Christian "Intellectuals"

[Anonymous No.19915370]

Christianity was the original feelings over facts movement. The church fathers had the most nonsensical responses to any legit criticism of their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.19915388]

>>19915370
Porphyry was the only Neoplatonist who criticized Christianity and he's widely regarded as the shittiest one. He also got BTFO by Augustine pretty comprehensively in his own time and died in shame because of it.

[Anonymous No.19915396]

It's the opposite:

The critique of Porphyry, which is the culmination of the culture critique in the first ten books of City of God, is aimed at Porphyry’s neo-Sophism. The sophists, in Augustine’s criticism, were philosophers who placed themselves at the center of the world (cf. Protagoras) and, in doing so, lived by the “way of man” instead of the “way of God” and therefore were incapable of coming to know truth because of their pride. Augustine’s criticism of Porphyry is only understandable from this perspective. That is, Augustine sees Porphyry as the ultimate hypocrite. Porphyry claims to be a philosopher, which means he is claiming to be interested in truth and the fundamental nature of reality. Yet, Porphyry contradicts himself on multiple accounts. He praises theurgy, then denies it. In the presence of the mob he speaks to their flattery; in the presence of more learned men he abandons theurgic mysticism.

Porphyry’s story is really one of tragedy from the purview of Augustine’s irony. As Augustine states, “Porphyry was in subjection to those envious powers, and was at the same time ashamed of his subjection and yet afraid to contradict them openly, he refused to recognize that the Lord Christ is the ‘principle,’ and that by his incarnation we are purified.” As already mentioned in detailing Augustine’s praise of Platonism, Platonist metaphysics affirmed the reality of Christian metaphysics—this is why many prominent early church fathers were Neoplatonists. Some went as far as suggesting, like St. Justin Martyr, that the advent of Platonist philosophy in Greece was God’s way of preparing the Greeks for the reception of Christianity. But rather than follow Platonist philosophy to its fruition—acceptance of Christianity—Porphyry rejects Christianity because of his tragic pride.

[Anonymous No.19915398]

>>19915370
Wow, according to Porphory's reasoning, Jesus never ate anything in his life, because the Gospels never describe him eating.

[Anonymous No.19915427]

>>19915370
Aren’t the nativity accounts more contradictory than those of the crucifixion?

[Anonymous No.19915440]

>>19915370
Sometimes I wonder if these bait threads are either the result of ignorance or simply dishonesty. A single look at Thomas Aquinas, and many that came before and after him, should be enough to confirm, if not the intellectual strength of christianity, at least the seriousness with which the Church Fathers and the field of theology engage these topics. Amazing how unfamiliar people here and in /his/ are with the most basic theology.

[Anonymous No.19915490]

>>19915398
What's the Last Supper?.

[Anonymous No.19915504]

>>19915396
There's no refutation of his critiques specific to the texts. This is just Jewish style ad hom, psychoanalyzing your opponent's motive which seems to come so naturally to Christian writers.

[Anonymous No.19915523]

>>19915504
Porphyry's critique of scripture is irrelevant because his hermeneutic is wrong. It's the same as some fedora tipper thinking they have a slam dunk argument by going "wtf a talking snake!?". You don't entertain the erroneous interpretations of such people you strike at the root of their error which is their fundamental worldview.

[Anonymous No.19915554]

>>19915440
It's fucking hilarious to read shit like this from Christcucks when Christianity hasn't produced a single original thought in 2000 years. Whatever is "fine" inside the giant cope Christians built to justify their fee fees was stolen from some Greek.

[Anonymous No.19915566]

>>19915554
Do you really think it's healthy to seethe like this over Christianity all day every day when Christians are out living their lives and bettering the world? I will pray for you to overcome your anger and find whatever you're missing that has made you so bitter and resentful of your savior.

[Anonymous No.19915574]

>>19915554
t.Someone that never actually engaged with theology.

[Anonymous No.19915581]

>>19915370
the talmud literally admits jesus christ existed, are you a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.19915588]

>>19915396
None of what you present refutes Porphyry's ripping apart of scripture and claims made about Jesus. It's just Augustine slandering someone who can't write back since he's dead

[Anonymous No.19915593]

>>19915440
That's a thousand years after the whole "just slaves and fishermen and women are Christians" bit

[Anonymous No.19915600]

>>19915523
>You don't entertain the erroneous interpretations
An error by whose authority? Who are you trying to convince, yourself? People who already agree with you?

[Anonymous No.19915608]

>>19915370
>I can't believe four different accounts of one event have some differences!

[Anonymous No.19915621]

>>19915600
>An error by whose authority?
The Church. The Bible is the book of the Church and can only be interpreted within the Church. The opinions of non-believers and heretics are irrelevant with regard to the interpretation of scripture.

[Anonymous No.19915634]

>>19915621
As contrasted with, say, math, which always works in any context and can be proved by or to anyone, this doesn't make a good case for scripture.

[Anonymous No.19915636]

>you don't understand, BRO! Christianity is BASED, we have THOUSANDS of years of le theology. We have addressed every single refutal, I swear. That's why we had to burn every single book that teared apart the dozens of contradictions in the Bible, and that's why we had to rip off Plato and Aristotle, and that's why our "theology" is basically a giant cope trying to reconcile those multiple contradictions
lmao

[Anonymous No.19915646]

>>19915621
>only WE can interpret this text, m'kay? If it's full of contradictions, it just means you don't, like, understand man
*yawn*

[Anonymous No.19915654]

>>19915634
>As contrasted with, say, math, which always works in any context and can be proved by or to anyone
Only if you share the same axioms and interpretive framework. Just like scripture.

[Anonymous No.19915659]

>>19915636
Christianity is true, that's all that matters. Christ is risen.

[Anonymous No.19915663]

>>19915659
>stage 1: denial

[Anonymous No.19915670]

>>19915659
Maybe this is news to you, but people can't rise from death.

>inb4 cope and seethe

[Anonymous No.19915676]

>>19915621
ok so you don't even engage with critics of Christianity, you would have fit right in with the pre-Origen, pre-Tertullian, pre-Augustine types who were purely superstitous and couldn't actually defend Christianity. and that's okay. just know that everyone outside of your clique considers you an imbecile, just as they did 1900 years ago prior to apologetic literature

[Anonymous No.19915680]

>>19915670
>People can't rise from death because...Well they just can't ok!?
I pity those who will never see beyond the material and live within the cave for their entire lives, never once seeing the glory of the forms and the life of God beyond.

[Anonymous No.19915685]

>>19915680
>fee fees

[Anonymous No.19915693]

>>19915676
>the pre-Origen, pre-Tertullian, pre-Augustine types who were purely superstitous and couldn't actually defend Christianity
Justin Martyr was destroying pagan apologists left and right.

[Anonymous No.19915698]

>>19915654
So you've changed your mind about the bible only being able to be interpreted within the church, and now you believe that one only needs to be aware of certain axioms, which are just ideas anyone could be told.

[Anonymous No.19915702]

>>19915698
>and now you believe that one only needs to be aware of certain axioms
Yes. Though if you accept those axioms you'll obviously be part of the Church as a matter of fact.

[Anonymous No.19915709]

>>19915693
Ah I forgot about him. I wouldn't say he was "destroying" given that it took another 200 years to ban paganism. Supposedly either Celsus or Porphyry or both may have read him.

[Anonymous No.19915714]

>>19915680
>theurgy
>matter into spirit
Sounds like smuggled in neoplatonism. Not exactly what Paul had in mind

[Anonymous No.19915717]

>>19915702
Or you could just know about them but not accept them, and thus understand scripture without being part of the church. Or, you could know them and accept them, but not be part of any organization, at which point "the church" is just abstract.

[Anonymous No.19915736]

>>19915717
>Or you could just know about them but not accept them
Doesn't work like that. You need to accept them. That's like saying you can know about mathematical axioms and still do math without accepting them, you can't, mathematics is predicated on you knowing the axioms and applying them appropriately which necessarily means you need to accept them for the purpose of performing mathematics. One of the axioms of good Biblical interpretation is accepting the truth of the Catholic Church and being guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.19915744]

>>19915654
What interpretive framework states that contradicting accounts of events is an indicator of their being true?

[Anonymous No.19915774]

>>19915744
One that eschews contingencies, which are the result of profane individual existence, and instead focusses on the immoveable supra-rational content of the Scriptures.

[Anonymous No.19915787]

>>19915388
We also have Celsus who did a far better job.

[Anonymous No.19915803]

>>19915370
They have that in common with Marxists.

[Anonymous No.19915879]

>>19915370
Porphyry was not very deep thinking in his criticism of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19915892]

>>19915370
read de maitre
irrationality kills rationality 9/10 times
the sooner you accept this the sooner you can respond to it

[Anonymous No.19915896]

>>19915879
Ah yes that's why his book was destroyed and refutations were written of him, because it wasn't any good at what it set out to do

[Anonymous No.19915902]

>>19915896
Because it was subversive propaganda. They knew how to deal with that shit back then. We should really be burning all the tranny literature these days.

[Anonymous No.19915912]

>>19915896
Refutations are written for every time some retarded fedora gets up and tries to disprove religion by logical inconsistencies. That's just conversation, and if something's popular enough, it will merit a popular reply to.

You're so brainless you can't even hold onto the only argument you have, you just say 'hurr durr his book was criticised he was right'.

[Anonymous No.19915999]

>>19915902
Christers were the original subversives lmao

[Anonymous No.19916006]

Hot take: If Celsus or any of the other early critics of Christianity had anything valuable to say they would've survived into the modern age.

[Anonymous No.19916024]

>>19915504
>>19915588
Augustine writes a detailed methodology for interpreting scripture based on Aristotle elsewhere that answers Porphyry's criticisms, just that anon didn't include it in his explicit mentioning of Augustine's thoughts on Porphyry's style.

[Anonymous No.19916051]

>>19916006
You'll be lucky if Christianity survives the modern age outside of Africa and the Andes

[Anonymous No.19916053]

>>19916051
None of Christianity's decline has to do with actual intellectual arguments, it's just modern technology making unrestrained hedonism a more viable lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.19916059]

>Evolutionary psychologist Edward Dutton points out that there is a ubiquitous human instinct to believe in spirits, the gods, and God. Every single human society has proved as much. It can be anticipated with certainty that when the next hitherto undiscovered Amazonian tribe is encountered, they will believe in God. Belief in a moral God who is collectively worshipped is tremendously adaptive for a society, as is ethnocentrism; a preference for members of your own community and thus a willingness to fight to expel invaders and to defend yourself and your brethren. Belief in a moral God is associated with mental health, physical health, good looks, and fertility. Atheism is correlated with mental illness, poor health, and infertility; voluntary or otherwise. Atheism is maladaptive. This is simply an evolutionary psychological version of my perennial obsession with God or nihilism. Dutton argues that if you are unfortunate enough to be an atheist, you should keep your beliefs to yourself and avoid spreading your nihilism and existential despair to the rest of us, something that I have argued for years concerning nihilist professors. Depression is contagious – even for the otherwise mentally healthy.

