[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 665 KB, 792x1008, JC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5904801 No.5904801 [Reply] [Original]

So do Christians actually take the NT literally? Because if so, that's fucking retarded. I'm atheist, but I can definitely respect theism, hell I can even respect Hellenists, but if you take some of the shit in the NT literally, that's just plain dumb.

>> No.5904804

Having faith isn't about being rational or pragmatic.

>> No.5904813

>>5904804
Yeah, you could use that defense of creationism.

Having faith in God is one thing, I can understand. Having faith in Scientology-tier stories is something else.

>> No.5904814

>>5904801
why is taking the nt literally "fucking retarded"?

>> No.5904818

>>5904814
Same reason taking the OT literally is fucking retarded.

>> No.5904832

There is interpretation to what verses mean, but the consensus reached from the interpretation is taken literally. There are people who take the words of their religion at face value literally with absolutely no room for interpretation, they exist in every religion and are always the most retarded and embarrassing of the bunch.

But if you're asking if Christians really believe they stories they have in the Bible: Yes, they do. Not everything is taken to be literal or is considered to even be meant as a story, but the things that are considered stories and real events they do believe in.

>> No.5904833

>>5904818
what is that reason?

>> No.5904843

>>5904832
>But if you're asking if Christians really believe they stories they have in the Bible: Yes, they do. Not everything is taken to be literal or is considered to even be meant as a story, but the things that are considered stories and real events they do believe in.
Well that's just fucking dumb. At least the Hellenists on this board don't claim their myths "really happened", if they did I would think they were donkey-dumb. And if Christians take the entire NT literally, that's not any better than a Hellenist who thinks mythology is factual.

>> No.5904847

Abrahamic religions are inherently anti-humanist and horrible. A lot less people would be atheists if they hadn't destroyed literally every other religion in Europe, The near East, Africa, and the New World.

Buddhists and Hindus are more or less preserving authentic human culture in a dark age of monotheism at this point. Hopefully Christianity and Islam will collapse sometime in the next few hundred years.

>> No.5904848
File: 844 KB, 200x150, 1405394492823.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5904848

>>5904847
>Abrahamic religions are inherently anti-humanist

>> No.5904852

>>5904843
>muh materialism

Jesus Christ fuck off no one likes you

>> No.5904854

>>5904848
He means humanist in the values sense, not in "human nature" sense.

>> No.5904859

>>5904847
They might be anti-humanist and horrible, but they're successful, the stronger religion prevailed and conquered, might makes right.

>> No.5904861
File: 1.94 MB, 230x175, 1405398792274.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5904861

>>5904854
>imply I don't know this

>> No.5904862

>>5904814
>>5904833
Well there's all the contradictions to contend with.

>>5904801
Whatever verse they're reading,* they give their complete devotion to. Forget, later read* a different portion and repeat

*(or more likely hear preached)

>> No.5904864

>>5904862
>Well there's all the contradictions to contend with.
which contradictions specifically?

>> No.5904865

>>5904859
Then why are more and more people turning away from Christianity? And why has Islam been reduced to a bunch of ineffectual barbarians?

>> No.5904868

>>5904862
>contradictions
lol who cares? Catholics and Orthodox (read: most christians) don't take the Bible as infallible.
>le snarky comment
simply epic my good gentlesir

>> No.5904872

>>5904852
I am a materialist, but that doesn't mean I think materialism is the only respectable position. But believing in stuff that's crazier than Ancient Aliens is not a respectable position, and not being a materialist doesn't mean you have to be /x/

>> No.5904876

>>5904862
>Whatever verse they're reading,* they give their complete devotion to. Forget, later read* a different portion and repeat
who is "they"? who particularly are you talking about?

>> No.5904877

>>5904865
They still exist, which is objectively better than non-existence, which is what African folk religeons and European paganism are.

>> No.5904880

>>5904876
le fundie spooks

>> No.5904881

>>5904859
This is a gang-banger's value system. What's beautiful and promotes rationalism is right, not what's people bomb kids and burn libraries.

>> No.5904883

it's kind of funny how minds of some people are so limited that they cannot accept believing in miracles but can accept believing in god

>> No.5904885

>>5904865
>Then why are more and more people turning away from Christianity?
i would bet that most people who turn away from it had a relatively superficial grasp of christianity in the first place—they understood it as a scientific theory or something, and then understood it to be disproved or otherwise untenable as an interpretive schema. or, much more likely, they just didn't care that much in the first place.

