions shows a weakness in your belief of that morality.

I would feel guilt over something serious, like hurting people's feelings or abusing them, etc...

I don't feel guilt over "lusting over women" or telling a white lie that doesn't mean anything even if the person found out...etc..

>God creates evil.

How can you call him good then? What's the difference between worshipping an evil God from a good God?

>>5043061

why don't we all just get along

>>5042706
>>>5042706
I'm sorry to have missed you!

There is a clearer answer on Catholic.org. I'll send you that response first.


>You may be confusing infertility with impotence. Infertility (the inability to procreate children) is not an impediment to marriage; permanent and irreversible impotence (the inability to consummate a marriage through marital relations) is an impediment. Impotence that is known at the time of the marriage to be permanent and irreversible is a barrier to marriage, because the couple must be capable of consummating their marriage. If the couple has reason to assume that the impotence can be treated or reversed, they may get married.

HOWEVER, that is pre-marriage. If this is while already married then there are no limitations at all as long as there is open possibility for pregnancy, despite small chances and not deliberately trying to make the chances smaller.

>>5043061
Don't know.

>pic related

I feel bad that I haven't read Dune yet.

>>5043078
Ok, let's assume that the impotence happens post-marriage. Old-age impotence, post-menopause, for example, is a good example. Should the couple cease having sex? Should they dissolve their marriage, or is it grounds for dissolving marriage?

And people who are born infertile, or rendered infertile pre-marriage, and are still virginal, they're supposed to abstain from marriage, and therefore romance and sex, for the rest of their lives?

>>5043078

where does the NT talk about marriage and impotence? just some stuff Paul made up? Or is it in the outdated OT?

>>5043068
>Why would that be the case?

I'm saying the Law of Moses, the OT law, was time dependent and security focused, not anything to do with Christ. Why would that be the case in OT times? It's assume it's because Israel was a fragile thing, times were much harder, the people much harder, and there was a lot for people to look out for during that time so Moses worked with what he had.

>Why didn't he teach the Jews the loving way from the very start?

This is brought up by Jesus when the flaws of the Law of Moses and how his law was incomplete first came up and the explanation was the "hardness of their hearts".

>Clearly that isn't really true since most, 90%+ of christians don't follow Jesus much at all, don't turn the cheek, don't give all their money to the poor, and are desperately attached to family, wealth, comfort, etc....

[statistics needed]

But seriously, it's not if they are ready to do what the law is fully, it's if they are ready to accept the law fully. Even the best of us need still strive for something there.

>I would feel guilt over something serious

"Serious" is vague, but I get what you mean. Even with Christianity there are mortal sins and venial sins. A white lie would usually count as a venial one and there are pretty good detailing of what makes a sin and which of the two they are. And I think one of the biggest things left out of sin gravity discussion is the psychological and social influence.

I'll continue next post

>>5043111
>How can you call him good then?
Because it's all done with the plan of making good grow and be strengthened from it.

>>5043085
>Ok, let's assume that the impotence happens post-marriage. Old-age impotence, post-menopause, for example, is a good example. Should the couple cease having sex? Should they dissolve their marriage, or is it grounds for dissolving marriage?

No, as there is the chance of it happening regardless.

>And people who are born infertile, or rendered infertile pre-marriage, and are still virginal, they're supposed to abstain from marriage, and therefore romance and sex, for the rest of their lives?

I am not sure why romance is here, love is not dependent on sex or marriage. Romance and love are totally acceptable. If the couple is clinically infertile with no chance of fertility or no treatment then, as you can see on the quote I sent to you above, it does not happen and, while sin is not unexpected, this sin is not recommended. It's the core of the reason why homosexuality is a sin, honestly.

>>5043090
Jesus mentions "sexual immorality" without clarifying what that is and discusses marriage. Paul clarifies sexual immorality and, if I remember right, says some things about marriage as well.

It's pretty well-understood by the church's study of scripture that marriage is done with the intent of procreation and using what we know about Christian doctrine (what I just said and more) we try to figure out solutions to problems that keep to the core of the issue.

>>5043112
>Because it's all done with the plan of making good grow and be strengthened from it.

the ends justify the means? I dunno if I like that sort of morality...

