/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15438453]

How do theists cope with the fact that giant creatures roamed this earth before us? Why aren't there any mentions of them in the scriptures?

Were they a mistake?

[Anonymous No.15438455]

>>15438453
>Why aren't there any mentions of them in the scriptures?
They're completely irrelevant to our lives.

[Anonymous No.15438458]

'Fossils' were planted by satanists. Any pre-fossil findings were demons.

[Anonymous No.15438482]

>>15438455
>They're completely irrelevant to our lives.
I dunno anon, there sure are a lot of dinosaurs in Congress.

[Anonymous No.15438483]

>>15438455
There are tons of instances of farm animals being mentioned in scripture, and tons of other things just as, and even more mundane. Dinosaurs, which have objectively been proven to have existed, would have been an existential threat to our ancestors. Dealing with them would likely have defined our species' literal existence on a day to day basis. Are you trying to tell me that, in the process dealing with massive groups of carnivorous predators which eclipse humans physically in nearly every dimension, we just forgot to mention it? Did it just slip their minds?

Seems more likely that the people who did the writing of the scriptures simply weren't aware that dinosaurs existed, and because of their ignorance, were free to cook up a narrative which ended up contracting in very concrete ways with reality.

[Anonymous No.15438507]

>>15438483
Not even the paleontologists say that dinosaurs and humans existed together. Farm animals are relevant to humanity today and yesterday. That's why they are mentioned. Dinosaurs are, like that anon says, completely irrelevant to our lives.

[Anonymous No.15438514]

>>15438483
The time gap between dinosaurs and ancient people is in double digit millions.

[Anonymous No.15438542]

>>15438483
t. thinks the biblical day means literal day

[Anonymous No.15438544]

>>15438453
>tfw no pet dinosaur

[Anonymous No.15438608]

>>15438483
You can just feel the atheists smugness ooze from this post.

[Anonymous No.15438609]

>>15438507
>Not even the paleontologists say that dinosaurs and humans existed together
That's literally what I'm saying though. The only real way you can rationalize away the biblical depiction of reality suspiciously coinciding precisely with a freeze frame of the state of the world at the time scriptures were determined to have been created is with some pretty elaborate contrivances, such as magical days that stretch and contract as God wills it (not because it suits their argument) per >>15438542. God supposedly created all animals and humans on the same day. Yes, animals came first, but the issue is that we can actually carbon date dinosaur fossils. What this means is that, with this objectively measurable amount of elapsed time between the extinction if the dinosaurs via fossil record and the beginning of recorded biblical history, we can use this amount of time to estimate how long these "biblical days" actually are. The issue with THAT is that they don't coincide with other observational realities, so there's a definite issue of having your cake and eating it too.

So either humans and dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time and the magical stretchy/contracty Bible day is objectively measurable and bullshit, or they existed at the same time (per Bible logic) and our exhaustively researched scientific methodologies are all really fucking wrong and we should probably go back to square 1.

Which is it?

[Anonymous No.15438613]

>>15438453
TAKE ME BACK TO THE FUCKIN 90S
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLlibrF5DRM

[Anonymous No.15438617]

>>15438507
based

[Anonymous No.15438622]

Atheists got btfo'd years ago by pic related

[Anonymous No.15438644]

>>15438609
The Japanese already solved this with the Devilman manga/anime sweetie.

[Anonymous No.15439118]

>>15438609
>we can actually carbon date
>objectively measurable

[Anonymous No.15439123]

>>15438453
There are some unfortunate incidents that we are not comfortable talking about.

[Anonymous No.15439128]

>>15438609
>scientific methodologies are all really fucking wrong and we should probably go back to square 1
There's no way this is true, anon. No way...

[Anonymous No.15439140]

Bible mentions Leviathan.

[Anonymous No.15439152]

>>15438483
>Did it just slip their minds?
No. Nothing slips God's mind. You have a given view of history you are trying to fit the Bible into. It should be the other way around, scripture defines and guides how we see history, as only the word of God can truly said to be objective. No scientist when pushed hard enough will even grant that actual objective truth or objective past even exist in the first place, so all of his research about the supposed far past can be thrown out.
>because of their ignorance, were free to cook up a narrative
Have you considered that you're doing the same by taking the non-existence of God as a given in your reasoning?

[Anonymous No.15439155]

The same way we’ve coped with heliocentrism and evolution.

[Anonymous No.15439247]

>>15439118
Carbon dating, while imprecise, is far and away good enough when we're dealing with the timescales involved.
>>15439128
What are you even saying? The scientific method is wrong because someone made an image about trannies that you don't like?
>>15439152
Look, I'm not trying to get drawn into a conversation about the existence of God. What I'm trying to say is that there are some really glaring, discrete inconsistencies in the Bible which cannot be reconciled with what we can observe and measure ourselves. What these arguments about uncertainty boil down to is that scientific uncertainty implies God as an alternative explanation, that because you can arbitrarily create a theoretically possible reason which explains gaps in scientific certainty, the collection of these gaps must represent some kind of divine will or at the very least something which can be taken to be an explanation for them. Without knowing your specific brand of reductio ad absurdum, I can't really go much further than this so I'll leave it here.

[Anonymous No.15439256]

>>15438608
Also, I'm not an atheist.

[Anonymous No.15439267]

>>15438453
Why do you assume that theists are necessarily tied down to scriptures that they are not allowed to think beyond?

[Anonymous No.15439273]

>>15439267
Not OP, but lots are. You seem to be implying that you are a theist but not a strict biblicist, and you'd seem to be the first one in this thread. Seems to be a pretty reasonable assumption to me.

[Anonymous No.15439294]

>>15438453
they are not theologically significant.
their existence has no effect for us, morally speaking. they aren't involved in our day to day lives.

[Anonymous No.15439297]

>>15438483
>There are tons of instances of farm animals being mentioned in scripture, and tons of other things just as, and even more mundane. Dinosaurs, which have objectively been proven to have existed, would have been an existential threat to our ancestors. Dealing with them would likely have defined our species' literal existence on a day to day basis. Are you trying to tell me that, in the process dealing with massive groups of carnivorous predators which eclipse humans physically in nearly every dimension, we just forgot to mention it? Did it just slip their minds?
>Seems more likely that the people who did the writing of the scriptures simply weren't aware that dinosaurs existed, and because of their ignorance, were free to cook up a narrative which ended up contracting in very concrete ways with reality.