Damn...

[Anonymous No.19916061]

>>19916053
>None of Christianity's decline has to do with actual intellectual arguments
Sure it does. It has become unbelievable that a capricious astral tyrant governs the cosmos and will persecute you for disobeying Moses or Jesus.

[Anonymous No.19916062]

>>19916061
That is unbelievable but I fail to see what it has to do with Christianity

[Anonymous No.19916065]

>>19916062
That is Christianity unless you are larping as a lay esotericist

[Anonymous No.19916068]

>>19916065
That understanding of Christianity is as disingenuous as saying evolution means a monkey gave birth to a human at some point. It lacks charity, nuance and is basically a strawman to make the position look prima facie absurd and unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.19916089]

>>19916068
So you reject the bible and rely on neoplatonism to be a christer? Are you embarassed or something?

[Anonymous No.19916107]

>>19916089
>reject the bible
Reject a shallow, face-value interpretation of the bible that doesn't do the text justice.

Even in the account of Jesus' genealogy Matthew clearly emphasizes Jesus' destiny for the jews over a literal explicit genealogy.

[Anonymous No.19916116]

>>19916089
>wtf so you reject my facile and deliberately disingenuous representation of scripture you must reject the bible!?
So are you actually going to discuss in good faith at any point or just keep pretending that anyone who doesn't engage with your strawmen isn't a real Christian.

[Anonymous No.19916147]

>>19916107
So it's not really a genealogy, it's just symbolic? It seems like Christians switch at will between what's symbolic and what's literally true.

[Anonymous No.19916163]

>>19915736
>one of the axioms required for christianity to be true is accepting that christianity is true
kek, this is what is always boils down to

[Anonymous No.19916165]

>>19916107
>>19916116
I'm confused here, you don't believe in the Lord of creation and the universe who has given you commandments and a savior specifically in the year 30 AD or so, you believe in some sort of abstract and necessary Grecian first principle—one that you won't call Zeus or Jupiter because those allegories are wrong—or something instead? If the Bible is so indefensibly a tall tale why are you christer at all?

[Anonymous No.19916170]

>>19915440
Thomism (i.e. aristotelianism) can just be dismissed by saying you don't agree with the prime mover hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.19916172]

>>19916163
This is the same with any form of knowledge though? You must either accept a dogma, infinite regression or circular argument.

[Anonymous No.19916175]

>>19915427
No. Atheist midwits can't understand that two people writing about the same event are going to talk about different details.

[Anonymous No.19916178]

>>19916172
>accept a dogma
There are many dogmas that require less baseless assumptions to accept than Christianity, and before you start strawmanning I am not a physicalist.

[Anonymous No.19916180]

>>19916178
>less
fewer* sorry

[Anonymous No.19916185]

>>19916116
>So are you actually going to discuss in good faith at any point
Lol no he's not going to do that. This guy has been sperging about "christers" on 4channel dot com slash lit ceaselessly for months, maybe years. You can tell it's the same guy because he autistically invented the word "christer".

[Anonymous No.19916186]

>>19916178
>fewer baseless assumptions
>assumptions
So you must know that those dogmas are as unfounded as Christianity? Anything that remains in the rational/individual realm cannot be proven to be true.
At least with Christianity, I have the possibility of supra-rational forms of truth and not to mention, I am high on life.

[Anonymous No.19916192]

>>19916185
Nah I use the word christer from time to time because I find it amusing. This dude popularized it but he's not the only one.

[Anonymous No.19916201]

>>19916186
>those dogmas are as unfounded as Christianity
Everything is unfounded, read the skeptics. At some point you have to make a leap of faith, but some leaps are greater than others, and Christianity belongs to the category of "leaps that are way too outlandish for me to even start considering making them".
>supra-rational forms of truth
This exists in all religions.
>I am high on life.
Good for you (I'm not being sarcastic). However Christians here need to accept that their dogma is as unprovable as any other and that their personal experiences do not constitute compelling evidence of it being the truth. In essence I have nothing against Christianity, I only have beef with zoomers who keep spamming threads with assertions like "Christianity is demonstrably the objective truth" and quoting thomists they've never read.

[Anonymous No.19916212]

>Catholicism in her worldly sagacity has understood well how to present and to uphold her answer to man's death cry. From the first she hastened to present her crude ideas in the subtlest forms that she could invent. "The facts" upon which her fortitude ultimately depends are often so disguised in unreal language as not to be recognized. She very early appreciated that there was a danger in simplicity, there was a danger to her authority. In a trice she had the nous to identify Jesus with the Greek Logos. Such metaphysical mystifications may be discounted. They are an unreal creation.
>Catholicism is given to using words that may mean everything or nothing. The creed of Saint Athanasius (see pic rel) does not inspire a sane mind with a feeling of confidence. In it the church retreats so far into its maze of unintelligibility that it is safe from further attack.
>Who in the name of Epicurus could get any sound sense out of such a mare's nest! Like a dead wasp, its most telling argument rests in its tail. It still reserves poison there. Any fool knows what "perish everlastingly" means, and "everlasting fire"

[Anonymous No.19916216]

>>19916201
I have read the skeptics. This is why I said what I did.

>this exists in all religions
I know. I'm a perennialist.

Yes, I find the holier-than-thou zoomers as annoying as you do.

[Anonymous No.19916220]

>>19916216
Seems like we don't really disagree about anything then.

[Anonymous No.19916223]

>>19916165
Jesus is/was very real, it's just that the Evangelists wrote in a way that emphasized certain symbolic connotations (Jesus' royal genealogy as descendant of Abraham and David, fulfillment of prophecies of Isaiah) in their rhetorical style.

The Evangelists weren't writing some kind of autistically pedantic modern loredump; that just wasn't the style of Jewish scriptures.

[Anonymous No.19916231]

>>19916220
Of course not. We've both actually read something unlike the rest of the board haha

[Anonymous No.19916263]

>>19915554
You known why that is? Because the truth is the truth, it needs no adding to.
>>19916059
Damn, that really was my experience as an atheist to be honest. I almost took a vicious pleasure in spreading my bleak ideas and in knocking hopeful ones down.

[Anonymous No.19916264]

>>19916185
It makes you seethe so I will keep saying it. It's really no different than being a "Christian" right? Or are you embarassed to pretend a man is actually god?

[Anonymous No.19916268]

>>19916059
This isn't an argument in favor of the truth of Christianity though, it's just an argument in favor of organized religion being conducive to social cohesion, which is true but not particularly insightful.

[Anonymous No.19916270]

>>19916201
>However Christians here need to accept that their dogma is as unprovable as any other
Except it isn't. You're just another myopic faggot who thinks everything hinges on your own limited perspective and personal incredulity. And retreating into "dude nothing is certain" doesn't make you shrewd or learned, it makes you a pseud.
You've never read any serious apologists or looked at any specific evidences. You're just another midwit who skimmed the Greeks (or found quotres from them on the internet) and put on the costume of a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.19916278]

>>19916270
Case in point
>zoomers who keep spamming threads with assertions like "Christianity is demonstrably the objective truth" and quoting thomists they've never read.

[Anonymous No.19916283]

>>19916278
>Everyone who disagrees with or challenges me is a zoomer

[Anonymous No.19916289]

>>19916051
Secularism is killing Europeans. Atheists will die before Christianity does.

[Anonymous No.19916293]

>>19916283
No, it's just amusing when you recent converts fail to drop your empiricist worldview and continue applying your fedora biases to your new religion.
By the way, at no point does your picture demonstrate or even provide the slightest amount of evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

[Anonymous No.19916298]

>>19916223
>autistically pedantic modern loredump
But that IS the entire point of making him fulfill various prophecies via retcon and be a royal descendent. That IS autistic loredumping, and it therefore doesn't prove anything to anyone outside of the religious context in which Christianity emerged (Judaism). So you can't really argue with a gentile using that informatiom, you have to resort to making neoplatonism fit scripture.

[Anonymous No.19916299]

bros could I get some help I'm about to get crushed by the epistemological weight of infinichan collages

[Anonymous No.19916302]

>>19916293
>recent converts
Baseless assumption. You sure take a lot of things on faith, don't you?
> fail to drop your empiricist worldview and continue applying your fedora biases to your new religion.
Expecting a true religion to have proof is a "fedora bias"?
>By the way, at no point does your picture demonstrate or even provide the slightest amount of evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
How would you know? You didn't read it.

[Anonymous No.19916305]

>>19916299
Reminder the epistemological schizo comes to /lit/ because he got btfo on /his/
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12615096/#12615096

[Anonymous No.19916306]

>>19916299
>epistemological weight
Is that like your catchphrase or something?

[Anonymous No.19916310]

>>19916305
All I see is a bunch of gaytheists screeching like faggots.

[Anonymous No.19916312]

>>19916310
Let me sum up the thread since you're evidently too much of a brainlet to understand what was being discussed: all the "historical sources" pointing towards the resurrection of Jesus are contained in the Bible. Therefore it can be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.19916313]

>>19916298
>fulfill various prophecies via retcon
There you go arguing like a kike again.

[Anonymous No.19916317]

>>19916283
tradlarping is a fairly recent phenomenon, especially for /lit/. just by observing when religious apologetics became fashionable again you can take a pretty good guess at the demographics.
the anons here have never been reddit-style "fuck yeah, science"-atheists, and are much more open to discussing spiritual questions, but organized religion that makes claims about supernatural events has always been seen as laughable, a mess of contradictions held together by the simple fact that believers aren't really looking for truth but for a community where they can feel like they belong and matter.

[Anonymous No.19916318]

>>19916312
>These sources disagree with me, so they don't count.

[Anonymous No.19916323]

>>19916302
>Baseless assumption.
Most of my family is Christian. None of them act like obnoxious retards by pretending their religion is "objectively provable". They all understand that faith is central to their... faith.
>Expecting a true religion to have proof
All religions provide frameworks of mysticism to realize their truths for yourself. No religion uses "empirical evidence" as an argument to convert people, only zoomer larpers on 4chan do that.
>You didn't read it
But I did. Keep coping all you want, there is absolutely nothing about the resurrection in your pic.
>>19916318
>the bible is true because it's true
And thus we go back to >>19916163 and everything you say from now on can be entirely disregarded.