And with new people answering questions, I just want to clarify whose posts were actually mine up until I got the trip:

>>5036558
>>5036601
>>5036636
>>5036677
>>5036696
>>5036735
>>5036768
>>5036800
>>5036809
>>5036865
>>5036904
>>5036911
>>5036941
>>5036997
>>5037033
>>5038305
>>5038417
>>5038451
>>5040573
>>5040677
>>5040816
>>5042678
>>5042682
>>5042688

>>5043133

OP how did you make the choice to have faith?

It's very late. I'll have to call it a night very soon. I hope I've interested you all for a while.

>>5043131
That heavily depends on how you perceive the means. I understood this far better once I began to read Buddhist and Taoist literature.
>>5043140

I think I answered that at the end of >>5038305
It's been a long time.

>>5043146
Eh. I'll just head to bed now.
You have a good night, all.

Why did man create god?

>>5041714
Yes.
Also, if you're a troll you're doing it wrong, you should put in it more effort. 2/10
If you're just underage, please don't base your opinions on /b/ posts and jpg. Read, read and read real books and don't worry, adolescence ends

>>5043163
Because God willed it.

>>5043327
why the templar flag is almost the same as the england? i thought that the templars came from all the eu

when will this impotent piece of shit religion die forever?

>>5043701

why are you a pleb

>>5043706
Biggest religion in the world. Not soon, if ever.

>>5043706

I'm an atheist but I'd gladly fight to see Christianity the only surviving religion on this planet.

It will never die

>>5043755
because of my birth
now can you answer me?

>>5043836

It's Saint George's cross.

>>5036558
What is the counter-argument of Epicurean Paradox?

How do I find a church that's right for me?

I'm back again.

>>5043706
Probably never.

>>5043849
>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>Then he is not omnipotent.

No, as he creates it himself. It is true that omnipotence would have to mean he is able.

>Is he able, but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent.

Evil is created to strengthen the good in man and serves a use to the rest of society. There is no malevolence in using what is humans would deem bad for their own betterment.

>>5044921
Do you mean individual church or religious sect?

We done, /lit/?

How do I distinguish between Christian claims of divine revelation through the Bible, the Church, etc, and claims of divine revelation from other religions? They are obviously not compatible and cannot be proven. How am I supposed to pick which one to have faith in and why do Christians have a stronger claim than Muslims or whatever?

>>5046697
>How am I supposed to pick which one to have faith in and why do Christians have a stronger claim than Muslims or whatever?

psychic communion with Jesus Christ via hesychasm and theosis.

Which translation of the Bible should I read?

>>5048188
Anybody?

>>5046697
Christian ones are right.

>>5048188
Translation or version?

>>5036558
God loves all beings.

God creates fire for beings that he loves.

If I pushed you into a fire, no matter how much I professed my love for you, it is a cruel act. If murder were thought to be wholly justifiable for those who commit the worst of crimes, then why does the majority of western and eastern society disagree as to that fact?

Why would God push us into a fire if even we can see how faulty that is.

>>5048676
And if you say something akin to 'fire is metaphorical' I am just going to abandon ship

>random fuck gives blogs about their personal opinion on stuff

Great thread /lit/

>>5042678
some supposedly "tested" case of stigmata (lord!) is even worse than some image of jesus on a sticky bun

provide something better than some fraud injuring himself when nobody is looking.

>>5048777
Not to mention:

>>5042678 cites
>Padre Pio and his thoroughly tested stigmata.
as proof of a modern miracle, then says--in the same post, mind you--
>Seriously now, how do you expect someone to prove a miracle since it is not testable?

Lucy, you got some es'plainin' to do.

>>5036636
>Nonsense, sin exists within the heart as much as anything else. Though I am not a fan of making laws to enforce Christian morality. A major part of Jesus' clarification of laws was the inclusion of "sin of the heart" rather than physical sin. You could make a person not do something and you can make it a law but that wouldn't change their heart on the matter. Laws don't make a people good.

