/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6519499]

>virgin birth
>walked on water
>turned water into wine
>revived Lazarus
>mount split open and the dead roamed the streets after his crucifixion
>arose from the dead after 3 days

How do you believe this nonsense Christposters? I know you're here, don't try to dodge me.

[Anonymous No.6519501]

horribly memed my friend

[Anonymous No.6519503]

>>6519499
>believing in logic
>believing in an external reality
>believing these sentences, including this one, aren't all meaningless

[Anonymous No.6519510]

I never understood how those who subscribe to a certain religion or other will gaze sideways at another creed or belief and go, "how backward/wrong/ridiculous etc."

Like Jews or Christians mocking Mormonism, it's just a pot and kettle affair. If you want to make fun of people for believing some guy found magical, golden plates in a forest, you simply don't get to believe in nonsense like burning bushes or water to wine. You give up that license.

[Anonymous No.6519515]

>>6519503
>you can't know nothin' dogshit.

[Anonymous No.6519516]

God created the universe. God can intervene in the universe. Miracles are possible. The incarnation of God is possible. With God all things are possible.
You're assuming these things are ridiculous because you probably don't even believe God exists, let alone created the universe. You're simply approaching the claims with a different set of assumptions. You should loosen your fedora. It's restricting your ability to understand different points of view, which is the mark of a dying intellect.

[Anonymous No.6519519]

>>6519510
Believers know that all religions have some truth to them. The atheist stands alone in thinking that none of them do.

[Anonymous No.6519525]

>>6519516
Understanding a point of view does not mean you can't/don't criticize it.

Not that guy, but you're not thinking coherently.

[Anonymous No.6519530]

Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. The eternal Creator in human flesh. This miracle outstrips any other.
The Being that created every drop of water out of nothing can walk upon it if He wants to.

[Anonymous No.6519532]

>>6519525
I see no criticism here.

[Anonymous No.6519533]

>>6519519
Believers know but atheists only think?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6519543]

>>6519519
Nonsense.

>>6519530
Cthulhu would eat your gods if they were only real

[Anonymous No.6519545]

>>6519515
>mfw this is praise to my subjective min for all you know

[Anonymous No.6519546]

>>6519533
Atheists thinking? I suppose there's a first time for everything.

[Anonymous No.6519550]

>>6519543
No, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.6519551]

>If Christ made no miracles nobody would believe him
>Miracles must be things that ordinary people could not do
>Therefor any miracles that prove he is the son of god will be considered unbelievable later on

its basic logic m9

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6519581]

>>6519550
No, he really would eat them.

[Anonymous No.6519609]

>>6519581
I don't understand the point of this. These comments are childish, not witty or clever. I'm an atheist, but I can't imagine the appeal of making yourself look stupid. Do you say this shit to religious family members?

[Anonymous No.6519635]

>>6519499
"And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture." - Luke 8:6

[Anonymous No.6519643]

>>6519543
Cthulhu is a reddit tier meme and thus not welcome on this, the pseudo-intellectual section of an american anime imageboard

[Anonymous No.6519649]

The resurrection of Christ is the best solution there is regarding the historical evidence surrounding His bodies disappearance, His post death sightings, and the rise of the first century church.

Btw, just letting everyone know, anyone claiming Christ didn't exist will not be receiving further response from me, unless you can cite a single reputable historian substantiating the claim.

[Anonymous No.6519654]

>>6519609
>bothering to prove your intellect in front of religies
It's called harassment, lad. It's fun. More fun than argument, even.

[Anonymous No.6519655]

>>6519499
HHAHAHHHAAH
lol its supposed to be an allegory but the person writing it is trying to imitate the poetic prose of Genesis but simply isn't as good of a writer.

[Anonymous No.6519656]

>>6519499

all of that is completely separate from the question of the existence of an uncaused cause

assuming OP is an atheist, what's more important to you? reading every line of the bible literally, or actually trying to disprove God as a concept?

[Anonymous No.6519657]

>>6519654
>More fun than argument, even.
I can see how that would be the case, it's always more fun to run than to lose.

[Anonymous No.6519660]

>>6519655
>the person writing it
>Thinks all 4 gospels were written by the same person

[queequeg !!CNFBCMyEyFx No.6519668]

>>6519543
>>6519643
>Cthulhu
>not godtier Nyarlathotep

[Anonymous No.6519677]

>>6519660
No I mean like the people writing/editing it. Obviously its an anthology but so is Genesis, hell Genesis 1 and 2 are two totally different stories written by different folks at different times but they speak to the same conversation where as the New Testament can be frustratingly diffuse in its attempts to include EVERYONE in its evangelism.

