/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14890232]

>Christ, through his unimaginable suffering, atoned for ALL the sins of ALL mankind
>yet suffered a typical execution of the time
>there were even two blokes next to him going through the same thing
What am I missing here?
>even got the mercy stab for a quick death instead of dying of thirst and rotting on the cross for days
I guess 'all the sins of mankind' wasn't that much

[Anonymous No.14890240]

>>14890232
It's clear that the small amount of suffering Christ did can cover the sins of very few men. Yet it says all mankind is redeemed. The only logical conclusion is the vast majority of "mankind" are not men at all and will are not redeemed

[Anonymous No.14890243]

>I guess 'all the sins of mankind' wasn't that much
Its about WHO was executed.

Consider the following:
Remedy (4). Seriously to consider, That even those very sins that
Satan paints, and puts new names and colors upon, cost the
best blood, the noblest blood, the life-blood, the heart-blood of
the Lord Jesus. That Christ should come from the eternal bosom of his
Father to a region of sorrow and death; that God should be manifested in
the flesh, the Creator made a creature; that he who was clothed with glory
should be wrapped with rags of flesh; he who filled heaven and earth with
his glory should be cradled in a manger; that the almighty God should
flee from weak man—the God of Israel into Egypt; that the God of the law
should be subject to the law, the God of the circumcision circumcised, the
God who made the heavens working at Joseph's homely trade; that he
who binds the devils in chains should be tempted; that he, whose is the
world, and the fullness thereof, should hunger and thirst; that the God of
strength should be weary, the Judge of all flesh condemned, the God of
life put to death; that he who is one with his Father should cry out of
misery, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46);
that he who had the keys of hell and death at his belt should lie
imprisoned in the sepulcher of another, having in his lifetime nowhere to
lay his head, nor after death to lay his body; that that HEAD, before
which the angels do cast down their crowns, should be crowned with
thorns, and those EYES, purer than the sun, put out by the darkness of
death; those EARS, which hear nothing but hallelujahs of saints and
angels, to hear the blasphemies of the multitude; that FACE, which was
fairer than the sons of men, to be spit on by those beastly wretched Jews;
that MOUTH and TONGUE, which spoke as never man spoke, accused
for blasphemy; those HANDS, which freely swayed the scepter of heaven,
nailed to the cross; those FEET, "like unto fine brass," nailed to the cross
for man's sins; each sense pained with a spear and nails; his SMELL,
with stinking odor, being crucified on Golgotha, the place of skulls; his
TASTE, with vinegar and gall; his HEARING, with reproaches, and
SIGHT of his mother and disciples bemoaning him; his SOUL,
comfortless and forsaken; and all this for those very sins that Satan
paints and puts fine colors upon! Oh! how should the consideration of
this stir up the soul against sin, and work the soul to fly from it, and to
use all holy means whereby sin may be subdued and destroyed!

Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies against Satan's Devices

[Anonymous No.14890247]

>>14890232
If Christ had never died then what would have changed for mankind? How would anything even be different?

[Anonymous No.14890258]

>>14890240

[Anonymous No.14890298]

is it just me, or is the anti-Christ posting ramping up?
maybe we are approaching the end

[Anonymous No.14890300]

>>14890232
it wasn't just His death that was the suffering, but His whole life. we live in a world where intelligent young white men are basically stifled, locked away in basements and cubicles while dirty niggers and diseased feminists and transexual and jewish mass-rapists are lauded as heros, and look how painful it is for us, how embarrassing and shameful and unbearable it is to not at least have the freedom to have our own land and just live unhindered. now imagine if you are literally God and you have to deal with even more bullshit than that and then when you try to get people to stop being so shitty and actually help them in the process, then they kill you. you probably just don't get it because you're a normie or a shitskin.

[Anonymous No.14890305]

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Anonymous No.14890309]

>>14890298
Jesus was a jew

[Anonymous No.14890351]

>>14890298
It is just larpagans with daddy issues, christfags usally post a wall of text to respond to their strawmans and they just respond with meme responses, they feel the inferiority because, deep down, they know that christianity is a part of their lifes/nation/culture they liking or not.