>>15439247
>Look, I'm not trying to get drawn into a conversation about the existence of God. What I'm trying to say is that there are some really glaring, discrete inconsistencies in the Bible which cannot be reconciled with what we can observe and measure ourselves. What these arguments about uncertainty boil down to is that scientific uncertainty implies God as an alternative explanation, that because you can arbitrarily create a theoretically possible reason which explains gaps in scientific certainty, the collection of these gaps must represent some kind of divine will or at the very least something which can be taken to be an explanation for them. Without knowing your specific brand of reductio ad absurdum, I can't really go much further than this so I'll leave it here.

[Anonymous No.15439321]

>>15439247
>is far and away good
Because a science bug said it?
>with the timescales involved
Do you accept that the bias that such timescales even are historical would influence your scientific research in a way so as to confirm it further?

[Anonymous No.15439325]

>>15438453
2006 internet wants its thread topic back

[Anonymous No.15439330]

>>15439247
>you can arbitrarily create a theoretically possible reason
You're just blindly assuming that this reason (God) is created by us and isn't prior to everything science discusses. Pathetic... Your argumentation literally boils down to "God doesn't exist so modern science (which doesn't even claim to be objective) is true".

[Anonymous No.15439338]

>>15439330
No, that's not actually what I mean. What I mean is what I wrote, not what you seem to be pretending I wrote.

[Anonymous No.15439339]

>>15438483
>There are tons of instances of farm animals being mentioned in scripture, and tons of other things just as, and even more mundane.
>NOOOO WHY DOES GOD MENTION THIS THING BUT NOT THE OTHER THING! I KNOW WHAT GOD NEEDS TO WRITE IN THE FRICKIN BOOK AND HE DOESN"T!!!

[Anonymous No.15439344]

>>15438514
>double digit millions
Science fiction.

>>15439338
Seems pretty accurate to me. You outright deny God as your basis/starting point and naturally reach absurd conclusions without even seeing it.

[Anonymous No.15439350]

Why would I believe in the Earth being millions of years old? What's the actual philosophical argumentation here?

[Anonymous No.15439354]

>>15439321
>the bias that such timescales even are historical
I don't understand what this means.
>>15439344
>You outright deny God as your basis/starting point
Yeah, my "starting point" is logic. Should it be God instead of logic? What are you even trying to say?

[Anonymous No.15439367]

>>15439354
>my "starting point" is logic
Logic is unjustifiable without God. Also, empirical observation and a bugmanistic scientstic ethos seems to your starting point instead of immaterial objective logic (which on its own could lead you nowhere and would trap you in your mind).

[Anonymous No.15439374]

>>15438453
they turn them into myths. our legends of monsters roaming the earth, like the cyclops, the minotaur, pegaus, unicorns and the like, are the ancients' way of rationalising dinosaur bones that they found.
they don't appear in the bible probably because the bronze age/iron age goatherders who made up the stories didn't know about such things

[Anonymous No.15439375]

>>15439354
>Yeah, my "starting point" is logic.

[Anonymous No.15439382]

>>15439354
>I don't understand what this means.
That you put blinders on the moment you accept such timescales to be historically relevant to our universe.

[Anonymous No.15439384]

>>15439350
>Why would I believe in the Earth being millions of years old?
why do you have to be so wilfully stupid? what's the philosophical reason for that?

[Anonymous No.15439385]

>>15438453
imagine having more faith in jurassic park and false evidence produced by a bunch of fag scientists looking for fame and funding than the inspired Word of God and the traditions of His Church.

[Anonymous No.15439388]

>>15439384
I am just being a skeptic. Isn't that what modern people were supposed to do?

[Anonymous No.15439390]

>>15438453
Read Job. What are Behemoth? Leviathan? Ziz?

>Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This is how they cope I would imagine.

[Anonymous No.15439397]

>NOOOOOO THE FIRST HUMAN WHO GOD CREATED WOULDN"T KNOW THE TRUE AGE OF HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN WOULD ACTUALLY FORGET THE YEARS OF THEIR LIVES AND THE YEARS OF THEIR PARENTS LIVES!! ITS ALL FAKE!

[Anonymous No.15439407]

>>15439388
why are you a skeptic? what's the reason for it? how do i know you even exist, anon (if that's even your real name)?

[Anonymous No.15439423]

>>15439407
Because I mindlessly doubt established truths like the modern man has said to do.

[Anonymous No.15439432]

>>15439407
Does that concern your life much?

[Anonymous No.15439438]

Why yes, I do hold that the incarnation happened in the year 5509 since the beginning of time, what gave it away?

[Anonymous No.15439439]

>>15439432
not at all

>>15439423
ok anon tomorrow morning when you leave the house, jump out of the upstairs window instead of going out of the front door. i mean fuck gravity it's just a theory

[Anonymous No.15439443]

I'll put it bluntly. If you believe in dinosaurs you cannot believe in the Abrahamic God who created all of earth, including fish, animals and the plants for people to rule over and consume. And don't get me started on Genesis being a metaphor because that is a terrible argument and it would imply that absolutely nothing in the Bible can be taken as factual. Also, dinosaurs don't fit into the intelligent design narrative.

[Anonymous No.15439444]

>>15439382
These are literally the timescales I'm talking about.
>>15439367
Okay, you've read Kant I guess. Do you want to actually speak words that have any meaning beyond it except some kind of TAG garbage?

[Anonymous No.15439465]

>>15438514
But according to the biblical timeline the world would be only a few thousand years old, the generations after Adam and the years they lived is all detailed in genesis. Unless you're saying the bible is wrong ofc.

[Anonymous No.15439484]

>>15439443
Even if dinosaurs existed, they will not eat me, but the God can smite me. Sort of Pascal's wager.

[Anonymous No.15439498]

>>15439350
why should you believe planes fly?

[Anonymous No.15439504]

>>15439498
This is a really poor take.

[Anonymous No.15439508]

>>15439498
Because I see it directly due to the sight gifted to me by God.

[Anonymous No.15439512]

>>15439484
So basically all Christians/Jews/Muslims are practicing their religion out of fear? What is the point of preaching about God's love then?

[Anonymous No.15439528]

>>15439444
>These are literally the timescales I'm talking about.
You accept as your starting point that they are relevant to our universe, the actual one we live in, as in the universe is actually older than ~7000 years. This will immediately lead you to all sorts of absurdities like God not existing or the Holy Bible and its traditional interpretation by the Church being false.
>you've read Kant
No. Couldn't care less about post-enlightenment thought. It's a complete waste of my time.

[Anonymous No.15439541]

>>15439508
Same way you can look at a star a million light-years away. How many years does it take for light to travel a million light-years?

