[ 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: 914 KB, 1333x767, theology-of-the-body-michelangelo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6035219 No.6035219 [Reply] [Original]

Old thread hit bump limit >>6029069

All God related discussion goes here. Objections and clarifications welcome. Discussion of Biblical passages encouraged. Let's do some exegesis /lit/.

>> No.6035226

Read more. All of you.

>> No.6035236

>>6035226
Any suggestions? Also, are you implying that there's a negative correlation between reading and belief in God?

>> No.6035327

>>6035226
Throw something at me, bro. Last books I read are Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel, Gospel in Ten Words by Paul Ellis, God:The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger and How God Changes your Brain by Andrew Newberg. I welcome all challengers, so give me some books to read.

>> No.6035344

>>6035236

Yes.

>>6035327

I'd recommend you drop the pop hermeneutics and read up on ontology

>> No.6035362

>>6035226
Wow.

>> No.6035386

>>6035344
>I'd recommend you drop the pop hermeneutics and read up on ontology

Any suggestions? That's a pretty vague recommendation and I wouldn't know where to look.

>> No.6035394

>>6035386

> I wouldn't know where to look.

I wouldnt know where to tell you where to look. I dont know how much background you have in philosophy or philosophical thinking, and based on the books you've posted I doubt you've read much theory at all, but that' just a guess. Wherever you left off in your philosophical reading about being is where you should continue. If you're already convinced that your theological beliefs are justified and true, i wouldnt recommend anything. Keep believing what you'd like and never challenge yourself, that sounds relaxing.

>> No.6035406

>>6035219
How does a rational individual come to believe that god likely exists?

>> No.6035446

>>6035394
You haven't read any of the books I listed, have you? Two of them are challenges to Christianity, one is a semi-neutral exploration of neuroscience, and one is pure pandering. I'm more than happy to read things that challenge my faith, but nothing I've read thus far has been persuasive. So name a book on ontology that challenges the Christian faith.

>> No.6035457

>>6035406
Define rational.

>> No.6035459

>>6035446

>So name a book on ontology that challenges the Christian faith.

Critique of Pure Reason
Being and Time
Of Grammatologie

>> No.6035489

>>6035457
In accordance with logic or reason.

>> No.6035494

>>6035459
I've read Critique of Pure Reason. It hardly made me question my faith, but it did make me question the whole intellectual enterprise. Are the other two worth reading or will they simply lead to more questioning of the ability of man to develop a coherent philosophy and not simply rely on a priori assumptions?

>> No.6035500

>>6035489
Are you implying that logic and reason operate as independent entities, and not like lawyers arguing in favor of pre-formed notions?

>> No.6035506

>>6035494

>a priori assumptions

Read Kant again. Heidegger does a lengthy critique of being that is quite astute. Derrida demonstrates the limits of intertextual freeplay and analyzes the semiotic event from within.

I'm pretty sure you're not interested in changing your mind about being or truth or phenomena, so i'll leave you to it. have a good life.

>> No.6035510

>>6035500

>pre-formed notions?

like the historical account of God as actor? like the belief in God? like the belief that belief in God can at any level be assumed to be justified true belief?

>> No.6035531

>>6035506
I'm open to having my beliefs challenged, and I'll give Kant another read, but it seems to me most demonstrations for disbelief in God do little but raise the human intellect to inordinate levels. Why should human reason be any higher than any of our other faculties?

>> No.6035555

>>6035531

The point is not that reason > our faculties for religious experience. The point is to question the faculty of experience from the get go, to try to understand how language and sign operate ideologically and structurally, how our relation to language defines our belief systems reciprocally

>> No.6035568

>>6035555
Sure, sure. But every objection I've heard to God relies exclusively on man's ability to reason. I have holistic experiences that led me to belief, in spite of objections that my reasoning faculties may have had. We are emotional, reasoning, faith based beings and only Christianity combines all of our experiential references into one coherent system. It seems to me most atheists disproportionately value reasoning above all other human faculties. The Bible presents a complete picture, even if in parts it negates the value of reason(in regards to our current enlightenment values).

>> No.6035575
File: 8 KB, 260x294, 1376959913078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6035575

okay I have some questions

how does the acceptance of a higher power or created universe imply christianity with its various myths, demigods, and very specific rules? Why not believe in Bhudda or Baal or any other religion? How can you logically prove christianity is right without resorting to "oh it just feels right to me" or "well all the other great men of history were christian and my ancestors were too"

how do feel about all the hateful, ignorant, and stupid christians that seem to make up a significant portion of your congregations? you both believe roughly the same things.

do you ever feel concern over your virtue and purity while visiting this site? Why choose 4chan of all places to talk about god?

How do you justify christianity's demonization of sexuality? try to avoid /pol/ or /r9k/ logic, it's unbecoming.

If all humans were born deaf and mute, would religion exist?

please try to answer without getting mad I have never received a very cogent answer to any of these questions.

>> No.6035579

>>6035500
There are neither empirical nor rational grounds to base the belief in god. I understand it is faith, but it undermines the claim that god can be known intellectually.

>> No.6035587

>>6035568

In what way is Christianity a coherent system? A system for what? What are its ends and what have these ends to do with phenomenal experience?
Why are you assuming that humanity categorically has its basis in emotion, reason and faith?
What complete picture is presented by the Bible? Why are similar religious belief systems less complete? What exactly is entailed by the notion of a 'complete' religious doctrine? How can you know, outside of tautology and self-referential hermeneutics, what a complete system should be and how it applies to the justification of true belief? Faith in a system's verity is not equable with the truth value of said systems verity

>> No.6035597

>>6035575
>how does the acceptance of a higher power or created universe imply christianity with its various myths, demigods, and very specific rules? Why not believe in Bhudda or Baal or any other religion? How can you logically prove christianity is right without resorting to "oh it just feels right to me" or "well all the other great men of history were christian and my ancestors were too"

Essentially, Christianity is the only religion to combine all of man's faculties. It has a coherent reasoning behind itself, it appeals to human emotions, and it appeals to man's needs.

>how do feel about all the hateful, ignorant, and stupid christians that seem to make up a significant portion of your congregations? you both believe roughly the same things.

Many are fallen, but the general ethics of Christianity are clear. Love is the highest virtue, even if some adherents fail on the love test.