[Anonymous No.6519682]

>>6519656
The former.

Theology is just religious autism. It has no bearing on anything.

[Anonymous No.6519685]

>>6519677
Genesis 1 and 2 are only interpreted as different stories by the most liberal of scholars. They're easily reconcilable. I've never heard of a notable anti theist bring it up in debate. It's more like an "amazing atheist" argument than a, I don't know, Dawkins one I suppose.
I don't understand what you mean by saying the New Testament can be frustratingly diffuse

[Anonymous No.6519690]

>>6519682

I sure walked into that one.

[Anonymous No.6519695]

>>6519503
>>6519510
>>6519516
>>6519530
>>6519551
>>6519656
Christians are amazingly talented skeptics, apart from their pathological devotion to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.6519699]

>>6519519
>he has never read Hegel, Feuerbach or Stirner

[Anonymous No.6519704]

>>6519682
Theology is pathology and anthropology.

>>6519656
Read David Hume.

Kant's argument against Hume's views on causation fails to preserve Christian conceptions of causality

Also, read Kant's proofs against the primary ontological arguments

And

be

BLOWN the fuck out, for being a hack sophist no-talent brainless pretend thinker who endlessly postures due to his pathological devotion to a belief system as unchanging and dogmatic as dianetics.

[Anonymous No.6519707]

>>6519685
How are they the same story? Have you read them? Same conversation, yes. Intentionally written in the same bout of writing as sequential prose, not even close. I am a Theist, I suppose. The New Testament defends Agape as its thesis where the Old Testament ex. Leviticus speaks to a hyper-specific audience, aka low priests in Leviticus and did not assume its audience would ever head its words since most people were illiterate and had work to do other than scholarly minutiae hence the abrahamic tradition of the responsa. The story of Lazarus though is so homo-erotic I can imagine a really opium-ed out Oscar Wilde jerking off to it in shame one night.

[Anonymous No.6519708]

>>6519704
>BLOWN the fuck out, for being a hack sophist no-talent brainless pretend thinker who endlessly postures due to his pathological devotion to a belief system as unchanging and dogmatic as dianetics.
>employs this level skepticism followed by syllogisms
kek

[Anonymous No.6519709]

>>6519668
>le epic cthulhu xDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>LELELELELELE
>XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Holy shit fuck off

[Anonymous No.6519711]

>>6519708
>calls me a skeptic
>haven't presented a skeptic's argument once

m8 your views on views is not enough to comprehend the discussion

[Anonymous No.6519713]

>>6519709
>replying to a shitpost
Holy shit fuck off

[Anonymous No.6519716]

>>6519707
You sound sickeningly liberal and far outside of even the secular mainstream interpretations of scripture.
I highly doubt you can cite any worthwhile educated scholars that share your views

[Anonymous No.6519717]

>implying European Protestants take the Bible literally
>being this much of an idiot
Are you the fanbase of The Amazing Atheist?

[Anonymous No.6519720]

>>6519711
Hume's views on causation aren't skeptical? m8 cmon...

[Anonymous No.6519721]

>>6519713
>replying to me
Holy shit fuck off

[Anonymous No.6519723]

>>6519721
>replying to ME
Holy shit fuck off

[Anonymous No.6519725]

>>6519720
skepticism is an active process, hume was skeptical in hume's day, but hume isn't a skeptic now because hume isn't alive. hume's views on causality are so well-grounded and critical in the progression of thought that it's not even skeptical anymore

If you want to just be a faggot about hume, then just read kant, and be blown the fuck out just as hard. i'm not pathological to hume, unlike you are to your own reason as more than reason

[queequeg !!CNFBCMyEyFx No.6519729]

>>6519709
>>6519713
>>6519721
>>6519723
Holy shit fuck off faggots
And fuck me for making that dumbass post too

[Anonymous No.6519732]

>>6519725
Never mind, I'd assumed you weren't retarded when I first replied.

[Anonymous No.6519733]

>>6519716
a) what does "sickeningly liberal" even specifically mean?
b) I'm not secular
c) um my religious studies professor...or hell just google "doublets in the bible" Its sort of like how some psalms refer to creation with explicit references to Babylonian creation myths wherea the Tanakh does so only subtly. Sometimes we tell the same story multiple ways to add depth and perspective. Do you just hate unreliable narrators in general?