So abortion is cool as long you just do it, and you don't have it in "your heart". It doesn't matter what we do, the only thing that matter is how we are inside, you say. That retarded even beyond christian levels. We can't really affect on we have inside, or what we are, so if we have the "sin of the heart", we are doomed and it really doesn't matter anything we do. By that stupidity, christianity loses all its morality claims, can't you see that or are you just saying random words to avoid the question?

>>5046430
>Evil is created to strengthen the good in man and serves a use to the rest of society. There is no malevolence in using what is humans would deem bad for their own betterment.
Surely there would be way for an omnipotent being to strengthen the good in man without resorting to allowance of war, murder, torture, rape, starvation, pain, depression, unhappiness, and other shit, so your answer is not enough.

>>5042678
>The claims of Padre Pio’s mystical abilities are unproven, consisting of anecdotal evidence—a major source being the aptly named Tales of Padre Pio (McCaffery 1978). Pio’s touted psychic abilities seem no better substantiated than the discredited claims of the typical fortuneteller or medium (e.g., Nickell 2001, 122–127, 197–199). Many of his “bilocations” are analogous to Elvis Presley sightings, while some are—at best—consistent with hallucinations (such as one reported during a migraine attack or others occurring when the experiencer was near sleep or in some other altered state [McCaffery 1978, 24–36]). The reputed “odor of sanctity,” said Pio’s accusers, “was the result of self-administered eau-de-cologue” (“Pio” 2008).

>As to Pio’s miraculous healings, they— like other such claims (Nickell 2001, 202–205)—are not based on positive evidence of the miraculous. Instead, the occurrences are merely held to be “medically inexplicable,” so claimants are engaging in the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance (drawing a conclusion based on a lack of knowledge). Faith-healing claims often have alternative explanations, including misdiagnosis, psychosomatic conditions, spontaneous remissions, prior medical treatment, and other effects, including the body’s own healing ability. Cases are complicated by poor investigation and even outright hoaxing. One man’s claim of instant healing of a leg wound by Padre Pio, for example, was bogus; his doctor attested it “had, in fact, been healed for six months or more” (Ruffin 1982, 159).

>But it is Pio’s stigmata that have made him famous. Unfortunately, some examining physicians believed his lesions were superficial, but their inspections were made difficult by Pio’s acting as if the wounds were exceedingly painful. Also, they were supposedly covered by “thick crusts” of blood. One distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was an absence of “any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass.” Another concluded that the side “wound” had not penetrated the skin at all (Ruffin 1982, 147–148). Some thought Pio inflicted the wounds with acid or kept them open by continually drenching them in iodine (Ruffin 1982, 149–150; Moore 2007; Wilkinson 2008).

>>5048671
I guess both

>>5042653

>Why are Satan and the Snake considered to be the same dude?

Answer: A quote from Revelation Chapter 20 Verses 1&2:

"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years".

Satan the Devil is referred to as the "ancient", "original" serpent in many translations.

>>5036558
How is it that Job knows that God made a wager with Satan?

>>5046697
I went into that at the end of this post:

>>5038305

But God shares his revelation in every part of the world so it's best to take a little bit of it all in.

>>5048188

I always recommend the NIV.

>>5048676
>>5048688
Well the fire is never mentioned when talking about hell but in Revelation, when speaking of a pit for a specific bad person, and Revelation itself is just a dream/vision so there's no problem calling it metaphorical. However, that isn't the problem here and is. An eternal separation from God and it's own self-torment is.

But lets first go into what we know happens for one to be brought to hell:

We need to sin, of course.

Of that sin, it needs to be a mortal sin and not a venial sin.

Mortal sins have three conditions:

>It be a grave matter
>It be in full knowledge
>It be in complete consent

(these seem very vague terms and they take too long to explain so, please, just google them for further explanation)

And of those sins, there is no seeking of forgiveness for love of God or "goodness".


The clear answer is there is no justification for the Problem of Hell given in scripture but a few people have given their arguments on the matter, none of which being a canon answer.

I'll list a pair of explanations I've seen personally used in my next post.

>>5049476
>Argue that the crimes are not as finite as we believe. Just as when people buy guns to protect themselves, the need of protection comes from the belief of the violence of the world and that comes from the sin in the world. An act, such as stealing, affects people's perceptions long term which have a very long term affect upon society and impede God's law leading society to prosperity.