>do you ever feel concern over your virtue and purity while visiting this site? Why choose 4chan of all places to talk about god?

I don't, because my virtue comes from more than my actions. I can come into a den of vipers and not be infected by the vipers, and have an obligation to try to spread the seed of Christianity everywhere I go.

>How do you justify christianity's demonization of sexuality? try to avoid /pol/ or /r9k/ logic, it's unbecoming.

Basically, it's clear from studies on sexuality and mental disorders that promiscuity leads to issues such as depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders. That's not even mentioning things like the higher rate of cervical cancer and real diseases amongst sexual deviants.

>If all humans were born deaf and mute, would religion exist?

The question makes no sense.

>please try to answer without getting mad I have never received a very cogent answer to any of these questions.

I'm not mad, but the majority of your questions lack insight.

>> No.6035602

>>6035597

>It has a coherent reasoning behind itself,

About as coherent as L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology

>> No.6035610

>>6035587
>In what way is Christianity a coherent system? A system for what?

It is a coherent ethical system, with clear divisions between what is virtuous and what isn't.

> What are its ends and what have these ends to do with phenomenal experience?

Its ends are to develop character among its adherents, and it relates to phenomenal experience because those who believe experience God's presence.

>Why are you assuming that humanity categorically has its basis in emotion, reason and faith?

I'm not, merely stating that objections are almost always rooted in man's ability to reason.

>What complete picture is presented by the Bible? Why are similar religious belief systems less complete? What exactly is entailed by the notion of a 'complete' religious doctrine? How can you know, outside of tautology and self-referential hermeneutics, what a complete system should be and how it applies to the justification of true belief? Faith in a system's verity is not equable with the truth value of said systems verity

The Bible paints a complete picture of man, both the depths of his inhumanity and the heights of his compassion. Name some similar religions so I can compare them. I can know because God is a personal being and has reached out to me personally.

>> No.6035634

>>6035610

>It is a coherent ethical system, with clear divisions between what is virtuous and what isn't.
self-contained, self-defined. tautology.

>Its ends are to develop character among its adherents, and it relates to phenomenal experience because those who believe experience God's presence.

How can you be sure these are its true ends, outside of the text? How can you be sure that the presence you've experience is God's? How can you be sure that the experience of presence is an experience of an actual, tangible presence and not a mental phenomenon?

>The Bible paints a complete picture of man,

decidedly, definitionally false

>Name some similar religions so I can compare them.

Judaism, Islam

>I can know because God is a personal being and has reached out to me personally.

You can never demonstrate either of these to be true, even to yourself.

>> No.6035635

>>6035610
>It is a coherent ethical system, with clear divisions between what is virtuous and what isn't.
haha you're fucking retarded

>> No.6035636

>>6035597
>It has a coherent reasoning behind itself,

Are you seriously going to make that claim for the religion that believes in the trinity being monotheistic and that Jesus was 100% man and 100% god?

How is its reasoning any more coherent than say Islam, Judaism or Buddhism?

>> No.6035648

>>6035597

so you're implying that it's either monogamy with no sex out of wedlock or promiscuity - these are the only modes of human sexuality

sounds like you lack insight. also how can religion exist without language - a human construct? let me guess god invented language.

>> No.6035659

>>6035634
>>6035635
>>6035636
>>6035648
So much mad, so much Truth.

Captcha:
>iwrekt

>> No.6035661

Different anon here

>>6035597
Which translation of the bible do you use?

Which demoniation are you a member of/ think comes the closest to being correct?

What are your thoughts on Romans 13?

Is it reasonable for people to be Christians without experiencing the holy spirit?

>> No.6035674

>>6035648
No he is implying that those who are promiscuous (large number of partners, many at the same time) tend to have a higher rate of mental health issues.

>> No.6035676

>>6035661
>Which translation of the bible do you use?

Whichever I have access to.

>Which demoniation are you a member of/ think comes the closest to being correct?

Calvinists.

>What are your thoughts on Romans 13?

Being virtuous by God's standards is tantamount. Submitting to earthly authorities doesn't extend to denying God.

>Is it reasonable for people to be Christians without experiencing the holy spirit?

No, if they haven't experienced the holy spirit they aren't Christian.

>> No.6035697

>>6035676

>Whichever I have access to.

do you have a personal preference?, how important are translations when it comes to the bible?

>Calvinists.

How competent are modern calvanist denominations when it comes to following his teachings?

How did you come to be a calvanist?

>Being virtuous by God's standards is tantamount. Submitting to earthly authorities doesn't extend to denying God.

So does that mean resisting the draft/refusing to serve in the military or collect taxes would be in line with Calvinist thinking?

>No, if they haven't experienced the holy spirit they aren't Christian.

When did you experience it and how did you know that the Calvanist path was the one the spirit was intending for you to adhere to?

>> No.6035750

>>6035697
>do you have a personal preference?, how important are translations when it comes to the bible?

No, I read what I have access to. Translations are important but not all-encompassing.

>How competent are modern calvanist denominations when it comes to following his teachings?

I don't know, I just know Calvin was the closest to a comprehensive identity of God.

>How did you come to be a calvanist?

I'm not a Calvinist. I am closest to a Pentacostal, but Calvinists are the closest to a concise Biblical Christianity. Denominations are an unnatural division for the Body of Christ.

>So does that mean resisting the draft/refusing to serve in the military or collect taxes would be in line with Calvinist thinking?

I don't know. I know that I personally would be opposed to a draft but am not opposed to governments collecting taxes(render unto caesar).

>When did you experience it and how did you know that the Calvanist path was the one the spirit was intending for you to adhere to?

I've experienced the holy spirit throughout my growing belief structure. First when I decided the Bible was nothing but lies but was guided to see it as inspired, then later growing increasingly closer to a literalist interpretation. My whole career as a Christian has been guided by an external source, even if some of the things I believe extend beyond that.

>> No.6035752

>>6035674

but why is christianity the only solution for that

may as well skip boredom both boredom in a pew and venereal disease and just be a normal human

also why do christians somehow keep coming back to this "Den of Vipers" you are not supposed to want to go to the snakepit. something is drawing these people back and it's probably not the holy spirit (ie traps)

if you christers are coming to convert people you're doing a shit poor job of it, i feel more repelled than ever and you sanctimonious morons make an ass out of yourselves on a daily basis

I'd rather listen to butterfly

>> No.6035764

Thanks for responding

>>6035750
>I don't know. I know that I personally would be opposed to a draft

So would those Christians who submitted to the draft for the vietnam war be going to hell for obeying the government over god and commiting murder or would they be okay because of the rule created in Romans 13

>but am not opposed to governments collecting taxes(render unto caesar).

