/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15506398]

Holy book

[Anonymous No.15506402]

This is a book that is considered holy.

[Anonymous No.15506411]

The foundation of morality.

[Anonymous No.15506429]

[Anonymous No.15506433]

[Anonymous No.15506437]

[Anonymous No.15506713]

what a vile book!

[Anonymous No.15506736]

>>15506398
If you don't like it then just don't read it, maybe read Burroughs or something. :)

[Anonymous No.15506748]

based

[Anonymous No.15506761]

>Christianity is not Christian enough
You literally love God too much to be able to comprehend Him being bad.
If you dislike Christendom because of things like this, you are still a slave to Christianity

[Anonymous No.15506774]

>>15506398
>all those quotes
Goddamn I love the Bible.

[Anonymous No.15506776]

>>15506761
>thinking any form of morality is christian
Lol, you don't have to believe in a god to know that slavery is bad.

[Anonymous No.15506781]

Truly a beaded book.

[Anonymous No.15506784]

>>15506398
>book bad because it doesnt fit my liberal values

[Anonymous No.15506788]

>>15506784
Yes. If you're not a liberal, you're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15506797]

>>15506776
The only reason you dislike slavery is because of 2000 years of Christianity, and Christian brainwashing.

[Anonymous No.15506799]

>>15506776
>you don't have to believe in a god to know that slavery is bad.
Slavery is fine if you treat them correctly. Modern American slavery is not the archetypal slavery, it's a perversion of the classical system used for mercantile and capitalistic ends.

[Anonymous No.15506802]

reddit-tier 4chan post vs God. Who wins?

[Anonymous No.15506810]

>>15506799
> Modern American slavery
What?

[Anonymous No.15506811]

>>15506799
>if you treat them correctly

[Anonymous No.15506814]

>>15506797
>he doesn't know what utilitarianism is

[Anonymous No.15506818]

Just realized these are all ripped from Tumblr.

OP, what are you doing with your life...?

[Anonymous No.15506830]

>>15506814
It’s a form of Christianity

[Anonymous No.15506834]

>>15506398
>>15506402
>"Yes."

[Anonymous No.15506853]

>>15506814
It’s about the way you think about Good

[Anonymous No.15506855]

>>15506853
Happiness, pleasure. No good within itself.

[Anonymous No.15507018]

>>15506398
More like holy based

[Anonymous No.15507028]

>>15506398
These boards may be better suited for you
>>/lgbt/
>>/co/

[Anonymous No.15507141]

>>15506788
>If you're not a liberal, you're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15507157]

>>15506811
That's based. But elsewhere Paul says if you can a slave should buy his freedom. He's just giving guidelines for those who are in slavery. The motive is that by the slave owner seeing your good habits and holiness he might convert to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.15507189]

Have you ever considered that modern conceptions of morality are just wrong, that it may be your gut feelings that are evil.

[Anonymous No.15507191]

>>15506788
:(

[Anonymous No.15507232]

>>15507189
Morality isn't mysterious, you don't need to be taught to know something is wrong unless you're a psychopath. Usually what's taught as morality is completely distorted, or as it would say in the bible "the blind leading the blind". Since the enlightenment, and liberalism we've had more moral clarity than in the dark ages when morality was in the clouds figuratively

[Anonymous No.15507249]

>>15507232
You are right fags and tranny's bring light that Christian morality is true.

[Anonymous No.15507262]

>>15507249
>gays and trannies are icky yucky yuck god needs to punish them for being grody!
meanwhile..

[Anonymous No.15507267]

>>15507262
based god

[Anonymous No.15507270]

>>15507267
FYI that's not God

[Anonymous No.15507273]

>>15507262
>god needs to punish them
We can't expect god to do all the work

[Anonymous No.15507274]

>>15507262
> Kill all that are of the male sex
yassss queen

[Anonymous No.15507275]

>>15506398
>>15506402
>>15506411
>>15506429
>>15506433
>>15506437
>>15506811
sounds based

[Anonymous No.15507279]

>>15507232
>morality is so easy that it's practically instinctive
>the moral systems encouraged by liberalism aren't taught.
Is that what you're getting at? I don't think anyone would make such a claim and you might just be expressing yourself poorly.

