/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19883452]

Aside from this book, are there other books that will definitively convince me that christianity isn't true?

[Anonymous No.19883467]

Christianity is based upon the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection. That is what you have to refute if you want to deny Christianity. Nietzsche’s philosophical ramblings don’t amount to an argument. Even if it were true that Christians were all weak slave moralists it doesn’t refute Christianity whatsoever, which is an objective claim about Jesus being the son of God who was crucified for our sins.

[Anonymous No.19883471]

>>19883467
>the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection
Well that's not a fact at all so I guess that's a load off my mind if that's all it takes to invalidate christianity.

[Anonymous No.19883754]

>>19883471
Why would you want to refute Christianity when it's true?

[Anonymous No.19883764]

>>19883452
Start with the ancient sceptics

[Anonymous No.19883767]

>>19883467
>Christianity is based
Wrong.

Christianity is in fact cringe

[Anonymous No.19883786]

>>19883452
>Can a Christian historian/scholar please explain to me why the Romans would demand people returned to their place of birth for the census?

>Surely it makes more sense to record where people actually live and work so you can better collect taxes. If you're curious as to where they were born you can just have them declare it at the census, no point in asking them to phisically travel there.

>I'm eager to reading your explanation for this. As of now I am forced to conclude that this tale was not a factual retelling of any events that actually trapspired and is, in fact, fiction.


Post this in every Christian thread, ask this to every Christian you see. None will respond. Because it's indefensible.

[Anonymous No.19883790]

>>19883786
> Some conservative Christians have argued that Quirinius served two terms as governor Syria and conducted two censuses in Judea, but the career of Quirinius and the names and dates of the governors are well documented and there is no time before 6 CE when he could have served as governor of Syria.[12] In any case there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus, the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors, a census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler, and the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that direct taxation by Rome was new at the time.[12][13][4] The arguments that attempt to reconcile Luke's account of the census have been described as "exegetical acrobatics" by Géza Vermes,[14] and spring from the assumption that the Bible is inerrant.[15]
Lmfao.

[Anonymous No.19883810]

>>19883786
>>19883790
This is dumb. The paucity of ancient sources makes it impossible to know exactly what the procedures were for the census. It’s only by discounting the gospel writers as historical sources that you come to the conclusion that they were wrong. Besides, Luke just keeps being vindicated on all his claims by archeology. Stuff that scholars used to say was totally ahistorical in Luke’s writings was later proven to be true. Why trust in the wisdom of man over God, especially in a field so uncertain as history?

[Anonymous No.19883812]

>>19883810
>Luke just keeps being vindicated on all his claims by archeology. Stuff that scholars used to say was totally ahistorical in Luke’s writings was later proven to be true.
Examples?

[Anonymous No.19883815]

>>19883452
Ok but get this. What if we break open the idols... and find a cross?

[Anonymous No.19883819]

>>19883452
>are there other books that will definitively convince me that christianity isn't true?
The Bible.

[Anonymous No.19883821]

>>19883754
It's not true though, you're just gullible and eager to believe in something

[Anonymous No.19883822]

>>19883452
Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of Morals

[Anonymous No.19883826]

>>19883812
Don't bother with him, he got absolutely blown the fuck out in https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12615096/ and is still coping

[Anonymous No.19883840]

>>19883819
based

[Anonymous No.19884556]

>>19883452
>>19883467
Nietzsche's criticisms in the antichrist are solely towards institutional interpretations of Christianity and not Christ himself. Nietzsche's comments on Christ are essentially the same as Jung's interpretation of Christ in Aion as a symbol of the self (of a free spirit).

[Anonymous No.19884572]

>>19883452
You don't need books. Just pray to God with all your faith, then hear His silence. It's enough.

[Anonymous No.19884673]

>>19883452
This book doesn't even try to convince you that Christianity isn't true, it's assumed that you already disbelieve.