Yes but point was not the institution but the practice, ie would be a person who collects taxes and makes use of government coercion be going against god.

>> No.6035766

>>6035752
>>6035752
We're here to damn you, not to recruit you. We just want to be sure you have no excuse when you are faced with your maker. You've heard the Word and it's driven you away.

>> No.6035775

>>6035764
Maybe. The real question isn't what they did, but what they are. Christianity is all about agents and not about actions.

>> No.6035782

>>6035775
How do you separate a person from their actions?

>> No.6035786

>>6035766

>joke shitpost is the most authentically Christian of all of them

>> No.6035791

>>6035775

an agent is that which has agency, i.e. takes action, fool

>> No.6035792

>>6035782
I don't, but God can. He knows if people did bad things with good intentions or did good things with bad intentions. That's what's so beautiful about Christian ethics, they can separate the man from his deeds, and the wheat from the tares.

>> No.6035804

>>6035786
I hardly think removing people's excuses is a joke. Our job, as Christians, is not to convince people but to leave them with no excuse.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

>> No.6035805

>>6035792

How do you know what God is and can know?

>> No.6035813

>>6035792
>I don't, but God can. He knows if people did bad things with good intentions or did good things with bad intentions

Is this speaking to your personal understanding or does the Calvinist belief system as a whole believe that this is one of those divine mysteries like the trinity?

>> No.6035816

>>6035804

An excuse for what?

does God watch me when I jerk off?

What are Gods thoughts on masturbation? On lesbianism? On transgender people? How many excuses do I have to get rid of before I get to sip milk and honey from rivers of gold?

Why do you put so much energy into a westernized bastardization of ancient jewish myth?

>> No.6035827

>>6035752
>just want to be a normal human and fuck lots of different people
kek

>> No.6035838

>>6035805
>.How do you know what God is and can know?

The Bible is clear God is omniscient. That is all-knowing.

>>6035813
>Is this speaking to your personal understanding or does the Calvinist belief system as a whole believe that this is one of those divine mysteries like the trinity?

I'm not calvinist, it's not a mystery. God knows why you do what you do.

>>6035816

Ignorance. You won't be able to go before God and claim you weren't made aware of His judgement against you. Make all the excuses you need, they won't hold water.

>> No.6035843

>>6035838

>The Bible is clear God is omniscient. That is all-knowing

The text of the Bible = truth? Demonstrate this, please. If you have the ability to think.

>You won't be able to go before God and claim you weren't made aware of His judgement against you

Why should God judge me negatively? What have I done wrong?

Are there good and bad actions? Are they defined solely by the bible?

What does the Bible say about transgenderism? lesbianism? what about nuclear holocaust? genetically modified foods?

Is it all in the Bible, or do you pick and choose which bits of the text suit your worldview?

Literally posting 'the Bible says it so its true' is not an answer. You have failed as a believer and God will smite you as a false prophet

>> No.6035861

>>6035843
>The text of the Bible = truth? Demonstrate this, please. If you have the ability to think.

You mad, bro?

>Why should God judge me negatively? What have I done wrong?

Because you are a self-centered individual. It's not what you've done, but who you are.

>Are there good and bad actions? Are they defined solely by the bible?

Yes.

>What does the Bible say about transgenderism? lesbianism? what about nuclear holocaust? genetically modified foods?

They're bad.

>Is it all in the Bible, or do you pick and choose which bits of the text suit your worldview?

No.

>Literally posting 'the Bible says it so its true' is not an answer. You have failed as a believer and God will smite you as a false prophet

You mad, bro?

>> No.6035863

>>6035861

Have a good evening. I'm out of here

>> No.6035866

>>6035863
You mad, bro?

>> No.6035878

>>6035838
>I'm not calvinist, it's not a mystery. God knows why you do what you do.

When I said mystery I was talking in the Christian sense that it is one of those things that can only be understood by God.

Hence can the separation between a person and their actions be understood by humans

>> No.6035888

>>6035878
There's no mystery, though. People often behave contrary to their motives and are usually see through when they do. The separation between motives and actions isn't a peculiarly Christian concept. Only that God can perfectly separate the two, because He knows what's in a person's heart.

>> No.6036036

>>6035888
>People often behave contrary to their motives and are usually see through when they do

Dont you see how this reasoning argues the contrary as they are only seen through because of their actions. Hence by understanding a persons actions you understand their motives and removing the distinction.

>> No.6036098

>>6035579
Has never read a book.
Mate logial defense of god is a thing and had been for quite some time.

>> No.6036101

>>6036098
Which is retarded since Christians officially hold God's existence as a postulate, not a conclusion. Rationally defending God's existence undermines such existence as a postulate, and shows their bad faith in logical discourse.

>> No.6036124

>>6036101
>>6036101
The great wisdom of a 19 year old atheist has just disproved what some of the most brilliant men throught history! Rejoyce for not even Kant could do such a thing!

>> No.6036131

>>6036124

Namecalling doesn't make God real

>> No.6036143

>>6036124
I could imagine people making simmilar comments when atomic theory and the notion of matter not consisting of fire,earth,water,air and aether was made.

>> No.6036168

>>6035579
>>There are neither empirical nor rational grounds to base the belief in god.
the empirical ground is that we live day after day

>> No.6036172

>>6036168

That has no bearing on whether the organization of structure requires an intelligent, conscious entity.

>> No.6036185

>>6036172
yes, just as it has no bearing on whether the organization of structure requires an entity quite stupid, conscious or existing at all. But it does not mean it is ridiculous to believe in a god.

>> No.6036192

>>6036185

No, you're right, the complete lack of evidence of this entity itself makes it ridiculous.