[Anonymous No.15439547]

>>15438542
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15439555]

>>15439541
>million light-years
didn't that just mean that light would have to travel millions of years to get from there? why assume the fallen world has the same physical constants/laws?

[Anonymous No.15439571]

>>15439330
It's just hitting me how fucking monumentally retarded this response is to what I said. You then go on to just regurgitate Kant. And I took you seriously. I need to stop giving every retard with a stern tone and a novel concept the benefit of the doubt. Kant is just your fucking safety blanket. It's your shortcut to independent thought. I'm not even saying Kant is wrong, because I know you're going to interpret it this way. I'm saying you are a fucking idiot, and no matter how many times you drop other people's arguments, that's never going to change.

Fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.15439576]

>>15438544
Just get an alligator
Basically a dinosaur

[Anonymous No.15439578]

>>15439571
>Fuck off retard.
the kiddie is triggered.
lmao.

[Anonymous No.15439587]

>>15439140
It doesn't take much imagination to dream up a giant snake. You take one of humankind's most commonly feared animals and you make it extra large. Besides, it's not even close to how large carnivorous dinosaurs actually looked.

[Anonymous No.15439594]

>>15438609
Or maybe don’t take Genesis literally, and this wouldn’t be a problem? Are there really Christians on this board that think the universe is 4000 years old and that Adam and Eve is a historical account?

[Anonymous No.15439597]

>>15439528
>You accept as your starting point that they are relevant to our universe, the actual one we live in, as in the universe is actually older than ~7000 years. This will immediately lead you to all sorts of absurdities like God not existing or the Holy Bible and its traditional interpretation by the Church being false.
I've given you way too much credit multiple times. Fool me twice.

[Anonymous No.15439600]

>>15438453

They argue that they didn't exist, & that fossils are there as one of the devil's tricks.

[Anonymous No.15439614]

>>15439571
You got pwned because your working philosophy is basic bitch reddit groupthink and now you're lashing out like an irate toddler.
Go watch another Dawkins speech.

[Anonymous No.15439621]

>>15438483
>objectively been proven
Maybe God put the evidence there April 1st, 1657?

[Anonymous No.15439629]

>>15439512
You can love your parents even if they can punish you in some ways.

[Anonymous No.15439630]

>>15438453
i dont believe in the old earth

[Anonymous No.15439662]

>>15439614
>God doesn't exist so modern science (which doesn't even claim to be objective) is true
Explain to me exactly why you think the argument I made in this post >>15439247 "boils down" to what I've quoted. What is the precise mechanism you used to "boil down" what I said to that? How is it justified? Please, present an actual argument with actual justifications behind it. I'm so fucking sick of you retarded internet ideologues hinting at and implying arguments instead of actually making arguments. Put up or shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.15439664]

>>15439388
Skeptics don't just ask dumb little questions. They actually research the ideas they criticize.

>>15439423
>modern man
I've got bad news for you if you think blindly following ideas is some recent invention.

[Anonymous No.15439674]

>>15439662
Why are you putting "boils down" in quotes when I never used that phrase, retard?

[Anonymous No.15439676]

>>15439443
>Genesis being a metaphor because that is a terrible argument and it would imply that absolutely nothing in the Bible can be taken as factual.
Explain why you have to take everything in the Bible completely literally. Wouldn’t that be placing the Bible as the absolute above God; a form of idolatry? Why can’t I just take the account of Jesus as historical and then take the stories of the Old Testament as parables and allegories?

[Anonymous No.15439687]

>>15439674
Please make an argument. Any argument. An actual argument. Please, someone actually address literally anything I've said with an actual response. I'm shouting into the void.

[Anonymous No.15439705]

>>15439571
>Kant is just your fucking safety blanket
I've never read the guy and would consider him of the same bugman cloth as you.

[Anonymous No.15439711]

>>15439594
>don’t take Genesis literally
Condemned as heresy. See third point below.
>4000 years old
7528 years*
>Adam and Eve is a historical account
Yes, otherwise nothing makes sense in Christ's life.

[Anonymous No.15439712]

>>15439705
/pol/ really was the death of free thought on 4chan, wasn't it?

[Anonymous No.15439714]

>>15438453
Not a problem.

[Anonymous No.15439716]

>>15439687
>Please make an argument. Any argument. An actual argument. Please, someone actually address literally anything I've said with an actual response. I'm shouting into the void.

[Anonymous No.15439731]

>>15439711
You shouldn't take Genesis figuratively since it's heresy, but you can take it literally figuratively.

[Anonymous No.15439742]

>>15439711
away with you Protestant, Catholics and the Orthodox dab on your biblical literalism

[Anonymous No.15439769]

>>15439742
No they don't . Read the church fathers. Origen was condemned for not taking it litteraly.

[Anonymous No.15439781]

>>15439676
>Why can’t I just take the account of Jesus as historical and then take the stories of the Old Testament as parables and allegories?
Because it is inconsistent with how Christ himself views the scripture, referring to an actual David and an actual Abraham. It doesn't even make sense to use the terms "Christ" and "Son of David" if the lineages are simply allegories. Also if there is no original sin then Christ's passion is meaningless.

>>15439742
>Orthodox dab on your biblical literalism
Sure, in the sense that we deny the false dialectic between literal and figurative. Genesis is both literally a historical account and prophetic/symbolic, pointing towards the future incarnation of God.

[Anonymous No.15439789]

>>15439676
The only proper way to learn of the Abrahamic God is through the Bible, through the word of God. If that book is accurate in its depiction of God(or its depiction of Christ, as you believe), why would it be inaccurate in anything else it says?

> Why can’t I just take the account of Jesus as historical and then take the stories of the Old Testament as parables and allegories?

You can't take the account of Jesus as historical as there is no historical record he existed. You can only believe he existed. If you believe he existed and performed all the miracles that was said of him, why is it so hard for you to believe in the old testament?

[Anonymous No.15439796]

>Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law.Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.

(Romans 5:12-15)

If you want to deny the numerous passages about Adam in the New Testament, you fall into relativism and an inability to know anything about Christ, instantly denying his divinity and ability to protect His teachings from corruption.

[Anonymous No.15439803]

>>15439676
The bible is the word of God, retard, as in literally the word of God. You fucking LARPers are the worst.

[Anonymous No.15439810]

>>15439742
I don't get why a movement made 1500 years after the fact insists that they are legitimate.