[Anonymous No.19884751]

>>19883452
How on earth does Nietzsches most religious and faithful book convince you that religion isn't true? Is this entire board full of inbreds wtf

[Anonymous No.19884777]

>>19884673
This, OP is bait. Nietzsche never makes an argument against Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19884808]

>>19884777
>>19884673
/thread.
OP didn't even read the 90 pages long book.

[Anonymous No.19885034]

>>19884777
>>19884808
seethe

[Anonymous No.19885342]

>>19883790
>Geza Vermes
Early life.
At any rate, Quirinius was governing as procurator in Judea before at the time and was in charge of overseeing an oath of loyalty to Augustus that would require registration as in Luke, but the kike Vermes omits those details.
https://inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2020/06/01/a-defense-of-the-census-of-quirinius-of-luke-22/
https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/12/the-census-of-caesar-augustus-quirinius.html

[Anonymous No.19885352]

>>19883812
Take your pick.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2022/02/evangelist-luke-archaeology-history.html

[Anonymous No.19885504]

why do christcucks fail to understand that nobody cares about their gay historical nitpicking?

[Anonymous No.19885558]

>>19884572
This one hurts

[Anonymous No.19885568]

>>19884572
I prayed to God once and asked him for something. Then that something happened, and I thought, maybe God exists after all. Then a week later it was taken from my reach. I don't know that to make of it.

[Anonymous No.19885582]

>>19883452
>convince me that christianity isn't true?
>true
>false / true
Already thinking like a Christian there.

This book
>pic related

[Anonymous No.19885584]

>>19885568
what*

[Anonymous No.19885595]

>>19885568
>I prayed to God once and asked him for something. Then that something happened, and I thought, maybe God exists after all. Then a week later it was taken from my reach. I don't know that to make of it.
Throw a Coin

[Anonymous No.19885599]

>>19885352
None of that mentions the census. BTFO

[Anonymous No.19885606]

>>19885342
what about the census?

[Anonymous No.19885623]

>>19885504
>lol xtians are wrong!
>No! Stop trying to argue!
Fag

[Anonymous No.19885626]

All over this town
Yes, a low wind may blow
And I can see through
Everybody's clothes
With no reason

[Anonymous No.19885633]

>>19885599
The other links talk about the census.

[Anonymous No.19885682]

>>19885582
>invoking subjectivity and selective history to make things easier
Already thinking like a jew.

[Anonymous No.19885792]

>>19884777

Here we go again.

57. [1/3]

One catches the unholiness of Christian means in flagranti by the simple process of putting the ends sought by Christianity beside the ends sought by the Code of Manu—by putting these enormously antithetical ends under a strong light. The critic of Christianity cannot evade the necessity of making Christianity contemptible.—A book of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other good law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the ethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a conclusion; it no longer creates. The prerequisite to a codification of this sort is recognition of the fact that the means which establish the authority of a slowly and painfully attained truth are fundamentally different from those which one would make use of to prove it. A law-book never recites the utility, the grounds, the casuistical antecedents of a law: for if it did so it would lose the imperative tone, the “thou shall,” on which obedience is based. The problem lies exactly here.—At a certain point in the evolution of a people, the class within it of the greatest insight, which is to say, the greatest hindsight and foresight, declares that the series of experiences determining how all shall live—or can live—has come to an end. The object now is to reap as rich and as complete a harvest as possible from the days of experiment and hard experience. In consequence, the thing that is to be avoided above everything is further experimentation—the continuation of the state in which values are fluent, and are tested, chosen and criticized ad infinitum. Against this a double wall is set up: on the one hand, revelation, which is the assumption that the reasons lying behind the laws are not of human origin, that they were not sought out and found by a slow process and after many errors, but that they are of divine ancestry, and came into being complete, perfect, without a history, as a free gift, a miracle...; and on the other hand, tradition, which is the assumption that the law has stood unchanged from time immemorial, and that it is impious and a crime against one’s forefathers to bring it into question. The authority of the law is thus grounded on the thesis: God gave it, and the fathers lived it.—The higher motive of such procedure lies in the design to distract consciousness, step by step, from its concern with notions of right living (that is to say, those that have been proved to be right by wide and carefully considered experience), so that instinct attains to a perfect automatism—a primary necessity to every sort of mastery, to every sort of perfection in the art of life. To draw up such a law-book as Manu’s means to lay before a people the possibility of future mastery, of attainable perfection—it permits them to aspire to the highest reaches of the art of life. To that end the thing must be made unconscious: that is the aim of every holy lie.—