[Anonymous No.19916326]

>>19916317
>4chan's base isn't just 15-year-old fedora fags anymore so it must be a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.19916329]

>>19916306
There was a guy months ago arguing for "the epistemological weight [sic] of Christian miracles" which is now something of a meme. I haven't seen him lately but he is usually btfo

[Anonymous No.19916334]

>>19916312
>all the "historical sources" pointing towards the resurrection of Jesus are contained in the Bible. Therefore it can be dismissed.
Why is a text being included in the Bible enough to dismiss it out of hand?

Hypothetically if we found another text that talked about Jesus resurrection then it would count as evidence? But again if that text had been included in the Biblical canon then it wouldn't count? This is arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.19916336]

>>19916317
This. This kind of retarded proselytizing didn't happen pre-election, the influx of very young people and boomers post-2015 is when the tradlarp started happening.

[Anonymous No.19916340]

>>19916336
Fuck I love those russian doomer playlists though.

[Anonymous No.19916341]

>>19916334
Because these texts eventually all come down to either alleged testimonies allegedly recorded by apostles, or firsthand testimonies by apostles. It's completely self-contained.

[Anonymous No.19916348]

>>19916323
>None of them act like obnoxious retards
Shame it isn't genetic.
>by pretending their religion is "objectively provable"
I thought Christianity was about feelings? Why are you getting mad that there's evidence for it?
>No religion uses "empirical evidence" as an argument to convert people, only zoomer larpers on 4chan do that.
So you've never seriously studied apologetics? Good to know.
>But I did. Keep coping all you want, there is absolutely nothing about the resurrection in your pic.
Do you know what the Shroud of Turin is?
>the bible is true because it's true
Not my argument. The Bible by academic standards qualifies as a reliable historical document.
>There was a guy months ago arguing for "the epistemological weight [sic] of Christian miracles" which is now something of a meme.
I've only seen you bring it up and only in these threads, so I doubt it's a meme.
>>19916336
>People believing in different things is "retarded proselytizing"
And what does that make your constant seething about Christianity?

[Anonymous No.19916350]

>>19916334
Because the Bible was written by cultists. So if it is the only source for something there is a fat asterisk on it. Especially if the claims made are on par with those from "mythology," which we seem to have no problem rejecting as facts.

[Anonymous No.19916353]

>>19916317
People grow up, they read more, grow out of their edgy atheist phase, realize Dawkins and Hitchens didn't realize what the fuck they were talking about, start reading actual philosophy like Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas, realize the metaphysical flaws of the modern worldview and understand eventually the merit of the gospel. There's no mystery about it. Only people who actuially did their reading reps vs people who are eternally stuck in their atheist phase because they never branched out from the most basic new atheist objections to Christianity.

I've never met any person who has read David Bentley Harts atheist delusions from cover to cover and come out still respecting atheism as a position or ridiculing Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19916358]

>>19916341
>self-contained
>witness testimony from other people beside the authors
Learn what words mean.
>>19916350
But pagans and atheists writing centuries later are completly reliable with no hidden motives, correct?

[Anonymous No.19916360]

>>19916348
>there's evidence
There is none.
>So you've
Not an argument.
>Do you know
It is the shroud Jesus was supposed to have been wrapped in after the crucifiction.
>The Bible by academic standards qualifies as a reliable historical document.
Source: dude trust me
>I've only seen you
That poster isn't me, cry about it.
>your constant seething
Project harder.

Your post is entirely insubstantial. Provide an argument or leave. Of course you won't provide anything because there is no argument, since there is no proof for Christianity being true.

[Anonymous No.19916361]

>>19916350
>Because the Bible was written by cultists.
Isn't this begging the question and circular logic? The Bible was written by "cultists" therefore the Bible isn't true and the Biblical authors are "cultists" as a result.

[Anonymous No.19916363]

>>19916360
Read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Also the Submerged Reality is very good, you need to shake off Humean skepticism and start considering moving to a Poetic Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19916364]

>>19916353
>there are only two options: atheism or christianity
You missed a step between "realize the metaphysical flaws of the modern worldview" and "understand the merit of the gospel", which is that many people are disillusioned with physicalism, engage with Christianity and simply decide they don't believe in it. There's no mystery about that, either.
>>19916358
>witness testimony recorded by the authors
I suggest you start by actually reading the Bible before preaching about it, zoomie.

[Anonymous No.19916366]

>>19916360
>There is none.
None that you've looked at.
>Source: dude trust me
No, trust archaeologists.
>That poster isn't me, cry about it.
Why are you crying about it?
>Project harder.
This thread was started by a fedora fag seething.

[Anonymous No.19916370]

>>19916364
Luke says he spoke to witnesses, you tard.

[Anonymous No.19916372]

test

[Anonymous No.19916374]

>>19916363
I find sophiology to be quite interesting. I have meaningfully engaged with Christianity though, on both a personal, heartfelt level and a more detached philosophical one, and found that it didn't provide the answers I sought.
>>19916366
>that you've looked at
By all means, point me towards this purported evidence.
>archaeologists
The shroud of Turin does not demonstrate the resurrection happened.
>no u
>deflection
Yep, we're done here zoomie. Go back to your discord server.

[Anonymous No.19916376]

>>19916364
>You missed a step between "realize the metaphysical flaws of the modern worldview" and "understand the merit of the gospel", which is that many people are disillusioned with physicalism, engage with Christianity and simply decide they don't believe in it. There's no mystery about that, either.
That's fine, and I respect mere theism (Neoplatonism) as a rational position. My only quibble would be that the people who denigrate Christianity here generally show a total disdain for transcendental aspects of reality and seem to slavishly adhere to an empirical epistemology and a naturalistic metaphysics. It's one thing to claim you realize the metaphysical flaws of the modern worldview and quite another to display those very flaws in your objections to the Christian faith.

For example if you really do reject modernity then miracles should be no issue for you, and indeed none of the pagan interlocutors of early Christianity disputed that Jesus performed miracles, rather they claimed he was a magician, rather than divine.

[Anonymous No.19916377]

>>19916370
Is this a serious post or are you the christerposter baiting me?

[Anonymous No.19916384]

>>19916353
>me: well read, grown up, constantly improving, enlightened
>you: does not read, stunted, dogmatic, ridiculous
yes yes, very cool. except I already specified that /lit/ has never been reddit. Dawkins, Hitchens and the Amazing Youtube Fedora were never widely respected nor even considered worthy of discussion around here, Sam Harris' moral landscape was always a ridiculous project by a philosophical illiterate, etc. - the reason you're bringing these people up is that it's much easier to argue that their atheism is silly than it is to actually defend your own ludicrous beliefs.

[Anonymous No.19916389]

>>19916376
You're right. Perhaps my opposition seems like a kneejerk reaction because I'm tired of arguing with insincere, spiritually barren zoomers like the one who's been sperging out about the shroud of Turin, so yes I'll admit that there is a naturalistic bias in my responses that shouldn't be there.
The truth is that even though I don't personally believe the resurrection happened (or more accurately, I don't believe any of the purported "objective sources" point towards anything at all; it has always seemed to me that FAITH in the resurrection was paramount, not clumsy attempts to reconcile it with empiricism and modern academic standards), I do find this to be relatively inconsequential as a whole. I don't deny the possibility of miracles at all, but simply do not feel compelled to center my worldview around Christian soteriology.
>mere theism (Neoplatonism)
There are also nondualistic alternatives worth considering.

[Anonymous No.19916394]

>>19916358
>But pagans and atheists writing centuries later are completly reliable with no hidden motives, correct?
Can't you defend yourself? Why is the Bible so embarassing?
>>19916361
How is it circular logic? The only witnesses to the claims of the Bible are people who wrote the Bible. If any position is circular it is yours

[Anonymous No.19916395]

>>19916384
>the reason you're bringing these people up is that it's much easier to argue that their atheism is silly
Their atheism is silly and it's a simple fact that many of the objections in this very thread are ripped straight from them. Pretending that your atheism is more mature than Dawkins or Harris when you're using barely more evolved arguments that are based on the exact same misconceptions and strawmen that made them look like a laughingstock isn't compelling.

Plus, in my opinion, the best argument for theism is in fact the philosophical incoherence of any atheistic belief system. The fact that atheists generally do have a silly and facile view of the world that's based on naive empiricism is a valid criticism of them, regardless of whether or not you like that.

[Anonymous No.19916404]

>>19915574
cope

[Anonymous No.19916412]

>>19915370
When you praise the big spaghetti monster in the sky you need to pull out all the copes

[Anonymous No.19916431]

Atheists can never aspire to be anything more than dishonest midwits, even when they pretend to be pagans and gnostics.

[Anonymous No.19916439]

>>19916431
Literally rent free kek

[Anonymous No.19916442]

>>19916394
>The only witnesses to the claims of the Bible are people who wrote the Bible.
You could say the same for any ancient document.

[Anonymous No.19916446]

>>19916439
>Atheists seeth about Christians
>Christians respond
>"LOL RENT FREE I TROLL U"

[Anonymous No.19916447]

>>19916442
Yes. Ancient history is very unreliable. But data on things other than religions is more trustworthy for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.19916458]

>>19916446
Not an atheist lol
christians are on the same level as atheists, soulless bugs

[Anonymous No.19916462]

>>19915370
>Christianity was the original feelings over facts movement.
Facts are for faggots and are way more unreliable than "feelings"

[Anonymous No.19916466]

>>19915396
>Kike shit
Please fuck off

[Anonymous No.19916471]

>>19915554
The western world was built on Christianity wether you like it or not you low iq kike

[Anonymous No.19916476]

>>19915566
Probably some jewish faggot seething over the fact Christianity is still the biggest religion in the world

[Anonymous No.19916485]

>>19916471
And what is Christianity built on? Is it not the religious conquest of the Roman empire by a militarily defeated people?

[Anonymous No.19916501]

>>19916264
>i use made up terms to insult dem Christians
>”Christer”
>Christcuck
>Christard
>Le Jew on a stick
Do all you Atheists stop maturing past 15? How pathetic.