[Anonymous No.15439817]

>>15439789
>as there is no historical record he existed

[Anonymous No.15439877]

completely figurative interpretations of Genesis are a pagan neo-platonistic invention, only pagans allegorized everything away because they couldn't understand the revealed truths inherent in the Hebraic mindset.

it's the same in modernity really, modern polytheism is worshiping atoms with scientists as high priests. they can't see how God's word has authority over their own words, which even by their own logic have no power behind them.

[Anonymous No.15439897]

>>15439817
This is a circular argument.

Give me an evidence thats not from the Bible. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.15439903]

>>15439877
>completely figurative interpretations of Genesis are a pagan neo-platonistic invention, only pagans allegorized everything away because they couldn't understand the revealed truths inherent in the Hebraic mindset.
Completely backwards.
Completely empirical interpretations of Genesis are a modernist imposition.

[Anonymous No.15439916]

>>15439769
So I looked it up and from what I’ve gathered it seems that Origen was censured long after he was dead and mostly for political reasons. I learned that the Second Crisis was more about his later followers and that a lot of the weird discrepancies in the surviving documents of the time come from people adding things in after the fact. In fact I read that since we lost so much of his stuff that we can’t even be sure that he held “heretical” beliefs in the first place

[Anonymous No.15439924]

>>15439897
>This is a circular argument.
Give me a non-circular argument that circular arguments are bad.

[Anonymous No.15439930]

>>15439903
>Completely empirical
Same thing. Empiricism is false, so it's a figurative way of looking at truth.

>>15439916
>we can’t even be sure that he held “heretical” beliefs in the first place
Yeah. It can't be that knowledgeable believing people condemned him for actual heretical beliefs and it can't be that modern atheist scholars have an agenda in trying to poison the truth of Christianity and the "uncomfortable" fact that Origen's universal salvation is false.

[Anonymous No.15439934]

>>15439916
>surviving documents
>we can’t even be sure
>long after he was dead

[Anonymous No.15439956]

>>15439465
Many Christians, even very early Christians like Augustine, did not believe in a literal 6 day creation. Those scriptures are not written like a dry history, they are written like poetry.

[Anonymous No.15439975]

>>15439897
Even Wikipedia has that.

[Anonymous No.15439991]

>>15439956
At least read the city of God before posting about Augustine. He believed in 6 day creation but was not sure what exactly was a day before the sun was created.

[Anonymous No.15440045]

>>15439930
>>15439934
Look niggas I just learned about this stuff like half an hour ago because I’d figured I should make up for my shitposting earlier, so please cut me some slack. I’m not qualified to uncover atheist conspiracies but from what I’ve seen it seems that even today quite a number of christian theologists hold Origen to a high esteem and that most people don’t have any problems with the contents of his available texts. I did find it funny that a bishop once accused Origen of castrating himself, which I imagine is a very easy accusation to disprove

[Anonymous No.15440046]

>>15439555
According to genesis, stars were introduced in patch 4.0, after earth.

[Anonymous No.15440070]

>>15438453
dude, God is mysterious lol

[Anonymous No.15440152]

>>15438453
How do offtopic posters find themselves incapable of stopping retardation and reading books to post about literature? This is at best a /his/ thread, take it there faggot, but they'll call you a retard for posting shitty bait too.
Everyone must sage

[Anonymous No.15440349]

>>15439443
>it would imply that absolutely nothing in the Bible can be taken as factual

So?

[Anonymous No.15440352]

>>15438482
hehe

[Anonymous No.15440356]

>>15440349
>So?

[Anonymous No.15440618]

>>15438453
sorry but Noah's boat was full

[Anonymous No.15440968]

>>15440618
based. dinoniggers are not welcome.

[Anonymous No.15440974]

Science concerns the particular. The Bible concerns the absolute.

In fact I would ask, how do scientists cope with the truth that whatever they discover or model will be rejected one day, that nothing they 'know' today is actually the truth?

[Anonymous No.15440975]

>>15440618
>NOOO THERES A BIG FOOTPRINT IT FRICKIN MUST BE A HECKIN SCIENCE DINOSAURINO!

[Anonymous No.15440983]

>>15438453
Noah's Ark. Same with unicorns.

[Anonymous No.15441363]

>there are still unironical creationists in 2020
um... kinda based?

[Anonymous No.15441615]

>>15441363
>he unironically believes that this creation has no creator
LMAO

[Anonymous No.15441737]

>>15439118
>>15439297
>>15439339
>>15439375
>>15439397
>>15439716
>>15439934
>>15440356
>>15440975

Why do people argue like this in anno domini 2020?
What can anyone possibly get from these posts?

[Anonymous No.15442361]

>>15439781
>referring to an actual David and an actual Abraham
Ok, so I cede that there existed an actual lineage of people from David, Abraham etc but that the stories told were allegorical. Is this still in contradiction?
>Also if there is no original sin then Christ's passion is meaningless.
Why can’t Adam and Eve just be a story to illustrate how humans are inherently sinful, and inherently drawn towards sin?
> The bible is the word of God, retard, as in literally the word of God. You fucking LARPers are the worst.
I’m not Christian, just enquiring. And I’m gonna need a theological basis for saying the Bible is the literal word of God, like the Qur’an, which I highly doubt to be the case given the nature of the Gospels and other books written by actual people.

[Anonymous No.15442382]

>>15439594
There are many religious writers throughout history who have, including Roger Bacon and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Evolution may be bullshit

[Anonymous No.15442407]

>>15439547
Based. Presup these science nerds booties.

[Anonymous No.15442431]

>>15439711
>>don’t take Genesis literally
>Condemned as heresy. See third point below.
>>Adam and Eve is a historical account
>Yes, otherwise nothing makes sense in Christ's life.

I’m assuming you’re referring to original sin here, since you didn’t bother to elaborate. Like I said above, why do we need a mythological story to assert that humans are inherently sinful? This is the case whether or not the Adam and Eve story actually took place, no human dies without sinning against God (except maybe babies, in which case this interpretation makes more sense because the just God doesn’t have to send them to hell or purgatory or whatever).

[Anonymous No.15443527]

>>15442361
>but that the stories told were allegorical
What is your method for consistently determining the difference between literal and allegorical passages? Do you also allegorize away the highly detailed instructions on how to physically build the tabernacle and make the priestly garments? It seems like you are looking for allegorical interpretations for the parts you are uncomfortable with because you assume from the outset that the events cannot be real and that God doesn't have the power to make previous history a symbol for future events.

Christ and the apostles constantly refer to events in the Pentateuch (such as the exodus from Egypt) as if they were actually and literally real.

>Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

>Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
>This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.

Doesn't seem like the Jews consider Christ's statements an allegory. They're taking things extremely literally and don't doubt the events in their own nation's history like a modern skeptic would.

[Anonymous No.15443783]

>>15441737
get with the times boomer everyone is a snarky faggot now

[Anonymous No.15443790]

>>15443783
>if I call everybody else a boomer they won't know I'm a boomer
Close your eyes to turn invisible, neat life hack btw.

[Anonymous No.15443838]

>>15443790
That is literally my first post in this thread retard what the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.15443992]

cope

[Anonymous No.15444040]

>>15438453
Nobody believes in the Bible in this day and age, anybody who claims to is either LARPing or ignorant of what it says. Read Genesis, God didn't "create" the universe in any kind of way that makes sense to modern humans (e.g The Big Bang). Rather, he created dry-land (Eretz) by diverting the primordial ocean (Tehom) away from the land and installing a crystal dome (Raqia) to create a pocket of breathable air. In the world according to the Bible there are no "space" or "time" or "distant stars and planets" because these concepts didn't exist to the men who wrote the stories, according to the Biblical worldview the Universe is nothing but a small region of lands and oceans, the crystal dome which hangs above them and the pillars which hold the whole structure up. Beyond that there is nothing but the Primeval waters and God himself. Nobody believes that nowadays, nobody can believe in that, even the most ignorant person.

[Anonymous No.15444133]

>>15444040
>distant stars and planets
>space
>time

>these concepts didn't exist

[Anonymous No.15444180]

How do athiests cope with the fact they are illiterate and willingly ignorant?

>>15438483
Yeah they just forgot to mention it, stupid fuck

“Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16
What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17
Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18
Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19
It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20
The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21
Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22
The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23
A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24
Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?

[Anonymous No.15444201]

>>15444040
>Biblical worldview
>implying letters of a text themselves present a worldview
>implying you aren't being a bugman protestant by interpreting the words however you like

[Anonymous No.15444203]

>>15444133
>distant stars and planets
They are no more then LED lights, embedded in the crystal dome, by Biblical cannon.
>space
>time
>these concepts didn't exist
The authors did not understand these things the way we do, as things that have a starting point (the Big Bang),When Genesis starts, there is only water and God, this is because they assumed water to be the primordial substance out of which all things are made.

I suggest you spend less time bashing your Bible and more time reading it (if possible, read it side-by-side with a book on Sumerian mythology and the parallels will become apparent).

[Anonymous No.15444209]

>>15444040
>no "space" or "time" or "distant stars and planets" because these concepts didn't exist to the men who wrote the stories
Uhh, those concepts existed among men thousands of years before Christ.

[Anonymous No.15444212]

>>15444040
Your point of view is just as limited as the ancients'.

[Anonymous No.15444222]

>>15444203
Seems youve fallen for flat earth shill material.
Even if you werent stupid enough to become a flat earther, you were stupid enough to let them influence your opinions. Sorry anon.

[Anonymous No.15444248]

>>15444209
>Uhh, those concepts existed among men thousands of years before Christ.

Of course they did, but the author of Genesis saw no need to deploy them, because he did not conceive of God as the creator of all reality as we do now, he conceived of him as the surface and sky of the Earth, because to the author of the Bible, the surface and sky of the Earth was the whole of reality.

>>15444212
Elaborate

>>15444222
I'm not defending the reality of the Bible, quite the contrary, I'm underlining how primitive it's worldview is and how impossible it is for any modern human to believe in it. I know the Earth is round and I quite agree with yourself, anybody who claims to believe this rot is a liar and a fool.

[Anonymous No.15444299]

>>15444203
>They are no more then LED lights
>Biblical cannon

[Anonymous No.15444318]

>>15444248
>Elaborate
3000 years from now people will condemn you more for what you believe than you condemn your ancestors. (If they are as unenlightened as you that is)

But they will still believe in Christ, His message, and the Bible. I guarantee it.

[Anonymous No.15444348]

>>15441737
Preserving their dreams and illusions

[Anonymous No.15444378]

>>15444299
You can post pictures of rotund fellows in funny hats all you want, you're only proving me right. You, yourself don't believe in the Bible, but you'd like to think you do.
>>15444318
Condemn my ancestors? I have not said one word against the Celtic peoples. I haven't said anything offensive about anybody's ancestors, in fact. It's not derogatory to point out that people, who had no way of knowing better, were not acquainted with Cosmogony, Orbital Mechanics, Atomic Physics and a variety of other things which have only existed for a short time in human history.

[Anonymous No.15444432]

>>15444378
The point is obviously lost on you, but I'll try again.

Why do you suppose people thought that the sun goes round the earth instead of the other way around?
Because that what it looks like.
Well, what would you expect it to look like if it were the other way around?

[Anonymous No.15444442]

>>15444180
>the one part of the bible which is allegorical
>he interprets it literally

facepalm

[Anonymous No.15444510]

>>15444432
I understand that Ancient peoples had good reason for their beliefs. That is, in fact, what I am most trying to emphasise. They were theorising in the absence of facts. Some people seem to think that I'm vituperating the Ancient Canaanites, but I'm not. It was reasonable for the people of Ancient Canaan to believe that the sky was a crystal dome. It was reasonable for the people of Ancient Greece to believe that volcanoes were the forge of Hephaestus. It was reasonable for the Nordic peoples to believe the thunder was the sound of Thor smashing a troll with his hammer. If I was around back then, I can tell you honestly, I would believe all these things, because I would have no way of knowing better. Nowadays, we do. We do know better. We don't even have to put in any effort to know better, even the least educated man in the first world knows that Volcanoes aren't forges and that the sky is not a crystal dome with a cosmic ocean above it. Therefore, we cannot believe the way the people of the past did, those days are gone, we can't go back. That is what I am saying, anybody who says he believes the Bible is true is lying. He does not believe the Bible, he believes his own interpretation of the Bible which reinterprets all the words so that the original meanings are lost and that's not believing in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.15444533]

>>15444040
protestardism was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.15444551]

>>15439152
"No scientist when pushed hard enough will even grant that actual objective truth or objective past even exist in the first place, so all of his research about the supposed far past can be thrown out"
>fuck science just thump the bible
you're dumb as shit

[Anonymous No.15444572]

>>15444510
Again, the point is lost on you.
>They were theorising in the absence of facts.
Your facts are nothing but lifeless corpses.