[Anonymous No.14890656]

>>14890298
Varg has been on a roll lately, plus the feds have rolled up most of the other operations that attracted larpagans. You've got the discord muslims, although this particular thread isn't their work.

[Anonymous No.14890705]

>>14890232
Christ took on universal and impersonal human nature, so he also suffered through the same thing all of us suffer through, our post-fall state.

[Anonymous No.14890758]

>>14890232
I think that, since Jesus was without sin, it means the way he died was extra unjust. Yeah sure those guys next to him were going through the same thing, but they kinda deserved it. Jesus was so pure he didn't even deserve a speck of dust getting into his eye let alone being betrayed, humiliated, tortured, and then crucified

[Anonymous No.14890782]

>>14890298
People are sick of christcuckoldry

[Anonymous No.14890803]

>>14890232
1. He was betrayed by God’s chosen people
2. He was betrayed by his disciples
3. He was betrayed by God

[Anonymous No.14890813]

>>14890803
>3. He was betrayed by God
he be trippin on the cross thinkin why god be betrayin him like that!

[Anonymous No.14890834]

>>14890232
Think about how selfish you would be to not sacrifice yourself (and ironically still be risen from the dead) to save all of human existence from eternal hellfire. I don't think it would be technically possible to conceive a more dick move.

In other words, wouldn't you die to save all of humanity? You'd have to be essentially psychopathic not to.

[Anonymous No.14890844]

>>14890834
i wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.14890857]

>>14890782
J U S T R E A D J O B B R O

[Anonymous No.14890873]

>>14890844
I would say then you either or a mixture of psychopathic, youthfully angsty or have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14890910]

Imagine if you had friends in your dream, and you loved your friends so much that you incarnated into your dream through lucid dreaming. Imagine that you started telling them about reality, the kingdom of heaven, and that you died and offered them your flesh so that when you woke up they could wake up with you

[Anonymous No.14890925]

>>14890910
>Imagine if you had friends
haha yeah just imagine it haha

[Anonymous No.14890941]

>>14890910
and then punished half of them forever even though you created them

[Anonymous No.14890946]

>>14890834
I think the objection is more about why it was necessary in the first place and how a limited amount of suffering has the power to redeem all of mankind.

What never made sense to me is the death of Jesus. God is eternal and literally cannot die, so Jesus didn't actually die and his resurrection is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14890986]

>>14890946
I didn't ask for anyone to be crucified alive, that's barbaric. It's certainly not necessary for it to happen to obtain any goal, tangible or abstract. The golden rule existed long before Jesus did.

[Anonymous No.14891037]

>>14890946
>limited amount of suffering has the power to redeem all of mankind
It's not his suffering that redeems mankind, it is the incarnation itself which deifies human nature and thus redeems all of humanity. What you're talking about is bugman anglo protestant heresy.
>God is eternal and literally cannot die, so Jesus didn't actually die and his resurrection is meaningless.
The same argument would apply to him doing other human acts, like being born and eating. Jesus died in his flesh, but his divinity did not die or change. Since the divine person of the Logos assumed fully human nature it is natural for him to be able to eat, sleep, undergo death, descend to Hades after death as he had a human soul, etc. There's only one person (the Logos) walking around when the Apostles and the other people see him (there's no human Jesus and divine Jesus dichotomy), so one can say that this person himself underwent the experience of dying.

>The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union ...
- 3rd Ecumenical Council, https://www.elpenor.org/ecumenical-councils/third.asp?pg=9

>>14890986
>The golden rule existed long before Jesus did.
God created "the golden rule", as all things in existence, visible and invisible.

[Anonymous No.14891041]

>>14890941
>>14890925

It's just mythology for a greater truth

[Anonymous No.14891047]

>>14890941
he didn't create them to be punished though, that's their own choice. he warned them of what would happen if they continued to fap and go to clubs.

[Anonymous No.14891049]

>>14891037
just in case you wanted to know what a non-sequitor was

[Anonymous No.14891052]

>>14891049
>God created "the golden rule", as all things in existence, visible and invisible.

just in case you wanted to know what a non-sequitor was

[Anonymous No.14891054]

>>14890986
>I didn't ask for anyone to be crucified alive, that's barbaric.
>>14891041
>It's just mythology for a greater truth
>>14891049
>non-sequitor

[Anonymous No.14891058]

>>14891052
you claimed that the rule existed long before Jesus did who literally created it...