[Anonymous No.15507287]

>>15506398
>>15506402
>>15506411
>>15506429
>>15506433
>>15506437
out of context

[Anonymous No.15507295]

>>15507279
Morality is simple, respect other beings and you'll be fine. It's not complicated at all, but humanity for most of our history has been in a fever dream hellscape that never ends.

[Anonymous No.15507298]

>>15506398
>the son shall not be bound by the father's iniquity
>KILL their nursing CHILDREN
how do Christians argue for this

[Anonymous No.15507299]

>>15507279
These people always say that their morality is intuitive yet ignore that most people haven't believed in it for the majority of human history.

[Anonymous No.15507304]

>>15506402
This one is quite misleading. It's using the word slave instead of servant. The bible is quite clear that these people get released after a time.
>>15506402
Exodus 21:7 "if a man sells his daughter to be domestic, she shall not go out as a maid servants do"
In other words she shall not be a slave

Exodus 21:8 "if she does not please her lord who betrothed her to himself, he shall let her go free. But he has no right to sell her to foreign people."
Betrothed is to be married, and if the man does not find her pleasing, of which does not exclusively mean of a sexual nature, he is literally told to let her go free.

[Anonymous No.15507305]

Christians are completely floating in space, they have no grip on reality whatsoever. All the anons in this thread defending "god" are just simply scared, they accept and obey without reading the juicy demented details. If something is fucked up you don't need to contort your brain to justify it, your initial gut reaction is correct unless you have sociopathy

[Anonymous No.15507313]

>>15507299
I would say that throughout history most people have had one leg in their intuition and another in social spooks. Even most religious people throughout al time haven't taken the dogmas and totality of the scriptures seriously. People are scared, hungry, and need to survive before they can think correctly

[Anonymous No.15507325]

>>15507295
Prove that as objective morality then.

[Anonymous No.15507330]

>>15506855
Happiness and pleasure are not good in themselves, or what do you mean then?

[Anonymous No.15507336]

>>15506776
>Lol, you don't have to believe in a god to know that slavery is bad.
Is the badness of slavery self-evident? If so, then why didn't ancient people consider it bad?

[Anonymous No.15507340]

>>15507325
You reap what you sow, it's simple. If you want to live in a hell world you'll get it.

[Anonymous No.15507347]

>>15507304
The difference between what is a slave and a servant is quite blurred, and a lot of the behavior acceptable in the master/servant relaton would fit perfectly into our conception of slavery. In fact, the latin word for slave is "servus". So your comment feels anachronic. A lot of slaves had the possibility of being released as well, even through their own accumulation of wealth (if it was allowed).

[Anonymous No.15507349]

>>15507340
>You reap what you sow, it's simple. If you want to live in a hell world you'll get it.
That is superstitious thinking. I thought you believed in "the Enlightenment". Also that implies that people who suffer deserve it, and people who are happy in life deserve it also.

[Anonymous No.15507351]

>>15507336
>why didn't ancient people consider it bad?
They were bad, but also you have to realize that those who were slaves certainly didn't consider it good lol

[Anonymous No.15507355]

>>15506398
>not just the men, but women and children.

[Anonymous No.15507356]

>>15506402
>>15506433
Nice, I might convert.

[Anonymous No.15507364]

>>15507340
Are you telling me it can’t be personally beneficial for me to hurt and take from others at certain times for my own benefit? It clearly can, and you have not provided any argument for your morality

[Anonymous No.15507366]

>>15507351
>They were bad, but also you have to realize that those who were slaves certainly didn't consider it good lol
Slaves disliked the fact they were slaves. They didn't object to it as an institution, out of the belief that slavery was intrinsically wrong. Hence, freed slaves would own slaves, and enslave other people, etc. I'm not saying that nobody had a moral objection to slavery, but that the idea that slavery was an intrinsic moral evil was not widespread. Rather, people took slavery's existence for granted, and merely considered it morally preferable to be kind to your slaves. Your belief that morality is universal is completely unfounded, and is nothing more than a mystical prejudice, ironic considering your self-identification with the Enlightenment tradition.