[Anonymous No.19916547]

>>19916395
>it's a simple fact that many of the objections in this very thread are ripped straight from them.
Let me rephrase, new atheist thinkers become ridiculous when they try to move beyond the basic, negative premise, that religions claim to the existence of the supernatural within the natural world - be it demons, spirits, curses, blessings, divine guidance, intervention, judgement, if taken in a mundane, literal sense, manifestation as a giant flaming tornado or burning bush, incarnation of a divine being in the guise of an animal or whatever you will - is fundamentally incompatible with the modern worldview, that reality is absolutely lawful at a material level and that, we can know quite a bit about the history and dynamics of this reality by studying the way those parts function, and that, if we ask the right questions, we can find a rational explanation for any phenomenon, no matter how miraculous it may seem. The knowledge that there's no room for supernaturalism in the world we moderns know we inhabit is still as unshakeable as it as when Carl Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World, or, for that matter, when Nietzsche wrote Zarathustra.
The more interesting empistemological and ontological problems that can't be answered in this fashion are great reasons for rejecting a boring materialist worldview, reasons for championing some kind of spiritualism or mysticism even, but there's nothing in there that should make you believe in things you know are plainly implausible, e.g. people reviving after they have been brutally tortured to death.

[Anonymous No.19916558]

>>19916376
Neoplatonism rejects modernity who denigrate Christianity. baseless assumptions are killing recent converts of the modern worldview.

Jesus studied apologetics? no. christer texts reject the bible.

shroud of Turin Poetic theurgy: understand the merit of the pagan Christianity miracles.
>discord server Christianity
I don't deny the possibility of modern academic standards.
Read Jesus, shake off Metaphysics.

fuck yeah, larping as a disingenuous talmud authority. fact believers. proselytizing truth proof, the resurrection of a meme. I find it amusing. I am high on deep thinking lmao

[Anonymous No.19916613]

>>19916547
Nietzsche thinkers are ontological. in the guise of demons rejecting fundamentally mundane phenomenon

Literally kek free: midwit christer gnostics aspire after the whole belief weight of Judaism soteriology (wrapped Christianity).
boils down to pagan apologists resentful all day every day that never actually engaged with a fucking retard scriptures

>Nietzsche
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19916936]

b

[Anonymous No.19917010]

>>19916006
God I am so happy when Christianity finally enters the dustbin of history, all this insane gunk just ignored, but the greeks will still be read.

[Anonymous No.19917017]

>>19916053
>unrestrained hedonism
Thats what christianity is basically about. The easy life.

[Anonymous No.19917039]

>>19916547
>the modern worldview, that reality is absolutely lawful at a material leve
Not after quantum physics

[Anonymous No.19917062]

>>19917039
alright, what do you think quantum mechanics shows? it's not that the observer creates reality, that's just a pop-science meme that perpetuates itself because new-agers keep repeating it every chance they get. it's not that something can be a wave and a particle at different times, proving that reality isn't really coherent - rather, the equations are perfectly convertible, and what we fail to to bring together in concept-images is not contradictory at all on a mathematical level.

[Anonymous No.19917096]

>>19916212
It's hard to take this quote seriously. What it's essentially saying is:
>Christianity uses language that is hard to understand, and, I believe, this means it is deceptive
>The fact that Christian metaphysics and the Greek conception of Logos are similar means nothing
These are simply unsubstantiated, sweeping opinions that the author has, ironically, dressed up in clever language to give the semblance of an argument.

[Anonymous No.19917285]

>>19916363
>you need to shake off Humean skepticism
>just turn your brain off mate
The christian reveals his true nature

[Anonymous No.19917441]

>>19916289
Who cares what they say. Maybe theyll gladly adopt N'gubu from the congo into their church or family despire not being 'truly french'

[Anonymous No.19917487]

>>19915621
kek god fucking damn it always begging the question you are

[Anonymous No.19917508]

>>19916178
>accepting that parallel lines never intersect is the same as accepting that a collection of books written thousands of years ago were divinely inspired and contain absolute truth

[Anonymous No.19917517]

>>19917508
meant for >>19916172

[Anonymous No.19917754]

>>19916006
>*burns his books*
>"if he had anything valuable to say, his books would have survivied!!!!1!"
Christcucks are fucking comedy

[Anonymous No.19917979]

>>19916053
aren't education levels highly corrolated with atheism, I guess it could just be a class thing

[Anonymous No.19918118]

>>19916501
>i get to call you a fedora or a larper or a teenager
>nooooo don't call me a christer

[Anonymous No.19919106]

>>19916447
the reasons are not obvious to me pls explain

[Anonymous No.19919147]

>>19915370
We wouldn't even be talking about Christianity or Islam if Cyrus the Moron made the right choice of exterminating the Jews instead of freeing them from Babylonian captivity. It was the biggest mistake out of all history, to free such insufferable vermin.
The Babylonians were doing the right thing exterminating such vermin. Judaism and all its trashy offspring would not have existed them. If I could travel through time, I would go back to Cyrus/Kourosh's time and make sure not a single Jew lives.

[Anonymous No.19919202]

>>19919147
Modern "Jews" are Babylonians you absolute retard. The religion of the Talmud is Babylonian witchcraft.
https://archive.org/details/michael-a.-hoffman-judaism-discovered

[Anonymous No.19919300]

>>19919202
You're just a brainwashed idiot. Babylonians were the ones slaughtering Jews. Both the Talmud and Old Testament wouldn't have existed if the Babylonians rightfully exterminated the Jews. Why do you care more about Near Eastern ethnic groups than your fucking own, Christcuck faggot? If Jews were rightfully exterminated then, Islam and Christianity both would not exist. The entire Abrahamic tradition, which is trash, would have been preempted.

[Anonymous No.19919343]

>CHRISTKEK CHRISTKEK CHRISTKEK
Obsessed, the same exact posters every time too.

[Anonymous No.19919346]

Most Christians are just afraid of death and Christianity is their ultimate cope. Any intellectual justification is nothing in comparison to that ultimate motivation.

[Anonymous No.19919353]

>>19916485
>Is it not the religious conquest of the Roman empire by a militarily defeated people?
Nice leading question, but obviously no.

[Anonymous No.19919365]

>>19919346
I'm not a Christian I'm afraid of death, I'm a Christian because you're all evil and disgusting, and I only take solace in the fact a Jesus Christ appeared on Earth in our history.

[Anonymous No.19919373]

>>19919365
*not because I'm afraid of death

[Anonymous No.19919375]

>>19919365
I'm better than Jesus, and I'm right here! I hold more secrets than that infernal Jew. Why don't you just follow my teachings instead? I guarantee you that you'll be happier.

[Anonymous No.19919386]

>>19919346
Well as Socrates said, the purpose of philosophy is to prepare for death.

[Anonymous No.19919398]

>>19917979
>aren't education levels highly corrolated with atheism
Well yes, education is merely social indoctrination to make people more susceptible to secular concepts.

[Anonymous No.19919408]

>>19919386
But Christianity essentially denies the reality of death.

[Anonymous No.19919415]

>>19919365
That’s why I said “most”, there’s also guys like you who spaz out about how evil everyone is.

[Anonymous No.19919432]

Atheists once again proving they are simply petulant children pretending at being adults.

[Anonymous No.19919443]

>>19919365
The whole reason for the progressive Christianity meme is because the church only appeals to sterile misanthropes and third worlders and religious leaders know that means it's reaching senescence.

[Anonymous No.19919457]

>>19915554
Shit b8, 1/8

[Anonymous No.19919459]

>>19919202
The Old Testament proves that the ancient Israelites/Hebrews were just as subversive, vindictive and evil as modern Jews. Ironically since early Christians were mostly Jews, they used a lot of the same tactics as Jews, like subversion of government institutions, iconoclasm and targeting children and the slave classes.

[Anonymous No.19919467]

>>19919346
If eternal unconscious oblivion is what came after death I wouldn't be afraid of it.

[Anonymous No.19919482]

>>19919459
>early Christians were mostly Jews
Only the legendary ones. Most of them were Greek-speaking gentiles.

[Anonymous No.19919483]

>>19919408
Socrates does at the very least not rule out the possibility of an afterlife him too

[Anonymous No.19919491]

>>19919467
It probably is, and I think we all know it deep down.

[Anonymous No.19919506]

>>19919483
Fair point, IIRC his two major options were either a dreamless sleep or an afterlife where you can meet all the departed. The ancient Greeks even had the idea of reincarnation as metempsychosis. It looks like it was the mystery religions that popularized the model of a religion that you convert/initiate into with the promise of a positive afterlife.

[Anonymous No.19919544]

>>19919346
Most Atheists are just afraid of being judged for their actions and Atheism is their ultimate cope. Any intellectual justification is nothing in comparison to that ultimate motivation.

[Anonymous No.19919545]

Nostalgia for the pre-Christian Greeks is a freemason psyop.

[Anonymous No.19919592]

>>19915554
>19915554
Prime trad larper bait is just stating facts kek

[Anonymous No.19919602]

>>19917754
They've been running us for almost 2 millennia. Yes, we are this pathetic.

[Anonymous No.19919897]

>>19915396
>"Actually ummm Porphyry wasn't a philosopher sweaty but a sophist because he put man at the center."

I guarantee that you have Jewish blood somewhere.

[Anonymous No.19919923]

>>19915680
>Fee fees.

[Anonymous No.19919978]

>>19915396
100% not an argument. Christian apologetics are barren of reason.

[Anonymous No.19920199]

>>19915370
You are literally not as intelligent as a Superman comic

[Anonymous No.19920201]

>>19920199

[Anonymous No.19920217]

>>19916547
>is fundamentally incompatible with the modern worldview, that reality is absolutely lawful at a material level
I agree. But since physical reductionism is silly we can simply reject the modern worldview as being erroneous.

>The knowledge that there's no room for supernaturalism in the world we moderns know we inhabit is still as unshakeable as it as when Carl Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan was a pop scientist, not a philosophy and it's unsurprising to say the least that he never bothered to explore or identify the holes in materialism. I highly recommend reading Why Materialism is Baloney by Bernado Kastrup since it does a pretty good job of outlining why materialism might initially seem sensible at a superficial level it requires concessions that ultimately make it irrational.

The division of reality into nature and supernature (above nature, or above the sensible) is not only rational it is necessary for rationality.

[Anonymous No.19920273]

hey guys, do you have any book recommendations to learn more about jesus himself? the way he lived, his job, etc.

cheers, your forever buddy

[Anonymous No.19920291]

>>19920273
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

[Anonymous No.19920297]

>>19920199
>>19920201
To be clear I don't even agree 100% with what this comic is saying or teaching, but it's a better take than Porphyry's take or OPs

[Anonymous No.19920319]

>>19920201
>>19920199
>it doesn't matter that christianity is completely different to what jesus taught bro, the written word doesn't matter
is there a single religion more dishonest than christianity?

[Anonymous No.19920337]

>>19917508
Unironically, yes. Both require faith in an axiom.