>And why has Islam been reduced to a bunch of ineffectual barbarians?
media portrayal

>> No.5904887

>>5904883
So there's nothing ridiculous about Scientology or creationism?

>> No.5904888

>>5904881
>muh enlightenment
Atheist Christians are the worst...

>> No.5904889

>>5904888
If you're dissing actual Enlightenment, you're the worst. There's nothing ugly or irrational about believing in God, there are plenty of rational theistic arguments, but believing in ancient aliens is retarded and there is no way you will ever get me to acknowledge that shit as not stupid and cancerous to reason.

>> No.5904891

>>5904872
>believing in stuff that's crazier than Ancient Aliens is not a respectable position

honestly who cares about what is "respectable"

>> No.5904892

>>5904883
Because Miracles are falsifiable, and god isn't.

It's a lot easier to believe in a god that never does anything, than to believe in a god which does things which would leave behind evidence.


That said, although I don't believe in the Christian god, I do think there is likely to be a Prime mover which created the universe so really I'm not much different than Christians who believe in god, but this the bible is just "Stories." Only real difference is I don't think there is any reason why the Prime Mover would care about humanity, or assign us to any sort of afterlife.

>> No.5904893

>>5904888
Yeah, because no one idolized reason and beauty before the Christians. Oh, snap, the Greeks.

>> No.5904896
File: 10 KB, 225x225, intoletrash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5904896

>>5904889
>rationality
laughingepistemologists.jpg

>> No.5904897

>>5904891
People who shower and wear shirts that aren't covered in stains?

>> No.5904898
File: 95 KB, 1920x1080, american.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5904898

The more you complain about your religion, the more you failed in it.

>> No.5904899

>>5904893
Unless you agree with Nietzsche that Socrates and Plato were anti-Greek.

>> No.5904901

>>5904896
Just because I support reason doesn't mean I'm a strict rationalist. Reason and empiricism are not mutually exclusive proposition.

>> No.5904903

>>5904899
Yeah, sure, the foundations of critical though in Greece were anti-Greek. Euclid was anti-Greek too.

No, Nietzsche was enthralled with Homer the way neckbeards are enthralled with Deadpool, and he fantasized about every Greek being Achilles. That doesn't mean they were.

>> No.5904909

>>5904903
The point is:
Socrates-Plato-Paul-modern Christianity- Atheist humanism (atheist Christianity)

>> No.5904910

>>5904865
I know a lot of muslims who are not extremists.

>> No.5904917

>>5904909
That's quite false, there was nothing rational about Paul.

>he was a humanist!
So what? So was Euripides. That doesn't mean he followed the most important aspect of Socrates and Plato, which was reason.

>> No.5904921

>>5904917
I'm showing you how this thought was passed down aka Christian moraltiy

>> No.5904927

>>5904921
The thought passed down through Christianity like Nietzsche passed down through Nazism.

There is nothing Christianity morality about Plato and Socrates. Nietzsche thinks Christian values are cancer, because they justify the values are about patting themselves on the back rather than having something you must swim against the current for. Socratic and Platonic values demand constant effort and critical thought, they are not about just patting yourself on the back.

>> No.5904932

>>5904910
they are potential extremists

>> No.5904936

>those people who treat the Gospels as if the writers were following Jesus around and taking down exactly what he said

>> No.5904939

>>5904927
Yes, but through Paul, Aquinas, etc certain elements of Greek rationality were passed onto Christianity and then to modern humanism.

And Nietzsche strongly disapproved of Socrates and Plato as weak degenerates who hated life.

>> No.5904940

>>5904892

you mix potential and practical falsifiability and somehow use it as a basis of your belief against miracles... very unscientific

the miracle stories in nt probably aren't falsifiable in practice albeit they are falsifiable in principle, anyway you can believe in any not falsified yet logically consistent conception (regardless if it's falsifiable or not)

>> No.5904942

>>5904939
>hated life

Nietzsche never really definitively proves that Christians hate life. In fact, if you take them at their word, Christians LOVE life. They love it so much that they want to have it forever, and they believe that all things will ultimately exist forever.