[Anonymous No.15507369]

>>15507349
It's not superstitious at all, you don't have a clear perception of reality or even who you are. Liberalism and the enlightenment were steps forward in consciousness, we're beginning to learn not to shit in our own house

[Anonymous No.15507371]

>>15507295
Literally the r*ddit meme morality

[Anonymous No.15507380]

>>15507366
>Hence, freed slaves would own slaves, and enslave other people
This is what I mean, you reap what you sow.
>>15507364
see
>Hence, freed slaves would own slaves, and enslave other people

[Anonymous No.15507384]

>>15507371
It's not that reddit is enlightened, it's that 4chan is exceptionally darkened by mental retardation in comparison

[Anonymous No.15507388]

>>15507369
>Liberalism and the enlightenment were steps forward in consciousness, we're beginning to learn not to shit in our own house
Liberalism and the enlightenment have precipitated the pitiless exploitation of the third world. mass extinction of non-human life, and untold environmental destruction. Very progressive!

[Anonymous No.15507389]

>>15507380
>see
>>Hence, freed slaves would own slaves, and enslave other people
This doesn’t always happen at all, this is not a guarantee. Most slave owners die before their slaves turn on them too.

[Anonymous No.15507391]

>>15507347
So it doesn't match the modern version of slavery. Which is to be ones property for life. Rarely even during the pre-civil war era slaves were ever let go. It would be a lot closer to the slavery of irish. But people instantly think of normal slavery.

[Anonymous No.15507397]

>>15507380
"You reap what you sow" implies that people who harm others will be harmed in turn. Freed slaves are people who have been harmed, harming others, who have not necessarily harmed anyone else. Don't you think you're victim blamign, anon?

[Anonymous No.15507402]

>>15507389
It sums up most of human existence, the slaves enslaving each other. It's existential prison rape, and instead of doing what's obvious people resort to superstition about the big slave owner in the sky

[Anonymous No.15507412]

>>15506402
BASED

[Anonymous No.15507433]

>>15507402
Um, universalist monotheism played a large role in preventing tribal conflict anon. Europe, which had formerly been divided into thousands of squabbling tribes, became 'Christendom' with a proto-UN called the Catholic Church. The Middle East became united under Islam and the Caliphs, etc. Your idea of the intellectual history of the Western world is based on pop culture memes and not serious historiography.

[Anonymous No.15507442]

>>15507402
I understand that I would do this if I wanted the good for all humankind, but if I don’t, but only wants what’s good for me, then I can just own my slaves and gain what I want, and perhaps let future people suffer for this.
You are implying that I get punished for sins I committed in life when this is clearly not true.
See, do you think that if I make some decision which hurts another, that I will necessarily be punished in an equal or more proportion?
If the answer is yes, I would like proof for this.
If the answer is no, then if all I want is what’s best for my own benefit, then there’s no reason to follow your proposed morality.

[Anonymous No.15507474]

>>15507384
No, it’s that r*ddit can’t read, and have no understanding of actual philosophy at all.
People on 4chan atleast pretend to a degree that it doesn’t look too stupid easily.

[Anonymous No.15507476]

>>15507262
Why do you think Christians don't know the OT ?
How do you think quoting the Bible that everyone aggres is the word of God can be used against Him ?
You know everyone ever has died by the will of God right?

[Anonymous No.15507523]

>>15507442
You will reap what you sow as you leave behind a mess, "you" don't actually go anywhere, you just inherit the mess you've left behind.

[Anonymous No.15507535]

>>15507476
Animals die, plants die, people die, worlds die, gods die. A human body is not meant to last forever

[Anonymous No.15507556]

>>15507523
So you believe in reincarnation?
Not him btw.

[Anonymous No.15507568]

>>15507313
>uses the word 'spooks'
>thinks morality is real

[Anonymous No.15507589]

>>15507556
Where does the body go? Where did the body emerge?

[Anonymous No.15507604]

>>15507523
I have no idea what distinction you are making here, between the different forms of "you". I might leave behind a mess in the long term, when I'm dead, but how will I inherent that again?
Do you mean that since the principle is the same, then I'm in a way retroactively inherited it, by means of accepting it just like the previous did? But this is again another morality you have yet to justify, if what you mean to say is I 'deserve it'. Because surely, there's no way I actually impact previous instances of it, in any way.
Or are you talking about any form of life after death, in that case, can you give details?
If it's anything else, please explain.
If you believe in reincarnation, then you should've said so from the start, that would've been helpful, anyways, is that the case? In that case, what is the nature of this reincarnation? How does it work?
Or was it anything else you meant?

[Anonymous No.15507609]

>>15507589
Does your deceased body retain your consciousness?