[Anonymous No.19885798]

>>19885792

57. [2/3]

The order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no “modern idea,” can exert any influence. In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. It is not Manu but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual, in another those who are marked by muscular strength and temperament, and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only mediocrity—the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select. The superior caste—I call it the fewest—has, as the most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. Pulchrum est paucorum hominum:[30] goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees ugliness—or indignation against the general aspect of things. Indigna tion is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. “The world is perfect”—so prompts the instinct of the intellectual, the instinct of the man who says yes to life. “Imperfection, whatever is inferior to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala themselves are parts of this perfection.” The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others.... Knowledge—a form of asceticism.—They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they want to, but because they are; they are not at liberty to play second.—The second caste: to this belong the guardians of the law, the keepers of order and security, the more noble warriors, above all, the king as the highest form of warrior, judge and preserver of the law. The second in rank constitute the executive arm of the intellectuals, the next to them in rank, taking from them all that is rough in the business of ruling—their followers, their right hand, their most apt disciples.—In all this, I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary, nothing “made up”; whatever is to the contrary is made up—by it nature is brought to shame....

[Anonymous No.19885804]

>>19885798
57. [3/3]

The order of castes, the order of rank, simply formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution of higher types, and the highest types—the inequality of rights is essential to the existence of any rights at all.—A right is a privilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life is always harder as one mounts the heights—the cold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture, science, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of occupational activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not society, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is, in fact, the first prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional: it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of heart—it is simply his duty.... Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights.... What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....

[Anonymous No.19885814]

>>19885804
58. [1/2]

In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference: whether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of this: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied a code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the conditions which cause life to flourish into an “eternal” social organization,—Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an organization, because life flourished under it. There the benefits that reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity were applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in a harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible; here, on the contrary, the harvest is blighted overnight.... That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism—those holy anarchists made it a matter of “piety” to destroy “the world,” which is to say, the imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another—and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters.... The Christian and the anarchist: both are décadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future.... Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum,—overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better,—this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, noth ing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!—This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things—the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption—against Christians....

[Anonymous No.19885822]

>>19885814
58. [2/2]

These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality—this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all “souls,” step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride. The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge—all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon—not paganism, but “Christianity,” which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.—He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity—to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.—Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean—when Paul appeared ... Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of “the world,” in the flesh and inspired by genius—the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence.... What he saw was how, with the aid of the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism, a “world conflagration” might be kindled; how, with the symbol of “God on the cross,” all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power. “Salvation is of the Jews.”—Christianity is the formula for exceeding and summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the mouth of the “Saviour” as his own inventions, and not only into the mouth—he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras could understand.... This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob “the world” of its value, that the concept of “hell” would master Rome—that the notion of a “beyond” is the death of life.... Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme....

[Anonymous No.19885838]

>>19884777
>>19884751
Please, tell us more about how The Antichrist is a religious and faithful book, and that it doesn't argue against Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19885966]

>>19885838
btfo

[Anonymous No.19886019]

>>19885682
Me? or Jan Assmann?

I can't make sense of you own Illogical Statement, seems u are projecting.
Cheers.

[Anonymous No.19886050]

>>19885838
>Please, tell us more about how The Antichrist is a religious and faithful book, and that it doesn't argue against Christianity.
Because "Pagans" don't distinguish between The World and a Transcendental Spiritual World ; The World , the Natural and Physiological relationships of the Sacred is all One; it's related.

So, yes; the Anti.Christ is a BTFO of Christianity from what we , but not the ancients, call "religion" "the sacred" "spirituality" , etc.
>We comprehend everything by filtering reality and Meaning from a Christian aka Jewish sense, a True/False dichotomy of Where is and Where is not our shared Meaning/Sacredness.