[Anonymous No.14891059]

>>14891037
Holy Jesus that's a lot of circular logic

[Anonymous No.14891062]

>>14891058
I'm afraid not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[Anonymous No.14891063]

>>14890232
go read "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius

[Anonymous No.14891066]

>>14891054
Don't you want to try an argument? You'll never get sharper posting pictures.

[Anonymous No.14891072]

>>14890232
Christ wasn't just executed retard, besides, he suffered the sins and pain of all mankind, it was mental and emotional as much as it was physical.

This is literally stated. The animal has no sin, it is only man.

[Anonymous No.14891077]

>>14891059
>circular logic
>Holy Jesus
Jesus himself used circular logic, as his existence is the ultimate justification for all logic in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14891082]

>>14891047
Is God omnipotend and omniscient?
Then God knows exactly what's going to happen before it happens.

Not only that but God would have created us to such an extent that he is knowledgeable of every atom in our being. He knows exactly what he has to do to convince us that he exists.

Created sick and ordered to be well. It's a paradox. Invited into Heaven and designed to go to Hell.

[Anonymous No.14891086]

>>14891066
>Don't you want to try an argument? You'll never get sharper posting pictures.

[Anonymous No.14891090]

Jesus has superior senses, meaning that he is far more sensitive to pain than all humans together. The pain that Jesus felt is greater than all possible collective pain that any non-god beings can feel.

[Anonymous No.14891091]

>>14891037
None of that explains how Jesus could actually die, you've only described what the incarnation is. The Logos did not die because that's impossible according to your own theology. Yet it did die because that's a central pillar of Christian doctrine. It doesn't make sense.

And the redemptive suffering of Christ exists throughout all Christian theology since the beginning, it's you who is the heretic by your own standards.

[Anonymous No.14891093]

>>14891077
you're saying that like it's a good thing

[Anonymous No.14891096]

>>14891082
>Is God omnipotend and omniscient?
>Then God knows exactly what's going to happen before it happens.
I can't refute this epic new argument bro... You just deconverted me from Chrisitanity.

>He knows exactly what he has to do to convince us that he exists.
Why do you think he hasn't done that to you? You are just blinded by your ***choice*** of being a degenerate atheist.

[Anonymous No.14891103]

>>14891082
Hey bro, just read job bro, don't ask questions bro, just believe bro it's so easy bro

[Anonymous No.14891111]

>>14891096
>I can't refute this epic new argument bro... You just deconverted me from Chrisitanity.

This is an important argument however. In fact, it's one of many problems that a religious person cannot address and is left to respond with either a mystery of the faith or ad hominem.

>Why do you think he hasn't done that to you? You are just blinded by your ***choice*** of being a degenerate atheist.

Let's say a manufacturer creates a car and the car breaks down. Do you punish the car? You might say that it's not analogous. You're right, it's as if the manufacturer designed the very subatomic particles of the car and is conscious of them at all times. And then punishes the car after it breaks.

[Anonymous No.14891114]

>>14891093
It's an unavoidable even for the epical logical skeptic. Christ did it so it's a good thing.
>>14891091
>Jesus Christ had full human nature
>All humans (persons bearing the human nature) can experience death
>Therefore Christ can experience death
>None of that explains how Jesus could actually die
What did you mean by this? Also, you are assuming that a human dying somehow "changes" his very nature or that he ceases to exist at that point. It's not clear why anyone would assume that you aren't human after death, much less why the divinity of Christ needed to change in order for him to commit the human action of death.
>redemptive suffering of Christ exists throughout all Christian theology since the beginning
That's just the Western proto-protestant and post-protestant delusion. Denial of Christ's divinity also existed "since the beginning", that doesn't make it the correct notion.
>it's you who is the heretic by your own standards
What heresy did I commit?

[Anonymous No.14891120]

>>14891114
I could argue that Mohammed did it so Allah is a good thing? Do you understand that I can literally conjure any conceivable deity and replace it into your argument and it would have the same weight?

[Anonymous No.14891123]

>>14891111
God’s ways are not our ways. God can do what he wants. We can either accept his gift of salvation and endure the suffering of this life which works to good things, or hate God and be punished. I choose love, hope, faith, peace. You choose pride.

