/lit/ - Literature

File: 80 KB, 1137x260, exodus20.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:18:04 2022 No.20098452 [DELETED]

The original hebrew text of the second commandment LITERALLY forbids everything every single Christian does (kneeling for worship, making images of god, praying to images of god, statues, etc etc).

Even the Christian bible says this exact same stuff on Exodus.

How do people cope with this blatant mental gymnastic?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:20:55 2022 No.20098462 I thought it was really funny when Martin Luther came and said the 10 Commandments are purely advisory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:22:19 2022 No.20098465 beauty is deceiving

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:25:39 2022 No.20098477 >>20098452 >retard Op thinks Christians believe everything in the OT

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:25:41 2022 No.20098478 >>20098452 No Christians pray to images that they think are gods or that have spirits dwelling in them

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:26:01 2022 No.20098480 Show me a religion or philosophy that man adheres to that does not have mental gymnastics as one of it's core tenants. Just try to be a good person to those around you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:27:29 2022 No.20098484 >>20098478 >Christians kneel before images of Jesus >Christians kneel before an image of a likeness of something in heaven. Justify this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:27:32 2022 No.20098485 >>20098452 >the bible has to be interpreted LITERALLY Later in the text, Yahweh instructs the people to bow before the ark of the covenant, which had statues of cherubim on it. The difference is that cherubim are real and Ba'al isn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:28:40 2022 No.20098487 >>20098484 protestants don't do this. FFS inform yourself before starting blatantly stupid arguments on here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:29:50 2022 No.20098492 >>20098480 Christianity. >>20098452 correction, everything some denominations do. protestants don't have any. also the kneeling is in relation to doing so in front of said images.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:31:00 2022 No.20098495 >>20098484 Jehovah's witnesses don't

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:31:35 2022 No.20098496 >>20098495 JWs do much worse stuff lmao i wouldn't consider them Christian.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:33:10 2022 No.20098498 >>20098452 >The original hebrew text of the second commandment LITERALLY forbids >second commandment This retard can't count.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:33:57 2022 No.20098503 >>20098478 What about all those miracle icons?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:36:15 2022 No.20098509 >>20098492 They use mental gymnastics too. It's man made and therefor is loaded with inconsistencies.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:36:33 2022 No.20098510

>>20098452
Hey this is a great post and actually it's so foreign that the original meaning is lost on us. So basically, people used to literally worship statues and other objects as deities. Christ statues are the representation of Christ - the statue isn't the deity. For example, the Roman cult of Isis, the statue was literally the deity and adoring the statue was adoring your "god." For example my Cross or my crucifix, they aren't idols because they're not somehow a connection to God, they're a reminder to be a good Christian - nothing more nothing less. It may seem weird but these objects held God, whereas Christian totems are just objects, nothing more nothing less. Perhaps Altar Gospels could be argued to be false idols for some, but it's a huge stretch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:37:30 2022 No.20098517 >>20098452 Have any of you even read Romans?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:38:12 2022 No.20098520 >>20098517 what specific passage are you referring to? >>20098509 lol. show me one inconsistency then.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:40:43 2022 No.20098529 >>20098510 God made us in his own image. God is a vain god. We are vain, but we're not suppose to be vain even though he made us this way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:43:36 2022 No.20098536 >>20098520 If I point out an inconsistency of your religion, you will do mental gymnastics to protect that which you have built your life around. You are human. I've seen it with all. And I don't need to see it again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:46:41 2022 No.20098543 >>20098536 >i'll protect my strawman because i know i'll not take your answer and call it mental gymnastics because it goes against my faulty notion of Christianity which i can criticize keep walking in the dark then.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:47:47 2022 No.20098548

>>20098510
>20098495
The commandment specifically says the graven images are 'likenesses'. Is being a 'practicing Christian' like this some kind of test as to whether you are willing to do triple somersaults with a 180 twist to justify the obviously wrong shit you do? This is just like the "well, the eye of a needle is actually a gate..." kind of shit. I hope you like the idea of literally burning in hell.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:48:31 2022 No.20098551

>>20098510
In that case if I no longer need a cross, it is okay to burn it in my fireplace? As it is a reminder totem, I do not need to give it any more respect then a note on my fridge which reminds me to be a good christian? I just don't buy the logic. It is obvious many people treat their crosses with near divine respect and pray to them - this is clearly a Roman pagan tradition that is still alive today from the transitional period between paganism and christianism, just like many of the pagan holidays christians still celebrate under the guise of their religion today.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:50:09 2022 No.20098555 >>20098543 Religion itself is a false idol, and you will go to the ends of the Earth to protect this man made idol that is not all knowing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:52:11 2022 No.20098562 >>20098520 Can God lie? The bible says he can't, but it also says he is all powerful.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:52:57 2022 No.20098565

>>20098510
shouldn't have images anyway. Christ is not on the cross, He is sat beside God. Why the crucifixes?
>>20098529
Vanity and pride comes from sin, not from God.
>>20098548
it's a neverending stream of gymnastics. ever discussed their prayer to saints? it's literal paganism and they say it's only "veneration", and dare call themselves the true church.
>>20098551
I don't think a cross is a bad thing (as in a necklace or something) but do agree you shouldn't pray to it.
Although some holidays are the opposite, and they're paganizing them.
>>20098562
>no valid argument besides a fedora tip
great points.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:55:33 2022 No.20098577 >>20098452 i don't because i'm not THAT religious

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:57:01 2022 No.20098579

>>20098562
Oh, quoted that on the last one by accident, i meant to quote >>20098555
as for your question, that is a meaningless paradox. By the exact definition of omnipotence, it cannot go against itself. it's basic logic.
Also, it doesn't say He can't, but that He doesn't, because He is perfectly good and just.
the "can God make a stone that He cannot lift" is a better version of that lame paradox.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 11:59:27 2022 No.20098588 >>20098577 others who are very religious also don't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:00:09 2022 No.20098590 >>20098579 No. You praise a man made religion, not God. Seek God, not one of the first man made code of laws to keep a group of people in order.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:03:01 2022 No.20098602

>>20098579
Retard. God being able to lie is a question that has serious practical implications. If he can lie, then everything he says is open to serious doubts (even if you believe he is real). For all you know, God is actually the devil or the demiurge or something and has been deluding you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:04:20 2022 No.20098607 >>20098590 so actually follow the Bible? i agree some places don't do it. I bet you think you're spiritualized and that "god is everywhere" and "all religions lead to god" or whatever lies are around now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:05:50 2022 No.20098614 >>20098602 what did i just say? God is perfectly good and just, and so does not lie. that amounts to an inability to lie if you need to think in those terms. lie is evil, deceit, sin. which God is the opposite of.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:07:25 2022 No.20098621 >>20098614 How do you know that? He could have been lying when he told you. In fact, if he was a liar he would almost definitely have told you otherwise. I know you're a retard but come on, this is not complicated.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:08:31 2022 No.20098627

>>20098565
>Why the crucifixes?

When what you commonly take to be the symbol of your religion is an instrument of death, the kind of brainwashing it takes to see it as something representing goodness might be representative of what gets a lot of them do act how they do simply because others do this.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:09:41 2022 No.20098635

Those false Christians are in for a real wake-up call some time soon. God imposes his ideas of "right and wrong" on people independently of human laws and it isn't even a good thing. People shouldn't have to be afraid of doing things that aren't illegal but God says he will kill me for eating cheetos. God considers it "sinful" for me to eat cheetos, snickers, popcorn chicken, chalupas, hamburger helper because "it's too good for me" and "I'm a peasant".