[Anonymous No.15444581]

>>15439742
Actual date may be irrelevant to Orthodoxy and seven days may be a symbolism (it is considered as such, seeing that we are in the seventh day), but no Orthodox would deny Adam and Eve's existence.

[Anonymous No.15444590]

>>15444533
No, I'm not a Christian of any sort.
>>15444572
Prey tell, what is wrong with my facts? Have I misused any of the Hebrew words? Is my knowledge of the Ancient Near East inaccurate in some way? This isn't an aggravating troll-post, I mean this sincerely, if you have new facts on the matter of Jewish history I would like to know them, because it's interesting.

[Anonymous No.15444622]

>>15439956
>Those scriptures are not written like a dry history, they are written like poetry.
That is just a nicer way of saying they are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15444722]

>>15444590
>No, I'm not a Christian of any sort.

[Anonymous No.15444735]

It can be argued they are in the Bible. Behemoth, in the Book of Job, for instance.

Whether or not they existed,or even walked among men like in the Flintstones, doesn't necessarily refute anything.

Before anyone accuses me of beliefs, one way or another, I should add that I really have no fucking clue, regarding dinosaurs. But it's definitely not what modern science suggests.

I never used to question it before, but there does seem to be some references in the Old Testament. They're ambiguous, and not 100% clear the creatures in question truly are dinosaurs, but it shouldn't be overlooked. Either they really did exist among men, for a period of time, (as retarded as that sounds) or it's a massive coincidence, on too great of a scale for me to accept.

Also, read up on what radiocarbon dating entails. The more you read up on the process, the less likely it seems that it's actually possible to preserve things that old.
If they ever existed, I think a lot of the so-called fossils, are illegitimate. As in, they're arbitrarily putting together a bunch of bones, that are not meant to fit together. The vast majority of them, are admitted to be incomplete. It's to the point of knowing what they would look like, being an impossibility. Like people coming up with complex designs based on a few bones. In fact, some of the dinosaurs that were proven to be fakes, are still taught, for no clear reason. They brush this aside, and it troubles me that I cannot fathom why.

Also, the notion of them being from 65 Million years ago, just doesn't seem realistic to me, anymore. If they ever existed, I'm guessing they're in the ballpark of 5-7 thousand years ago. Could be a couple thousand more. That estimation is just a shot in the dark. My point is, they're in the thousands, not millions.

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.15444736]

>>15438482
kek'd

[Anonymous No.15444740]

>>15444722
Am I to understand that you are a Christian of some sort? What would Jesus think of such behaviour?

[Anonymous No.15444752]

This thread is hilarious. Retard christians trying to rationalize away dinosaurs, carbon dating, and hebrew language, all while getting absolutely destroyed over and over everytime they post. Christians literally admitting everything in the bible is retarded ("poetic", "hypothetical", they say) and CONTINUING AFTER to submissively worship it. I guess we found out who the real mindless bugs were.

[Anonymous No.15444770]

>>15444735
>My point is, they're in the thousands, not millions.
Same can be said of any date lol
"Millions of years" is literally sci-fi tier once you open your mind to the idea that bugmen might be wrong.

[Anonymous No.15444771]

>>15439155
Both are false. Evolution is a bad joke and Wolfgang Smith btfo heliocentrism.

[Anonymous No.15444784]

>>15444771
>Wolfgang Smith btfo heliocentrism
How did he BTFO it? Is it a based philosophical argument or a cringe empirical one?

[Anonymous No.15444828]

>>15438453
God placed their bones in the Earth to test our faith.

[Anonymous No.15444843]

>>15438609
>The only real way you can rationalize away the biblical depiction of reality suspiciously coinciding precisely with a freeze frame of the state of the world at the time scriptures were determined to have been created is with some pretty elaborate contrivances
can you explain what you are trying to say here

[Anonymous No.15444855]

>>15438609
>scientific methodologies are all really fucking wrong and we should probably go back to square 1
>Which is it?
Didn't even read the other option, but this is it.

[Anonymous No.15444858]

>>15444828
That's a pretty cruel trick to play on mankind, lives are at stake, eternal lives. It doesn't sound like God likes humanity at all.

[Anonymous No.15444861]

>>15444828
seems more believable than evolution at least.

[Anonymous No.15444862]

>>15444843
I think they're trying to say they don't know how to read the Bible.

[Anonymous No.15444872]

>>15438453
Entropy is a product of the fall, and thus makes our concept time apart of the fall. I don't deny evolution, but I doubt that it happened in the time frame that we say it did and I don't believe it will continue. Humanity is the end of evolution. There's my answer.
t. Theist

[Anonymous No.15444879]

>>15439443
>Jesus speaks in metaphors and riddles half the time
>people unfamiliar with His work sperg out over much of the Old Testament being either metaphorical or written with some degree of poetic license

[Anonymous No.15444892]

>>15444858
If you’re tricked by science you never had faith in God in the first place. It’s not the Bible which is out of line with science, it’s science with the Biblical truth.

[Anonymous No.15444900]

>>15444892
Serious question from an inquiring mind: how do you explain the space program?

[Anonymous No.15444902]

>>15444892
>It’s not the Bible which is out of line with science, it’s science with the Biblical truth.

[Anonymous No.15444906]

>>15444900
>he thinks humans have gone to space
NASA does nothing but lie

[Anonymous No.15444917]

>>15438453
Religion fags are so used to lying to themselves that they roll off and explain away like second nature. It doesn’t matter what.

[Anonymous No.15444918]

>>15444906
I was hoping for a little more detail about how you believe they did it, do you believe, for example, that the launch pad at Coco Beach was a closed set? Or do you believe that Coco Beach never even existed? That sort of specificity is what I'm looking for.

[Anonymous No.15444928]

>>15444917
They are — dare I say it — the Jews of truth.

[Anonymous No.15444934]

>>15444861
Sure mom

[Anonymous No.15445041]

hold up, if god was real than that means dinosuars are not real? but dinosaur bones are real so god is not real? therefore god does not exist?

[Anonymous No.15445053]

>>15438542
It has to. That or the whole thing is a metaphor.

[Anonymous No.15445076]

>>15445053
The authors didn't know that the sun was the cause of daylight, they assumed light and darkness came by divine will. That's the meaning of the passage "God separated light from dark". This is also why the Sabbath is such an important day, it's not just the result of the planet's rotation to the Israelite, it is literally God's divine construction.

[Anonymous No.15445207]

>>15444784
>Rather, he argues that, according to the theory of relativity, both heliocentrism and geocentrism have scientific merit, insofar as scientific observation depends upon the reference frame of the observer. Consequently, any observations made from Earth (or any near-Earth satellites) are in effect geocentric.