[Anonymous No.15507619]

>>15507568
There's fundamental morality and superfluous dogmatic morality, fundamental morality can be followed or ignored in the same way that we can choose to create a hell or paradise. It's not about things being arbitrarily good and bad, it's about the ontological reality and how we choose to shape it.

[Anonymous No.15507623]

>>15507609
Your consciousness isn't unique to your current body anymore than water is unique to any specific location in the ocean.

[Anonymous No.15507630]

>>15507623
Bold baseless claim. I choose not to agree.

[Anonymous No.15507645]

>>15507630
It doesn't matter it's simply true, existence didn't start the moment you were born. You're a biological process which is larger than your current perspective. You're also in a position to heal or destroy, and ultimately all is freedom

[Anonymous No.15507648]

>>15507645
>It doesn't matter it's simply true
source?

[Anonymous No.15507668]

>>15507648
Prepare anus for a bible-ing.

[Anonymous No.15507678]

>>15507668
That's OP who hates the Bible

[Anonymous No.15507711]

>>15506402
>>15506398
These are forgettable posts by someone unimportant.

[Anonymous No.15507716]

>>15507619
>it's about the ontological reality and how we choose to shape it
i think you need to reread stirner

[Anonymous No.15507748]

>>15507287
Have you actually read the bible?
The OT is just a history of the 12 tribes of Israel conquering, slaughtering and enslaving everybody else.

They actually missed a lot of the good ones, like when that 1 general is losing a battle, prays to God that he will make a burnt offering out of the first thing to come out of his door when he returns home if he wins, then wins the battle, is greeted by his daughter doing a joyful dance for his return, and then burns her alive on an alter to appease God.

I think that one is in second kings but I don't actually remember. First half of the OT to be sure.

[Anonymous No.15507771]

>>15506429
moo! lol

[Anonymous No.15507772]

>>15507748
I think I read that in Naked Lunch.

[Anonymous No.15507775]

Just read Samuel last night and loved it. Now moving onto Kings.

The Old Testament is certainly filled with fucked up shit. Now that I'm actually reading the Bible I'm not surprised that people can cherry pick bad sounding quotes from it, I'm more surprised that they even have to cherry pick. Virtually the entire narrative from the Exodus onward is primarily about the Israelites failing to worship God properly, including their own leaders most prominently. All the judges except Samuel and a few minor ones like Debora did heinous shit like human sacrifice which God supposedly didn't even want. All the kings were at eachother's throats immediately. The most beloved king in Jewish tradition David was fucking up every ten seconds and God killed one of his babies and 70,000 people by a plague. All of the kings have civil wars, there is no peaceful period in Israel except maybe when a judge has temporarily pacified the land.

It's a great read though.

[Anonymous No.15507825]

>>15507775
I was amazed when I first read it because it's completely different story from what priests will tell you.

Wait til you get to the NT. Jesus turns out to be a communist "all natural" healer, pretending to be the Jewish Messiah while running a multi level marketing scheme.

[Anonymous No.15507853]

>>15507748
You're thinking of Jephthah. The story occurs in Judges 11.

[Anonymous No.15507925]

>>15507748
Nowhere does God support what he did. That story is about the foolishness of making stupid vows.

[Anonymous No.15507947]

>>15507925
This is the typical apologetics given for it obviously because it's distasteful to modern readers but there is no consensus on its meaning and rabbinical traditions differ.

[Anonymous No.15507970]

Isn't the whole point of Jesus is that he does away with he OT and provides a new philosophy to follow?

[Anonymous No.15507975]

>>15507970
No. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-20&version=ESV

[Anonymous No.15507990]

>>15507975
Then how the hell do Christians reconcile the brutal OT god with the all-loving NT god/

[Anonymous No.15508004]

>>15507970
You should try reading the Bible some time

Matthew Ch. 5
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

[Anonymous No.15508006]

>>15507990
only a all loving God would tolerate the jews that much

[Anonymous No.15508013]

>>15507947
I don't care what rabbis have to say about it, there is consensus on its meaning. At least within the church. I don't know how you can come away with any other interpretation. Especially taking it into context with other parts of Scripture which repeatedly reiterates how God detests human (but especially child) sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.15508015]

>>15507990
Its the same God.
Genesis 19:24
>Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven
post yfw you realized Jesus destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah

[Anonymous No.15508032]

>>15507990
As necessary to put the pieces in place for Jesus iirc.