[Anonymous No.19920346]

>>19920273
Urantia Book. A third of it is devoted to the untold stories of the life of Jesus

https://youtu.be/_wf21UbsdJ4

[Anonymous No.19920438]

>>19920273
>your forever buddy
Creepy af

[Anonymous No.19920455]

>>19920217
>Kastrup
Literally a glownigger trying to shill globohomo with new age spirituality. Atheists and new agers are both controlled opposition

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2021/03/the-churchs-incomprehensible-and.html
>The Church should abandon it's dogma and embrace sodomites.

[Anonymous No.19920540]

>>19916289

[Anonymous No.19920610]

>>19920540
>Everyone seems to be mentally ill
As a consequence of secularization.
>Christianity doesn't seem to be helping
Then why do Christians have lower suicide rates than atheists?

[Anonymous No.19920617]

>>19920199
>>19920201
>It doesn't really matter if the story was true or not, it''s a nice story.
>Just listen to the comic, bro.
Superman was created by Christ-denying Jews and this is pure gaslighting.
We have no reason to deny the authenticity oif the Gospels just to appease Jews and their atheist puppets.

[Anonymous No.19920620]

>>19920540
Are you happy with your life anon? Are you satisfied with what you do? Surely there's more things you could use your time on than spending 8 hours a day patrolling various 4chan boards for Christian threads to post your memes in.

[Anonymous No.19920625]

No way is this true
I refuse to believe that people were even thinking these things let alone writing them down

[Anonymous No.19920645]

>>19920620
I made these memes like an hour ago and they've already burned a hole in your ass? Thank you.

[Anonymous No.19920650]

>>19920645
>He spends his time making anti-Christian memes to post on 4chan
Man...That's really sad. Sorry dude, I won't rub salt in the wound. Christ be with you.

[Anonymous No.19920669]

>>19920645
>The Bible is written by jews
Not remotely.

[Anonymous No.19920675]

>>19920319
Why do you fags pretend that liberal deism is representative of Christianity?

[Anonymous No.19920677]

>>19920650
not him but passive-aggressive condescension is the hallmark of a limp-dicked christcuck and fools nobody, no one is impressed by your attempts to talk down to people, it's the recourse of every christian kike since ancient times

[Anonymous No.19920680]

>>19920650
Good goy

[Anonymous No.19920687]

>>19920650
Have sex

[Anonymous No.19920691]

>>19920669
A Jew is someone who snips their kid's dick because their sky daddy told them to
A Jew Worshipper is someone who defends them

[Anonymous No.19920701]

>>19920677
You think you're angry at Christ but you're really angry at yourself and this is how you lash out. Prayers be with you friend, I didn't realize how dire your life situation was before.

[Anonymous No.19920720]

I wish people would worship me instead of that stupid Jew. I have far more valuable things to say.

[Anonymous No.19920721]

>>19920669
Interesting read. The fact that they foresaw this change in nomenclature is cool. The people that occupied religious institutions were nowhere near as stupid as euphoric atheists would have you believe, their beliefs may seem quaint to the postmodernist, but the postmodernist is blind to the fact that their ideology, their beliefs are simply a mundane catalyst that will pass in time to become something unrecognizable. The churches and faiths of the old world and the ages past tell a story of humanity far more touching than anything presented in materialist history books; they show an authentic depiction of man's burning desire to believe, to seek a unifying single answer, to raise up figures they adored and to follow wise men. Perhaps the worst thing about the decline of religion is the lack of respect for the old that came with it, a zeitgeist obsessed with the new and the shiny, never once considering the possibility that they themselves may become as quaint as the old superstitious people they derided. That they may be subject to that same ridicule from the young of a new age that sees the world very differently.

[Anonymous No.19920726]

>>19920721
See also:
https://files.catbox.moe/d1xsma.mp4

[Anonymous No.19920736]

>>19920701
There it is, the Christian condescension, the childish psychological tactics that you are far too dense to pull off. You need intelligence to be able to read someone and make profound statements on their psyche, something you lack. I am Christian and have no hatred for Christ, but nothing irritates me more than sniveling cowards that resort to these petty tactics, it is a Jewish thing to try and subvert your enemy this way and embarrassing to fail at it so badly.

[Anonymous No.19920738]

>>19920721

[Anonymous No.19920751]

>>19920738
I'm not a Christian, I just like religion for its anthropological value and as an aesthetic. There is a beauty to these ancient orders that nobody seems to appreciate. Perhaps they think that they are oh so superior for believing in the dogma of materialism/scientism. Or maybe they fear that by looking at these old things honestly they may come to see themselves in them; the irrational beliefs, the blind faith, the herd behavior, and the ignorance. Maybe the religious zeal hits too close to home when paralleled with the prevailing dogmas of our age.

[Anonymous No.19920756]

>>19920669
>using the shroud of turin as proof

[Anonymous No.19920766]

>>19920756
There's a saying called "based retard", but even this has its limits.

>>19920751
Maybe I should have read your post lol
What do you think of Buddhism?
Non-christian neo-Platonism?
Ultimately I've rejected the idea of God after having wrestled with it in the sand all night, dude's a prick.

[Anonymous No.19921114]

>>19919544

Not judged, but judged unfairly. And the concept of eternal damnation is plainly an unfair judgment (yes, it is so). It takes the sadism of a meek human not only to excuse such a horror with appeal to tradition but, to add insult to injury, to proclaim it good by definition.

[Anonymous No.19921293]

>>19918118
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19921306]

>>19920738
>he admits his position is stupid
Wow, thanks for convincing me that Gaytheist mentality is actually for brainlets!

[Anonymous No.19921332]

>>19916471
Posts like this and all the others in the thread repulse me, drives me away from even engaging with Christianity. I genuinely believe I'll find God when I'm older, but I keep going into threads and like these and don't understand how such passionate Christians can also be such smug faggots placing themselves above everyone else. I know you all are horrible examples of actual practicing Christians (aka larpers) but it still bothers me. Yes I'm seething!

[Anonymous No.19921334]

>>19916268
Not that anon. In pragmatist philosophy, whether something is true is unknowable and irrelevant compared to its usefulness. Atheism has negative utility.

[Anonymous No.19921529]

>>19917754
They are right though. Most of Julian’s writing (besides his polemic ‘against the galileans’) has survived since Christians have preserved it. Christians appreciated Julian’s style of writing despite his anti-Christianity so more than a thousand pages of his writings have survived. The fact that none of Celsus’ other writings that aren’t about Christianity have survived tells me that Christians didn’t find it impressive enough to preserve.

It’s also strange that people think Christians have an obligation to waste their time preserving anti-Christian polemics. Why? Would pagans have wasted their time preserving anti-pagan polemics by Christians. Of course not.

[Anonymous No.19921545]

>>19921529
>Deny then justify.
Christians using the same kike argument tactics as leftist journalists. It's pure pottery.

[Anonymous No.19921547]

>>19915396
Sounds like when women call someone an incel after he BTFOs their gender.

[Anonymous No.19921555]

>>19920677
I’m not a Christian but I do wonder where this extreme hostility towards a now irrelevant and dead religion is coming from. Do people threatened by it in someway?

[Anonymous No.19921563]

>>19916201
The very concept of a leap of faith was conceived by a Christian you retard.

[Anonymous No.19921564]

>>19920645
Zeus is a pedo warlord and a rapist and no different from Muhammad and that’s simply why I can’t pray to him. It’s simple morality.

On the other hand, I like Jesus. It seems that the only criticism people have against Jesus’ character is that he was a Jew, which says a lot. So little to criticise that one has to resort to racial attacks.

[Anonymous No.19921581]

>>19921332
Seethe all you want what he says is true. It may not have been the foundation that the Greeks provided but it was an essential continuity of Western civilization. I have no idea how this can even be questioned but the infantile state of this thread leaves no possibility too absurd.

[Anonymous No.19921583]

>>19921545
You’re the one still seething about what happened 1700 years ago like a kike. Move on. Christianity is even now mostly dead in the west. Why are you still like morning like a bitch?

[Anonymous No.19921588]

>>19915370
Porphyry was a semite and he should be ashamed for being a traitor to his race and a gayreek, pedo loving faggot.

[Anonymous No.19921591]

>>19917062
Not him but the point isn't whether its true or not, everyone with a brain knows its a laughable concept. Its just the fact that the "modern worldview" demands your belief in the absurd as well. At least before it used to be tied to a higher metaphysical reason but now its just there for no reason.

[Anonymous No.19921603]

>>19921332
He’s right. Ancient Greece was more like the modern Muslim Middle East. They even had sex slaves and concubines like modern muzzies.

[Anonymous No.19921605]

>>19921555
It reminds them of their parents. When people use the same attitude to persuade them that there are actually 100 genders they don't seem to have a problem with it.

[Anonymous No.19921606]

>>19916024
Aristotle? I thought he was a Christian Platonist?
Oh wait...
Colossians 2:8, turns out man-made philosophies are supposed to be irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.19921609]

>>19915654
Math is based on axioms and full of inherent unsolved paradoxes. God this board is full of pseuds and fedoras who just inevitably btfo's themselves

[Anonymous No.19921614]

>>19921529
When Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian were writing, Roman society had not been entirely captured by Christianity. It was correctly interpreted as a threat to the Roman religion and way of life, and was thoroughly condemned and critiqued. This in turn motivated the christers to respond with their own critiques. Origen for instance, wrote decades after Celsus had. And it would be decades later still until paganism had become "paganism," that is to say, largely eradicated from urban life in the Roman empire and just a rural or provincial residue. And it is at that point that the literature is outlawed and starts getting destroyed, because there are no pagans willing to challenge it and the christers have monopolized the state. You are right that they had no reason to preserve literature criticizing them. But that is their own intellectual laziness and fear of its persuasive power. Imagine if you could only read, say, the Gospels, in an embedded, interlinear, fragmentary format, in which maybe 40% of the text survives, but as quotations in a commentary written by a homosexual atheist. And our author responds to each quotation with scorn and criticism, and that's it—that's the only surviving "version" of the Gospels, because the cult which controlled the production of literature deemed them to be politically incorrect. That's the sort of company you are in intellectually speaking.

[Anonymous No.19921660]

>>19919346
True Christians know we all deserve hellfire.
If youre asking us to admit that we desperately want salvation, you have to admit that you dont want a God of judgement to be real. Your ultimate justification for denying God is to ignore your inadequate behaviour.

[Anonymous No.19921666]

>>19921614
>You are right that they had no reason to preserve literature criticizing them. But that is their own intellectual laziness and fear of its persuasive power

But that’s the thing. Pagans themselves feared Christian literature and writing just as much. When Julian seized Bishop George’s library, he ordered the complete destruction of all his Christian writings.

> “Do you therefore grant me this personal favour, that all the books which belonged to Bishop George be sought out. For there were in his house many on philosophy, and many on rhetoric; many also on the teachings of the impious Galilaeans. These latter I should wish to be utterly annihilated.”