[Anonymous No.14891128]

>>14891091
>The Logos did not die because that's impossible according to your own theology.
The Logos did die in the flesh, according to the human mode of being He took on. This, however, does not mean that the Divine Essence died. We can say that God died because He united his divinity to His humanity, without mixing them. Moreover, His action of dying does not take away from either His divinity or His humanity.

[Anonymous No.14891133]

>>14891120
>I can literally conjure any conceivable deity and replace it into your argument and it would have the same weight
no? because those deities are false idols and not the One True God.

[Anonymous No.14891137]

>>14891111
>cannot address
>respond with a mystery of the faith
What did he mean by this? How is that not a response? Or are you implying like an epic redditor that everything needs to be known to your finite human mind?

[Anonymous No.14891141]

>>14891111
>Do you punish the car?
No, because the car cannot choose to obey me and not break down.

[Anonymous No.14891143]

>>14891123
You need to meditate on what circular logic is and implies. I could substitute any god into your arguments and it would have the same non effect.

In other words a person of another religion could argue your own argument to you but use their god in place of yours. Would they convince you? Circular logic be damned? Then why believe in anything? You're left with the fact that you merely want to believe. Is that a virtue, or a vice?

[Anonymous No.14891146]

>>14891091
>it's you who is the heretic by your own standards.
If you say that he did not or could not die, you would indeed be a heretic, as Christ was fully human and fully divine. And every human after Adam's sin can die.

[Anonymous No.14891148]

>>14891143
>I could substitute any god into your arguments and it would have the same non effect.
Only the form of the argument would be the same. It would lose all force if those gods were false idols.

[Anonymous No.14891149]

>>14891128
>The Logos did die in the flesh, according to the human mode of being He took on. This, however, does not mean that the Divine Essence died.
How does that work? You're still just describing something that doesn't make sense. Jesus is fully human and fully divine, how can he die "according to his human mode of being" yet still be eternally existant? That simply isn't a human death. His divine nature is something no human has, the experience cannot be the same.

[Anonymous No.14891156]

>>14891143
>You need to meditate on what circular logic is and implies.
Circular logic only works if the basis you're appealing to is actually the True God and not some delusion a pagan dreamt up in a cave.

[Anonymous No.14891165]

>>14891143
You could have simply asked me why I’m a Christian:
http://www.bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm

https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/top-40-most-helpful-messianic-prophecies/

And Christianity teaches that no man is good, so that works alone cannot save us. Christianity certainly seems most probable to me given the prophecies, its principles, et cetera.
> Then why believe in anything? You're left with the fact that you merely want to believe. Is that a virtue, or a vice?
Why are you asking me? Ask yourself. Do you ever have beliefs in the absence of certainty? Surely you do, or you would have died by now. Sometimes, the truth may not be known, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have faith. I don’t see the vice. I don’t see how believing and being wrong is any worse than not believing and not knowing the truth, especially when believing leads to more benefits in either case

[Anonymous No.14891172]

>>14891141
If God created the universe, and created us in every detail then he knows what we are going to do before we are ever born.

If that's the case, then what "choice" are we left with? We didn't create ourselves. We were created. You can't create a being in every possible sense, and then get angry when it does something "bad". Why did it do something bad? You created it to do that thing! If God created us down to the atom, then how would it be possible for him to be surprised if we "sinned" or did anything at all? Our choice? What choice? Is God all powerful or not?

[Anonymous No.14891175]

>>14891149
>how can he die "according to his human mode of being" yet still be eternally existant?
You're presupposing that human death deletes you from existence. That's not true, as seen when Christ preached the Gospel in Hades to all of the humans who underwent the same experience of death and got placed there. Also, the argument you're using applies to any human action he took, when you think about it.
>the experience cannot be the same
Then the incarnation is meaningless, as he could not ultimately relate to us and fix our nature. Fully human means he experiences human things just as any human can if he orients his life towards the good.

[Anonymous No.14891180]

>>14891172
How do you know what God can or can’t do? Is it not possible that God can see all possible futures, though we still have the freedom to choose a future? Now God can intervene every now and then or make sure that the world is headed towards a good end, but he doesn’t have to always control everything.