Nietzsche's charge is based on his own personal suspicion that God isn't real and neither is the afterlife. If the afterlife IS real his whole philosophy is in tatters.

>> No.5904946

>>5904814
For starters, the two conflicting accounts of Jesus's birth. And that's just the beginning.

>> No.5904948

>>5904864
Dude have you even read the Bible?

>> No.5904967

>>5904847
Hindus yes, Buddhists no.

>>5904801
Protestants are not Christian.

>> No.5904969

>>5904946
They're not "conflicting," please read some actual theology and stop telling other people about their own religion.

>> No.5904977

>>5904801
I respect the non literalists less, because all it proves is that you're incapable of free thought. You can't consider the ethics of a god who supposedly created the world, because you're too influenced by secular culture. Yet you can't make the leap that god isn't real, because you've been told all of your life he is.
A literalist at least is at least more of a freethinker.

>> No.5904981

>>5904969
>read some theology
>implying theology isn't unfalsifiable hogwash
No thanks

>> No.5904984

>>5904981
>no one can make me read

>> No.5904992

>>5904939
And the Nazis contain certain elements of Nietzsche.

So what if he did? Nietzsche is not my idol, he even said he'd rather be held as buffoon than a saint.

>>5904942
Nietzsche actually thought Christ was pretty cool, he hated Paulian Christianity.

>> No.5904993

>>5904967
>Protestants are not Christian.
Are you suggesting Catholics don't think Mary was factually a virgin?

>> No.5905023

>>5904984
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here

But yeah, Luke and Matthew offer two entirely different accounts of the Nativity. According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the time of Herod (who died in 4 BC) and according to Luke, he was born during the census of Quirinius (which occurred in 7 CE). I'm not sure how theology could explain how Jesus was born both before and after Herod died

>> No.5905034
File: 12 KB, 260x402, Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5905034

>>5904864
Matthew, Mark, Luck, John.

>> No.5905068

>>5904897
showers and unstained shirts are for dorks

prove me wrong, scientists

>> No.5905076

>>5904993
Mary was a virgin, yes, this does not equate to believing the entire NT to be literal fact. Sola scriptura is Protestant doctrine, for actual Christianity the Bible is only one source of authority and moreover has always been interpreted allegorically and symbolically.

>> No.5905079

>>5904948
no. please list some examples

>>5905034
those are texts. please list some specific examples

>> No.5905080

>>5905034
>Luck

Did you spell it that way because of your dyslexia buttercuck? Are you sure you were actually able to understand the gospels anyway? Do they even publish the gospels in that special font that dyslexics need to read things?

>> No.5905094

>>5905023
Because one or both of them got a minor historical detail wrong? I know you're probably a dumb Amerilard who doesn't know any better, but stop equating Protestantism with Catholicism and Orthodoxy or no-one is ever going to take you seriously.

>> No.5905103
File: 1.65 MB, 1123x1500, Contradictions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5905103

>>5905079
<-

>>5905080
Drunk and it's late. Donno. Read Paine's Age of Reason. (Which you'll refute with a simple "muh faith" in the end, so w/e)

>> No.5905120

>>5905103
which contradiction do you want to talk about in particular?

>muh faith
it sounds like you have faith that even hypothetically-granted textual contradictions can disprove the holiness of a book. if it was actually the word of god and god's holy book just happened to have textual contradictions it wouldn't prove that it wasn't the word of god

i.e. why is consistency a criterion of holiness?

>> No.5905127

>>5905094
Wait...did a Christian just call me dumb?
Holy shit

>> No.5905132
File: 51 KB, 600x574, 1407019524617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5905132

>>5905103
>read paine
every time

>> No.5905133

>>5905120
The cognitive acrobatics you people put yourselves through is simply astounding

>> No.5905138

>>5905133
it's a very simple question. can't answer it?

>you people
that's not very christian of you

>> No.5905142

>>5905120
If the Bible is the word of God, why isn't it perfect? Checkmate, Christcucks.

>> No.5905153

>>5905142
it may be textually perfect but imperfectly interpreted

>> No.5905155

>>5905127
>Degenerate calling anyone dumb

lol

Irreligion is even more degenerate than neo-paganism. It's the lowest state of the already low creature that is modern man. You are a materialistic worm utterly lost in the superficial multiplicity of the material world.