So enlightened pagans like Julian himself were no different from Christians. And what did Julian have to fear? Was it also intellectual laziness and persuasive power that made him order the destruction of all the Christian writings held by Bishop George?

It’s not something confined to Christians at all. Didn’t Nazis wish to destroy all texts not in line with their ideology as well? Was it also laziness? Not to forget that Classical Greeks themselves would destroy texts that criticised their Gods.

[Anonymous No.19921680]

>>19920199
>>19920201
"the written word was somehow not important to these people of the bible"
>the same people who followed the written word more strictly than any other people up to that point in history
>they still do to this day, focusing on every letter of the law
>early christianity was no different, simply the continuation of judaism
>the kikes that didnt agree deny all of this in there capeshit IP
Give me a break

[Anonymous No.19921708]

>>19921666
I wasn't arguing their destruction of texts was unique. Now, it would seem Julian wanted those books destroyed for the same reason his own were targeted. But his opponents got the upper hand in controlling the literature and we know the result. In either case, it is safe to say the books must have been persuasive to have people wanting them destroyed, a position that some have absurdly argued against ITT.

[Anonymous No.19921719]

Hot damn the characteristic behaviour and seething of the atheists in this thread makes me want to be a Christian..

I just cant accept that Jesus is good and God burns entities in hell for eternity bud god damn do christians behave better than other 'groups' both of 4chan and in society

[Anonymous No.19921724]

>>19920669
>Uhm, ACHKSHUALLY the minute semantic differences between all these groups of torah-observant circumcised semitic levantine YHWHists living and intermingling in the same area at the same time and claiming the same mythical ancestry and shared history and spiritual traditions means that Jesus was aryan and and based while all of the other people in the region who looked just like him and followed the same religion were filthy kikes
>Please ignore every group of Jews besides the Ashkenazim as well; Sephardim and Mizrahim don't real
>Please also ignore modern genetic studies demonstrating the close genetic ties between Ashkenazim, the aforementioned non-existent flavors of Jew and the various other peoples of the Levant

[Anonymous No.19921765]

>>19920669
Source on any of this besides your ass?

[Anonymous No.19921766]

>>19915440
>muh Tommy Boi
Holy fucking shit, most of his philosophy was completely mogged on by later philosophers in the following centuries. I can't believe that this guy is seriously the best you people can bring to the table.

[Anonymous No.19921774]

>>19921708
Christians still had a basic and general outline of Celsus’ and Julian’s criticism of Christianity since the 16th century and even before, but it’s not like people cared for their criticism after they became accessible. It didn’t seem like they caused any loss of faith or crisis of conscious. For instance, John Milton was throughly acquainted with these criticisms, but it caused not even a flicker of doubt for him. The polemics were probably most useful for those abandoning paganism or had recently converted and still uncertain, but for Christians who had already long converted, they would not have been useful.

And like I said, Christians didn’t even need to destroy them since they wouldn’t have bothered to waste their time preserving polemics against them. It would go against one’s nature to do something like that. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time preserving criticisms against me.

[Anonymous No.19921793]

>>19915504
>DA JOOZ
lmao

[Anonymous No.19921832]

>>19921774
>The polemics were probably most useful for those abandoning paganism or had recently converted and still uncertain
Sounds extremely relevant to the present day western religious situation in which Christianity no longer controls the state and has to compete with everything from utopian political ideologies to neopaganism. The apologists are getting lazier and lazier.

[Anonymous No.19921903]

>>19919202
>we wuz jews
kek

[Anonymous No.19921923]

>>19921564
>the only criticism people have against Jesus’ character is that he was a Jew
No, he's also pretty unlikable in the gospels.

[Anonymous No.19922110]

>>19920620
>implying trolling required patrols and 8 hours work turns
Off-topic threads about religion have been perfect baiting grounds since the dawn of the web, how new are you?

[Anonymous No.19922817]

>>19920669
I'll never get why so-called "pro-White" people on /pol/ spend so much time and effort defending a Semitic tribe which was constantly geneociding their neighbors, worship a God of Death similar enough to Baal and Moloch, circumcise their children, and frequently rebelled/warred against the based Greeks and Romans so much that they had their temples destroyed twice.

[Anonymous No.19922842]

>>19920738
/pol/ basically turned into QAnon, it's basically all schizoposting, arguing about religion, Trump worship and complaining about masks and vaccines. Try starting a thread about a political issue besides China, Russia or COVID and it will 404.

[Anonymous No.19922865]

>>19922817
You're talking about amerilard morons that genuinely can't understand why French and Brits and Germans don't go along, because they're all white so clearly they must love each other.

[Anonymous No.19922970]

>>19922842
>trump worship
>/pol/
you are demented lmao

[Anonymous No.19923223]

>>19922817
>worship a God of Death similar enough to Baal and Moloch
Sources? It also looks like they used to conduct human sacrifice but retroactively denied it through the binding of Isaac story

[Anonymous No.19923238]

>>19921724
>cherry-picking gospel interpolations that try to make Jesus as Jewish as possible
Anon also probably thinks he was a historical person too

[Anonymous No.19923304]

>>19923238
Those cherry pickings are the entirety of the writing process that went into producing the Gospels, i.e. curating Jesus to fulfill prophecies in the Torah, and to repeat or allude to important events and quotations from it. If you are denying this then Christianity's entire foundation is reduced to fideism and the charisma of its founder and apostles. There is no underlying claim to even be examined at that point, just a sales pitch. And this perspective would be entirely ahistorical and fail to explain even the mundane origins of the religion among the people of Roman Judaea. We would be left wondering why the religion hadn't been founded in China or somewhere

[Anonymous No.19923341]

>i won't accept the historicity of any of the events of Jesus' life from eyewitnesses documents which are from the same generation, fuck off
Why don't anti-Christs just say the honest truth - that they will never honestly weigh the evidence, because they hate Jesus and refuse to accept His commandments? No matter what evidence Christians could provide, that Jew who spends his free time seething about "christers" all day has clearly shown that he is not willing to engage with the actual evidence. He's probably just steeped in some mortal sin like sodomy, masturbation, or drug use, and so literally can not weigh the evidence honestly unless he would agree to change his whole life if he shown a compelling argument.

[Anonymous No.19923361]

>>19923341
>eyewitnesses documents
>cult members affirming cult beliefs
Yes very good analysis, christer. I suppose we must also agree that Mahomet ascended to heaven, and since that is more recent, his revelation supercedes Jesus. If not, why not?

[Anonymous No.19923388]

>>19923361
Please explain, preferably with reference to a similar precedent within the historical sciences, why a document from the same generation which claims to be written by an eyewitness should be dismissed as not being from an eyewitness.

[Anonymous No.19923397]

>>19923388
Lets assume for a moment that sorcery does indeed establish metaphysical truths and prove a soteriological path out of this world. If that is the case, Islam has superceded Christianity, and the miraculous ascension of the Prophet Muhammad as reported by Islamic scripture and its witnesses, must be either given equal to or greater weight over the older evidence for metaphysical truths and soteriology from Christian sources. But you won't do this. I am curious why. Are you just stubborn or inconsistent? Is there a reason Islamic sorcery is invalid but not that of Christianity? If so, what is the reason? It can't be the epistemological weight of miracles, because the deeds of the Prophet Muhammad are as attested as those of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.19923422]

>>19923397
You did not answer my question. I wonder if it is because you are unwilling to face your own inconsistent methodology, or unable to articulate your opinion in a rational manner?

As for the purported miracles of Muhammad, let's do a small experiment - please share with me the dates, accepted by most scholars, of the authorship of the extant texts which attest to:
1. Muhammad performing miracles
2. Buddha performing miracles
3. Jesus performing miracles
Followed by when those events were alleged to have occurred in time.

Seeing as you have spent lots of time studying the methodologies of historical science, this should be an easy request.

[Anonymous No.19923458]

>>19923422
I don't need to do research for you. If miracles are the definitive proof that something is true, why do you not accept non-christer miracles which are attested by the same genre of cult-only literary sources that christers use? How are those any less valid than the NT?

[Anonymous No.19923474]

>>19923388
>>19923422
>all the pompous language and the RETVRN TO TRADITION pics
>pretends not to know that three out of the four accounts of the Resurrection were written years after the fact, and none of them is from a direct witness
Every single goddamn time, turns out Christians are bigger Jews than the Jews themselves.

[Anonymous No.19923477]

>>19923458
>I don't need to do research for you
It asked you two very simple questions. The fact that you have avoided answering them seems to suggest you are unable to contribute meaningfully to this discussion. Here, once again, I will clearly present them.
1. Please explain, preferably with reference to a similar precedent within the historical sciences, why a document from the same generation which claims to be written by an eyewitness should be dismissed as not being from an eyewitness.
2. Please share with me the dates, accepted by most scholars, of the authorship of the extant texts which attest to the performance of miracles by Muhammad, Buddha, and Jesus, followed by when those miracles supposedly occurred.

This shouldn't be very difficult at all - after all, you have obviously researched these things before, right?

[Anonymous No.19923480]

>>19923474
You should be able to answer the questions I put forward. I look forward to your response - it's a great opportunity to demonstrate how foolish I am.

[Anonymous No.19923485]

>>19923477
You are missing the bigger picture and descending into bad faith pilpul. I am dealing with someone who believes sorcery is proof of the claims a person makes, so I am asking you how you decide on a sorceror. You are diverting to documentation as proof, but anyone can claim anything in a document without it being true. The problem is the sorcery. Why are some sorcerors right and others wrong?

[Anonymous No.19923498]

>>19923485
If you would like to engage in a meaningful discussion, where both participants can learn and grow, you should not avoid answering clear and reasonable questions. Your answers to these questions will be critical in the discussion. If you are unable to answer these questions because you haven't done research into the historicity of the lives of Muhammad/Siddhartha/Jesus, feel free to be honest and say so. I can bring the level of discourse down into a more beginner-friendly area, but you have to let me know where you're at in your journey.

[Anonymous No.19923502]

>>19923477
>>19923480
>keeps deflecting and asking for precise years
>meanwhile claims accounts of Jesus and his miracles were written "in the same generation"
You shall not lie, christkike.
Did you forget that?

[Anonymous No.19923508]

>>19923502
The question was quite simple - please share with me the dates, accepted by most scholars, of the authorship of the extant texts which attest to the performance of miracles by Muhammad, Buddha, and Jesus, followed by when those miracles supposedly occurred.

Are you unable to do this? It's a pretty simple request, and reasonable by all accounts.