That and the fact that nothing having anything to do with God is defined consistently or at all

>> No.6036194

>>6035587
if you're humouring the idea that christianity is believable, it doesn't make sense to present it as existing in a world where there are viable other choices for religion

>> No.6036198

>>6036143
>mug skience will disprove magic man in the sky

>> No.6036199

>>6035636
>How is its reasoning any more coherent than say Islam, Judaism or Buddhism?

do you honestly think there are things that happen in the 'real world' so to speak that don't baffle you? i mean obviously there is evidence that these things occur but putting it all together into a cohesive whole is a hard task

>> No.6036201

>my name is theodore
>published a book under the pen name theo a week ago
>thought maybe i received some recognition from /lit/, for a moment feel excitement
>nope, they're just arguing about jesus again

fml

>> No.6036203

>>6036198

I'm sure people like you will always come up with new excuses why you were completely right all along, that doesn't make your ideas consistent with reality

>> No.6036204

>>6036192
>lack of evidence
Yeah whenever evidence is presented you scream
>that isunt evidence i want muh empyrikal evidence for a non empirical entity

>> No.6036209

>>6036203
I'm sure people like you will always come up with new excuses why you were completely right all along, that doesn't make your ideas consistent with reality

>> No.6036210

>>6036199

The difference is that the things in the real world are, you know, real

>> No.6036216

>>6036204

Then go right ahead. Define 'god', define the terms you need to use in advance, use these definitions consistently, come up with some kind of proposition, come up with a method how to distinguish the proposition being true from the proposition being false, and test whether your proposition is true or false.

That's the name of the game with making claims and demonstrating them. Show it or shut it

>> No.6036218

>>6036210
according to the knowledge systems that define them as real. compare to the knowledge system of the bible that claims god is real and that these things happened, because the reality that exists in the bible's system of knowledge allows those things to exist, as that is just how it operates. it's no use comparing them against each other

>> No.6036220

>>6036216
>Then go right ahead. Define 'god'

lmao

anyway what are atheist shitposters doing in a theology thread

>> No.6036226

>>6036218

>because the reality that exists in the bible's system of knowledge allows those things to exist

Then why do we never see people walk on water? Why do we never hear of people surviving their own death? How many virgin births have there been since biblical times. None, as far as I know, and the claims in the Bible have never been corroborated by any contemporary reports. We only hear some hearsay about some guy named Jesus existing, but never anything on anyone walking on water and miraculously healing the sick

>> No.6036228

>>6036220

Your response seems like a pretty good answer. Also, if you start to preach to people, don't complain when people respond. That's how modern society works, this isn't a hugbox or an echochamber

>> No.6036229

>>6036226
>the claims in the Bible have never been corroborated by any contemporary reports.

the claims in the bible are that jesus, the son of god, walked on water etc because he was the son of god

if you're going to critique the bible please at least read it first

>> No.6036231

>>6036216
M8 use the rational euphoric powah of skience that has perfected itself in the mighty demigod named Google

>> No.6036232

>>6036228
"that's the name of the game" wasn't worth answering fully

>start to preach to people

you mean discuss among ourselves?

you should spend more time reading than you do typing

>> No.6036240

>>6035843
>Why should God judge me negatively? What have I done wrong?

I see a lot of people discount Christianity and get mad at God because they can't believe that a God would doom his creations to hell like that.

But what is so hard to believe about God punishing those that disobey him? You obviously do not believe in God and so do not believe what the bible says is true, but just try to think for a moment in the context of the bible.

If the bible is true and God created the world and all in it, why should he be answerable to you if you want to disobey him? Why shouldn't he require belief in him? Your parents expect you to respect them and obey them when you are a child.

>> No.6036258

>>6035750

So you believe that God has predestined people to be saved? Because that's a defining Calvinist trait and is kind of moronic in my opinion. They actively deny free will in the matter.

>> No.6036260

>>6036240
>I see a lot of people discount Christianity and get mad at God because they can't believe that a God would doom his creations to hell like that.

>But what is so hard to believe about God punishing those that disobey him?

Because the Christians make claims about God also being omniscient and all loving concurrently with this. This presents a rather nasty contradiction. So its the logical inconsistency that bothers people.

This is made all the more suspect when people try to allay this reasonable concern with claims that all contradictions are only illusions due to permanent human ignorance.

Its one of the biggest Challenges to the Christian faith which combined with its other mysteries like the trinity and the nature of Jesus make it far less logically consisent than say Buddhism, Judaism or Islam.

>> No.6036270

>>6036260

But they all have similar problems. Why would it be less logically consistent than Islam or Judaism? They both believe on some level that their God is good and merciful.

Almost all Christianity believes we inherited Adam's sin in some respect. Some believe we inherited his guilt. Others simply believe we feel the consequences of his sin in some way even if we are only directly responsible for our own sins. The point is that it separated us from God. And the point is that he came back down to earth to unite us to him. All you need to do is believe in him and you will have eternal life.

It doesn't matter what you've done at any point in your life. All can be forgiven. How is that not loving?

>> No.6036278

>>6035843
>What does the Bible say about transgenderism?
On a side note, as a Muslim, transgenderism is totally fine in Islam. Iran performs more sex change operations than any other country in the world except Thailand. The government pays for half of it. They are more progressive when it comes to this shit than any secular white country.

>> No.6036322

>>6036278
Transgender isn't mention in any islamic texts but most imams will still forbid it which is not within their power according to islam.

>> No.6036358

>>6036270
>But they all have similar problems.

They do not to the same foundational extent as Christianity does. Can you find anything in Judaism, Islam or Buddhism that requires the same suspension of reasoning that the trinity does?

>They both believe on some level that their God is good and merciful.

Yes but they don't make the claim their god is also all loving a the same time.
>All can be forgiven. How is that not loving?

Except it cannot and is not, as someone who agrees with Calvin and the predestination of those who will be saved and those who will be not and that nothing short of a miracle can cause someone to be saved God is not loving as he chooses through inaction to allow the majority of mankind to be tortured for eternity for the sins of their ancestors and for failing to worship him appropriately.

He sets humanity up for failure, then punishes them eternally for it.

He cannot even live up to the standard of the good Samaritan

And the way that this is explained is that Gods love is a special category of love that defies all possible human reason and that we can never understand but only accept.

>> No.6036366

>>6036322
Yes it does. The Qur'an mentions effeminate men/eunuchs. Comparable to modern day transgenders. It's as clear about that as anything. It certainly mentions them.

>> No.6036370

>>>/x/

>> No.6036380

>>6036322
>>6036366

Question: Why doesn't Islam have a Pope?