It would literally be better to live in a society where the law is the only thing keeping people's impulse in check than one where God is because God terrorizes me for the pettiest things imaginable. God terrorizes me for playing the video game battle brothers and other video games, he terrorizes me over my literal private thoughts. Imagine wanting to live in a world where you're constantly being menaced by a nazi gestapo God who reads all your thoughts in real time so he can mock and terrorize you for them. It would be better to live in a world where you only have to worry about murdering, raping, torturing people because there might be legal consequences than one where you have to worry about your literal private thoughts, fantasies, what food you eat, what video games you play because God might decide that it's "wrong" and punish you for it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:11:42 2022 No.20098648 >>20098487 He said actual christians

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:11:45 2022 No.20098649

>>20098614
Why is God good and just? And what do you mean by good and just? There is no justice in suffering, which God allows - suffering is evil. God gave our minds limits, you cannot imagine something impossible, like a new colour or no beginning. So why stop at that? Why not limit our minds so that we also do not commit evil deeds? If evil never existed in our minds, it would never be a choice and therefore we would still have free will in accord with the world we would be in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:13:02 2022 No.20098652 >>20098649 Correction, you can imagine impossible things, just not some

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 12:25:53 2022 No.20098694

>use the Torah to 'prove' Jesus is Yahweh, fulfills prophecies, etc.
>ignore whatever didn't jive well with the Roman underclass
>throw in some neoplatonic theology so it isn't completely just a fairy tale for dullards
based larpers and their entirely fabricated religion

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:01:26 2022 No.20098833

>>20098529
Love your God and your neighbor but not yourself.
>>20098548
>heavens above, earth below, and water below
Christ was on Earth. Again, you don't fully understand what an idol is. Mecca is a great example of an idol, my dad dropped the crucifix in Church when he was a kid and it broke and no one even punished him.
>>20098551
>In that case if I no longer need a cross, it is okay to burn it in my fireplace? As it is a reminder totem, I do not need to give it any more respect then a note on my fridge which reminds me to be a good christian?
Yes exactly.
>>20098565
>Why the crucifixes?
Christ's last moment on Earth.

Keep in mind - I omly believe the 10 commandments because of Christ. If not for Christ, I'd ignore them entirely as lunacy, but Christ told me to follow them so I do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:11:27 2022 No.20098879 >>20098510 Literally the only knowledgeable post in this worthless thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:12:48 2022 No.20098884 >>20098452 I grew up among Jehovah Witnesses, that would explain my distaste for catholic churches.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:13:23 2022 No.20098886 >>20098879 Thanks, fren. People really don't understand that the statue was their god. Not in symbol, not even in likeness, but reality. This was radical at the time - also we know Moses tweaked commandments to humans in their times from Christ.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:15:43 2022 No.20098895 >>20098452 >kneeling for worship, making images of god, praying to images of god, statues Is this a heretic joke I'm too protestant to understand?

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:16:33 2022 No.20098899

>>20098833
It is very clear from the OT what idolatry is and that most Christians have ignored it because Greco-Roman, and European culture more broadly, was not as hostile to representative art as the writers of the Torah were, who were aware that all neighboring peoples made images of their gods and that if they allowed this their tribe would be assimilated. The Greeks and Romans had a long tradition of assimilating and syncretizing gods of similar functions but different names (this is one of the causes of the Maccabean revolt against the Macedonian Seleucid kings), so in that sense it is obvious what the ban is for; it's to keep you from worshiping a foreign god as Yahweh, because at that point you are going to start assimilating, maybe even speaking Greek! Imagine the horror! Of course, that happens anyway, and it does irreparable damage to the unity of Abrahamic religion, which has to split into a conservative branch and a more Hellenistic one anyway a few centuries after the Seleucids. Interestingly, it is only after Islam spreads that Christians have to reconsider being idolators/iconolators, but that is eventually resolved in favor of images

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:16:49 2022 No.20098902 >>20098565 >ever discussed their prayer to saints? Nobody prays to the saints. Christians, however, do invoke the saints for their intercession, as the Bible says.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:20:06 2022 No.20098913

>>20098510
>the statue was literally the deity and adoring the statue was adoring your "god."
Educated pagans argued against this interpretation, especially neoplatonists, for whom statues were the dwelling places of the gods but not themselves gods. Only the rudest peasant believed a statue was god, a form of low-comprehension which returns in Christianity in the form of relic cults for instance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:23:03 2022 No.20098922 >>20098902 >Nobody prays to the saints If you didn't have e-convert zeal you'd know laypeople don't see a difference between reciting "saint so-and-so pray for us" and saying "i pray to saint so-and-so for x, y, z"

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:26:58 2022 No.20098938

>>20098913
Same standard here applied to Christians. I guess the main difference is that Christ is the only real deity and theirs are delusions.
>>20098899
>It is very clear from the OT what idolatry is and that most Christians have ignored it because Greco-Roman
Altars are supposed to be from uncarved stone. Otherwise, informarive post but zero clue what point you're making unless it's that their is a socio-cultural hegemoni purpose to idolatry, which is specious because that implies culture is the end purpose of religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:27:36 2022 No.20098942 >>20098913 Educated pagans were writing in late antiquity, not literal sacrifice children to moloch and drag your big Ishtar cult image around times that the Hebrews were responding to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:28:18 2022 No.20098945 >/cope/ - Coping General

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:31:21 2022 No.20098958

>>20098452
You're engaging in what biblical commentators have historically called "the literalism of the Pharisees." I believe you are meant to take these two clauses as a whole. In other words, you are not to make graven images so as/in order to worship them. I say this because, later in the OT, God's temple is festooned with images of vines, trees, flowers, and cherubim; the holy of holies is flanked by two monumental statues of angels; and the molten sea, the area where priests were expected to ritually cleanse themselves, is held aloft by bronze statues of 12 oxen. There is also, of course, the famous example of the staff with the twin snakeheads, which Christ Himself alludes to.

Now, the staff was eventually removed and the temple destroyed, but these events were due to the iniquity of the people themselves, rather than to any intrinsic evil of the images. The staff, the images, the stone cherubim, and the bronze oxen all formed a part of God's perfect blueprint for His dwelling place on earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:38:24 2022 No.20098982 >>20098452 >prostrate yourself before them [the images] So if I kneel while praying and have no idols, I am fine. What's the problem?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:54:06 2022 No.20099037 >>20098958 Fantastic post.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:55:16 2022 No.20099043

>>20098938
>culture is the end purpose of religion
Yeah it has the word "cult" in it for a reason. Prior to doctrines of universal salvation, religion was more overtly about regulating behavior in a community and attempting to entreat divine influence upon real-world events. Those goals survived, but they compete for priority with soteriology

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 13:57:17 2022 No.20099049 >>20098942 Jesus was effectively a child sacrifice from a certain perspective. And Christians have not done away with processions of holy crosses, relics, icons, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:04:30 2022 No.20099080 >>20098879 >>20099037 this is pathetic

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:06:47 2022 No.20099091 >>20099080 Careful now, if you persecute that poster they might canonize him

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:07:12 2022 No.20099093 >>20098607 The Bible is the code of laws created by man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:07:35 2022 No.20099096 >>20099049 The 'dying for our sins' really doesn't make any sense if you don't hold at least some version of this pagan idea of sacrifice. Why wouldn't God just somehow tell us our sins are forgiven?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:08:45 2022 No.20099102 >>20099049 The whole "Lamb of God" thing really flew over some people's heads.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:12:26 2022 No.20099118

>>20099102
I don't think many people understand that pre-Talmudic Judaism was all about animal sacrifice at the temple. This isn't any sort of an edgy conspiracy theory, this is known fact that can be seen in any source you choose. It really was just a monotheistic and more textually-based version of the standard ancient Mediterranean religions.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:13:41 2022 No.20099127

>>20099096
It is hard to conceptualize the original message of Christianity to our post-Christian audience, because whether those who were first preached to believed in Jupiter or in Yahweh, the notion that they could sacrifice a God to a God is so completely innovative, and, if it is indeed possible, would mean the end of sacrifice as it was known. What else could possibly be offered? You've won the potlach. You've offered up God to earn the forgiveness of God. There is nothing left to sacrifice... unless you are now willing to die for this idea—that no more offerings are needed to any God because Jesus has redeemed all—which as we know, not an insignificant number of Christians were.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:16:50 2022 No.20099139 File: 100 KB, 1024x877, 1583377452274.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20098958 >the literalism of the Pharisees. why are they like this bros

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:17:48 2022 No.20099143

>>20099127
Yeah sure but that 'the game is over' idea does not work well when you are trying to run a religion and could not be truly maintained. Christians really don't use this as their standard model for approaching any issue, they love the "we deserve bad things to happen and need to desperately repent and try to do better" meme. Many of them reduce the "he died for our sins" to an empty mantra or a fun fact.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:20:18 2022 No.20099155 All I'm seeing is mental gymnastics in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:21:20 2022 No.20099160 >>20099155 How? Almost no one is seriously contesting the OP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:21:28 2022 No.20099161 >>20099091 lold

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:22:25 2022 No.20099166

>>20099143
Yes it wasn't really understood and they almost immediately distorted it. Or at least that's what it seems like. A lot of interpretations were eliminated by the church as it grew more powerful, but we do know some of the early ones really thought the end of the world was not far off, which would seem to be a reasonable consequence of having sacrificed a God of rebirth and resurrection