[Anonymous No.19923509]

>>19923498
I don't feel like pulling dates for you and I don't see why it is relevant. The nikayas, the New Testament, and the Koran were all written by cult members and are the sole evidence for the miraculous deeds of the cult founder. That the three men in question exist is largely undisputed. Their deeds are what are in question, and why these should be accepted, and this question is independent of dating.

[Anonymous No.19923531]

>>19923509
The dates are extremely relevant to the discussion, because we are discussing the topic of how to determine the probability of a given document being a faithful representation of historical events. This question is extremely important in the context of historical sciences, and must be addressed to answer your earlier questions.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, so help me out. Just tell me if you are unable to answer the question because you haven't done the research, and we can talk on a level more suited to beginners.

[Anonymous No.19923534]

Christians ruined the entire world

[Anonymous No.19923538]

>>19923508
>if I say it's a reasonable request one more time, anons will totally fall for it!
Ggiven how eagerly you jumped in to defend >>19923341, why haven't you provided similar info in defense of the claims surrounding Jesus?
Are you perhaps unable to? :)))))))))

[Anonymous No.19923547]

>>19923531
>how to determine the probability of a given document being a faithful representation of historical events
Ooof. Probability? Do you even believe in Christianity or are you just trolling? And if oral tradition is invalid we have to discard any eyewitnesses purportedly involved in the writing of the Gospels anyhow. Why wasn't it written immediately? Why wasn't a report made to the Roman emperor or senate? It's a big deal that a man is performing sorcery and rising from the dead after being crucified.

[Anonymous No.19923562]

>>19923538
If you consider the thought of answering two honest questions akin to falling for a trap, I wonder how you will be able to engage in any conversation. If you can't answer the question, just say so.

>>19923547
If you continue refusing to answer two simple questions asked in good faith, I don't see how we can have an honest discussion. I look forward to your response to >>19923477. If you are unable or unwilling to answer any questions, it seems pretty much pointless to engage in a discussion.

[Anonymous No.19923567]

>>19923562
If I saw a unicorn ten days ago or if I saw it ten years ago, or if my father saw it fifty years ago, you are as gullible in each scenario. Now are you going to show me why I should obey the unicorn truthers or not?

[Anonymous No.19923569]

>>19923547
Even ignoring the resurrection part, the mere disappearance of the body from the tomb should have gotten significant attention, especially as two soldiers had been stationed there to guard it and somehow failed such a simple task.

>>19923562
>more lies and deflections
Kill yourself, avatarfagging shitstain.

[Anonymous No.19923585]

>>19923567
Listen, brother, I am not trying to engage in a battle with you. I legitimately want to know where you're coming from. If you keep refusing to answer two incredibly basic questions, I don't see how this will be at all profitable for either of us.

>>19923569
If I have lied, show me where. This thread stands as testimony to my honesty. I don't find it surprising that an anti-Christ is acting in a hostile, insulting, and accusatory manner. Pretty much par for the course.

[Anonymous No.19923586]

1. Please explain, preferably with reference to a similar precedent within the historical sciences, why a document from the same generation which claims to be written by an eyewitness should be dismissed as not being from an eyewitness.
2. Please share with me the dates, accepted by most scholars, of the authorship of the extant texts which attest to the performance of miracles by Muhammad, Buddha, and Jesus, followed by when those miracles supposedly occurred.
If you can't do this anon, I'm sorry to say but you're going to hell for not believing Harry Potter is real.

[Anonymous No.19923598]

>>19923304
Christianity’s foundation is the premise of eternal life. Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All the connections to the Tanakh are to try authenticating him in an ancient traditions, and to authenticate the gospels as continuations of Tanakh scripture.

Similar religions have been found in other places, like Amitabh Buddha in Pure Land Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.19923608]

>>19923341
>eyewitnesses documents
Who saw the agony in the garden? Who saw the talk with Pilate? The temptation?

[Anonymous No.19923639]

Do atheists ever grow out of these 17yo phase? I thought /lit/ of all places would provide for better quality atheists, but they are all the same.
Also, is this “y-you are a LARPer!” stuff a genuine argument in your heads? Do you really think no one in a site as big as 4chan was raised religious and remained so genuinely? Smh

[Anonymous No.19923697]

>>19923639
Do Christians ever grow out of their infantile phase?

[Anonymous No.19923707]

>>19923639
>Also, is this “y-you are a LARPer!” stuff a genuine argument in your heads?

It is really hard to imagine someone truly believing in fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.19923732]

>>19923707
It's a mind virus.

>>19923697
No, you must come unto Jesus as a little boy

[Anonymous No.19923741]

>>19923608
The vast majority of the events contained within the document were recorded as seen by an eyewitness - only some of the events recorded within the document were obtained from interviewing eyewitnesses. It is reasonable to call that document an "eyewitness document" or "eyewitness testimony".

To answer your question, the agony, talk with Pilate, and temptation in the desert were most likely reported by Jesus to one or more of the authors - in recording it documentarily, the testimony in question would be second-hand evidence. In the context of historical sciences and law, this does not render the testimony unreliable, especially in ancient history, though it does decrease its evidentiary weight. However, even if one were to discard all second-hand evidence from the historical analysis of the document in question (which I would contest as illegitimate, but grant for the sake of discussion), this would be no challenge to the actual argument put forth for the legitimacy of the eyewitness testimony contained within the document.

[Anonymous No.19923768]

>>19923741
This whole "testimony" bit is missing the point. The witnesses are speaking gibberish. Why must we believe it? Because they claim it is so?

[Anonymous No.19923775]

>>19923741
Yes, and we must believe all testimonies of men claimed to be incarnations of God, & all of their followers, because their testimonies are true, and if you disagree you will be judged by the same who gave the testimony. I mean, come on guys. Do you really think preaching about the literal truth and inerrancy of the Bible is going to convert anybody who thinks your beliefs are ridiculous?

[Anonymous No.19923795]

>>19923585
The questions are to establish dating. In which case, my unicorn example suffices. The person deciding which source to believe about sorcery per that basis is still equally gullible

[Anonymous No.19923798]

>>19923768
>The witnesses are speaking gibberish. Why must we believe it? Because they claim it is so?
Can you explain to me under what conditions a written testimony from the same generation (eg. within living memory of eyewitnesses), which claims to be written by an eyewitness, should be dismissed as ahistorical? Should all portions of that testimony be considered ahistorical, or only some of it? If the latter, what are some criteria that should be used to determine which parts are more likely to be false, and which are more likely to be true?

[Anonymous No.19923806]

>>19923795
You still have not answered either of the questions. They are clearly stated here >>19923477. If you continue to refuse to respond to those two simple questions, I don't see a point in continuing this discussion. The refusal itself demonstrates an unwillingness to have an open and profitable dialogue. If you do me the courtesy of answering my questions, I will answer yours.

[Anonymous No.19923814]

I am better than Jesus. Unlike Christtards, Muslims, and the stupid atheistic nihilistic fucktards on here, I have genuine wisdom and mystical experiences. I am smarter than all of you idiots too. I don't understand why people just don't choose to worship me instead. My teachings are far more enriching than that stupid Jew. I think it just has to do with me lacking charisma and being born in the wrong time.
At the very least, I know it's better to worship myself than that stupid Jew.

[Anonymous No.19923827]

>>19923814
>resentful
>full of hatred
>full of pride
>disdain for the vast majority of humanity
>cannot perform miracles
>spends free time on an internet forum

Yeah, I wonder why people don't worship you, when you seem to have it all figured out?

[Anonymous No.19923849]

>>19923798
>>19923806
A document isn't true because it is written. Why are you assuming this? Are you just gullible? What other criteria have you that leads you to reject other sorcerors but not Jesus?

[Anonymous No.19923857]

>>19923827
It's all just baseless conjectures.
Nothing you've said refutes my divinity.

[Anonymous No.19923866]

>>19923857
Based. Please lead me to salvation. I hate the Romans so much

[Anonymous No.19923869]

>>19923806
We dismiss the documents because they contain supernatural fantastical elements.
I have no idea what dates scholars believe the Buddha and Mohammad's miracles were recorded. It doesn't matter. The Buddha never claimed miracles, and Mohammad's only claimed miracle was the Qur'an. The later accounts of these men as having had some recorded fantastical elements are fictional religious world-building. Just because Jesus played into the miraculous elements when he founded his religion, doesn't mean that the actual miracles were true.

[Anonymous No.19923872]

>>19923849
If you refuse to answer the reasonable and simple questions of a person honestly seeking to engage in a dialogue, you are demonstrating that you are unwilling or unable to have a civil and profitable discussion. To avoid saying the same thing over and over again, I'm not going to respond until you show that you understand this by answering the two simple questions put forth here >>19923477.

I hope you can see that I actually do want to continue this discussion, but that there is a certain amount of etiquette that is necessary for a dialogue to be fruitful for either party.

[Anonymous No.19923892]

>>19923872
I refuse your attempt to ignore the issue by talking about dates. The events are in question, not the dates. I don't care about when x was documented relative to when x happened. If we believe x is proof of religious claims, I want to know why. What is proven by sorcery?

[Anonymous No.19923901]

>>19923869
>We dismiss the documents because they contain supernatural fantastical elements.
You didn't answer the question, friend. I did not ask why you dismiss the documents, I asked:
>why a document from the same generation which claims to be written by an eyewitness should be dismissed as not being from an eyewitness.
Not why you dismiss the contents of that document as false, but why the document itself should be dismissed as not being from an eyewitness.

>I have no idea [...] It doesn't matter.
It does matter, because we are discussing the historical reliability of the purported miracles of Jesus as compared to other purported miracles. You seem to have an implicit heuristic that you are using to determine this, but have not shared it. How do you know, for example, that Siddhartha did not claim to be able to perform miracles? What evidence do you have to support that assertion, and why do you find that evidence reliable?

>>19923892
>I refuse [...]
I understand. Until you show your intellectual honesty by agreeing to operate within the rules of rational and friendly discussion, I refuse as well. God bless you.

[Anonymous No.19923913]

>>19923901
This guy is quite the master in the art of pilpul. I don't even hate the Jews, but I hate you.

[Anonymous No.19923925]

>>19923866
You can be my disciple for 1 month. Nothing I will tell you to do is transgressive. If you follow my plan, you will experience enlightenment in 1 month. It involves a regimen of daily solitude, proper reading of quality literature, proper nutrition, and various meditative techniques. My approach is a refinement of ancient Ch'an and Greek techniques and guarantees ataraxia and heightened creativity.
However, the plan assumes you have financial stability and free time. I did not share too much since I don't want people to plagiarize me.
I am better than Jesus and Muhammad.