>> No.6036382

>>6036358
>Can you find anything in Judaism, Islam or Buddhism that requires the same suspension of reasoning that the trinity does

So a God and angels is reasonable, but the Trinity isn't? It's not that hard to understand really in concept. Fathoming it is different, yes. But an unknowable God is par for the course in religions around the world.

>Yes but they don't make the claim their god is also all loving a the same time.

When does Christianity even claim this absolutely? The OT is part of the Christian bible. We know all the things that God did in the OT. I don't recall Christianity ever saying that God was "all loving." I also don't see how love has to be defined in one very narrow way. What's to say he doesn't still love us even when we choose not to believe in him? Sure, we will be left to hell, but I don't see how that implies he's stopped loving us.

>Except it cannot and is not, as someone who agrees with Calvin

Yeah, but I don't believe in Calvin. In fact, most Christians don't believe Calvin, so I don't see how using Calvin to prove something about God is valuable. Calvinists are a small group of Christians.

>He sets humanity up for failure, then punishes them eternally for it.

No, we have free will. He didn't "set us up" for anything. He set us a paradise and Adam, using his free will, fucked it up.

But the good news is that all we need to do is believe he exists and none of that matters. Christianity has the least amount of hoops to jump through of any religion I can think of. Unlike Islam, there is no five pillars or prayer times. There is only belief.

>> No.6036390

>>6036382

>Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.

1John 4:8

I'm not a Christian, but it's there in the text

>> No.6036406

>>6036382
>So a God and angels is reasonable, but the Trinity isn't?

There is a huge difference between beliving in the possibility like supernatural beings and the logical impossibility of statements like there being three completely separate individuals who each in their own right is god (but not one another) but that this is a monotheistic system or that jesus can be 100% human and 100% god at the same time.

An angel or a creator can be justified and through intervention be rationally understood. The trinity and the nature of Christ are logical contradictions that can *never* be affirmed by reason or experience.

Can you find something like that in the faiths I mentioned which is similar to the troubles posed by the trinity?

>When does Christianity even claim this absolutely? The OT is part of the Christian bible. We know all the things that God did in the OT. I don't recall Christianity ever saying that God was "all loving."

The Gospel of John when he spoke of God being love.

>I don't recall Christianity ever saying that God was "all loving." I also don't see how love has to be defined in one very narrow way.

But it still has to be defined with some consistency otherwise it would be impossible to differentiate it from something else or a falsehood.

>What's to say he doesn't still love us even when we choose not to believe in him? Sure, we will be left to hell, but I don't see how that implies he's stopped loving us.

The reasons I brought up earlier about about his omniscience and failure to live up to the standard of the good Samaritan. The only way you can view god as loving is to use the argument in my earlier post.

>Yeah, but I don't believe in Calvin.

"I'm not a Calvinist. I am closest to a Pentacostal, but Calvinists are the closest to a concise Biblical Christianity"

That sounds a lot like belief.

>No, we have free will. He didn't "set us up" for anything. He set us a paradise and Adam, using his free will, fucked it up.

You cant have omniscience and free will. Before I was even created God knows whether I will go to heaven or hell.

Likewise how is original sin in anyway consistent with free will?

>But the good news is that all we need to do is believe he exists and none of that matters. Christianity has the least amount of hoops to jump through of any religion I can think of.

Even if we do accept Sola Fide requiring a genuine belief in Christian principles is a huge ask even more so (to the point of being callous) when you consider that this is often so unreasonable that nothing bar intervention from the holy spirit can make it possible.

>> No.6036424

>>6036406
>You cant have omniscience and free will. Before I was even created God knows whether I will go to heaven or hell.
You can have both as you make your own choices in a linear time. God may know it but you don't. He knows it because of the choices you make.
>The Gospel of John when he spoke of God being love.
Sure, but love as we interpret it for certain cases is much different that what the creator of the universe has in mind.
>Likewise how is original sin in anyway consistent with free will?
Does being born a sinful being somehow mean you can't make moral decisions?

>> No.6036433

>>6036424
>You can have both as you make your own choices in a linear time.

This doesn't make any sense, are you saying that I can surprise god with my actions?

Also what is non-linear time as opposed to linear time?

>God may know it but you don't.

That doesnt mean there is free will, I may not know what the ending of a movie will be but that does not change the fact that its ending is predetermined.

>Does being born a sinful being somehow mean you can't make moral decisions?

Yes thats what the whole fall of man and humanity being irredeemably wretched is about. Heck its the whole reason Jesus had to come to earth.

>> No.6036443

>>6036433
>This doesn't make any sense, are you saying that I can surprise god with my actions?
You can't, but why does it matter?
>Also what is non-linear time as opposed to linear time?
To us time goes forward and we exist in linear time, you know, you can't go from the present to the future.
>That doesnt mean there is free will, I may not know what the ending of a movie will be but that does not change the fact that its ending is predetermined.
It doesn't mean there is no free will. The ending may be predetermined, but it the jurney and the choices the characters make are still their own.
>Yes thats what the whole fall of man and humanity being irredeemably wretched is about. Heck its the whole reason Jesus had to come to earth.
I don't see what you are pointing at, outside stating a fact.

>> No.6036444

>>6036433
>I may not know what the ending of a movie will be but that does not change the fact that its ending is predetermined.

what? you still have choice over your actions

>> No.6036454

>>6036443
>You can't, but why does it matter?

Because it has huge implications when it comes to dealing with the question of free-will existing or not.

>To us time goes forward and we exist in linear time, you know, you can't go from the present to the future.

I get you now.

>It doesn't mean there is no free will. The ending may be predetermined , but it the jurney and the choices the characters make are still their own.

>The ending may be predetermined

That isn't free will. Then every decision we make is predetermined like trains running on an invisible track (which following your reasoning of Gods omniscience we can never come off of). Any control we think we might have is 100% illusory.

> the jurney and the choices the characters make are still their own.

No they are merely playing out the actions that were fabricated by their creator.

>I don't see what you are pointing at, outside stating a fact.

I was pointing out the incorrect comment you made in the earlier post regarding the fall and mans ability to be moral.