[Anonymous No.15445215]

>>15444872
>I don't deny evolution

[Anonymous No.15445232]

>>15444872
eh kinda based but evolution is gnostic garbage

[Anonymous No.15445251]

>>15445232
Honest question in good faith: Where do you suppose the Garden of Eden is located, physically? Previous generations of Christians have speculated on this matter but they were using T and O maps as reference, so their results are unusable, I'd like a modern perspective on the question.

[Anonymous No.15445398]

>>15445251
>Where do you suppose the Garden of Eden is located, physically?
somewhere around the general middle east region. nobody knows today. Adam was buried at Calvary/Golgotha though.

>I'd like a modern perspective
why? what makes modern bugpeople better at determining theological truths?

[Anonymous No.15445460]

>>15445398
>somewhere around the general middle east region.

Are you never tempted to go looking for it? You wouldn't be able to get in, of course, but even a distant photograph of it would change humanity forever. There's a "Star Trek" episode where some hippies hijack the Star-ship Enterprise because they think Eden is a planet and they want to see it, I always thought, if I were a believer, that's exactly what I'd do.

>Adam was buried at Calvary/Golgotha though.

Not a believer in "The Life of Adam and Eve", then? I know it's non-canonical, but, in my opinion, it's one of the best works of Judeo-Christian literature ever written, I cried when God buried Adam, he kept his promise: "From dust you came and to dust you will return."

>why? what makes modern bugpeople better at determining theological truths?

The people of the Dark Ages may have been good at theology, but were very bad at Geography, they assumed the Earth was perfectly divided into quarters, with Europe and Africa taking up a quarter each and Asia taking up the remaining half, A modern day believer has a much better chance of placing the Garden then even the smartest Dark Ages thinker, because he has accurate maps to work from.

[Anonymous No.15445483]

>>15438453
They were around for 150 million years.
Can you imagine how long that is?
150 million years.

[Anonymous No.15445508]

>bugman this, bugman that
>everything the Bible says is true because the Bible says it
>there's nothing wrong with circular logic because logic presupposes God and therefore cannot be used to disprove it
>because God exists, he must exist precisely in the capacity that the Bible says it does
Am I missing anything? Putting together a /lit/ theology starter pack

[Anonymous No.15445569]

>>15445508
Ultimately correct.

[Anonymous No.15445922]

Why don't religious people launch fireworks upwards to prove that the Firmament exists? If I believed in this stuff, that's the first thing I'd do, then I'd take a photograph of the firework impacting the Firmament and I'd send it to Yoko Ono with a note attached which read: "Above us only sky, INDEED!"

[Anonymous No.15445934]

>>15438453
They cope by pretending it’s all metaphorical

[Anonymous No.15445954]

>>15443527
They are obviously supposed to be taken literally but biblical literalism is untenable to modern day “theist” read parts of the Bible as allegorical. Theology is a folk science so there’s no way they can be wrong (or right). It’s simply reinterpreting the Bible to be more coherent with our modern age. You’re asking for logic behind this but there is none

[Anonymous No.15445967]

>>15444735
A massive cope

[Anonymous No.15445976]

>>15445207
Theory of relativity doesn’t mean epicycles have merit, no

[Anonymous No.15446027]

>>15445954
Their logic is that logic cannot exist without God, and that therefore logic cannot be used to disprove it. They do have logic, it's just an insoluble paradox because if the existence of logic presupposes God, it cannot exist without God, and therefore disproving God would be disproving logic, using the system which presupposes him and cannot exist without him. What I don't get is where the certainty comes from, because this line of thinking supports agnosticism rather than a proof in either direction. We cannot logically disprove the existence of God if we accept that logic presupposes him, but it's circular logic and cannot be explicitly true for all real cases.

The part that has precisely no logic to it is attaching biblical narrative to the concept of God. While there are good arguments for there being some form of God as a possible existence, there are no good arguments for God being precisely as depicted in the Bible. The only people who sincerely believe that the Bible has any connection to the proof of God are idiots, and their opinions should be discarded.

[Anonymous No.15446093]

>>15438453
i'm pretty sure a theist came up with the concept. how do you cope with that?

[Anonymous No.15446115]

>>15446093
How do I cope with evidence that not all theists are fucking retards? Amazingly well.

[Anonymous No.15446160]

>>15446027
Philosophy is also a folk science, but I obviously meant actual biblical god of everyday people and not the abstract ontological blob that online philosophy nerds think is at all relevant to our everyday employment of thinking.

[Anonymous No.15446644]

get in here and get fit faggots
https://discord.gg/eHPyAc3

[Anonymous No.15446762]

>>15438483
There are no references to cats in the Bible. Does that mean that they didn't exist?

[Anonymous No.15447134]

>>15438608
not an argument

[Anonymous No.15447345]

>>15446762
>I read one sentence and decided to reply

[Anonymous No.15447362]

>>15438542
this level of cope lmao

[Anonymous No.15447382]

>>15442382
dude we literally see evolution even now in things, even different species of wolves and dogs how they adjusted to their environments. you know what a dog is right

[Anonymous No.15447398]

>>15444843
I said what I meant. The point of that comment is to hint at the idea that if we cut out the obviously fantastical elements, what the Bible depicts is a mostly mundane world, and that's before diving deeply. For all its pretensions of voicing the word of God, the Bible has no better a conception of things than we could have reasonably expected to at the time. Additionally, many of the things it pretends to know are measurably, objectively false and require a liberal application of deus ex machina to even come close to a reasonable statement.

[Anonymous No.15447967]

>>15439956
Remember: it's allegorical when convenient and literal when it's not.

[Anonymous No.15447985]

>>15441737
It's one, maybe two guys. He does it in every single thread about christianity or the bible. He's got a soijak collection and he just picks one at random and quotes entire posts. Seriously, just look at the archives. I know it's one guy because most soijakers don't quote entire posts when they do it, they just do one or two lines, or include their own snarky greentext strawman. Reporting them for "This post is extremely low quality." or "Spamming/flooding" usually works. Now just wait a while, he'll do it to this post too.

[Anonymous No.15448004]

>>15439374
>our legends of monsters roaming the earth, like the cyclops, the minotaur, pegaus, unicorns and the like, are the ancients' way of rationalising dinosaur bones that they found.
That's just conjecture.

[Anonymous No.15448021]

>>15439385
>Word of God and the traditions of His Church.
This. There is no God but God and Mohammed (pbuh) is his prophet.