>Christian annihilationism argues that the conscious part of hell is finite and state some citations that the soul becomes mortal eventually receives a second death in hell, ensuring sinners do not receive eternal life. This is among the most highly debated theories, if I remember right. Fighting over whether a soul can be made mortal or not.

There are lots of answers, though. Feel free to around further by googling the "problem of hell".

>>5042656

>Why did god create sin?

To be accurate Adam did.

Romans Chapter 5 Verse 12:

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned".

Or to be even more accurate, Satan did.

Quote from John Chapter 8 Verse 44:

"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him".

Since murder is one of the most grievous sins in scripture and Satan is stated as a murderer from the beginning in Eden through deception, he is the originator of Sin.

>>5042677

>Contradicting Evidence

It's more accurate to say that faith has different opinions/interpretations, evidence doesn't require faith since it is observable; faith is more invested into a future tense terminology.

>>5048850
Answer this.

>>5036558
If god is all-knowing and all-powerful why did he place the tree and forbid the first humans to eat the apples if he knew they were gonna do it anyway and then punished them for doing it? And why did he let the snake in if he knew what was gonna happen? And now, why do people have to suffer for them, being born with a sin, and if a baby does not get baptised it goes straight to hell? Isn't it a dick move?
Why do you worship a jealous, sadistic, powerhungry and hateful god? Is it not better to just enjoy life and question shit you're not okay with?

>>5049633
>Since murder is one of the most grievous sins in scripture and Satan is stated as a murderer from the beginning in Eden through deception, he is the originator of Sin.
Dude, God doesn't have any problem with murdering millions of people. He doesn't give a fuck about innocent kids too. How many people did Satan kill? Five?

>>5049693
>>5049719
*tips fedora*

>>5038305
>
I took several months looking into other religions and foreign cultures, particularly isolated ones, to see which one would connect best to the understanding of "natural moral law". I ended up with Christianity. Nondenominational at the time. That was many years ago, though.

Natural law is doctrine from Christianity.

This is like saying you spent several months for religions that best connected to the eight fold path and ended up with Buddhism. Whilst being from Tibet.

Your questioning was superficial.

most religion have no ground to stand on when it comes to logic or reason.

because the bible says so, because god says so, because I can't think for myself.

>>5049808

Do you feel better having dinner with a strawman?

It's much easier than actually talking to a Muslim, yes?

>>5048777
>"tested"

Many doctors looked over the body, did X-Rays, and checked the wounds.

>provide something better than some fraud injuring himself when nobody is looking.

It's impossible for the injury to be self-inflicted as it is something he had for years (which would have to mean constantly inflicted) and yet bore no scars after his passing. It is also shown when his body was examined that there was no penetration, which would have happened if he used the theorized carbolic acid. And, obviously, the acid is a poison so to push it to the degree that it would develop those wounds for so long would have drastically shortened his life. Self-injury can't explain it.

>>5048787
The act itself cannot be tested. What we're testing is the aftermath, akin to the loaf-shaped lump of heart flesh left from the Miracle of Lanciano.

>>5048835
>That retarded even beyond christian levels.

You really have no good conception of Christianity if you say this, seeing as a major part of Christ on Earth was the explanation of sin of the heart over simply enforcing laws.

>So abortion is cool as long you just do it, and you don't have it in "your heart".

That would be like saying "abortion is cool as long as you didn't intend or plan anything to cause the abortion". That'd have to be some intense accident.

>We can't really affect on we have inside

We can very much control our thoughts and self-regulate and try to work to be better.

>random words

Where were there ever any?

>>5043327
Magic space fairies have no will.

>>5049955
Dude was a fraud.

>For years Pio wore fingerless gloves on his hands, perpetually concealing his wounds (Ruffin 1982, 148). His supporters regard this as an act of pious modesty. However, another interpretation is that the concealment was a shrewd strategy that eliminated the need for him to maintain his wounds. Before his death, frail, weary, with “rheumy eyes seemingly fixed on another world,” Padre Pio celebrated Mass. According to Ruffin (1982, 305), “For the first time in anyone’s memory, he did not attempt to hide his hands at any point in the service. To the amazement of everyone there, there was no trace of any wound.” At his death on September 23, 1968, his skin was unblemished.