[Anonymous No.15508035]

>>15507990
He only seems 'brutal' to you because you're unrepentant and can identify with the people He's punishing. Atheists love to mention the severe justice of God in the OT while completely ignoring the tender love and care he displays over and over again in the very same OT.

[Anonymous No.15508042]

>>15507970
For many yes, it is an abrogation of the Jewish tradition, at least for non-Jews. But every Christian denomination has its own take on this. There are even Marcionites who often believe Christianity is really Christ and Paul's own religion and the Jewish shit is just baggage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

There are all sorts of apologetics for the OT God being a dick and even for Jesus being a dick sometimes. They vary from saying that the Bible is divine revelation mediated by imperfect human minds or that God had to give his revelation to people in forms they understood in order to raise them up gradually over history (this is one of the most interesting approaches to me), to straight up denying that the shitty passages are as shitty as they say or trying to justify them (God has every right to holocaust you if you disobey him). Or some combination of the above, like saying that God had every right to holocaust some group of people who disobeyed him, but when it comes to their women/children being included, use this tenuous alternate translation of the scary passage to dodge the problem.

If you read along and google passages that are jarring you will see every approach. Did David really kill the lame and the blind? No no no, what was really meant by that was.... (and so on).

To me the most interesting approach is to view the book as some kind of revelation or record of revelations/covenants with divinity but be asking exactly these questions throughout. Sure it makes you a heretic but fuck it, you're engaging with it more seriously than most.

[Anonymous No.15508046]

>>15508035
Isn't judgment suppose to come after death? Killing people robs them of the opportunity for redemption, it ain't over till it's over.

[Anonymous No.15508052]

>>15508013
>there is consensus on its meaning. At least within the church.

Cool, glad to know your random church has a "consensus" on it. The rabbis have their own, and your guys probably derive theirs from them at least in part.

>I don't know how you can come away with any other interpretation.
So is it the church or your random gut feeling we're going with?

This kind of clannish, defensive behavior drives people away.

[Anonymous No.15508059]

>>15508013
>repeatedly reiterates how God detests human (but especially child) sacrifice.
In 2 Samuel people are offered as sacrifice and it works to stop the famine. Also check >>15507748
The problem here is trying to find an unified narrative in the mythical records of an ethnocentrist religion. While it is a common theme that people are screwed up and do shit, it'll also try to "baptise" the wrongdoings of the Jewish people, specially against their perceived enemies. God will always be merciful towards "His people", even when they are literally sacrificing humans, but his "justice" is always uncomparably wrathful against the gentiles.

[Anonymous No.15508072]

>>15508046
That's the final judgement. Besides, God is omniscient. He knows whether you'll redeem yourself or not.

[Anonymous No.15508082]

>>15508015
>spouts an anti-trinitarian heresy
the father destroyed sodom and gomorrah, not jesus

[Anonymous No.15508088]

>>15508072
Then why go through this fucking charade?

It's like when I give an assignment to my students, and one of them acknowledges how it's pointless in the grand scheme of things, then half the class checks out, then the other half silently checks out, then only about a third of them actually turn in the goddamn assignment because they all realized that a high school lit class is fucked by design.

Just fast forward to the end.

[Anonymous No.15508098]

>>15508072
Then why the fuck even give us a chance?

[Anonymous No.15508112]

>>15508004
I'm going to, soon.

[Anonymous No.15508114]

>>15508059
We can go on and on about this. For context, the Israelites had a pact before God to never harm the Gibeonites. Saul and his family, including the people in the pic you posted, broke that pact. We see this in 2 Samuel 21:1 : “during the reign of David there was a famine for three successive years, and David sought the face of the LORD. And the LORD said, ‘It is because of the blood shed by Saul and his family, because he killed the Gibeonites’”

Their death was just punishment for their slaughter of innocents. This was not human sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.15508121]

>>15508082
All the one Person does in the trinity is done by all the Persons. If the Fatehr did it, the Son and Holy Ghost did it too. There can't be an actual separation of operations in the Trinity, or else it's composite. You'd think a person spouting the word heresy would actually know that

[Anonymous No.15508129]

>>15508114
So they sacrificed some humans... to atone for the innocents slaughtered before? Really makes you think

[Anonymous No.15508135]

>>15508088
>>15508098
God does the things he does not only to bring justice in the OT but to serve as teaching moments for future generations about the severity of sin and its consequences. God, like I said, is omniscient and knows that people 2000 years in the future will be reading Scripture.