>> No.6036475

>>6036443
Also can I get a response from my earlier questions/points:

>There is a huge difference between beliving in the possibility like supernatural beings and the logical impossibility of statements like there being three completely separate individuals who each in their own right is god (but not one another) but that this is a monotheistic system or that jesus can be 100% human and 100% god at the same time.An angel or a creator can be justified and through intervention be rationally understood. The trinity and the nature of Christ are logical contradictions that can *never* be affirmed by reason or experience.

*Can you find something like that in the faiths I mentioned which is similar to the troubles posed by the trinity?*

>>I don't recall Christianity ever saying that God was "all loving." I also don't see how love has to be defined in one very narrow way.

But it still has to be defined with some consistency otherwise it would be impossible to differentiate it from something else or a falsehood.

>Even if we do accept Sola Fide requiring a genuine belief in Christian principles is a huge ask even more so (to the point of being callous) when you consider that this is often so unreasonable that nothing bar intervention from the holy spirit can make it possible.

>> No.6036481

>>6035575
Dialectics and historicism.

>How do you justify christianity's demonization of sexuality? try to avoid /pol/ or /r9k/ logic, it's unbecoming
I'd use a feminist argument say that sex is always violence, thus reducing it is good.

>> No.6036495

>>6035459
2 of the writers are devout christians in their personal live.

>> No.6036501

>>6035446
>but nothing I've read thus far has been persuasive
Nothing is persuasive enough to a person who does not want to be persuaded.

>> No.6036506

>>6036454
>That isn't free will. Then every decision we make is predetermined like trains running on an invisible track (which following your reasoning of Gods omniscience we can never come off of). Any control we think we might have is 100% illusory.

You used the movie allegory which I went with. It's a wrong alegory, but you got my point.
>No they are merely playing out the actions that were fabricated by their creator.
When using the movie analogy, but it isn't right. The ending isn't predetermined, it's made by our choices. But the ending is known to God which in terms of free will means nothing.

>> No.6036513

>>6036390
>>6036406
>Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.

So God is one thing? He can't ever be anything else or represent anything else? Saving people from a hell he chooses not to rule over isn't love now?

>"I'm not a Calvinist. I am closest to a Pentacostal, but Calvinists are the closest to a concise Biblical Christianity"

Why would you quote someone else's post? That's not me. I'm Greek Orthodox.

>You cant have omniscience and free will. Before I was even created God knows whether I will go to heaven or hell.

Yes you can. Omniscience means that he is all-knowing. He KNOWS every choice you will make and whether you will go to heaven or to hell. He doesn't MAKE you do these things. There's a difference between omniscience and predestination. This is like kindergarten-level theology.

>Likewise how is original sin in anyway consistent with free will?

You will have to ask a Catholic. As I said in an earlier post, I don't believe in humans taking on Adam's guilt. That's Catholic doctrine.

>> No.6036514

>>6035575
>How do you justify christianity's demonization of sexuality?
Sex is sacred to christians because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, therefor abusing it is insulting God.

>> No.6036521

>>6036506
>You used the movie allegory which I went with. It's a wrong alegory, but you got my point.

But you didnt get mine the emphasis is not on the person watching the movie but the characters themselves.

>The ending isn't predetermined, it's made by our choices

Thats an impossibility though if the following is true bellow

>But the ending is known to God which in terms of free will means nothing.

It means everything like the invisible train track or the tape the movie is cast on, its impossible for God to know what will happen unless it is predetermined and if its per-determied there is no free will.

You cant have omniscience and free-will existing at concurrently.

>> No.6036527

>>6036521
>Yes you can. Omniscience means that he is all-knowing. He KNOWS every choice you will make and whether you will go to heaven or to hell. He doesn't MAKE you do these things. There's a difference between omniscience and predestination. This is like kindergarten-level theology.
This anon put it better than I did, it's really just that simple.

>> No.6036538 [DELETED] 

>>6036521
>You cant have omniscience and free-will existing at concurrently.

You can. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I know you don't believe in God, but when you are arguing a matter of theology it helps to just imagine that this God does exist.

>pre-determined

That's not the same thing as pre-destined. That's a pretty major distinction.

>> No.6036542

>>6036513
>Why would you quote someone else's post? That's not me. I'm Greek Orthodox.

Surely you can figure out why that might be the case on a board with no ID.

>Yes you can. Omniscience means that he is all-knowing. He KNOWS every choice you will make and whether you will go to heaven or to hell.

>He doesn't MAKE you do these things. There's a difference between omniscience and predestination. This is like kindergarten-level theology.

You cant have omniscience without predestination. Otherwise all could not be known by God. By creating you and me he has set the process in motion even if all that involved was the creation of Adam and Eve.

Can you explain how they can exist separatly? Our ignorance of how it plays out isnt a logical answer.

>> No.6036549

>>6036513
>Yes you can. Omniscience means that he is all-knowing. He KNOWS every choice you will make and whether you will go to heaven or to hell. He doesn't MAKE you do these things. There's a difference between omniscience and predestination.

Clear. Until we get to the omnipotent and omnibenevolent parts. Explain pls.

>> No.6036552

>>6036527
Its about as simple as beliving that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.

>> No.6036557

>>6036549
>omnibenevolent
Omnibenevolence is an attribute only atheists give to God. Clearly he isn't omnibenevolent and no one with any knowlage of theology will claim it.
Fucks sake atheists why do you keep bringing this up when no one other that you is making that claim!?

>> No.6036558

>>6036549
>Clear.

How is that clear? How can god know the outcome of all our actions and choices without there being predetermination?

>> No.6036563

>>6036521
>You cant have omniscience and free-will existing at concurrently.

says u

>> No.6036564

>>6036558
How isn't it clear?
1. God knows the outcome of our actions
2. He doesn't force us to do anything
3. We don't know the ending
4. We make our own choices
5. When God judges we are judged by the knowlege we had and for our actions

I don't understand why this isn't clear already?

>> No.6036572

>>6036542
>You cant have omniscience without predestination. Otherwise all could not be known by God.

But God is eternal. He has always existed and always will exist. For him a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Why are you assuming that time exists for him in the same way that it exists for us?

>Can you explain how they can exist separatly? Our ignorance of how it plays out isnt a logical answer.

How do scientists know down to accurate percentages the outcome of experiments they conduct before they conduct them? They don't make stars act in the way they want them to. But they can predict with an almost certainty how they will behave.