>>5049955
Also,
>It's impossible for the injury to be self-inflicted as it is something he had for years (which would have to mean constantly inflicted) and yet bore no scars after his passing.

is wrong. He covered his "wounds" for most of his life, happily content to let his coverings be the smoke and mirrors of his stigmata.

There was not one credible report by a doctor concerning his "stigmata".

>>5049967
Fairies are serious shit, son. Fuck around with them at your peril.

>>5049979
>posting the inferior Hitchens brother

>>5049979
>spends whole adult life speaking against God generally, and Christianity in particular
>gets throat cancer
>dies

Hmmmm....

>>5049999
Yeah, nevermind the fact he smoked like, his whole life.

That had nothing to do with his esophageal cancer.

>>5049999
>>5050013
checkmate, christians

>>5050013
Churchill smoked his whole life and HE didn't get throat cancer.

>>5042930
>and Islam hasn't had a schism yet.

It had several within a century of its founding...

>>5049811
I didn't make my argument easier by twisting the truth, bible/quran/torah, are all interchangeable like muslim/christian/jew.

>>5050025
So?

>>5049999

>>5050039
>>5050045
The universe has a funny way of working out, though, you have to agree.

I mean, he could have gotten lung cancer from smoking, couldn't he?

>>5050025
1.) Churchill smoked cigars, which are not inhaled. The smoke never goes past the mouth. This is different from cigarettes, which are inhaled--that is the smoke ACTUALLY PASSES DOWN THE ESOPHAGUS.

2.) Even if Churchill did smoke cigarettes, just because he didn't get throat cancer doesn't mean it was not the cause of throat cancer in Hitchens's case. It would prove nothing.

>>5048850
Yes, I'm sure God could get rid of free will. The problem is with all the demonstrations of power by God, nothing is done to directly affect the free will of the people so there must be use to free will.

>>5048895
>talk of abilities and healing

Irrelevant. We're talking about the stigmata.

>One distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was an absence of “any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass.”

Which is very strange, especially seeing as the scabs were real.

>Another concluded that the side “wound” had not penetrated the skin at all

Which would not explain the severity of the scabbing.

>Some thought Pio inflicted the wounds with acid or kept them open by continually drenching them in iodine

Which would have shortened his life by poisoning himself.

I think we're reaching a critical junction with religion threads on /lit/. It's gotten to the point where I don't wonder if they shouldn't all be moved to /x/.

There can be any number of logical proofs for God, discussions of philosophy in religion, of theology and the like. But in the end, we who believe in Christ, and for that matter, anyone who actively argues for their religion, are arguing for the supernatural. For a Christian, it's not just about Plato and Augustine and Paul, it's about miracles and angels and saints and weeping statues. There is a massively strong element of the otherworldly in any argument about religion. Anyone who denies that, even if they do so to bolster religion's case, is a fool.

So maybe all religious discussion belongs on /x/. I don't know. I do know that, at the very least, those who talk about religion must talk about faith. Even Aquinas, with his five proofs of God, admits that faith is the most important part of being a Christian.

>>5050048
>I mean, he could have gotten lung cancer from smoking, couldn't he?

What would it matter. Most of his anti-religious messages were delivered via text. If his life was shortened by rheumatoid arthritis, you'd be posting some equally superstitious hogwash like:

>wrote against god & christinanity
>got rheumatoid arthritis
>died

It's not even coincidental. He smoked and got throat cancer. This is direct cause and effect.

What has Hitchens's cancer got to do with anything? Is god a vindictive little shit?

>>5050102
Sometimes. Haven't you read the Old Testament? Shit, even in the New Testament Jesus gets a little petty sometimes.

Well, maybe petty is the wrong word.

>>5050066
>Irrelevant. We're talking about the stigmata.

>Interestingly, neither of the two proclaimed miracles of Pio (one used for his beatification, the other for canonization) involved stigmata. Instead, they were healings, assumed miraculous because they were determined to be medically inexplicable. In short, the Church never affirmed Pio’s stigmata as miraculous.