[Anonymous No.15508137]

>>15508135
Okay, that's neat. Can you answer the goddamn question, now?

[Anonymous No.15508143]

>>15508013
Actually sacrificing humans to Yahweh is fine, entire cities of people are devoted to destruction (or 'put under the ban') as an offering to Yahweh, e.g. Joshua 6:17. What he's against is ritual child sacrifice as the Canaanites practiced it, that may have been to distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites as well as for moral reasons.

[Anonymous No.15508145]

>>15508121
that's completely wrong, that's why the holy spirit and jesus don't know when judgement day is coming. https://biblehub.com/mark/13-32.htm

why are you spouting more bullshit

[Anonymous No.15508155]

>>15508129
>So they sacrificed some humans... to atone for the innocents slaughtered before
>to atone for the innocents slaughtered before
Exactly it was punishment. Not sacrifice. There is a difference between punishment and sacrifice. Is the death penalty human sacrifice? Of course not.

[Anonymous No.15508159]

>>15508137
I thought I just answered it. What question?

[Anonymous No.15508171]

>>15508159
I asked why we're forced to play a part in this game whatsoever if God already knows how it will end. You gave me your reasoning for why future generations are have a supposedly level playing field.

[Anonymous No.15508180]

>>15508052
This is the Catholic Church interpretation.
>This kind of clannish, defensive behavior drives people away
pot calling kettle black and so on

[Anonymous No.15508197]

>>15508180
How's the church doing lately? Maybe browbeating people into accepting arbitrary interpretations of scripture isn't working for you guys. The Jews have the better idea, they actively question their texts and permit heterodox interpretations, and it keeps their tradition strong instead of rigid and brittle. No I'm not a Jew, nor a deprogrammed Catholic, I am sympathetic to Catholicism.

>pot calling kettle black and so on
How? I'm saying that flexibility in interpretation is a good thing and that the sunday school casuistry of random priests regurgitating the catechism shouldn't be the kneejerk response to someone questioning the biblical narratives. It comes across as smug, like "heh you don't even get how this casuistry makes sense? must be something wrong with you, not the casuistry."

[Anonymous No.15508200]

>>15508145
So you're saying it's one God, but there is something lacking in the Son and the Holy Spirit?
> For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite.
So apparently something is wrong here, cause the Son and the Spirit are apparently not that unlimited and eternal.
What is different between them is a relation of origin; but all the Father as God is an act of God and therefore an act of the Spirit and the Son. There can be no differentiation of their external operations or else you have three Gods, or at list a trinity dangerously similar to the hinduist one.

[Anonymous No.15508204]

>>15507748
I always got the meaning that people in Judges have lost their way and didn't know God at all as a) he wouldn't have made the vow. b) God doesn't want sacrifices. Remember the motif that repeats
"In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes"

[Anonymous No.15508212]

>>15508171
Best analogy I can make is being a parent. You can probably get a sense by the time your child is 9 or 10 whether or not they're going to be a screw-up, criminal, wageslave, etc. None of these things being particularly good. But you still love them and support them and allow them to live their life even though you know all this. Basically, you're just giving them a chance to prove themselves. I don't know if that's the best way to describe it but you get the point.

[Anonymous No.15508218]

>>15508200
the kind of retardation entailed by your post is only possible if you don't understand how essences work. all members of the trinity have the essence of god, and are unlimited in that aspect, yes. however, the essences of each person differ from the essence of god. hence the hypostatic union.

[Anonymous No.15508219]

>>15508212
No, I genuinely don't get your point.

Here, I'll cut to the chase, since you apparently don't know the point I'm getting at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

You're not "giving them a chance to prove themselves" if you fucking kill them en masse, you cruel, apologetic cunt.