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:22:44 2022 No.20099167 File: 6 KB, 109x126, dd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20098492 >Christianity >the ''monotheistic'' religion with a tripartite deity where worship of holy men, icons, the virgin mary is common

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:26:18 2022 No.20099183

>>20099166
The real thing to keep in mind is that there is no "one true message" to find. Christianity was IMMEDIATELY being taken in different and nonsensical directions, long before the gospels were even compiled. We don't even need to talk about the historical Jesus and what he may have actually been about to make the point clear.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:27:10 2022 No.20099189

>>20099160
People are saying that others don't know what an idol is. If that's not mental gymnastics, I don't know what is. God exist somewhere else. If you make something in this world to represent God, you're creating an idol, that includes the text of the Bible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:27:54 2022 No.20099191 >>20099189 >People are saying that others don't know what an idol is well obviously that's true and the whole basis for this disagreement

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:30:43 2022 No.20099198 >>20099191 An idol is anything that one worships that isn't God. How is this difficult?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:33:21 2022 No.20099210 >>20099198 Don't you mean Yahweh? You're not one of those Gentile theologians, are you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:33:51 2022 No.20099211 File: 63 KB, 295x553, theory of mind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20099198 You really are a retard if you can't figure out the point here. You are genuinely showing signs of not having a developed Theory of Mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:34:44 2022 No.20099216 >>20099210 You right now, are worshiping yourself with this mental gymnastics, you are being unholy, you are creating suffering in the world, to win an argument on an anonymous website.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:35:45 2022 No.20099221 >>20099211 Stop worshiping yourself. Find peace.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:36:31 2022 No.20099224 >>20099216 Why are you doing this scattershot cherrypick of someone else's sacred revelatory text to square your own original characters within the lore?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:38:21 2022 No.20099228 File: 92 KB, 486x494, 1605144030756.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20099216 >you are creating suffering in the world, to win an argument on an anonymous website. thanks for noticing

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 14:57:21 2022 No.20099305

>>20098452
>The original hebrew text
The infamous original Masoretic text. I should have stopped reading there. OP was already confirmed a faggot.
I can't believe we still have retards taking such stupidity as iconoclasm seriously. Aren't you tired of destroying art everywhere because beauty is idolatry? Those stupid quarrels the byzantines had where they needed to falsify Epiphane should have been enough. I guess we should be as the Amish that bleach and polish the dolls they give their children so that they are faceless. After all nothing even mentions a limitation to temples. That's what happens when you read the bible like OP or TRVE protestants, without thinking.
If Op didn't stop reading he might have learnt about the bronze serpent. Or the Cherubim. Or much later apostles themselves being in the feasts of actual idols, without bitching, and saying those that are bothered by it and thought it was idolatry were weak. Or that those regulations were not included in the council of Jerusalem. Really, the mere fact that the spirit and not the letter of the law were of obligation should have been enough. I speak of the Old testament of course, the promise of mosaic law is accomplished since the time of Jesus Christ and that code is not a legal document anymore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 15:02:49 2022 No.20099326 >>20099305 >I need this text to prove my messiah was prophesized >thankfully I can consider the rest of it nullified because I said so

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 15:34:11 2022 No.20099475 >>20098607 >I bet you think you're spiritualized and that "god is everywhere" and "all religions lead to god" or whatever lies are around now. As opposed to your specific cultus which is magically immune to being a scam

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 16:57:51 2022 No.20099913
File: 317 KB, 1010x1330, 1636658785127.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The Holy Spirit, given by Christ to the apostles, was said by Christ to be the One who infallibly leads the apostles "into all truth" - wherefore Christ says: "I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears [...]". As we know from sacred scripture, the Holy Spirit was given by the apostles through the laying on of the hands ("Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given you through the prophecy spoken over you at the laying on of the hands of the elders."), and that these successors of the apostles were admonished to "not be too quick in the laying on of hands and thereby share in the sins of others" - the laying on of the hands, the gift of a greater measure of the Spirit of Truth which would incorporate one into the apostolic body which was granted by promise of Christ to be "led into all truth". This body of Holy Spirit filled individuals, who all traced their episcopal laying-on-of-the-hands, in an unbroken chain, to the apostles and their successors, later gathered together in the Second Council of Nicaea, where they collectively, by virtue of the divine charism of infallibility (being led "into all truth") promised by Christ to the apostolic body, taught the following divine truth:
"As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone – for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 16:58:31 2022 No.20099916 >>20099913 No, not really.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 16:59:46 2022 No.20099918 >>20099916 This appears to be an emotional response which does not address the actual argument at hand. Perhaps you've forgotten that in a discussion, one must actually refute their opponent's argument, when it is a defeater for their own?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:03:57 2022 No.20099941 >>20098477 >its retarded to think that christians believe the things said in the book they claim to believe in as the word of god himself

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:05:32 2022 No.20099945 >>20098478 see the saints and their statues in most catholic churches. t. my father in law kneels and prays to a statue of the virgin mary

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:06:44 2022 No.20099949

>>20099945
As was said, no Christians pray to images that they think are gods or that have spirits dwelling in them. Your father-in-law does not think that the statue of the Virgin Mary is a god, or has a spirit dwelling within it. He is just following the teachings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:07:12 2022 No.20099950 >>20099918 Wrong. Read this and don't come back until you're done. You'll understand the truth. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/UdlVi9QuoJcC?hl=en&gbpv=0

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:08:28 2022 No.20099960 >>20099950 God bless you, brother, and may the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth as He has His Church.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:08:47 2022 No.20099963

>>20099913
>for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented
This is literally just paganism. Goes to show that many of the people who converted to the hellenized form of Yahwehism were not going to give up making representative art without a fight. You certainly can't square this with Exodus for instance

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:09:24 2022 No.20099967 >>20098562 >the real question is: can god cope? I need to know

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:10:40 2022 No.20099975 >>20099967 Can God invent a cognitive dissonance too strong for him to cope with?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:12:44 2022 No.20099981 Props to the Christians for believing in something that has to be reinterpreted every century or so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:13:07 2022 No.20099982 >>20099967 The bible makes it clear that he has issues with it >create the world >it instantly turns to shit >blame everyone else and make a giant flood with your tears

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:16:30 2022 No.20100005
File: 112 KB, 768x793, 1632847313160.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20099963
>This is literally just paganism
Your misunderstanding of this phenomenon seems to be the result of what ancient cultic practices were in the ANE and pre-Christian non-Judaic world. The belief that the statues themselves actually contained the spirit of the god itself, and was thus deserving of worship in-itself (ie. not as a representation, but a present reality). This is why we have things like the opening-of-the-mouth ceremony, the feeding of cultic idols in the ANE, etc. This practice was what God was commanding the Israelites not to engage in - the True God was beyond all form, and could not be contained within any image. Even in the Solomonic temple, though His presence (shekinah) was present in a unique and substantial way, it was not believed that the fullness of God dwelled there - He was not "only" in the temple, but was "more" present in the temple than in other places (transcendent divine omnipresence was a core tenet of Judaism). Understanding this, it should be obvious why the idea of Christian iconography of God being licit due to the fact that it is only a representation of the True divinity intended to invoke to mind the depicted prototype, and is not actually given the veritable adoration given to God alone (no apostolic Christian "worships" the literal wooden image, they use to image to focus their consciousness on that which they worship, eg. the prototype depicted thereupon). This is all made clear in the Seventh Ecumenical Council writings.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:19:54 2022 No.20100017

>>20100005
>trying to deny that "christian morality" is just dressed-down paganism
God literally designed this world in such a way that most people would have to toil and live hellishly miserable lives. The fact that a few people get to live blissful lives doesn't even remotely make up for all the suffering. It's not because "the community convinced them" either it's literally by design. God actively intervenes in the world to enforce dominance hierarchies, to guarantee that most people are miserable and only a few get to enjoy life. He literally aggresses against me for eating cheddar jalapeno cheetos because according to him only rich people should be allowed to eat "spicy" food. This is the world we live in. It's like this for everything. God imposes "restrictions" on people to demoralize them and make them miserable because he thinks it's important that only the few people that he wants to be happy get to be happy.