>> No.5905266

>>5905076
Christ being born of a virgin and coming back from the dead are the two most ridiculous parts of the NT, but his miracles are pretty crazy as well.

>> No.5905270

>>5905120
It's not a criterion for being the word of god, but it is one for being literally true.

>> No.5905275

>>5905094
Thucydides laid a disclaimer that memory is faulty, so many of things he said people said might be totally off and just shit memory. If someone can fuck up a birth by that much, how the hell are we supposed to believe what they claim Christ said? Even if you don't think they'd outright lie, humor error on that part is considerable, especially when, what, three out of four of the books were written by people who only heard of Christ through second or third hand accounts.

>> No.5905279

>>5905076
As a non-believing church-goer (family stuff), I've always heard almost everything in the NT interpreted literally, save for Revelations and stuff people say (like, you know, no one's going to be shocked if you prove that the Good Samaritan story was fabricated).

>> No.5905286

>>5905275
>humor error

I don't think you can explain "he came back from the dead" as faulty memory, you know.

>> No.5905290

>>5905286
No, but I'm not referring to that, I'm referring to his teaching.

As for him coming back from the dead, that's just /x/ level right there.

>> No.5905307 [DELETED] 

>>5904801
Revelation isn't supposed to be taken literally but the rest of it is.

>> No.5905313

>>5904946
>conflicting accounts

It's like you never studied any history or even current events. How do atheists get that stupid?

>> No.5905317

>>5904801
OP, you keep saying that faith in god is understandable but that random bullshit happening isn't. I feel as though if you accept the first, the other is a distinct possibility, you know? If there's an omnipotent being, then the rules of physics can be bent, and it can do it, and therefore it's not bizarre to believe that he has bent them at some point.

I'm an atheist, and obviously there are some caveats to this (so many claims of miracles, but you have to assume those from other religions are false, etc.), but if you claim that the existence of someone who could cause miracles is respectable but miracles actually happening is not, then I think you're doing something wrong.

>> No.5905321

>>5905279
Is your "church" Protestant?

>> No.5905327

>>5905321
No, Catholic.

>> No.5905340

>>5905317
Okay, look. Believing strongly that other forms of intelligent life out there is intellectually reasonable.

Believing in "ancient aliens" is not.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

>> No.5905346

>>5905270
>literally true.
for the religious "the holy" would necessarily undercut anything that would fall under the "literally true" as you seem to load it i.e. naturalistic explanation. this holy act and its undercutting of naturalistic explanation is the definition of a miracle

>> No.5905355

Yes we are supposed to take it 'literally' but through faith in god he guides us through it and teaches us what he is really saying. Kinda like a divine reading guide

>> No.5905356

>>5905340
The ancient aliens thing is because no evidence or logic supports it and because other explanations aren't particularly lacking, and so it would be bizarre even if intelligent aliens were discovered tomorrow.

The water to wine thing, on the other hand, is completely reasonable IF you accept an omnipotent being who was devoting their attention to Jesus.

>> No.5905365

>>5904892
>don't think there is any reason why the Prime Mover would care about humanity, or assign us to any sort of afterlife

Why else would he create the universe?

>> No.5905373

>>5905346
Unless you're using "naturalistic explanation" in some unusual sense, I'm not claiming that that's what "literally true" means. Something that defies naturalistic explanation COULD be literally true, but a contradiction cannot. Like, God could have literally turned a house into a cactus, but he couldn't have both turned it into a cactus and not turned it into a cactus (I suppose you could get into manipulating perceptions and stuff to make it seem so, but you get what I mean).

>> No.5905374
File: 134 KB, 1198x1803, 71YlEj2cFuL[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5905374

Why are 90% of atheists incapable of discussing religion intelligently? You don't have to agree with Kierkegaard, Aquinas, and Meister Eckhart to appreciate their incredible acuity.

>> No.5905377

>>5905356
If you believe in aliens, it's possible to believe that life itself was originally planted on this earth by aliens. But one belief is retarded, one is not.

Saying God was devoting his attention to Jesus in a way consistent with the scientific laws is reasonable. Saying all this supernatural shit happened, well, explain how that is any less silly than believing in Greek myths, if you please.

>> No.5905379

>>5905374
I can take some of it seriously, especially in a humanistic/literary sense (like, maybe it's not going to be a logical argument, but it'll express something worth reading, as in Kierkegaard), but I can't take "we assume something has to exist, and then we assume that something is God, and so God is real" seriously.