[Anonymous No.15508233]

>>15508212
>You can probably get a sense by the time your child is 9 or 10 whether or not they're going to be a screw-up, criminal, wageslave, etc

[Anonymous No.15508240]

>>15508218
Damn the fact you just employed the term "hypostatic union" really shows you don't know what you're talking about, because it's the term used to explain Christ, not the trinity. Where you getting your theology from? Twitter? lmfao besides, the persons do not have different essences, or else they'd be different things. Go study the basics of your own faith before feeling confident enough to call somebody a heretic, imbecile

[Anonymous No.15508241]

>>15508219
Yes you are

[Anonymous No.15508246]

>>15506402
Those New Testament quotes are solely out of context. In context, it's clearly advice to the slaves that amounts to "deal with the suffering you have been allocated," rather than a moral license on the act of slavery itself.

[Anonymous No.15508249]

>>15508241
How do you fucking figure?

[Anonymous No.15508264]

>>15508197
Ok ok. Good call. However, you can always spin whatever you want to seem good. What you just posted sounds like sola scriptura which leads to there being 10,000 different protestant churches.

[Anonymous No.15508272]

>>15508240
You're retarded as fuck. I mentioned the hypostatic union because it's relevant to my point about the trinity. Jesus' human needs are contradictory to the essence of God, hence those needs are within the essence of Jesus' humanness, not his Godliness. It's perfectly reasonable for the quality of not knowing when the Father will initiate judgement day to be assigned to the individual essences of each person, and not within the essence of God. The fucking traditional trinity image reveals this. The Father is not the Son, yes. Those are individual essences, yet they both have the essence of God. If you actually think each person acts within each other (Jesus doing the holy spirit's work, etc), you're denying the individual of the person's within the trinity.

[Anonymous No.15508273]

>>15508249
They live life, they fail horribly and are unrepentant, they get punished. You gave them a chance. Why are so mad? Seriously.

[Anonymous No.15508289]

>>15506411
>he’s not dashing the children of Babylon against stones
Cringe desu

[Anonymous No.15508290]

>>15508155
Well, it's punishment when it befalls the one responsible. Saul was the head of the family, but he was already dead. Instead, his children were given as atonement, which is directly against the biblical idea that the sons should not be bound by their fathers iniquities. Why would God consider that just and stop the famine?

[Anonymous No.15508291]

>>15508273
They'd have time to repent if God hadn't killed them prematurely.

[Anonymous No.15508299]

>>15508291
That's the beauty of it. God knew they never would.

[Anonymous No.15508302]

>>15508264
Yeah sorry for sounding so hostile and douchey myself, I am riled up from a discussion on another board and phrased my views in the most aggressive way possible.

I do agree with you, sola scriptura broke the church in a sense, and I doubt my heterodox and half worked out thoughts on this will be helpful. But I do know that many of the best Catholics I know were driven away from the church by the smugness I still see in /lit/ threads among Christians. Especially among recent converts who are so happy to have embraced a dogma that works for them that they think their opponents can save all the time they "wasted" by slowly coming around to dogma by just accepting its obvious rightness. Again sorry for being a dick.

[Anonymous No.15508315]

>>15508042
>They vary from saying that the Bible is divine revelation mediated by imperfect human minds or that God had to give his revelation to people in forms they understood in order to raise them up gradually over history

This is the one argument I heard myself. But it implies that God is not omnipotent and interfering. None of the people I asked about this couldn't explain it away.

[Anonymous No.15508325]

>>15508299
>God knew they never would.
This is a copout

[Anonymous No.15508327]

>>15508299
THEN WHY MAKE THEM PLAY THE FUCKING GAME

Okay, I'm done, you're clearly trolling.

[Anonymous No.15508331]

>>15508272
The hypostatic union is another issue entirely: it's one person with two natures, or essences. So it's a composit person, and that's why the person of Jesus can suffer the pains of humanity, while still being God, those two nature united, but not mixed. But the Trinity is a single essence, the Divine essence, with three persons. There can be no composit here, or else God is not divinely simple. If the Father is able to operate independently from the Son and the Ghost, they are not simple, but composit. Just like you are one substance with different faculties: if your hand moves, you are moving. You can't say: I didn't move, my hand did. Because it is substantially you. Of course the analogy is faulty because you are a composit being, but God is not, he is One substance/essence with three Persons. If it's One substance, all operations done by one person are done by all of them. I think I've read enough catholic apologetics to know this, specially when they are so touchy to never divide the divine persons.

[Anonymous No.15508335]

>>15508290
True, but Saul wasn't the only one responsible. Saul AND his family took part in the killing, including his two sons and 5 grandchildren that were killed. I'm not trying to be antagonistic towards you btw.