God did not create this world to create positive experiences for most people. He built his world so that he could dominate and abuse people because he's a sadist.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:22:01 2022 No.20100028

>>20098649
>Why is God good and just? And what do you mean by good and just? There is no justice in suffering, which God allows - suffering is evil.
if you believe the following 3 things about god...
1) god is good
2) gods creation is meaningful
3) gods creation is an inevitable part of gods existence (ie if god exists his creation exists or is bound to exist as a consequence)
... then you can come to the conclusion that evil exists as gods opposite to give god meaning and thus is not of god. since if everything is good then good means nothing (this applies to all concepts, if its opposite doesnt exist it loses meaning). The fact that evil is separate from god comes from the marriage of all three statements

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:23:31 2022 No.20100034

>>20100017
>God imposes "restrictions" on people to demoralize them and make them miserable because he thinks it's important that only the few people that he wants to be happy get to be happy.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Christian ethics. The issue of your misunderstanding would probably be resolved if you took the time to read a book on the topic. I highly recommend The Sources of Christian Ethics by Servais Pinckaers. You may find that your preconceived notions were misguided - and, if not, you will have a deeper understanding of what apostolic Christians actually believe. God bless you, brother.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 17:31:54 2022 No.20100055

>>20100005
>they use to image to focus their consciousness on that which they worship, eg. the prototype depicted thereupon
Even your language is Hellenistic theology; you are advancing a model/copy distinction where God is known through good likenesses. In the religion of Exodus that is based upon a covenant with Yahweh, you are not allowed to do this, there is no knowing of God through images but through revelation, and it is by adherence to his codes that one is made holy. As for a temple having a special presence of this God, as opposed to say, a toliet, this view is the same attitude many neoplatonists took of their statues, the so-called idols, for it was obvious that a Zeus or an Athena could not be limited to dwelling in a single statue and nowhere else, otherwise the interpretatio graeca would have been impossible, among other things, since the God would have been confined to the works of human craftsmen. "Idolatry" is just a hostile biblically supported interpretation of non-biblical religion.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 18:08:08 2022 No.20100185
File: 971 KB, 3905x5000, hail yaldabaoth.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20100017
>God did not create this world to create positive experiences for most people. He built his world so that he could dominate and abuse people because he's a sadist.
ding ding ding, we have a winner

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 18:09:22 2022 No.20100192

>>20100055
>In the religion of Exodus that is based upon a covenant with Yahweh, you are not allowed to do this, there is no knowing of God through images but through revelation,
The Seventh Ecumenical Council explains this, if you read it (considering it is the central text of this discussion, it is a bit concerning that you are unfamiliar with even its basic teachings). The idea is that before the Incarnation, where God actually reveals Himself to mankind in an unambiguous and non-symbolic concrete form, such iconographic representations of God were bound to be incorrect. Post-incarnation, that was no longer the case.
>this view is the same attitude many neoplatonists took of their statues
That's wonderful, but irrelevant to the argument - the cogent matter is that these statues in and of themselves were thought by the vast majority of the pre-Christian world to legitimately contain (in some form) the spirit of the divinity which it "portrayed", and that this practice was what the prohibitions on images in the Torah was revealed in response to. It has already been demonstrated that the Christian practice is teleologically completely distinct from these condemned practices, as is related in the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and thus would not be an instantiation of the condemned practices. Regardless, it is incoherent to interpret the scriptures for oneself without an institution which has received the divine imprimatur to derive teachings on faith and morals - hence the "seat of Moses" in the Old Covenant, and the magisterial authority of the apostles in the New Covenant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 19:24:23 2022 No.20100572 >>20100192 >is incoherent to interpret the scriptures for oneself without an institution which has received the divine imprimatur to derive teachings on faith and morals So even after all your painstaking pilpul it's just pure fideism anyway?

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 20:35:20 2022 No.20100854

>>20100572
None of the apostolic churches believe that faith and reason are contradictory with one another. You should spend more time contending with the arguments, and less time trying to arbitrarily classify your opponents into -isms, or else people will (rightly) disregard your posts as emotionally driven and irrational.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 20:56:03 2022 No.20100927

>>20100854
Your arguments aren't "rational" at all; just listen to yourself:
>after god incarnates it's okay to have images
This is just some post hoc proclamation by a seventh (!) council on how to further misinterpret something too obvious to require an nth round of analysis. It's a ban on images. They are banned. Not allowed. Can't have them, that makes you a foreign idolator because the image is of something that is not Yahweh. Now, Christians of course reconcile this by pure fiat: the Old Testament is only needed to confirm that Jesus is the prophesized Messiah and the rest of the text can largely be ignored, since it was "fulfilled." How very convenient! But to someone who does not already agree with you this is a garbage argument regarding the interpretation. It's like if someone wrote instructions on how to clean the gutters on a roof telling you to use a ladder, and you said "no I don't need one since I can levitate." Seems unlikely, but it's now pretty likely that I might not hire you to clean my gutters.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:05:45 2022 No.20100965

>>20100927
>This is just some post hoc proclamation by a seventh (!) council
Considering that Christ Himself declares that the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles (and by extension, their successors) into "all truth" after His passing, after giving them the authority to make infallible proclamations of faith and morals ("whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven"), I'm not sure how the fact that the Seventh Ecumenical council dealt with the contemporary issue of iconoclasm is at all troubling to you.
>It's a ban on images. They are banned. Not allowed. Can't have them.
Again, you are presupposing that your interpretation of this verse in Exodus is The True Interpretation. Have you forgotten (or do you just not know) that in the very same book, God commands the Israelites to "Make two cherubim of hammered gold at the ends of the mercy seat, one cherub on one end and one on the other, all made from one piece of gold"?
>Now, Christians of course reconcile this by pure fiat: the Old Testament is only needed to confirm that Jesus is the prophesized Messiah and the rest of the text can largely be ignored, since it was "fulfilled."
Completely incorrect, and it shows that you are ignorant of both the apostolic doctrine, and of Church history in general. You are using an interpretation of the relevance of the Old Testament which is rooted in post-Luther Protestant thought. You need to do more research before you present such foolish arguments, because all you are doing is exposing how little you actually understand about apostolic Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:06:14 2022 No.20100969 >>20100854 maybe that is how they contend with the arguments.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:08:21 2022 No.20100972

>>20100965
>Considering that Christ Himself declares that the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles
this is the fideism I was talking about; nowhere is there "reason" in any of this whatsoever, just the demand that scripture be agreed with. The Roman writers Galen and Celsus both made fun of this, but history has shown the following generations were dullards enough to go along with it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:13:46 2022 No.20100996

>>20100972
>this is the fideism I was talking about
You don't appear to understand what fideism is. Nobody is claiming that faith and reason are contradictory.
>nowhere is there "reason" in any of this whatsoever, just the demand that scripture be agreed with
I'm not demanding that you believe in the New Testament - I am giving the answer to the question in the OP, which is that you are misunderstanding both what the actual contemporary issue was that lead to the prohibition against the construction of images (which is why it was okay to construct cherubim, but not okay to construct Asherah fetishes), and misunderstanding what Christians teleologically intend in their veneration of sacred images (which stems from your ignorance on the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and thus apostolic Christianity in general). You seem to be emotionally invested in this to such an extent that you are really just venting, so let me know if you have any questions regarding resources for studying this matter deeper, to dispel your ignorance. God bless.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:17:05 2022 No.20101010

>>20100969
It's really just them overcoming their cognitive dissonance by doubling down on whatever verses they can cherrypick in accordance with their working model of exegesis. A third party can very easily read Exodus and see you shouldn't be making images of Jesus if we are assuming he is literally Yahweh (a problem we could discuss for another hundred posts). But supposing he is, how are images allowed? Well according to our "apostolic" friend, who is refusing to align with an actual denomination for some larpy reason I am sure, the answer is.... wait for it... that the bible saying one thing is overruled by the bible experts saying the opposite. So you just have to decide which one you have more faith in; no reasoning required. If you like art, and the Greeks liked art enough to make the first human images of Buddha in India, then the answer is obvious. But if you are committed to what the text actually says, you have to ban it. Most people couldn't read, and we know from the museums of Italy and Greece that the nobility liked collecting and commissioning religious art, whether in 300 BC or 1300 AD, so you can imagine whose second sons and nephews were running religious matters for most of the high age of Christendom. Though in an age where we can all see through this and read for ourselves, it was quite the brilliant scam—wait for the slave revolt to gain so much momentum that it requires leadership and bureaucracy, and then get the band back together. You can even pretend the religion of these rabblerousers is actually just the neoplatonic theology you already believe in. Sure, Jupiter has to go, but have you heard about tithes? Being a bishop won't be so bad, the basilica is on the same site as the old temple anyway

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:19:14 2022 No.20101019

>>20098477
>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Whoops.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:19:29 2022 No.20101021 >>20100996 I just disagree with you, feel free to stop psychoanalyzing me and actually address the issue, which is that your reading of the text requires one to ignore what the text says.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:22:13 2022 No.20101025

>>20101010
so the problem isnt with his belief but with the banner he flies over it? maybe ivan ilich was right. our struggle isnt with what is spiritually (as it should be) but with titles and institutional identity politics. in stead of bickering over "oooh you cant call yourself a christian if you use images to represent your god" you should be discussing what is actually spiritually harmful or evil about such a practice.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:23:36 2022 No.20101032

>>20101010
>the answer is.... wait for it... that the bible saying one thing is overruled by the bible experts saying the opposite
The answer is that, according to Jesus Christ, the apostles were given the authority to make infallible decisions on faith and morals (binding and loosing), and the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles into all truth. Apostolic Christians believe this, and this belief is why we believe the Seventh Ecumenical Council to be binding (because it was determined by successors of the apostles who had the Holy Spirit given to them in the laying-on-of-hands).