It seems like even the Church couldn't get behind his "stigmata".

>>5049693
>If god is all-knowing and all-powerful why did he place the tree and forbid the first humans to eat the apples if he knew they were gonna do it anyway and then punished them for doing it?

Ignoring that the Adam and Eve story is of the more mythic bits of Israeli lore, the general question of why we were made despite knowing we'd screw up a lot is to train us to learn from our mistakes so we can grow and make a better world. The tests aren't for his own learning but for our own.

>and if a baby does not get baptised it goes straight to hell?

Not the case. It was believed to be the case for some time but it is not the case.

>Why do you worship a jealous, sadistic, powerhungry and hateful god?
Sure is loaded questions in here.

>Is it not better to just enjoy life and question shit you're not okay with?
Questioning things is fine, it leads to better understanding. I think it's important to also question yourself too. Why are you not okay with ___? Is how I am enjoying life the best it could it be done better?

I went into religious examination with purely humanistic reasoning. It was spurred along originally by me meeting up with a few Baha'i peeps, which led me to become a fan of reading up on cultures and eventually religions from around the world. I found a core common between much of them, something that seemed like core humanistic values. Like I said earlier in this thread, that was many years ago though.

I'mgoing to have to call it a night soon, I'm sorry

>>5050066
>Yes, I'm sure God could get rid of free will.
This is not what I'm talking about.
Let's say you have two people with free will in two different environments. One of them is a rich man in a peaceful realm who had almost no problems in his life. The other is a poor commoner, maybe a slave in a war-torn country where starvation and sickness is widespread.
The first man still has a free will. He knows the "good" and the "bad".
The second man has a free will too. He knows the "good" and the "bad" too.
Now your argument suggests that, for a man to understand and have free will, he has to live in the war-torn shithole, while I'm asking you why isn't god making the world a peaceful realm with no major troubles. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

Also, concerning this "free will", how can you defend it's existence when the concept of "fate" directly destroys it? Let's say I'm a serial killer, a rapist, torturer, and a child molester. God knows what I am, he created me this way. He knew what I would do, he knew why I would do it. So in a way, he programmed me this way. He wanted there to a man who kills, rapes, molests and tortures.
And now he's going to burn me in hell because I acted the way he expected?
If what I'm going to do is already preordained, am I really making a choice?
How am I different from a puppet or a robot?
Why do I deserve all the hardship and the suffering while others live much happier lives?
Why do people I hurt deserve all the suffering I cause them while others live without the same problems?
Why did he even create me if he knew I was going to be an nonbeliever and he would burn me after I die?

Is so-called free will really worth all this evil?

>>5050100
>maybe all religious discussion belongs on /x/

Makes more sense than here.

>>5050159
I mean, it makes sense, doesn't it?

I believe in statues weeping blood, in the Shroud of Turin, in the sun dancing in the sky. All that stuff. And even if I think it's all true, I also recognize that it's pretty blatantly /x/ shit.

Then again, all the conspiracyfags on /x/ would get mad as fuck at the Christfags and Muslimfags invading their board.

>>5042447
Source me on that one.

Is God a manlet?

This'll have to be my last post for the night. I am heading out. I'm sorry to cut it short but I will return.

>>5049725
There is no room for these empty insults. If you have a complaint, try giving it some content rather than a simple attack of character.

>>5049739
I actually spoke about that in my last post, though not fully enough to argue your point. I suggest you go to take a look at my previous post in the meantime and I'll respond you to first when I return. I'm sorry, man.

>>5049977
To have used carbolic acid at any time would have caused rotting flesh, which was not apparent on his wounds. Carbolic acid is also reported being used by him for working on the sickly with the spanish flu.

Blood was visible on bandages - spreading blood - and the gloves being a very late addition to his wardrobe despite having the wounds for 50 years would mean he would have had to do something to cause it, but no examination of his wounds can show evidence of it.

>“For the first time in anyone’s memory, he did not attempt to hide his hands at any point in the service. To the amazement of everyone there, there was no trace of any wound.”

I call bullshit on this, as there are many pictures of Padre Pio at mass, uncovered, with visible wounds at different ages. The only time he had no wounds at mass was just hours after his death, which match up with the statement of his lack of scarring during his examination.