[Anonymous No.6519738]

>>6519733
It means your views are so liberal that it'd make a more objective thinker sick
I didn't say you are
Give me link of educated person that shares your views. Not your community college professor please

[Anonymous No.6519750]

>>6519738
liberal how specifically? in that the bible contains doublets? that's a pretty common theme in major religious studies texts, from both a seminarian and secular literary perspective I think you are just looking to attack ad hominem since you cannot refute my argument more centrally.
I don't go to a community college. Also what is your problem? You said no SECULAR thinker would agree with me. So yeah, you did imply I was either secular or that they represent the mainstream and I am some sort of fringe character to be written off.

[Anonymous No.6519752]

>>6519499
The significance of the events of the New Testament is not confined to their narrow historical sense.

[Anonymous No.6519754]

>>6519750
Thanks for the link

[Anonymous No.6519805]

>>6519499
A device to alternate water & wine in the same vessel was invented in alexandria for the priests to trick peasants years before jesus. Im really embarrassed that anyone thinks it was a miracle

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6520617]

>>6519657
You (same anon from above?) claim to be atheist, but haven't you found it impossible arguing with them? I've made my points and they throw back the same tired comebacks. The only reason they don't get the Cthulhu reference is that there's no history of people worshiping it.
They can't prove he doesn't exist and is the one true god.
They can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun near Mercury
They can't prove Harry Potter isn't real.
All it takes is faith and it is so for them.

[Anonymous No.6521273]

>>6520617
I kind of assume that in 2000 years, if the world exists with the same climate and cultural maxims as today there's simply no reason to believe Harry Potter will not be read closely as canon and infallible literal truth. When we ignore the temporal distance of writing, we ignore the writing itself.

[Anonymous No.6521294]

I'll pray for you anon, you know not what you say.

[Anonymous No.6521323]

>>6519499
>takes the bible as a report of facts
>obv. never read any relating lit.
bad bait / 10

[Anonymous No.6521337]

>>6519503
>MFW philosophical skepticism was blown the fuck out by this gentleman.

[Anonymous No.6521379]

>>6521323
No one takes bible as report of facts. It's compendium of myths and legends. Everybody know that.

[Anonymous No.6521387]

>>6519499
>God is omnipotent
>allows impossible things
I don't see what's wrong with this.

[Anonymous No.6521389]

>>6521337

Where? do you know in what work he did it?

[Anonymous No.6521990]

>>6521389
He probably means that shitty "here is my hand, my hand is in the external world, therefore the external world exists" paper he wrote

[Anonymous No.6522236]

ok so im an edgy atheist but riddle me this christ-fags:

i get that whole 'believing' thing etc but how can u possibly name yourself a christian and discard other religions at the same time - i mean not accepting that in the end its all the same with some slight cultural differences? first 100-200 years of christianity are cloudy, but we witnessed creation of so many religions later and it always was some kind of socio/political process:

1. random jew slaves start worshiping this dood that allegedly resurrected himself
2. it spreads b/c its cool
3. 300 years later constatine becomes emperor and whole western world gets converted

600 years later:

1. random guy conquers arabian peninsula by accident
2. shady biography turns into fairy tale
3. ppl be like 'he was a gods messenger'
4. they have some success in wars
5. pain in the ass to this day

[Anonymous No.6522244]

>>6521990
Keats did that in a poem

[Anonymous No.6522407]

>>6522236
>that Islam
Lol no
1.Guy starts prophecizing
2.We conquerin nao, still prophecizing
3.Prophet is kill, buddies of prophet record his prophecy
4.Buddies become leaders, keep conquering
5.Wat da dug do we do with all this land, let's ask Muhammad
6. Commence the recording of the worlds most ebin game of Chinese whispers

[Anonymous No.6522432]

>>6519499
>he doesnt understand the basic concept of metaphor

[Anonymous No.6522454]

>>6519499
Faith.

[Anonymous No.6522544]

Your opponent's beliefs are based on the idea that their god can do anything he wants whenever he wants. Why would you think this argument would work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.6522684]

>ask anyone with that faith 100 years ago if they take word for word what the bible says and they'll say yes
>ask anyone today with the same faith and they'll tell you "its a metaphore duh, you're so stupid blahblah" or "that part doesnt count hurrr"


Denial at it's best.

just look at the previous beliefs (greek mythology, Mesopotamian deites, etc) and you'll realize that your gods will fade away or take a new name/form in the next thousand years, its a cycle, accept it.