>>20101021
> which is that your reading of the text requires one to ignore what the text says
How are you still not understanding the fundamental issue here? You are presupposing that Christians do not have access to an authoritative and infallible authority who can interpret matters of faith and morals, whereas all apostolic Christians have believed this since the very earliest days of Christianity. Your question was rooted in complete ignorance, and instead of accepting that your critique only works against Protestants who do not have such an authority, you are doubling down. Now, you are projecting - whereas "my" reading of the scripture (actually the unanimous view of the Church for millennia) accounts for both the prohibition on idols and the construction of the cherubim, your anachronistic understanding of the scripture leads you to an incoherent position, based solely upon your own perceived authority to interpret scripture infallibly, despite having literally no education in any of the relevant topics (like Ancient Near Eastern religious practices).

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:25:37 2022 No.20101044

>>20101025
>you should be discussing what is actually spiritually harmful or evil about such a practice.
And this is why it fell so rapidly in the last 200 years. You'd think in an age of mass production of images, which led to all sorts of horror and strife, there might have been a coherent or successful defense of Christianity but instead there was only the warning of Nietzsche what would follow the big guy's demise, that people weren't ready for it

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:27:24 2022 No.20101052

>>20101032
>Christians do not have access to an authoritative and infallible authority who can interpret matters of faith and morals, whereas all apostolic Christians have believed this since the very earliest days of Christianity
Yes that's called fideism and is entirely irrational. Literally "just trust me bro." We seem to be talking in circles since you think it is "reasonable" to build a church around Alice's adventures in wonderland and I think it involves something demonstrable.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:33:39 2022 No.20101086

>>20101052
>Yes that's called fideism and is entirely irrational. Literally "just trust me bro."
That is literally not what fideism is, though. The epistemology of the Church depends on the historical episteme of the resurrection, which is based upon the reliability of the testimony of the apostles (which themselves are argued to be reliable based upon various historical-epistemological criteria, like declaration against interest, etc.). The fundamental epistemological basis of belief in the historicity of Christ is not "fideistic", any more than believing an eyewitness testimony declared against the testifier's interest in a court of law is fideistic. You are too reliant on boxing in your opponents into various -isms, rather than dealing with their arguments as presented. I highly recommend doing more research into these topics before you continue, because you are just embarrassing yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:51:39 2022 No.20101177 >>20101086 >the historical episteme of the resurrection, which is based upon the reliability of the testimony of the apostles embarassing; don't accuse other people of ignorance when you are supremely gullible

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:53:32 2022 No.20101187 >>20098452 these are rules for the jews not christians

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 21:57:56 2022 No.20101200

>>20098510
When Evangelicals/atheists (who share a lot of the same mannerisms, surprisingly) go on about "muh idols" I tend to just think of the bronze serpent statue in the desert that cured the disease. God literally created an image that was meant help the Israelites physically through God's power, and you'd have to be an idiot to think that the statue is "a god." If god is okay with that, how different is it to have a statue of Jesus to help visualize his power for spiritual comfort?

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 22:00:54 2022 No.20101211

>>20101177
You seem to be completely ignorant of the work that goes on in the field of historical epistemology, and how their conclusions (which you already implicitly accept, but in ignorance you do not know why) apply to various works throughout history. Until you overcome the Dunning-Kruger pitfall and admit your ignorance on the topic, this philosophical discussion will remain outside of your cognitive abilities. Feel free to ask questions to dispel your ignorance, rather than continue to spout ad hominem attacks and feminine emotional outbursts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 22:18:15 2022 No.20101281 >>20101211 >it's a dunning-kruger pitfall to not believe in Christianity holy cope

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 22:19:00 2022 No.20101285 >>20098958 Who's the say their iniquity wasn't a result of that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 22:23:55 2022 No.20101319 >>20101187 Idolatry is against the Noahide Laws as well.

Anonymous Mon Mar 21 23:11:24 2022 No.20101583

>>20101281
You've completely missed the point. The Dunning-Kruger effect here is your offhanded dismissal of the testimonies of the gospels, assuming that your presuppositions on historical epistemology are correct, without making any arguments or providing any logical reasoning. I'm happy to be proven wrong on your expertise, though - to show that you actually do know enough about historical epistemology to make such offhanded dismissals, name 5 examples of criteria used by historians to determine the probability of likelihood of any given ancient historical event, and then explain for us why the Gospel testimonies fail when analyzed against those criteria. Hard mode: Be honest, and don't Google it and pretend you knew before getting called out. If you can't do this, you should understand why I labelled your posts as an instance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 23:17:39 2022 No.20101602 >>20101583 >Dunning-Kruger applies to you, I'm immune haha! GOTCHA

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 21 23:53:01 2022 No.20101716 >>20101583 >assuming that your presuppositions on historical epistemology are correct Well, they are. Unless you want me to believe Odysseus met Athena and fought a cyclops too. Remember what the dormouse said, Alice.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 00:16:31 2022 No.20101786 >>20099945 She's not praying to a statue of virgin mary just using it to talk to mary

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 00:50:07 2022 No.20101866 >>20098480 How about the concept of Emergence?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 00:51:51 2022 No.20101871 File: 56 KB, 497x339, epicurus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20098614 This man BTFO Christianity before Jesus was even born

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 00:55:49 2022 No.20101879 >>20101786 Anybody ever ask her what God's dick felt like?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 00:56:13 2022 No.20101880 >>20098484 Presbyterians don’t, actually most Christian reformed churches do not.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 00:56:37 2022 No.20101882
File: 181 KB, 2123x1412, slash thread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20098485
Wrong, the difference is that they are bowing to God's direct presence between the cherubim and not the cherubim themselves. In fact, the cherubim are bowing to God's direct presence between them as well.
>>20098958
The commandment is not to make *for yourselves*, but the temple was directly commanded by God, for God. Same with the serpent staff.
Stop making excuses for idolatry. When one adheres to Scripture there are no excuses or twisted explanations needed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 00:57:53 2022 No.20101887 >>20098480 oh yeah of course just be good. excuse me anon, can I trouble you for a clear definition of what's good? one that's not going to give anyone any room to argue or cause anyone to reject it, thanks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 01:01:05 2022 No.20101895 >>20098480 >core tenants You mean anchor tenants? Like a JCPenney or a Macy's prior to the retail apocalypse?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 01:55:48 2022 No.20102018 >>20098465 Stfu nigger faggot, you have the bug

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 01:57:13 2022 No.20102024 >>20098477 >NT says everything in the OT is fake and gay check mate

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 04:29:09 2022 No.20102333 You mean what catholics do, not Christians, catholics kill Christians and always have, they are romans after all

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 06:38:29 2022 No.20102584 >>20098562 I dont see a reason why he would lie. what would motivate god to lie?

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 09:29:41 2022 No.20102969
File: 169 KB, 1238x912, Aquinas6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20101716
>Well, they are
I appreciate your concession as being unable to answer the challenge, because you are ignorant of historical epistemology. All who read this thread will see that all of your grievances are simply borne out of a lack of knowledge of the topic you are attempting to "debunk". God bless.

>>20102333
If you were a Christian in the 7th century, what Church would you be going to? Because all of the Churches were either Catholic under an apostolic bishop, or they were heretics (and I'm interested to see which heretical sect you would be a part of). Of course, this type of understanding is only arrived at through being deep in Church history - but as we know, "to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant".