[Anonymous No.15448393]

From Matthew 27:
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.

48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

>51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

>52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

>53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

What other historical accounts are there of the dead literally rising from their graves and walking around Jerusalem?

[Anonymous No.15448407]

>>15438482
underrated

[Anonymous No.15449590]

>>15446762
It certainly casts doubt on the story of Exodus, it simply would not have been possible to visit Ancient Egypt without seeing a house cat. The land of Canaan, however where the Bible was written, has no cats at all.

[Anonymous No.15449631]

>>15444442
So what does the Behemoth represent in your view?

[Anonymous No.15450277]

>>15449590
Literally
>Pharaoh, in turn, summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same thing by their magic arts. Each one threw down his staff, and they turned into serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed their staffs.
>Then Pharoahs heccin caterino swatted at the serpent.

Why would mentioning a cat be necessary to the story being told?

[Anonymous No.15450341]

>>15438455
They literally provide our energy.

[Anonymous No.15450347]

>>15450277
If you visited a strange new land, filled with creatures the like of which you had never seen before, would you not note their existence? Think of it this way, if some crackpot claimed that the Ancient Egyptians had discovered Australia, one of the first questions that would be asked by serious historians is: "Why have we yet to find any depictions of Kangaroos in Ancient Egyptian artwork?"

[Anonymous No.15450664]

>>15450347
See
>>15438455

[Anonymous No.15450741]

>>15450664
Were I to tell you that I was abducted by aliens, but I could tell you nothing of their spacecraft or their anatomy because I was busily engaged in a conference with the ghost of King Arthur, would you take my story as credible? If so, I have a magnificent bridge, you may be interested in purchasing.

[Anonymous No.15450761]

>>15450341
Also conjecture.

[Anonymous No.15450801]

>>15450761
Drain your gas tank and try to start your car, report back when you've conducted the experiment.

[Anonymous No.15450823]

>>15450801
No it's conjecture that 'fossil' fuels are really a result of decomposition.

[Anonymous No.15450833]

>>15450823
Well what do you think they are?

[Anonymous No.15450856]

>>15450833
I don't know buddy, but very often oil is found with no bones at all, so it might not have anything to do with it.

[Anonymous No.15450867]

>>15450856
>there is no X found in Y so clearly X cannot be a factor in producing Y
do you even fucking read what you write

[Anonymous No.15450881]

>>15450856
it's supposed to be mostly plant matter I think. People really pronounce with too much assurance on things that we think took place 100s of millions of years ago.

[Anonymous No.15450882]

>>15450856
Of course they find oil without any bones, the bones have been liquefied. In similar way, it's possible to find a huge colony cheese mould with out any cheese, because they've consumed it all. It is also possible to find water with no ice in it.

[Anonymous No.15451572]

>>15438453
By theists do you mean christians? What does believing in a diety have to do with dinosaurs? If you take issue with the creation myth than say so, stop trying to sound smart.

[Anonymous No.15451825]

>>15446027
>What I don't get is where the certainty comes from, because this line of thinking supports agnosticism rather than a proof in either direction.
Agnosticism immediately leads to solipcism and absurdity. If this line of thinking is not certain, then certainty itself provably doesn't exist (which is absurd).

>attaching biblical narrative to the concept of God.
The Biblical narrative (as explicated in Orthodox Christianity) is the only valid concept of God though, because it is revealed and not something arrived at through vain philosophy. Christ and his revelation comes prior to any pagan conceptions of a simple monotheism. Scripture and God's self-revelation is what tells us about who God is, not an argument about a first mover or what have you, which just shows some attributes as an example/illustration.

[Anonymous No.15451864]

>>15448393
>other historical accounts
Why do you need "other" accounts when you are already reading the most reliable one? Unless you bugmanistically decide beforehand that it's invalid and not a good enough standard, of course.

>>15449590
>he thinks God needs to describe to us every type of pagan god the locals worshipped
That would take a lot of pages.

[Anonymous No.15451940]

>>15451864
>he thinks God needs to describe to us every type of pagan god the locals worshipped

Details are important. Think of it this way, a man says he's been kidnapped and held prisoner at by a man who lives in London, the Policeman asks him: "Can you describe the location of the place you were held prisoner?" the man says: "No." "Can you name or describe the man who held you prisoner?" "No." "Can you tell us any particulars of his house?" "I saw some chairs and some kind of bathroom, possibly even a kitchen and a bedroom but I can't give you an accurate description of the layout of any of these rooms." "That's not much to go on, can you describe any local landmarks?" "The Tower of London and Big Ben are present." "Well, I could guess that myself, can you tell me where they are relative to this house?" "No." Do you think it's very likely that the Police will investigate the matter further?

[Anonymous No.15451960]

>off-topic thread
>222 replies
Disappointed in you, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.15451988]

@15451940
>Details are important.
Who are you to tell God which pagan animals to describe and which to leave out as unimportant? Why do you know best how to write God's revelation which will be read till the end of history?

[Anonymous No.15451996]

>>15451940
>noooo why god not do like i do god is evil!
literally what all bugmen reasoning boils down to lmao. they will find any idiotic reason to not believe, but cats not being mentioned is the most stupid one i've heard so far.

[Anonymous No.15452041]

>>15451988
If somebody claims something happened and refuses to furnish details, he is generally lying. Going back to my (perhaps overly elaborate) metaphor, would you believe a man who claimed that he'd been kidnapped and refused to tell you any details of the location beyond vague generalisations?
>>15451996
I think you've misunderstood. I don't think God is evil for neglecting to mention the cats. I think the author of the book of Exodus was writing a story about a place he'd never visited and consequently gave a very vague description. Human history is full of people who claim to have visited far-off lands and are caught out hundreds of years later because their whole story is incongruous with facts that are now common knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15452091]

>>15452041
>I think you've misunderstood. I don't think God is evil for neglecting to mention the cats. I think the author of the book of Exodus was writing a story about a place he'd never visited and consequently gave a very vague description. Human history is full of people who claim to have visited far-off lands and are caught out hundreds of years later because their whole story is incongruous with facts that are now common knowledge.
>>15452041
>If somebody claims something happened and refuses to furnish details, he is generally lying. Going back to my (perhaps overly elaborate) metaphor, would you believe a man who claimed that he'd been kidnapped and refused to tell you any details of the location beyond vague generalisations?

[Anonymous No.15452096]

>>15438453
Pre Antediluvian Bible stories has dinosaurs along with iron golems and ender dragons