[Anonymous No.14891181]

>>14891148
And again, another person could say your idol is the false one.

The argument is dead. It's futile. How can you convince someone with a dead argument?

[Anonymous No.14891185]

>>14891156
see
>>14891181

[Anonymous No.14891200]

>>14891180
I don't claim to know the mind of god. Christians do. They love to. In fact you're doing it now. Musing about intervening and control when no one could have any idea.

And Christians most definitely say that god is all knowing and all powerful. I don't often hear someone concede that God might not see all possible futures. But if that's where we are I'm happy to rest my case and I urge you to keep asking questions.

[Anonymous No.14891206]

>>14891200
>I don't often hear someone concede that God might not see all possible futures
You can’t read

[Anonymous No.14891215]

>>14891181
>another person could say your idol is the false one.
And he would be false for doing so. I don't see where the problem is if you don't subscribe to an NPC-tier relative conception of truth.

[Anonymous No.14891220]

>>14891200
>I don't claim to know the mind of god. Christians do.
We don't claim to know the mind of God. We consider revelation to give us a glimpse into it though.
>when no one could have any idea
We have revelation for this exact reason.

[Anonymous No.14891233]

>>14891200
These guys don't know shit about God lol. Why do you hear Christians on here that just tell you to read Job? It's because they don't know and resort to just saying that we should just believe even if somethings don't make any sense to us.

[Anonymous No.14891235]

>>14891200
>I don't claim to know the mind of god. Christians do.
No. We try to provide possible explanations because if we were to only say that we can’t understand God’s ways, then you people would not be satisfied. It makes sense that humans would not understand all of God’s motivations, and in many cases all these big questions are truly irrelevant concerning our actions. Do we have free will or not? Why does evil exist? How does God exist? How would knowing the answers to these questions change your behavior? Wouldn’t a Christian still try to love God and keep the commandments? It may be possible that God purposely concealed certain truths from us so that we may be humbled.

[Anonymous No.14891240]

>>14890232
it was the water boarding, monsieur, of its day. imagine a religion in 2000 years from now whose symbol is water boarding an arab. that's christianity.

[Anonymous No.14891241]

>>14891165
>Why are you asking me? Ask yourself
I already know what I believe, I was asking you earnestly.

>the truth may not be known, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have faith.

I am not 100% sure about anything. For example I'm only about 99.9999999% sure that 2+2=4. If there was a brilliant mathematician who tomorrow explained that 2+2=5, and illustrated this fantastic new knowledge to the mathematics society and they confirmed it, thus reshaping our ideas on math etc.

Am I willing to believe 100% that that will never happen? Never?

No, I am open minded and humble enough to admit my limited understanding in this world. Faith is a 100% thing.

[Anonymous No.14891245]

I think you all need to stop bickering and understand the kantian notion of rational religion.

[Anonymous No.14891260]

>>14891241
When you are your last meal, did you believe it was free of deadly poison? Surely you did, or else you wouldn’t have eaten it. Even though you weren’t absolutely certain, you had faith that it wasn’t poisoned, and this faith led to action. I won’t criticize you for believing something even when you aren’t omniscient, because if you acted otherwise, you would starve to death

[Anonymous No.14891287]

>>14891206
Baptised, catholic high school, mass every sunday for decades. Never heard anyone even imply that God can't see all possible futures. But if this is now a talking point I absolutely adore it.

>>14891215
We aren't on the same page. I'm talking about the argument itself. The argument is fundamentally worthless. Saying that the Christian God is the real God is like saying God is God because he is God - it is circular logic, it's not going to win you any arguments.

>>14891220
>>14891235

A glimpse into the mind of God. Then where do you draw the line in this glimpse? And who should I believe then? Who's glimpse is the correct one? Everyone's own subjective reality is yet another "glimpse". Do you see how that leads back into people believing they know the mind of god? And what a futile disaster that is? You can't have it both ways. God is definitely this, but maybe not that, oh but he's this but probably not that. The truth is I don't know anything more than you.

[Anonymous No.14891300]

>>14891260
No, I had a good idea it wasn't poison based on a multitude of factors - reason, experience, etc.