>> No.5905381

Well, I don't. My motto is the reverse of sola fide; only practice.

>> No.5905383

>>5905374
There's nothing intelligent about believe in /x/ tier bullshit, there is no way such things can be made intelligent today. Believing in God isn't retarded, believe in /x/ tier shit is about as intellectual as saying reality is relative and therefore no argument can amount to anything. I can write a philosophical treatise about how alien abductions influenced me, but no matter how many layers of logic I put on top, the basis is stupid.

>> No.5905387

>>5905279
This is correct, it is a Catholic doctrine.

>> No.5905388

>>5905383
> no matter how many layers of logic I put on top, the basis is stupid

Are you literally saying that you dogmatically reject miracles?

>> No.5905389

>>5905373
>but a contradiction cannot.
why? you're still assessing this from the bounds of a naturalistic-but-far-fetched explanation. god can do anything: he operates outside of time and space and the laws of physics. he can square the circle, etc. make physically manifest a contradiction, why not? this contradiction could be literally true—this is what a miracle is, the violation by holy agency of what falls under, can fall under, the domain of naturalistic explanation

>> No.5905391

>>5905127
That's because you are really fucking dumb. And I mean Paradise/Butterface tier dumb.

>> No.5905396

>>5905388
No, since they aren't logically impossible. But I believe belief in them is completely stupid and baseless, whereas belief in God has a decent amount of basis.

Do you dogmatically reject alien abductions as possible? no. Are you going to view active belief in such thing as anything other than stupid? yes

>> No.5905398

>>5905396
That is to say, no, you wouldn't, but I'm sure you understood what I meant.

>> No.5905402

>>5904801
ITT: A visit from r/atheism

OP should be a trip so I can filter his stupidity.

>> No.5905404

>>5905402
I don't see how. I don't call people stupid for believing in God. It's pretty reasonable to call people like creationists stupid though.

>> No.5905405

>>5905389
So, let's assume for a moment that the contradiction about birth dates that someone cited earlier wasn't an error, but actually the word of God.

Would you then claim that there was a period of ten years or whatever where Jesus was alive but also not alive? And that he was then simultaneously like two and twelve when he went to the temple?

Fuck, I'm too tired for and it's too Christmas for paraconsistency. Happy holidays.

>> No.5905411

>>5905405
Yes, fuck off back to reddit

>> No.5905414

>>5905405
if it was actually the word of god then yeah that's what a real christian would have to believe

as an aside there are much weirder things considered in (for instance) quantum physics and analytical identity theory than that

>> No.5905418

>>5905396
Well, I was trying to say that logic should usually modify how 'stupid' you see the base claim as, but whatever.

>But I believe belief in them is completely stupid and baseless, whereas belief in God has a decent amount of basis.
So, let's assume God exists. There is then an omnipotent being who gave Jesus the right to act in His name and spread truth, and the same people who are telling you about this claim that Jesus did magic party tricks with wine, and no one who was at this party has said otherwise, and you wouldn't expect there to be any remaining evidence of it besides people's word, anyway, because parties aren't in the geological record. And yet you claim that it's stupid and baseless to believe the uncontradicted claim that this being who COULD do magic decided to do it?

>> No.5905431

>>5905379
>I can't take "we assume something has to exist, and then we assume that something is God, and so God is real"

With Aquinas it's more like 'based on premises derived from our knowledge of causation, we demonstrate the necessary existence of a unique entity with certain properties, and call this entity God.' And from there he covers how it follows that this entity is indivisible, all-good, intelligent, and everything else Christian dogma ascribes to God.

Now I don't find Aquinas' reasoning to be flawless, but his arguments are much stronger than the summaries usually provided by atheists. And additionally there is still disagreement over the details of his arguments, since he was writing in medieval Latin and using Aristotelian terminology which may confuse us today (i.e. 'motion' used to refer to several kinds of change over time instead of just changes in position)

>> No.5905436

>>5905411
Clearly not OP.

>> No.5905455

>>5905418
I beleive it is stupid to think Jesus COULD do magic. To think he was holy and close to how God wanted people to behave is another story.