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 09:35:13 2022 No.20102992 >>20102969 Now say that again without crying

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 09:36:13 2022 No.20103000 >>20098462 >Only those things are good works which God has commanded, just as only that is a sin which God has forbidden. Therefore, he who wants to know and do good works need only know God’s Commandments.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 09:37:31 2022 No.20103003 >>20098649 >There is no justice in suffering for you

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 09:49:35 2022 No.20103062

>>20102969
>you are ignorant of historical epistemology
This has to be the most sniveling cope yet for your fairy tale. Historians believe there was a man Jesus, so you believe the religious interpretation of him is true? You are back to your fideism, and no amount of sophistry will change that. If we really must believe anything that is written we are in for a rough epistemological journey. Why just now I have written about my superpowers in my private journals, which I hope will circulate in the future.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 09:53:46 2022 No.20103079 >>20103000 For him, it doesn't really matter if something is a sin. You go to heaven no matter what, if you believe in Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 09:55:55 2022 No.20103089 >>20103079 You are theologically illiterate. Stop making bold judgments about historical figures whose works you've never read.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:08:33 2022 No.20103129
File: 2.64 MB, 1830x1242, 1640538302064.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20103062
You fundamentally misunderstand the actual argument here. I'm happy to provide resources for you to read and dispel your ignorance - but that would necessitate you being willing to challenge your worldview by actually taking time to understand the other's position. If you decide to open your heart, I'm happy to help.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:10:43 2022 No.20103134 >>20103089 I have thoroughly researched this, I am right. He added some poetic cope explanation onto it later but it is the same system.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:13:06 2022 No.20103141

>>20103129
I am happy to read any resources you give me, but first I insist that you read all the volumes of the current edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and give me a thorough report. You must first understand the foundations of my worldview and share your own views on the same subjects, then we will have a discourse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:13:57 2022 No.20103145 File: 137 KB, 1200x900, john-calvin-9235788-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Uhm, hello, it's Based Calvin, being based and correct about everything yet again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:15:14 2022 No.20103150 >>20103145 If Calvin was right then why is Calvinism dying?

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:15:17 2022 No.20103151

>>20103129
This sort of haughty pseudo-elitism about a religion no one is unfamiliar with borders on parody. If you have something to discuss, post it. If you are just going to uncritically appeal to "historical epistemology" as if that were some unified and absolute means of arriving at things then there is very little to address. You have a qualified opinion instead of just an opinion? Who doesn't?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:16:18 2022 No.20103153 >>20103150 Because God willed it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:19:21 2022 No.20103163 >>20103150 Those who will be saved are few, as it is written.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:49:43 2022 No.20103320

>>20103141
You haven't provided any actual worldview, though, just baseless assertions regarding your personal interpretation of the Biblical text. If you make an argument and provide resources to explore your argument further, I am happy to read it. We are on a literature board, after all - shouldn't we enjoy reading literature, even (and especially) if it contradicts our presupposed notions?

>>20103151
The point is that very rarely do any critics of Christianity actually engage with it's most compelling arguments and apologetics, instead preferring to strawman their position based upon presuppositions. This is why I offered to put forth resources to explore our position further, because the only way to truly understand the opponent's position is to read their most sophisticated works, and not the simple strawman version one thinks represents their opponents. By doing so, you will in fact have a much stronger polemic against Christianity, because if you provide rebuttals to our strongest arguments, rather than strawmen, we will have a much more profitable discussion. And, again, if you are willing to read on this literature board, say the word and I'll give you a link to a relevant book - you can do the same for your position.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:52:42 2022 No.20103338 File: 1.48 MB, 1500x2461, 1645948291321.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20103320 >the only way to truly understand the opponent's position is to read their most sophisticated works very true

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:54:17 2022 No.20103346 How to Christians cope that NT retconed everything OT said, but that Quran is wrong? Genuine question.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 10:57:18 2022 No.20103352

>>20098452
You didn't stumble on anything new, OP. You just found one of the main reasons why protestants chimped put on the Catholics. Christianity and church in its true biblical sense was intended to be like the early Christians before the Catholic church. Basically meeting in their homes without anything but the gospel hoping they don't get fed to the lions. I don't think the Puritans had any idolatry either. Basically this all boils down to protestants vs. Catholics and Orthodox.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 11:01:46 2022 No.20103368 >>20103320 I just did, the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Read it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 11:02:47 2022 No.20103373 >>20103346 They don't need to cope because they haven't read them in the first place.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 11:10:59 2022 No.20103395

>>20103338
It's great to see that you've read works which support your preconceived notions. Now, tell me, what is the best book on Christian apologetics that you've read? Surely an intellectual like yourself has read at least some great work on your opponent's position, right?

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 11:15:11 2022 No.20103408
File: 277 KB, 1256x1797, 1647956170680.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20098452
This is one of the silliest arguments there are, yet everyone who has read nothing about Catholic Church always thinks they've stumbled unto some amazing discovery and will show everyone how things are - as if nobody ever read Bible in Hebrew.
Catholics do not (well, should not) kneel in front of or pray to statues and paintings. Act of kneeling is always under God, some believers feel better being surrounded by religious iconography (which in itself is not evil and is supposed to revere God respectfully), and I condemn those kneeling under or praying directly to such items.
Yet those are but mistaken, just as yourself OP.
God bless.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 11:50:53 2022 No.20103544

>>20103395
I am not the one posturing as an intellectual because he has found a way to argue for the Bible by cutting and pasting Greek philosophy. To my knowledge there is no apologetic literature which would be particular to my issues with the religion. I do not believe that Greek arguments for theism lead to Yahweh being the One of Platonism, nor do I believe the NT is proven by its fulfillment of prophecies in the OT, and this wipes out most apologetics. I also do not believe that working miracles establishes one as being correct in other matters. Those are all misdirects to avoid actually demonstrating what is claimed. What in your opinion, is left to establish Christianity, if belief in Platonic theology, belief in Judaism, and belief in sorcery as a sign of authority are not positions of the person you are trying to sway?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 12:10:54 2022 No.20103600 >>20098833 >Mecca is a great example of an idol literally how

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 12:15:06 2022 No.20103614 >>20103408 obvious samefag

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 12:28:21 2022 No.20103656 >>20098452 >every single Christian does Wrong, no Christians do this, only Catholics and "Orthodox™".

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 12:53:22 2022 No.20103733 >>20099949 >praying to a meaningless bundle of matter is super meaningful guys goys cant be this stupid right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 12:56:24 2022 No.20103742 Why are you guys still doing this religious larp? You guys know every other board dropped it right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 12:59:11 2022 No.20103752 >>20101583 >>You've completely missed the point. The Dunning-Kruger effect here is your offhanded dismissal of the testimonies of the gospels, The gospels are not even canon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 13:02:36 2022 No.20103772 >>20103742 /his/ seems to be keeping it up

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 13:12:42 2022 No.20103806

>>20103752
Well for him what is at stake is that the gospels are historical evidence, on par with Pliny's letters to Trajan. So we have proof that Roman authorities prosecuted Christians because no one thinks the letters are forgeries given the parties involved and the surrounding context, and he would have us believe we have proof of the resurrection because the Gospel writers wouldn't have lied because they were telling the truth about what they believed, so the Gospels are simply true by merit of being documents written by honest sources. That's not actually how historians read texts but it is how "apostolic Christians" appeal to authorities, as he has done elsewhere in the thread. An impartial and serious historian could not read the Gospels and conclude the events described were plausible in the way he could with Pliny's letters, unless he assumed a sort of magical world existed back then entirely unlike ours, one with no precedent and nothing like it after. Far more substantiated would be that the texts are religious literature, and indeed were produced by cult leaders for consumption by their cult members, and we find no non-cult sources affirming their narrative of the events. So it again becomes a matter of faith to say the Gospels are true, they are not historically qualifiable in the way other resources are like, say, a census document or an engraved monument

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 15:02:56 2022 No.20104233 >>20098510 Correct. It's about actual gods living in the statue. Good post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 15:04:54 2022 No.20104243 >>20098484 Jesus was on Earth, anon

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 15:13:16 2022 No.20104279 >>20104233 Nah, this is just a Catholic claim. They weren't that retarded and knew the statues were just symbolic representations.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 15:31:00 2022 No.20104358

>>20104279
Yes that's really just a "caught red-handed" sort of cope, that since the statues of God aren't being used in a pagan way they are allowed. You are very much banned from making such images in the text, which of course only the educated could read, and since educated Romans liked art, they kept it even after converting to a religion apologists had already informed them was "just a better form of neoplatonism."