We have free will, but it's also undeniable that we have personalities distinct and unique to us. God knows us inside and out and he knows what we will think before we even think it. And likely he has already seen it happen. Likely he sees time in a non-linear way. Every choice we make in life is laid out in front of him.

You ask how he could know if it wasn't predestined to happen, but at the same time I could ask you how his knowing what will happen could actively influence our choices. How does his knowing on its own create destiny? You can't have predestination without omniscience, but you can have omniscience without predestination. You must know to act, but you need not act on what you know.

>> No.6036573

>>6036557
I like how you lie.

>> No.6036579

>>6036564
>2. He doesn't force us to do anything
This is rather unconvincing.

>> No.6036580

>>6036549

Omnipotence doesn't mean he must choose to use his powers. He especially wouldn't choose to use his powers in a way that would infringe on our free will.

Omnibenevolence is not a real thing. Christians don't believe this.

>> No.6036587

>>6036563
>1. God knows the outcome of our actions - check

2. He doesn't force us to do anything

This is where I have trouble with it.

Because god created all people directly at conception or indirectly through Adam and eve he has effectively turned on the movie/ put us on the invisible train tracks to oblivion or paradise.

We cant surprise god or act against what he knows therefore once we are created there can be no free will only the illusion of it.


3. We don't know the ending

It doesn't matter we will follow a predetermined path.

4. We make our own choices

We cannot until we get past the issues I outlined above, at best its the illusion.

5. When God judges we are judged by the knowlege we had and for our actions

We are judged the day we are created or simply even before that if all is known.

>> No.6036588

>>6036579

Name one instance in the entire bible where God used his power to force someone to obey. He has "hardened hearts" or spoken to people by way of his spirit, but he never once stole a person's agency.

He merely punished them afterward.

>> No.6036590

>>6036573
I like how you have no knowlage on the subject, but still make baseless claims.
C'mon man use Wikipedia.
>>6036579
It's quite clear you won't be convinced no matter how many arguments we throw at you.

>> No.6036592

>>6036587
>invisible train tracks

We built the train tracks, though. God didn't build them. He merely knew they were coming.

>> No.6036593

>>6036542
>You cant have omniscience without predestination.
Of fucking course you can, why the fuck can't fedoras understand they aren't mutually exclusive? The fact that he knows does not me he interfered.

>> No.6036603

>>6036580
>Omnibenevolence is not a real thing. Christians don't believe this.
It's doublethink, fagget. Christians think God is all-loving because decency makes them puke at worshiping something that can be cruel until they think about disobeying God and the possible punishment.

>> No.6036607

>>6036587
http://www.scriptureinsights.com/Foreknow.html

have fun

>> No.6036609

>>6036587
For some reason you keep insisting on your tracks. There are no tracks. They weren't put before us. We build them as we go.
>We cant surprise god or act against what he knows therefore once we are created there can be no free will only the illusion of it.
This doesn't follow at all. The fact that god knows the ending doesn't mean that we do.
>It doesn't matter we will follow a predetermined path.
That wasn't predetermined. Knowlage of something does not mean that something is predetermined by the lack of free will.
>We cannot until we get past the issues I outlined above, at best its the illusion.
We can and have a number of times
>We are judged the day we are created or simply even before that if all is known.
We are judged when the end of days comes.

>> No.6036611

>>6036603
read the bible and draw your arguments from it; dont just comment on some second-hand knowledge u thought u overheard

>> No.6036615

>>6036603
>Christians think God is all-loving
We do.
Which in no way implies omnibenevolence.

>> No.6036616

>>6036588
>Name one instance in the entire bible where God used his power to force someone to obey.
Does Jonah count?

>> No.6036628

That
>>6036572
was meant for
>>6036564

>God is eternal. He has always existed and always will exist. For him a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Why are you assuming that time exists for him in the same way that it exists for us?

What system of time would allow you to have complete knowledge without predetermination?

>How do scientists know down to accurate percentages the outcome of experiments they conduct before they conduct them?

Empirical observation and theories which are often fallible. A scientist can be suprsied God cannot.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated

To use your example of science when the a person adds vinigar to baking soda is the resulting reaction the result of the choice of the compounds? Was the Nuclear explosion the choice of the atoms?

>You ask how he could know if it wasn't predestined to happen, but at the same time I could ask you how his knowing what will happen could actively influence our choices

And that would still be avoiding the question. I wont avoid yours though

>how his knowing what will happen could actively influence our choices

It cant influence them because there is no choice to begin with. like the film being played or the invisible traintracks.

>How does his knowing on its own create destiny?

Because it can all be all knowing if it is set.

>You can't have predestination without omniscience, but you can have omniscience without predestination

because the omnisence requires a complete knowledge which is only possible no matter which method of viewing time you pick with a predetermined reality/existence.

>> No.6036629

>>6036615
>God is all-loving
>God is not omnibenevolent
You're a lousy Christian.

>> No.6036631

>>6036616

He didn't force Jonah. He punished him for disobeying him in the first place.

>> No.6036632

>>6036557
>Omnibenevolence is an attribute only atheists give to God.

Yes, well-known atheists like Augustine and Aquinas.

>> No.6036648

>>6036557
The Lord is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works.
Psalm 145:17

>> No.6036649

>>6036592
>We built the train tracks, though. God didn't build them. He merely knew they were coming.

It was a comparison to explain how predetermination doesnt require knowledge on those who it effects. Not a literal invisible train track.

>>6036593
>why the fuck can't fedoras understand they aren't mutually exclusive?

Im not a fedora though

>>6036607
Thank you if the thread is still up tommorow Ill reply with my thoughts on it.

>>6036609

>For some reason you keep insisting on your tracks. There are no tracks. They weren't put before us. We build them as we go.

Then why can we not suprise god? how can he automatically know where we will build tracks before we even think of placing them?

>The fact that god knows the ending doesn't mean that we do.

Human knowledge of a predetermined reality doesn't have any bearing on its existence.

>That wasn't predetermined. Knowlage of something does not mean that something is predetermined by the lack of free will.

If you know the outcome of a result 100% how can the events therefore be said to still contain free will. think of the scinece example I used. Can the vinegar have free will if it will always react the same way?

>We are judged when the end of days comes.

Then God is not omniscient as the result is still in question.

>> No.6036651

>>6036628
>And that would still be avoiding the question. I wont avoid yours though

Why is that avoiding the question and yet saying "but you can't have omniscience without predestination" is not some kind of cop out also?