Faith is different. Faith is the belief in something IN SPITE OF evidence and reason. Belief because one chooses to believe. Belief for belief's sake. Belief because belief. The antithesis of logic.

[Anonymous No.14891321]

Those two were criminals. Jesus was being executed despite doing nothing but preaching peace and love among men.

[Anonymous No.14891333]

>>14891287
>Baptised, catholic high school, mass every sunday for decades. Never heard anyone even imply that God can't see all possible futures. But if this is now a talking point I absolutely adore it.
That’s literally the opposite of what I said. As stubborn and blind as you are, this is almost a waste of time.
> A glimpse into the mind of God. Then where do you draw the line in this glimpse? And who should I believe then? Who's glimpse is the correct one?
The Bible is the most trusted source of truth about God. Personally I don’t care for other people’s revelations.
>>14891300
Wrong. If faith meant believing without any evidence at all, then you would expect people to believe in things randomly all the time. Do you suppose there is no reason at all to believe that Christianity is true? Not with the prophecies or the history of the religion? Surely you admit that such a religion is not so easy to fake. It’s certainly true that some decisions may require less faith than others. For example, it makes sense that the sun will rise tomorrow. But when we make decisions where faith plays a larger role, it’s because of the utility of that faith. If a strange man offered me a box and said there was a million dollars in it, I might believe it to be unlikely and missing evidence of every kind, but I’ll still have faith and accept the box. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But if I chose to not have faith, I could have missed out on a lot of money. Sometimes, it is only through believing that we are able to find the truth. For example, if you’re in a life-threatening situation, and you may need to take usually unreasonable measures to survive, you need faith to believe it’s possible. If you don’t have that faith, then you have no chance of surviving. But through believing, you may be right.

[Anonymous No.14891390]

>>14891333
>That’s literally the opposite of what I said. As stubborn and blind as you are, this is almost a waste of time.
If I misread your post, correct me. And careful with the insults, it makes your argument look weaker.

Why isn't Islam true. Don't you think you could find someone just like yourself on another side who would come at you with the same holy scriptures etc.?
>But my religion is the actually true one
Well, the Muslim or Hindu could say the same thing.

You are hinting at Pascal's wager - believe because what have you got to lose, and if you get it right, you win. The problem is that a God could see right through that type of weasel-like reasoning. It's not a true belief, it's an insurance policy.

Faith is not evidence based. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith, it would be evidence. Faith is a specific word with a specific meaning. It's a blind trust, simply a knowing.

If you are more concerned with evidence, I'd suggest listening to religious debates on YouTube.

[Anonymous No.14891469]

>>14891390
>If I misread your post, correct me. And careful with the insults, it makes your argument look weaker.
Did you forget the first response when I said you can’t read?
> Why isn't Islam true. Don't you think you could find someone just like yourself on another side who would come at you with the same holy scriptures etc.?
I posted some of this earlier >>14891165
Islam, compared to Christianity, seems much easier to fake, and therefore less likely. It’s also more practical to be a Christian, since Jesus says he is the only way to salvation, whereas other religions are a bit more lenient. Acting like Jesus and believing in Jesus is the safest thing you can do. Islam contradicts itself by saying there are Christians in heaven (Quran 2:62). Some Muslims say this only applies to pre-Muhammed times, but that doesn’t make sense, since they say being a Christian is polytheistic and angers Allah. It seems like Muhammed simply told Jews and Christians that they were ok until he later had enough power to spread his beliefs by force.
> The problem is that a God could see right through that type of weasel-like reasoning. It's not a true belief, it's an insurance policy.
I can tell you haven’t read Pascal. Sure, if you merely say “well, I believe in God now” and do nothing from there. But how else could you become a believer without first seeing why it would be good to believe? True faith comes through seeking God. Let’s see what the Bible says:
Deuteronomy 4:29
>But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
>You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.
Matthew 7:7-8
>Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Isaiah 55:6-7
>Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Lamentations 3:25
>The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded

[Anonymous No.14891488]

>>14891390
> Faith is not evidence based. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith, it would be evidence. Faith is a specific word with a specific meaning. It's a blind trust, simply a knowing.
If that were true then you could make up the laziest religion and thousands of people would follow it. You can’t have faith without reason, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.14891502]

>>14891469
If God can see all possible futures, then by not doing anything, is in itself an action.