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 15:39:38 2022 No.20104402 >>20098452 what's the difference between jealous and zealous? t. ESL

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 15:40:56 2022 No.20104410 Reverence =/= worship

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 15:51:42 2022 No.20104483 >>20104402 they have nothing to do with each other, look them up

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 15:52:48 2022 No.20104486 >>20098452 That was a different god

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 19:27:16 2022 No.20105448

>>20103544
So, by your own admission, you haven't read anything by your opponents, but at the same time think that your critiques (of strawmen) are worth anybody entertaining? Why should anybody take you seriously, when you are having a fake discussion with a fake opponent, and attacking (what you assume to be) this fake opponent's position?

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 19:29:05 2022 No.20105462

>>20103806
>he would have us believe we have proof of the resurrection because the Gospel writers wouldn't have lied because they were telling the truth about what they believed, so the Gospels are simply true by merit of being documents written by honest sources.
Doesn't it worry you that you are arguing against a strawman, rather than the actual argument your opponents are putting forward?

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 19:30:43 2022 No.20105470

>>20104279
Tell me you have no education in ANE religious practices without telling me you have no education in ANE religious practices. Ever heard of the opening of the mouth ceremony, or leaving food out for the idol to eat in Mesopotamia? You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 19:59:45 2022 No.20105593 >>20105448 >>20105462 His position is that a sorceror promised people eternal life for worshiping his dad. His argument is that we can know this sorcery happened because of "historical epistemology." So where is the strawman?

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:08:35 2022 No.20105630

>>20105593
The strawman is your attempt to portray the argument as baseless by treating the mention of "historical epistemological" as the argument itself: >>20101583 clearly shows that nobody who is actually protesting has any idea of what actual criteria are used in determining history to determine truth-likelihood, otherwise it would be a pretty simple question to respond to IMO

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:11:16 2022 No.20105644

>>20098510
This is the legit answer but many Christians, namely Catholics, DO in fact practice idolatry. They do not really hold this idea that the image is a representation of sorts. That's bullshit, they literally pray to whatever as intrinsically imbued with power. Catholics seem to know absolutely nothing about their own religion so they do this wild heretic shit without even realizing.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:16:25 2022 No.20105670

>>20105644
Of course you might find the rare Mexican grandmother who doesn't understand Catholic theology and actually thinks Mary is inhabiting her statue, but that is obviously an incredible minority. I would challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever for your statements, because they are clearly rooted in animosity against Catholics, not any actual concrete facts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:18:23 2022 No.20105677 >>20105670 the rare grandmother is 90% of church attendance in the West

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:19:12 2022 No.20105680 >>20105670 not him, but wouldn't holding onto saintly relics qualify as idolatry? obviously things like pictures or crosses aren't worshipped by catholics, but holding onto relics seems like idolatry imo. >t. theologically illiterate retard

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:24:10 2022 No.20105694 >>20105677 Care to provide any evidence for your accusation of grave sin? >source: it was revealed to me in a dream

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:24:19 2022 No.20105695

>>20105630
But that IS your argument. This quality you've assigned to the documents in question is what you are relying on to prove them. If they meet that standard then they are true. It remains to be seen if the "actual criteria" are met; you've simply implied that they are. And if they are, it would be grounds to seriously question either "historical epistemology" or your interpretation of it, since clearly they are producing nonsensical results like "it is most likely true that a man born to a virigin rose from the dead and disappeared into the sky." If this is where your methodology leads then what I have said is no strawman

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:26:24 2022 No.20105701 >>20105694 https://lmgtfy.app/?q=US+Church+attendance

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:26:33 2022 No.20105703

>>20105680
Relics and the tendency for God to work through them can be found all throughout the Old and New Testament. Elijah's mantle is used for miracles, "God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and the diseases and evil spirits left them", Jesus' robe healing the bleeding woman, etc. These would be called "second-class relics" in Catholic theology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:28:20 2022 No.20105709 >>20105703 thank you for the in depth answer anon.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:28:41 2022 No.20105711

>>20105701
That clearly has nothing to do with your assertion that 90% of Catholics are idolaters who believe statues contain implicit power. Strange that somebody outside of the ark of salvatio, handed "over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh", is accusing people of grave sin - all true (apostolic) Christians know where such accusations come from.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:33:05 2022 No.20105720

>>20105703
Does that seem like dishonest legalese to you?
>no you can't commit paganism and make offerings to statues or pray toward idols
>ummm, so relics are imbued with divine power and worthy of veneration, since they can give you miraculous blessings if you touch them or enter their presence

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:35:30 2022 No.20105725

>>20098648
You can't win with you people. You are insufferable.
>Catholics can't be real Christians because they worship statues
>What? Protestants don't worship statues? Well they're not real Christians like Catholics
>But Catholics can't be real Christians because they worship statues
>But Protestants, even though they don't worship statues, and take the commandments seriously, aren't real Christians. Catholics are the real Christians
Which is it then? You can't have both. Which is it?

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:36:37 2022 No.20105729

>>20105711
Anon it's just reality. You have a relatively well-educated view of Christianity where people actually know what intercession is and other things that the vast majority of Christians have no clue about. I would imagine that most of the less educated Protestant or Orthodox have a similar simplistic view of things and do heresies on the daily, although probably less so. Catholic old ladies have zero clue of anything and they're the biggest paypigs of the church. This is why you have various amulets and other obviously Pagan shit left completely untouched.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:39:37 2022 No.20105739 All this debate over who is the purest cyber-christer is just about who can larp as the best Israelite—your gentile ancestors would be deeply perplexed.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:41:28 2022 No.20105743

>>20105695
>It remains to be seen if the "actual criteria" are met; you've simply implied that they are.
Did you even read the post I linked? The question was clearly posed: if you (or any other person) thinks they understand historical epistemology to such an extent that they can disregard the entire issue of the Gospels, show how much expertise you have by:
"[naming] 5 examples of criteria used by historians to determine the probability of likelihood of any given ancient historical event, and then explain for us why the Gospel testimonies fail when analyzed against those criteria".
You're also presupposing materialism and naturalism without backing up your assertion philosophically.

>>20105709
No problem, brother.

>>20105720
I'm quoting the New Testament. The person asking the question clearly wanted the Christian perspective, and the New Testament is emphatic that God can work through relics (though they are not "imbued with divine power", which words you dishonestly put into my mouth).
You are also presupposing that your interpretation of what Catholics intend regarding statues and icons are the same, when the Seventh Ecumenical Council clearly and succinctly says what we actually intend. It's another case of faulty epistemology on your end, where you presuppose your interpretation is true despite having literally 0 education on the topic (or at least, so it appears).

>>20105729
If you're going to make an assertion that some unknown portion of worldwide Catholics are committing damnable and abominable blasphemous idolatry, you better have some evidence to back it up. No offense, but you're just some dude, and your guesstimate on what the portion is doesn't matter to me unless you have evidence. If you don't have evidence, don't make accusations of grave sin. The measure you judge by will be the measure whereby you are judged.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:44:57 2022 No.20105752

>>20105743
>presupposing materialism and naturalism
Fine I'll presuppose Alice in Wonderland instead. Now if you eat from the right side of the Eucharist instead of the left, will that make me larger or smaller? If Jesus participated in a Caucus Race, would he be first or last?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 20:46:01 2022 No.20105756 >>20105743 >faulty epistemology on your end, where you presuppose your interpretation is true Let he who is without bullshit cast the first epistemological stone

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 21:22:32 2022 No.20105897

>>20105752
If you decide to start acting like an adult and engaging in an intelligent way, say the word. If not, keep it in your diary.