>It cant influence them because there is no choice to begin with. like the film being played or the invisible traintracks.

Another cop out.

>because the omnisence requires a complete knowledge which is only possible no matter which method of viewing time you pick with a predetermined reality/existence.

Yes, if you are a human being, I'd imagine that would be true. It's a cool thing he's not a human being.

>> No.6036652

>>6036631

So you think punishment for disobedience has nothing to do with coercion?

>> No.6036656

>>6036632
His definition of omnibenevolence is different that yours.
Yours is cannot do any harm to people,
His is all good.

>> No.6036665

>>6036652
considering a lot of the time people disobeyed anyway... probably not

>> No.6036667

>>6036651
>Why is that avoiding the question

Because you answered it with another question.

>yet saying "but you can't have omniscience without predestination" is not some kind of cop out also?

Because I provide reasoning and non fallacious justification to back it up even if you dont find it convincing.

>Yes, if you are a human being, I'd imagine that would be true. It's a cool thing he's not a human being.

Its not a human question it a question based on pure reason, much like the issue of how jesus can be 100% human and 100% god at the same time.

How does omnisence not require a complete knowledge how does complete knowledge not imply predetermination ?

>> No.6036668

>>6036652

I don't think it negates free will. Jonah could have chosen to die instead of go where God wanted him to go. Just like hitting your dog with a rolled up newspaper every time it pisses on the carpet doesn't stop it from making a choice in the future.

>> No.6036669

>>6036648
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

>> No.6036670

>>6036665
>you don't have to do this, you can do what you want, i'll just send you to hell if you don't, but it's your choice don't say i forced you

>> No.6036672

>>6036670
Pretty much.
If you are the idea of justice itself you can do it without problem.

>> No.6036673

>>6036669
Nice book, very consistent. Supernatural powers were certainly involved in its creation.

>> No.6036676

>>6036672
If I threatend to kill your mother if you didn't eat my shit would you say I didn't force you to do it?

>> No.6036680

>>6036676
Did you before give me all the rules necessary for an utopia that I blantly refused and chose to live in the darkness regardless?

>> No.6036682

>>6036670
in these cases the punishment isn't hell

anyway dude sends out fuckin locusts with scorpion tails and shit to get men to repent and they still don't so w/e

>> No.6036690

>>6036667
>How does omnisence not require a complete knowledge how does complete knowledge not imply predetermination ?

Because knowledge can exist without action.

You're also missing an important point. If we relent and say that you're right and omniscience implies predestination, predestination only implies that the choices have already been made. It doesn't imply that God has made these choices beforehand. It could imply we made all the choices we are going to make in our life before we existed. This would still mean free will. Because we'd be following our own will. Even if it was predestined.

How did we exist before we formally "exist" would be the next question. I don't think that would go against anything scriptural. We were made in God's image. God is three persons. It's not impossible that we could exist in some way a part of God without being God or knowing God.

I don't believe any of this, but I could accept this.

>> No.6036693

>>6036673

There's a difference though. One is God talking about himself. The other is from Psalms, which is literally a book of poetry which has only one purpose: praise.

>> No.6036696

>>6036670

But you're going to hell, aren't you? It clearly didn't scare you. So there goes your theory.

>> No.6036699

>>6036668

No, it doesn't negate free will, but it negates your claim that God doesn't force anyone.

>Just like hitting your dog with a rolled up newspaper every time it pisses on the carpet doesn't stop it from making a choice in the future.
No, anon, it stops the dog eventually, because behaviorism. You make a certain choice severely unpleasant. In the shit disciplining of pets, we humans call it conditioning, not coercion. But we acknowledge the power we have over our pets.

What if God makes certain choices with punitive results, which corrects human behavior , can you still say it has no iota of coercion?

>> No.6036702

>>6036699
>which corrects human behavior

human behaviour has been corrected?

>> No.6036709

>>6036699
>negates your claim that God doesn't force anyone.

No it doesn't. Because I wasn't talking about God forcing people with violence. I was talking about God overriding someone's free will to the point that they are a puppet and making them do something. I'm talking about proof in the bible that God is predetermining things.

I understand what you are saying, but coercion in my eyes leaves too much room for free choices regardless. The bible is full of people who took punishment from God and refused to change.

>> No.6036715

>>6036690
>Because knowledge can exist without action.

Of course it can but with 100% knoweldge of how something *will* act the action cant really be free.

>It doesn't imply that God has made these choices beforehand.

But as our great creator he has.

>It could imply we made all the choices we are going to make in our life before we existed.

Which is is the case in Buddhism but not Christianity as there is no such pre life.

>This would still mean free will. Because we'd be following our own will. Even if it was predestined.

Its a rather diluted free will as arguably in this instance as we are effectivly bound by the actions of our unremembered past/pre life which is something that Im fairly sure is alien to Christianity.

>How did we exist before we formally "exist" would be the next question. I don't think that would go against anything scriptural. We were made in God's image. God is three persons. It's not impossible that we could exist in some way a part of God without being God or knowing God.

If that was the reasoning of the bible I would certainly understand it then and in this case it would make perfect sense to me.

Buddhism makes sense/ is consistent for reasons along this line.


>I don't believe any of this, but I could accept this.

Why wouldn't you believe it are there christians who do?

>> No.6036734

>>6036709

> I was talking about God overriding someone's free will to the point that they are a puppet and making them do something.

Come now, anon. Interference and coercion don't need to be violent. Are you saying God interferes once in a while, but not every time? What if a single override also changes how a human sees his life and consistently avoids choices that are displeasing to God? How do you quantify free will then?

>> No.6036735

>>6036690

Orthadox Anon I cant stay up any later if you do decide to respond to my post in >>6036715 would you be able to post it in the next general?

>> No.6036740

>>6036715
>Why wouldn't you believe it are there christians who do?

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Romans 9:11-14

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jeremiah 1:5

It wouldn't be against scripture. But it would be against the ecumenical councils. Which is why I as an Orthodox don't believe it. But you could certainly be a Christian and believe that souls existed before birth.

>> No.6036746

>>6036735

Have you already gone? I'll post it again in the next thread if you don't respond.

>> No.6037047

What exactly are "angels"?

>> No.6037220

>>6037047
Non-corporeal beings.