Islam is easier to fake? Fine, this would be a completely separate discussion. What about the Hindu and Buddhist faiths which predate Christianity? I would argue that if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd probably be Muslim, in India, Hindu. It's an accident of birth. Have you researched the other faiths as much as the time you've invested in Christianity? Of course not.

More practical to be Christian? So you're hedging your bet on the risk of punishment? Again this has to do with Pascals wager. It's an unbelievable shallow way to choose your beliefs, even if it's a starting point. Tossing me bible passages is like me tossing you lines from the Rigveda. Again, I'd recommend watching a lot of religious debates on Youtube. A way to progress your beliefs and arguments is by subjecting and sharpening them against continuous scrutiny. Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.14891519]

>>14890232
I'm not a theologian or student of religion, but I read it as something more powerful, that Jesus is communion in action, and how he acts is the way to godliness. To die early, or be quickly killed, is because it no longer matters, he has reached enlightenment, where everyone is forgiven for everything.

[Anonymous No.14891520]

>>14891488
Semantics. I'm going off the traditional meaning and definition of the word. You can have faith and evidence, but when I use the word faith I use it with a specific intent. But be careful not to tear the meaning from the word. And there have been countless religions throughout history and none of them can ever be proven in this world.

[Anonymous No.14891535]

>>14891502
>If God can see all possible futures, then by not doing anything, is in itself an action.
What?
>What about the Hindu and Buddhist faiths which predate Christianity?
Not very convincing, more philosophical and divinely inspired (how do Buddha become enlightened? etc.) Also Christianity is built on Judaism, which is much older, of course.
> It's an unbelievable shallow way to choose your beliefs, even if it's a starting point
Doing what’s good for you is shallow?
> Tossing me bible passages is like me tossing you lines from the Rigveda
I just knew you would say something ignorant like this. You, with your misunderstanding of Pascal, made it seem as though God would see through using the wager. That’s why I posted verses that corrected your view of what God thinks about someone who is trying to seek God. By the way, Pascal said this very clearly. So you see that I wasn’t posting verses as if to prove the Bible is true, or to convince you that the verses are true, but to correct your misunderstanding of the wager, seeking God, etc. But anytime you see verses being posted you immediately respond with the same old thing, like an NPC, no matter the context.

[Anonymous No.14891538]

>>14891535
more philosophical than*

[Anonymous No.14891545]

Believe truth! Shun error!—these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may end by coloring differently our whole intellectual life. We may regard the chase for truth as paramount, and the avoidance of error as secondary; or we may, on the other hand, treat the avoidance of error as more imperative, and let truth take its chance. Clifford, in the instructive passage which I have quoted, exhorts us to the latter course. Believe nothing, he tells us, keep your mind in suspense forever, rather than by closing it on insufficient evidence incur the awful risk of believing lies. You, on the other hand, may think that the risk of being in error is a very small matter when compared with the blessings of real knowledge, and be ready to be duped many times in your investigation rather than postpone indefinitely the chance of guessing true. I myself find it impossible to go with Clifford. We must remember that these feelings of our duty about either truth or error are in any case only expressions of our passional life. Biologically considered, our minds are as ready to grind out falsehood as veracity, and he who says, "Better go without belief forever than believe a lie!" merely shows his own preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe. He may be critical of many of his desires and fears, but this fear he slavishly obeys. He cannot imagine any one questioning its binding force. For my own part, I {19} have also a horror of being duped; but I can believe that worse things than being duped may happen to a man in this world: so Clifford's exhortation has to my ears a thoroughly fantastic sound. It is like a general informing his soldiers that it is better to keep out of battle forever than to risk a single wound. Not so are victories either over enemies or over nature gained. Our errors are surely not such awfully solemn things. In a world where we are so certain to incur them in spite of all our caution, a certain lightness of heart seems healthier than this excessive nervousness on their behalf. At any rate, it seems the fittest thing for the empiricist philosopher.