But anyway, I have to go. I'll see you all.

>>5050267
>after his death

I think you mean BEFORE

>dead body at mass

>>5050267
I will expect you to answer >>5050148 this tomorrow.

Outside of the Bible, what books/resources have allowed you to learn and grow as a Christian the most?

I wrote a genius piece, review? :D

"Yes, well, I've just got done with this awful book," he said, "so no, I'm not doing anything." He threw down the book upon the table. "The Stranger," I read upon its cover. "Wait, that's quite the accredited book," I said, an antagonism sure to get a rise from my roommate. "Where are you going?" he said, glaring at me.
The sun was beating down outside and I saw my roommate smile up at it as we walked. "What are you thinking?" I asked. "Oh nothing," he replied. Presently, however, he came forth with a short discourse: "You know," he said, "I do always find it particularly frustrating that people cannot find anything to do with their lives. But of course they do do things. But it's never anything more than petty griping. Not usually. And then I suppose it might all be regarded as triviality in the end, but there's a forfeiture of essence in there for most, and most spectacularly and childishly." He regarded me then -- I quite baffled by his discourse. "Oh, never mind," he said.
We passed a funeral home then, on our route to the drycleaners (where I had appointment for 2 o'clock), and were witness to that milling in and out, that orderly procession of grievers come to grieve . . . or to see a dead person (I have never been quite sure). My companion, I noticed, had donned a somber demeanour, a hint of agitation playing upon his face. "Death," I said, opening up the issue for discussion. He looked at me then, with a smile. "Oh, you are such a bore," he said. Then: "No, no. It isn't anything like that. It's just that darned book!" "Oh?" I said, intrigued. He smiled. "It's is flagrant plagiarism from Joyce's Dubliners, you know?" he said presently, his eyebrows cocked. "No, I did not know that," I replied, "but I have not read very much Joyce."
The conversation was put on hold then, upon our arriving at the drycleaners. I retrieved my suit (which I'd commissioned to be washed) with very little ado, and soon we were back on the street once more, my companion greeting the sun with that same smile as before. I was puzzled then. It was not often that my companion could not read my thoughts from my demeanour, but I was always at a loss as regards his. And in this instance, he was not very forthcoming with what they were, which had always been some refuge prior. "Oh, do wipe that silly grin off your face," I said, betraying my agitation. This served only to further amuse him.

>>5052045
As we passed the funeral home for the second time then, I noticed he was eying me intently. "Yes?" I probed him. "Oh, nothing, nothing," he parried, a smile dancing on his lips. "Oh, do come off it!" I barked, and loudly enough to arouse interest from the grievers grieving. They were not impressed, though a smile spread so wide across my companion's face that I paid them no heed, completely lost in that mocking manifestation of his thoughts upon his face. I wanted to thrash it out of him. What was it!
"I must confess," my roommate said upon entering our apartment," I have been quite wicked this day." He paused then, and a smile flashed across his face. "Oh?" I probed once more, containing as best I could my agitation. But he did not go on. Instead, he closed his eyes, folded his hands before him as if to pray, and then, yes, he prayed! "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned," he said. And at that point I was veritably fuming. "I'll give you forgiveness!" I screeched, pouncing upon him. And he merely laughed in fending me off -- as if my assault were completely expected! "I love you, Peter," he said presently, genuinely, and we rolled apart. And to this day, I do not understand quite what went on then, but there is nothing fresher upon my memory. And as of yet, I have no better friend.
Fin. *bows*

>>5052046
>>5052045

Actually not bad

>>5051364
I'd like to know the answer to this.

>>5050013
>being religious
>being rational

There's no point in arguing with idiots.

>>5050159
Mental health issues belong in /adv/

Why do I need you to answer these questions? Why can't I just research the issues on my own? By reading the God Delusion, for instance?

>>5056105
because you shouldn't need 400 pages to see something so clear.

russell's teapot

>>5056105
I actually read the first half of that book when I was 16 or 17.

Great thread op, would be cool if you adopted a trip and did these q & a's regularly.

Op, if you are still around would you mind giving another example of a 'miracle'? Out of curiosity.