[Anonymous No.15508338]

>>15508315
> couldn't

could

[Anonymous No.15508342]

>>15506402
>You can rape captive women
>."..and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her to wife, you shall bring her into your house, and she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, and discard her captive's garb. "
Sounds based to me. It's just forced marriage, separating her from idolatry. You are supposed to treat her well, definetly not what "rape" implies.
>but you cannot resell them as slaves
>"Then, should you no longer want her, you must release her outright"
Why did whoever make this picture leave this out? hmmm

[Anonymous No.15508347]

>>15508327
The only answer is that God wanted to torture them so he made them evil, the final blackpill of all blackpills

[Anonymous No.15508353]

>>15508335
Me neither! I'm not so familiar with the story anyways. What I gathered was that those sons never did anything personally, but were rather chose as representatives of him. For God to see that as just and accept that atonement seems illogical.

[Anonymous No.15508376]

>>15508325
>>15508327
We're literally going in circles here. God loves his creation so he gives them all a chance. Even though he knows some of them are going to be evil and some are going to be good. Those that are evil get punished those that are good get rewarded.

[Anonymous No.15508378]

>>15508315
For me the only approach that makes sense of the bible is that God allowed us much more freedom than Christian theology usually allows, and that each phase of understanding his revelation has made sense at the time but ultimately been outgrown. It made sense to desert people to understand God as a father figure who can give and take life when he is angry. Who knows what the spiritual evolutionary stage of mankind was like at that time, in ways which are invisible to us today? We already assume a secular viewpoint when we assume that humans back then were "basically like us" and changed very little over time, or try to fit the entire biblical world into a neutral anthropological picture.

Maybe the medieval emphasis on createdness and gratitude and obedience to God was a necessary stage too, to let us mature and learn how to be grateful and obey, maybe as a counterpoint to Greek man-worship which was also too one-sided and tended toward atheism. I don't know. I prefer to see these questions as indicating that we can't yet know the answer, rather than simplify them down to a single scheme that tidies things up too much.

[Anonymous No.15508386]

>>15508302
Yeah you're good man I did the same thing. Hard to display patience and reconciliation on the internet.

[Anonymous No.15508447]

>>15508347
That's satan

[Anonymous No.15508452]

>>15508376
I know what traditional Christianity teaches, it teaches that 99% of people are damned and it's dogma. This God is clearly sadistic, and those that worship him are also sadistic and will find enjoyment in overlooking all the maggot wriggling in agony forever. Once mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, now wriggling maggots in God's torture dungeon forever without end oh the great cosmic boner, what a joker Yahweh, what a joke indeed

[Anonymous No.15508465]

>>15508452
How's that God's fault? People are damned because they CHOOSE to reject God. Why don't you understand that? I don't get you man

[Anonymous No.15508477]

>>15508465
In the end Yahweh will be laughing, giggling, aroused, as all life will be wriggling moaning, groaning, "why are you doing this to me?". This is the final masterpiece in which all the saints will praise Yahweh, the eternal microwave of damned infants only the chosen few will have front row seats to watch their mother and father roasting and toasting forever

[Anonymous No.15508493]

>>15508477
Ok kid. I notice you've conveniently ignored the point I made above which completely blows you out.

[Anonymous No.15508504]

>>15508493
It was a choice, but somehow it also wasn't because it was predetermined, this is the theological mind bending that Christians partake in. Yes all those dead Arab children definitely chose to go to hell by being blown up by US military drone strikes, because now every cruel event that takes place is God's preordained eternal hatebomb of wrath

[Anonymous No.15508514]

>>15506411
Unironically taken out of context. Ketuvim are not supposed to be directly divinely inspired. So there's that. That refutes your whole point. Psalms are just poems.
Furthermore, If you actually read the poem, the the babylonians did that very thing to them, and the poem is just expressing vengeful feelings.

[Anonymous No.15508519]

>>15508504
Wow you are so wrong. If you wanna talk about dead arab children their deaths are the result of American imperialism, which is evil created by HUMANS as a result of satan. Those dead kids are likely in Paradise now with God as we speak

[Anonymous No.15508656]

>>15507589
Body goes to dust. It came from dust too.

[Anonymous No.15509244]

>>15508327
You are so mad