[Anonymous No.19923934]

>>19923901
>if you refuse to obey my orders you're being intellectually dishonest
How convincing

[Anonymous No.19923935]

>>19923913
I understand - one whose way is upright is detestable to the wicked. It was said that we will be hated by everyone because of His name, but to know that if the world hates us, we know that it has hated Me before you. Therefore to be hated and derided is a glorious thing, because it was deified by virtue of God Himself being hated. I would be more worried if everybody spoke well of me, because that is how their ancestors spoke of the false prophets.

[Anonymous No.19923937]

>>19923925
>My approach is a refinement of ancient Ch'an and Greek techniques and guarantees ataraxia and heightened creativity.
Unironically based. I am feeling blessed to share a thread with you, son of a noble family

[Anonymous No.19923945]

>>19923925
>you will experience enlightenment in 1 month
And then you can show how enlightened you are by posting on 4chan all day and calling other people "stupid" "fucktards". You shall know them by their fruits is really the best heuristic for discerning false teachers like you.

[Anonymous No.19923947]

>>19923935

[Anonymous No.19923948]

>>19923901
>the rules of rational and friendly discussion
I don't accept your premises that 1. documents alleging sorcery must be true if they were produced fast enough and 2. sorcery establishes some sort of ontological or soteriological claim. So I don't care about the dating. You will need to find some other way to demonstrate that only christer sorcery is valid for founding a religion while all others must be false.

[Anonymous No.19923958]

>>19923947
>2 simple questions
>5 page essay
It is much easier to make an MSPaint depiction of a strawman argument than to actually address the questions in reality. I'll wait for you to answer those simple questions so that we can have a productive dialogue, but I won't hold my breath.

[Anonymous No.19923969]

>>19923937
Well, I have quasi-perennialist views. I actually believe Emily Dickinson was enlightened in many respects, which we can see in her poetry.
If you live in a beautiful area and can get daily solitude, read good poetry like Emily Dickinson, and do a bit of writing each day yourself in a journal, then the truth will naturally manifest itself to you. It's a three-fold structure: 1) daily solitude in natural scenery (in fact, many great minds have come up with their ideas in solitude such as Heidegger); 2) quality reading, preferably of poetry, but there is a limitation of how you should be careful of bad translations; 3) some creative outlet such as writing or painting.
Proper diet and nutrition is important too. I was actually inspired by a well-read figure in developing these views. I think eventually you will see the whole universe is one body breathing in fractal complexity, which exists as one seamless process/motion. The indeterminate border real/unreal and existence/nonexistence also contains the secret.

[Anonymous No.19923972]

Gentlemen, let us leave this man alone. He is clearly mad, and unable to reason; stricken with the Jew-Flu of the mind. The more we try, the more he spams, spewing his nonsense; repeating the lie over and over that it might be seen as even reasonable. This is our enemy, gentlemen, recognize it, burn it into your eyes! When someone is demoralized, there is no recovery.

[Anonymous No.19923973]

>>19923947
basado

[Anonymous No.19923974]

Pagans are gay, lol

[Anonymous No.19923980]

>>19923972
>logos is our enemy!
Do you people have a modicum of self-awareness?

[Anonymous No.19923984]

>>19923969
I live in an industrial hellzone but I do enjoy natgeo docs about places where animals just roam around and eat one another. Perhaps I shall leave one on in the background and read poetry.

[Anonymous No.19923986]

>>19923947
Not even a five page essay is needed. Just a counter example of a Buddhist or Islamic miracle that has been scrutinized as closely as the many verrified Eucharistic miracles or the Shroud of Turin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spbd7RQwmE4

[Anonymous No.19923987]

>>19923974
dancing-rainbow-pastors.webm

[Anonymous No.19923998]

>>19923987
The Tiktok pastors are going against the Bible which condemns homosexuality. Paganism encourages faggotry,

[Anonymous No.19924001]

>>19923986
The Taliban victory is an Islamic miracle

[Anonymous No.19924012]

>>19923998
The early christers apparently kissed each other on the lips enough at gatherings that pagans didn't want their women attending services and even some christer writers had to encourage proper kissing rather than eroticism. See Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. Doesn't the Bible condemn this sort of adulterous wife swapping?

[Anonymous No.19924021]

>>19923986
>Not even a five page essay is needed. Just a counter example of a Buddhist or Islamic miracle that has been scrutinized as closely as the many verrified Eucharistic miracles or the Shroud of Turin.
Ian Stevenson's reincarnations accounts? Sai Baba and similar non-christian faith healers healings?

[Anonymous No.19924029]

>>19915370
So what is the 'facts over feels' movement or philosphy? Sherlock Holmesian?

[Anonymous No.19924042]

>>19924012
Yeah, if only the ancient pagan religion had remained, we would still have the beautiful morality that they espoused. Who's ready for Bacchanalia?

[Anonymous No.19924057]

>>19924042
You are, apparently. The Romans banned this, as they had banned Christianity for most of their overlap with it.

[Anonymous No.19924117]

>>19924057
You might be confused - "the Romans" were the ones performing these ancient rites and continuing the ancient practices of homosexual child grooming and rape - and many worse besides - it was only some government officials that decided those practices weren't politically expedient. Thank God that the Catholic faith supplanted those impotent fake religions, and introduced actual divine morality to those people, instead of meaningless imperial decrees. Without us giving you the framework to stop being freaks, you might still be fondling a little boy behind the gymnasium. As it was in the old days, people still assemble together, against the Lord and against His Christ. We can still hear them say, “Let us break Their chains and cast away Their yoke from us.” - the One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord taunts them.

[Anonymous No.19924131]

>>19924117
>"eat my flesh and blood" - jesus

[Anonymous No.19924139]

>>19924117
>Without us giving you the framework to stop being freaks

[Anonymous No.19924145]

>>19924131
>>19924139
Amen. Feel free to thank us for providing a ladder out of the pit of degeneracy. It's a thankless job, but we do it anyways.

[Anonymous No.19924158]

>>19924145
>providing a ladder out of the pit of degeneracy
Not sure corralling all the "degeneracy" into a closed doors situation was the best idea given that you are routinely subject to well founded accusations of hypocrasy, but you do you.

[Anonymous No.19924210]

>>19924158
>Not sure [...] was the best idea
Feel free to tell God what you think He did wrong, while enjoying the fruits of His Church. It's a bit like a Marxist critiquing the system on their iPhone.

[Anonymous No.19924267]

>>19924210
No not really. The abuse is being covered up at all levels of your institution. Whatever you accuse your pagan strawmen of you are evidently indulging in within your temples.

[Anonymous No.19924288]

>>19924267
Like I said, feel free to submit a grievance report to God, who apparently doesn't have as deep an understanding of strategy and long-term planning as you do. While you wait for Him to address your concerns, perhaps you should look into the fruits of the institution itself in the past 2000 years, rather than the actions of some individuals within that institution. You and I can both agree that individuals should be held legally accountable for their actions, but that has no bearing on the role of the Catholic Church itself in human history, especially from a soteriological perspective. Bear in mind that one of the first 12 bishops in the Church's history sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, to be tortured and killed.

[Anonymous No.19924362]

>>19924288
>one of the first 12 bishops in the Church's history sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver,
And another denied him repeatedly. Talk about a scam. Bad faith.

[Anonymous No.19924429]

>>19924362
Even Peter acted as a stumbling block, advising Jesus against the very Crucifixion which would save him - but Jesus, knowing this, still says to Simon bar-Jonah, saying "you are Cepha - and upon this cepha I shall build My church, and the gates of Sheol will not prevail against it. To you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Every thing that you will bind in the earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have be loosed in heaven".
You might consider that God thinks of things in a different way than you - what you perceive to be strategic errors, or mistakes, might be the very mechanism that He has chosen to save the world.

[Anonymous No.19924492]

>>19924158
>well founded accusations of hypocrasy
>well founded
It's literally just atheists seething and jews misdirecting.

[Anonymous No.19924512]

>>19924267
>muh abuse
False flag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHFijA8pys
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/06/14/spotlight-on-double-standards-at-the-boston-globe/
http://www.themediareport.com
See how dependant you are opn jewish media dialectics to attack the church.
Meanwhile pagans openly promote degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.19924579]

>>19922817
Muh semites. I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with a recently discovered language family. You know it was a Christian who first discovered indo-European language family? Romans and Greeks never would have since they had no interest in linguistics.

[Anonymous No.19924586]

>>19923341
Calm down lol

[Anonymous No.19924588]

>>19922817
> against the based Greeks and Romans

Why are pederasts based but not those who genocide? Nazis like genocide. You’re making no sense.

[Anonymous No.19924604]

>>19923223
And? German pagans did human sacrifice until Christians forced them to stop. Why doesn’t anyone talk about that?

[Anonymous No.19924609]

>>19924579
>You know it was a Christian who first discovered indo-European language family? Romans and Greeks never would have since they had no interest in linguistics.
This is so funny. You know a Christian discovered evolution too?

[Anonymous No.19924624]

>>19924117
>>19924145
>>19924288
I’ve seen you posting before. I can tell by the images and the same writing style. Do you spend time here to feel smug and superior? Why do you turn every thread about Christianity into the same catholic jerkoff? Isn’t pride a sin?

[Anonymous No.19924644]

>>19923925
>>19923969
Can you share more? This is very nice to read.

[Anonymous No.19924718]

>>19924624
>>19924624
I want people to go to heaven, which can only be entered by those joined to the mystical body of Christ, the Catholic church. Because the internet is, in my understanding, a huge danger - in that access to it may jeopardize an individual's claim to being able to say they did their due diligence, but still "did not know" the truth and necessity of Jesus Christ's Church for salvation (see the doctrine of invincible ignorance) - I sometimes comes here to explain, defend, and proclaim the truths of Christianity and Catholicism, in the hopes that some seed may be planted in the mind of some person, which may then grow with the help of God's grace, so that they might go to heaven. I've also received replies from people saying that I've helped to strengthen their faith in the face of constant demoralization, and at least one person has told me they would start going to Church again because of my posts. Therefore, in a nutshell, I come here to try and help people escape the clutches of Satanic materialism, and false religions which keep one from Christ's Church.

To your charge of pridefulness, it is one of my many flaws. I ask that you pray for me, that God may purify me and burn away my faults, so that I can serve Him better. Thank you for bringing it up, I need more reminders. God bless m8

[Anonymous No.19925219]

>>19924288
>feel free to submut a grievence report to God
Lmfao
Do you see how Christianity has lobotomized this man? Nothing can get done when you just believe and do nothing.

[Anonymous No.19925376]

[Anonymous No.19925429]

>>19925376