>> No.5905464

>>5905455

it shows that you are not very strong in logic since you refuse miracles solely because they don't fit your personal system of beliefs of what's possible

they are logically self-consistent if we take the existence of god as an axiom

>> No.5905475

>>5905464
Saying all things are equally possible if God exists, makes all empirical reasoning meaningless. It would make creationism just as reasonable, to say the fossils are just testing our faith.

>> No.5905478

>>5905475
I should say empirically probable. Miracles are already logically possible, regardless of God's existence, but to say all things are just as probable is something else.

>> No.5905500
File: 67 KB, 283x308, 1396643922129.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5905500

“According to most philosophers, God in making the world enslaved it. According to Christianity, in making it, He set it free. God had written, not so much a poem, but rather a play; a play he had planned as perfect, but which had necessarily been left to human actors and stage-managers, who had since made a great mess of it.
― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

>> No.5905503

>>5905475

if you accepted a concept you can make any reasoning using it

yes, creationism is reasonable too per se, but there are a couple of other problems with it which make it to be frowned upon, firstly that it tries to venture into the field of science when its core concept is unfalsifiable, it's obviously unacceptable, and secondly (it's arguable but still noteworthy) that miracles have a better explanation why god would need them than burying fossils and creating light from far stars already traveling in the space

>> No.5905531

>>5905500
If imperfect humans overrode God's perfect plan? Was getting it mucked up part of his plan?

....

If so, then humans have only made a mess of it insofar as God intended, unless he designed differently than he planned. For he designed state-managers as part of the stage.
>>5905503
Nope, quite the same thing. The miracles performed by Christ might be said to be establishing he's the Son of God, but how many Christians saw those directly compared to the number who have to take them on faith? Therefore it's often considered part of faith to accept what is ridiculous as true, even Christ tests this way. So saying fossils are a test of faith, because creationism is ludicrous, is perfectly consistent with the reasoning used.

>> No.5905539

>>5905500
This supposes that God isn't allknowing.
Filthy heathen quote maker. God is beyond time, he knows all that will happen. When he made his play, he knew exactly how it would end up. This is why the OT is so stupid.
>u fucked up! out of paradise you go! Not my fault, guys, I'm just God and stuff!
>u fucked up! Here's a flood, cunts.
>u fucked up! get banished and enslaved, not my fault, guys
>u fucked up SO FUCKING MUCH that I have to descend to earth to sacrifice myself, bringing you salvation of all your sins for once and for all
>u fucked up! you're still all shit! you're going to hell! fuck you guys! I mean, I knew every single moment of this literally for ever, but fuck you guys!

>> No.5905541

>>5905396

miracles happen all the time though. it only get ignored because it contradicts the secular ethos of our time.

http://youtu.be/lE6sDPPQ7WA?list=PLC900F8EEB62AE426

>> No.5905545

>>5905531
>but how many Christians saw those directly compared to the number who have to take them on faith?

they might be for those apprentices of his who established the teaching... you nowadays has the teaching and don't need the miracles. there are other explanations too

>So saying fossils are a test of faith ... is perfectly consistent with the reasoning used

yes it is, i said it too
but it is less appealing to our sense, it looks extremely superfluous

>> No.5905554

>>5905545
That's just one example, but you could say something less superfluous but still just as dumb. "God sent extra-dimensional gremlins to hide my keys because I over-indulged in food," or any other random bullshit because all logical possibilities are equally empirically probable.

>> No.5905561

>>5905554

that's why you need a teaching to explain what god is, what he wants from you etc, if you believe in the christian god, why would he send those gremlins? it goes against his nature, he is not a little dirty dog - tyrant. you can believe that it's devil who sent them but it would be still a superstition which the church rather dislikes

>> No.5905566

>>5905561
It's a pretty mild punishment if I find my keys.

>> No.5905568

>>5904801
scripture has literal meaning and spiritual meaning

read swedenborg nerd

>> No.5905570

>>5905541

>there's lots of evidence for miracles
>and I'm not going to give them to you

Also
>nearly 2015
>still calling the NT an eyewitness account

>> No.5905603

ITT: Only like three people understand the meaning of faith and probably nobody has read Kierkegaard (>implying that I've read him enough to understand him and that I'm not just being pretentious).