[Anonymous No.14891551]

>>14891545
So proceeding, we see, first, that religion offers itself as a momentous option. We are supposed to gain, even now, by our belief, and to lose by our non-belief, a certain vital good. Secondly, religion is a forced option, so far as that good goes. We cannot escape the issue by remaining sceptical and waiting for more light, because, although we do avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose the good, if it be true, just as certainly as if we positively chose to disbelieve. It is as if a man should hesitate indefinitely to ask a certain woman to marry him because he was not perfectly sure that she would prove an angel after he brought her home. Would he not cut himself off from that particular angel-possibility as decisively as if he went and married some one else? Scepticism, then, is not avoidance of option; it is option of a certain particular kind of risk. Better risk loss of truth than chance of error,—that is your faith-vetoer's exact position. He is actively playing his stake as much as the believer is; he is backing the field against the religious hypothesis, just as the believer is backing the religious hypothesis against the field. To preach scepticism to us as a duty until {27} 'sufficient evidence' for religion be found, is tantamount therefore to telling us, when in presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our fear of its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down its law. And by what, forsooth, is the supreme wisdom of this passion warranted? Dupery for dupery, what proof is there that dupery through hope is so much worse than dupery through fear? I, for one, can see no proof; and I simply refuse obedience to the scientist's command to imitate his kind of option, in a case where my own stake is important enough to give me the right to choose my own form of risk. If religion be true and the evidence for it be still insufficient, I do not wish, by putting your extinguisher upon my nature (which feels to me as if it had after all some business in this matter), to forfeit my sole chance in life of getting upon the winning side,—that chance depending, of course, on my willingness to run the risk of acting as if my passional need of taking the world religiously might be prophetic and right.

[Anonymous No.14891576]

>>14891551
All this is on the supposition that it really may be prophetic and right, and that, even to us who are discussing the matter, religion is a live hypothesis which may be true. Now, to most of us religion comes in a still further way that makes a veto on our active faith even more illogical. The more perfect and more eternal aspect of the universe is represented in our religions as having personal form. The universe is no longer a mere It to us, but a Thou, if we are religious; and any relation that may be possible from person to person might be possible {28} here. For instance, although in one sense we are passive portions of the universe, in another we show a curious autonomy, as if we were small active centres on our own account. We feel, too, as if the appeal of religion to us were made to our own active good-will, as if evidence might be forever withheld from us unless we met the hypothesis half-way. To take a trivial illustration: just as a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one's word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn,—so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods extort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods' acquaintance. This feeling, forced on us we know not whence, that by obstinately believing that there are gods (although not to do so would be so easy both for our logic and our life) we are doing the universe the deepest service we can, seems part of the living essence of the religious hypothesis. If the hypothesis were true in all its parts, including this one, then pure intellectualism, with its veto on our making willing advances, would be an absurdity; and some participation of our sympathetic nature would be logically required. I, therefore, for one cannot see my way to accepting the agnostic rules for truth-seeking, or wilfully agree to keep my willing nature out of the game. I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. That for me is the long and short of the formal logic of the situation, no matter what the kinds of truth might materially be.

[Anonymous No.14891580]

>>14891175
>Then the incarnation is meaningless, as he could not ultimately relate to us and fix our nature
Exactly my point. It doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.14891642]

>>14890873
What makes you worth saving?

[Anonymous No.14891707]

>>14891580
It doesn't make sense if Christ did not assume the fullness of what it means to be human, yes. The good news is that he did and what you're saying is refuted heresy.

[Anonymous No.14891714]

>>14890232

Atonement is not Scriptural, not Rational. Pauline delirium.

[Anonymous No.14891747]

Jesus is God, becoming man is sacrifice in and of itself. Jesus could have saved the world by getting a paperclip. He chose to do so in a visible and painful way to show his love.

[Anonymous No.14891852]

>>14891747
>Jesus is God
How do you know?
If Jesus was God why did he utter one of his most famous lines in Mark "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani? " - my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

>Jesus could have saved the world by getting a paperclip
what does this even mean

[Anonymous No.14892606]

>>14891852
>How do you know?
He revealed himself to me.

[Anonymous No.14892679]

>>14890803
Why would God betray God?

[Anonymous No.14892690]

>>14890298
Everything gets shat on here, the same way you shat on scientism cucks or koran mudslime threads.
Grow thicker skin.

[Anonymous No.14892718]

>>14892679