[Anonymous No.19886075]

>>19883767
not an argument.

[Anonymous No.19886164]

>>19883467
>Christianity is based upon the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection.
Who said it? Did Jesus say it? Why do you take some resentful priestly types words for anything? Maybe when you will be more like Jesus you will be more Christian, cuz you clearly are not now.

[Anonymous No.19886215]

Census happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VclDxog95Ck

[Anonymous No.19886230]

>>19886215
>therefore zombie jew

[Anonymous No.19886262]

>>19886230
The census is not indefensible as has been claimed in this thread. My comment had nothing to do with the historicity or logical possibility of the resurrection and zombie jews. But if I believed in the resurrection, I am personally undecided on this question, it would be helpful to show that the gospels are historically accurate. Showing that the gospels are historically accurate would entail showing that the census happened.
But yes therefore zombie jew is a great argument

[Anonymous No.19886401]

>>19883467
>Christianity is based upon the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection.
>Historical fact
>historical
>fact

[Anonymous No.19886435]

>>19886401
Evidence please. Or why trust the gospels if I am not a Christian.

[Anonymous No.19886446]

>>19883452
>christianity isn't true
U already got caught in the transvaluation of values

[Anonymous No.19886470]

>>19886019
You can't even type properly, you retard.

[Anonymous No.19886536]

>>19884777
He does, but here instead >>19883822

[Anonymous No.19886664]

>>19885633
what other links? why not just relay the information here?

[Anonymous No.19887304]

>>19885798
>>19885804
Nietzsche was an anarcho socialist. See these two paragraphs^

[Anonymous No.19887697]

>>19883764
The answer

[Anonymous No.19887720]

>>19884572
Someone didn't get the Nintendo he wanted for Christmas

[Anonymous No.19887728]

>>19887304
>The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala
anarcho socialist bros why did our boy neetch call us subhumans that are part of the same tradition of christian subversives? I'll read something else to confirm his anarcho socialism to myself
>The order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no “modern idea,” can exert any influence

[Anonymous No.19887836]

>>19883467
>Jesus being the son of God who was crucified for our sins.
Jesus refuted that in Mathew 15:24.

[Anonymous No.19887854]

>>19883452
What's the deal with retards and thinking Nietzsche somehow disproved or discredited Christianity? At best he just gives a psychological critique of some of its adherents.

[Anonymous No.19887857]

>>19883764
Sceptics will convince you that philosophy is wrong and Christ is the answer.

[Anonymous No.19887864]

>>19887854
>What's the deal with retards and thinking Nietzsche somehow disproved or discredited Christianity?
>At best he just gives a psychological critique of some of its adherents.
>What's the deal with retards and thinking Nietzsche somehow disproved or discredited Christianity?
> At best he just gives a psychological critique of some of its adherents.
>just

[Anonymous No.19887868]

>>19886435
>doesn't understand greentexting
Get the fuck our of my forum you casual normalfag.

[Anonymous No.19887876]

>>19885682
>thinking like a jew
>Christians
>not jews
kek, what a fucking pleb.

[Anonymous No.19887895]

>>19885682
Nuance and humbleness is anti-Christian I guess

[Anonymous No.19887918]

>>19887864
Yes, because it is all just conjecture without any substance. "Arguments against" require actual "arguments", not just insults.

[Anonymous No.19887935]

>>19887918
>Yes, because it is all just conjecture without any substance
>implying
>uments against" require actual "arguments", not just insults.
>>>t gives a psychological critique
>whatever he says, he is wrong

[Anonymous No.19888453]

>>19887868
Ok incel.
But at the end of the day calling something fact and emphasizing that doesn't do anything.

[Anonymous No.19888956]

>>19887857
If you have low IQ perhaps

[Anonymous No.19888958]

>>19883452
Your mother's diary desu

[Anonymous No.19889205]

>>19888958
seethe