>> No.5905613

>>5905603
Well Keirkgaard's idea of faith is voluntary rejection of reason, so of course it's not intellectually credible. It's coming to terms with how fucking ridiculous myths are and embracing them as a sign of loyalty to God over reason. Very compatible with creationism, in fact ideal for it.

>> No.5905618

>>5905531
>was getting it mucked up part of his plan?
OF COURSHE! Eve and Adam refused his offer in favor of the serpent's. He had to find out how to save them.

>> No.5905625

>>5905613
Well, there you go. I unreasonably believe in miracles but not creationism. Apologies for my intellectually incredible belief.
Actually I was just shitposting and now I regret it because it doesn't do theism any favors and pseudo-intellectual shitposting is what gives hellenismos threads.

>> No.5905627
File: 1.66 MB, 2500x1576, s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5905627

>>5905618
Well congratulations, he just got us tempted. What's the next step of his master plan?

>> No.5905632

>>5905627
Impregnating this virgin- with no relations!

>> No.5905637

>>5905625
I actually find Hellenismos theology refreshing, I don't see what in particularly is so objectionable about it. It seems as retarded as following any religion you picked up from fiction (because that's obviously where they get it) from one perspective, but on the other hand it's been they've said they just consider it one of many, many ways to worship universal gods, and in that sense I find it somewhat respectable.

>> No.5905642

>>5905418
I like tolstoys whole argument that the miraculous was fabricated to give credence/authority to the message (found in the sermon on the mount and the parables)

>> No.5905644

>>5905613
His idea is rejection of faith for some questions. Saying that he completely rejects reason is a lie.

>> No.5905649

>>5905644
He rejects reason more than any other Christian thinker, seeing as how he thinks believing in the impossible over and over and over is required to be a good Christian. Not just once or twice, but on a regular basis he thinks you should totally disregard reason. Maybe not all the time, but often as you can.

>> No.5905674

this thread is proof that no modern secular person should be allowed to comment on christianity until theyve read the pensees.

>> No.5905690

>>5905674

>disagreeing with me means you're wrong by default

Good one

>> No.5905745

>>5905570
the video i linked shares an author with a two volume work documenting miracles, including modern day miracles with scientific evidence.

>> No.5905754

>>5905745

Then presenting them here should be no problem

>> No.5905756

>>5905674
>until theyve read the pensees

Pascal's Wager doesn't change a sane person mind.

>> No.5905765

>>5905754
i'm sorry i can't gather your food, chew it and swallow it for you too.

>> No.5905767

>>5905765

>I have evidence to back up my claim
>and if I don't present it, it's your fault that you don't take me seriously

>> No.5905768

>>5904804
Spoken like a true Nazi

>> No.5905781

>>5905756
Best argument for polytheism.

>> No.5905887

>>5905756
oh my fucking god this must be bait but it made me so mad 10/10 rusemaster

>> No.5905890

>>5905313
are you just gonna fling shit like the dumb ape you are or are you gonna substantiate what you say?

The accounts contradict each other. So if you believe in the literal truth of the Nativity narratives you are either a) mentally fucking retarded or b) need to concede that one or both of the Gospel writers got it wrong.

>> No.5905892

>>5905138
I'm not a Christian

>> No.5905906

>>5905690
im not saying anyone is wrong, but seeing people commenting on theology who have clearly never tried to educate themselves on the subject is painful.

>> No.5905911

>>5905155
As are you, you just like to tell yourself that you're different because you suck Jesus's divinity-cock. Christians are no different than the average modern man. They're greedy, selfish, spend their lives chasing after money, etc. The only difference is that they cover it up with a veneer of sanctimonious piety. But by all means, keep telling yourself that your pleb religion is superior.

>> No.5905922

>>5905391
Okay, I can see you're incapable of refuting anything I say. You're just gonna keep flinging shit like the cornered animal you are. Merry Christmas, faggot.

>> No.5905929

>>5905922
You see you are just THAT retarded you aren't worth any argument.
Throwing pearls at pigs.

>> No.5905967

>>5905929
Debating on the internet like this is pretty much useless because you're almost always talking to people who actively oppose you, there's no sincerity in their questioning. If they wanted answers they wouldn't be here, they would be actively looking for them.

>> No.5905988

>>5905967
I know. I'm just bored and sick. Can't do much else right now.

>> No.5906035

>>5904946
where do they conflict

>> No.5906039

>>5904818
>literally