>>20105756
>no argument
The apostolic Christian perspective is at least based on the authority of the Holy Spirit and the promises of Christ to the apostles in the Gospels. Yours seems to just be based on your own special opinion of yourself as universal arbitrator of truth despite not having any qualifications. You can stick with that gnostic nonsense, I'll stick with the Church created by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 21:32:32 2022 No.20105942

>>20105897
You being able to cite dogma does not make you any more qualified to evaluate claims. In fact, your surrendering of this right to evaluate, to a magical priesthood no less, is effectively "gnostic nonsense" for you believe they have some access to wisdom which your faculties lack. And if Alice's adventures are childish, how much more so must be the multiplication of bread or the conversion of water into wine in the Gospels

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 21:33:51 2022 No.20105947 >>20098452 >out of context scripture New Covenant means NEW; alternatively we can go through Talmud minutia stipulating the proper conditions for bowel movements and copulation until the eschaton arrives

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 21:45:17 2022 No.20105999 File: 70 KB, 480x444, when your girl is pregnant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying the Abrahamic faiths aren't just copypastas of Zoroastrianism and Europoor gods. Even made a cameo at the beginning of Jew 2: Electric Boogaloo

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 22:05:02 2022 No.20106105

>>20105942
The difference is that I (and the rest of apostolic Christianity) base my beliefs on a legitimate and self-consistent epistemology, whereas whatever you are "presenting" utterly fails to even address the question at hand (and in case you've forgotten, answering the other's question is the basis of all profitable conversation).
I'll repeat it for the third time:
"[naming] 5 examples of criteria used by historians to determine the probability of likelihood of any given ancient historical event, and then explain for us why the Gospel testimonies fail when analyzed against those criteria".
This time, if you finally admit that you are so completely uneducated on the topic of historical epistemology as to have literally no meaningful response, you might reconsider posting such uneducated and effeminate drivel without doing your research first. This is a literature board, after all, and not your diary.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 22:14:45 2022 No.20106138

>>20106105
>legitimate and self-consistent epistemology
One which would not feel out of place if it were voiced by the Red Queen or the Mad Hatter. Now why don't you name your five examples? This "historical epistemology" is very clearly some idiosyncratic heuristic you've strung together, and certainly not something myself, nor the original audience of the Gospels, would have needed to have special mastery of in order to evaluate their message. Since it is the crux of your entire argument you ought to explain it rather than assume it is already evident, otherwise you are merely stating "my position agrees with my other position," which while it may potentially be profound, is not altogether clear.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 22:28:53 2022 No.20106204

>>20106138
So you admit that you have literally no clue of even a mere 5 example criteria used by historians to determine the probability of likelihood of any given ancient historical event? And yet you think you have something worthwhile to say on the topic, despite being completely ignorant?

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 22:35:13 2022 No.20106221

>>20106204
Even if I cared to play along, our "event" is some capeshit storyline, not an actual historical question for which there are reasonable sources and evidence to examine. There are only cult pamphlets, and if that satisfies the criteria you have in mind, we will need to be fair to all the cults and agree that they have all professed the truth about their sorcerors. You don't do this consistently, as is obvious from your sectarianism, so your appeals to "historical epistemology" are a farce in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 22:37:29 2022 No.20106231 >>20106221 So, no, you have absolutely no clue. Thanks for making that clear, before too many people wasted time thinking that you knew even the most basic facts of what you were deriding.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 22:38:37 2022 No.20106236 >>20106231 Why are you being so "gnostic" about this secret knowledge of the veracity of the Gospels? If it can stand scrutiny, explain it to the class.

Anonymous Tue Mar 22 22:43:12 2022 No.20106260

>>20106236
If you want to dispel your ignorance and learn, drop your airs of superiority and humble yourself. This is not some secret doctrine, this is mainstream history, epistemology, and philosophy of history - things which you should have been familiar with before attempting to deride Christianity, which religion is based upon these fields. I am happy to recommend literature and further resources for you, but I don't take pleasure in spoonfeeding somebody so entitled that they think they can demand effortposts when acting in a completely childish and disrespectful manner.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 23:02:44 2022 No.20106327 >>20106260 >this is mainstream history No it isn't. If it is, then Odysseus blinded a cyclops and Heracles killed the hydra, and the emperor of Japan is descended from the sun god

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 23:12:52 2022 No.20106379 >>20098478 >No Christians pray to images that they think are gods or that have spirits dwelling in them no one else does either. you still call it idolatry and murder them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 22 23:20:12 2022 No.20106408 >>20098480 can you give a reason not to commit rape, murder and suicide in atheism without mental gymnastics?

Anonymous Wed Mar 23 00:50:56 2022 No.20106701

>>20106260
They're folk tales, anon. Stories passed down to teach morals. They aren't hard fact in the slightest. Many stories are likely based on real stuff that happened at one point, but largely exaggerated and curated as the years ticked on and the stories passed from person to person.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 23 00:52:50 2022 No.20106707 >>20106408 Easy. Self preservation. Need for a community. Wanting to have a peaceful society. None of that requires religion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 23 06:02:09 2022 No.20107450 >>20105470 >or leaving food out for the idol to eat in Mesopotamia? Filipinos (Catholic) literally do this on All Souls Day

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 23 06:08:33 2022 No.20107465 File: 27 KB, 400x483, bc3b27f5c74ef2951074a5d09645b59d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20098496 Reject nonsense Embrace Arianism

Anonymous Wed Mar 23 06:22:51 2022 No.20107507

>>20100028
What's the opposite of nothing? Something or everything? Concepts are language games, but let us assume that God is the incarnation of "pure good", whatever that is supposed to be. Your post shows that God is not all powerful but is a slave to fate and the universe as he cannot remove evil, if he did he would no longer exist. So he will either keep evil to continue to exist or destroy evil as well as himself, and with that destroy good and evil. Following on from that, therefore, the perfect world is a world in which God does not exist and as long as he does he perpetuates and allows evil to exist voluntarily, meaning he is evil.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 23 06:26:08 2022 No.20107516 >>20098958 >the literalism of the Pharisees Yes their interpretation is wrong, ours is right! Why? Because the verses I choose to interpret as literal and the ones I choose to interpret as symbolic are all cherry picker as to what I want to believe!

Anonymous Wed Mar 23 10:43:57 2022 No.20108351

>>20106327
Again, when you've already admitted that you have no idea how the historical epistemological method works, and have literally no clue what criteria you would even begin to use to analyze a given text as to the value of its historicity, why are you continuing to make inane comments that are embarrassing you even further?

>>20106701
>They're folk tales, anon
By what methodology are you deriving this interpretation? How do you know which texts are "exaggerated and curated", and which reflect actual historical data and eyewitness testimony? Even most liberal and atheistic scholars will admit that the Gospels contain true sayings and happenings from the life of the historical Jesus - what criteria do you use to determine this? Even more pertinent - do you have any criteria beyond an a priori presumption of what is likely to be historically true in any given text based upon whether it confirms your prior beliefs?

>>20107450
Please share some evidence that Fillipinos leave out food for statues to eat. I'm not familiar with their culture, but that seems like a ridiculous claim.

Anonymous Wed Mar 23 10:46:21 2022 No.20108363 [DELETED]

>>20107516
>Yes their interpretation is wrong, ours is right! Why?
Because Christians for 1500 years have not believed scripture was the sole infallible source of authority. The canon of the New Testament itself is not mentioned within scripture, so the canon all Christians attest to is proof that there is an authoritative body of tradition. This same body of tradition (which is the continuation of Christ's giving authority to the apostles to "bind and loose", eg. rabbinic terminology referring to making binding infallible decisions on faith and morals). Your critiques only work on Protestants.

Anonymous Wed Mar 23 10:48:31 2022 No.20108375

>>20107516
>Yes their interpretation is wrong, ours is right! Why?
Because Christians for 1500 years have not believed scripture was the sole infallible source of authority. The canon of the New Testament itself is not mentioned within scripture, so the canon all Christians attest to is proof that there is an authoritative body of tradition. This same body of tradition (which is the continuation of Christ's giving authority to the apostles to "bind and loose", eg. rabbinic terminology referring to making binding infallible decisions on faith and morals) is what tells Christians at the Second Council of Nicaea that it is licit to use images as long as the image is not worshipped itself. Your critiques only work on Protestants, who we both agree have an incoherent exegetical epistemology.

Anonymous Wed Mar 23 10:52:58 2022 No.20108394

>>20107507
God can have a morally sufficient reason to allow the existence of evil (one example is that to disallow the possibility of evil would make it logically impossible for humans to have free will). Even one single possible reason is a defeater for your argument, and I could probably list 7 more. Now, to turn the question onto you: on what basis are you even suggesting that "evil" exists? From where do you derive these morals, and how do you determine whether a thing is good or evil? It seems to me that such things are completely absurd, because atheists can only observe what is, and from there cannot determine what ought to be (eg. I shouldn't steal). This is a well-known problem in empiricism that is still not resolved, not to mention the problem of even answering this question with logic because of the problem of induction.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]