/lit/ - Literature

>>22112349
Because God wrote it and now we're His friends.

>And then Paul went to Butthole land and then they performed a miracle but the jews/romans were mad at them.
>And then Paul went to the fartpoop land, and they met a virtuous woman, but then they were persecuted, but the wise jewish judge said "let them go!"
>And then they went to the shitcum land, and Paul healed a cripple, and the people were amazed... but, you guessed it, the jews/romans again!
Wow, truly unmatched storytelling...

>>22112349
Because this story is ordered pretty neatly, and we like orderly things

>>22112479
Reddit moment

>>22112479
His name is Jesus

>>22112536
?

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

>>22112536
He's probably talking about Acts.

>compete with God
Hmm anon, I wonder why...

>>22112349
You can't beat truth.
Nor write better than the Author of all.

>>22114668
> Truth
> most of it is contradicting itself

>>22112431
>each book has the name of its author
>"Yea, God must have written this"

because they have

It's repetitive, contradictory, and confused. Some nice scenes, but it doesn't work as a whole.

>>22112349
>Why has no one been able to write a better story than this?
Because Homer was just that talented, that even if you rip his plot off, you'll still get fans, admiring your fanfic.

>>22112349
Walk in a B&N, throw a stone. Boom; there’s a better book

>>22115534
God is like cordyceps. If you accept Jesus, he might start overriding your agency without you noticing it.

>>22115327
>No examples of alleged contradiction to bring
>Always the same

>>22116003
Take literally any story.
> Did Jesus die on or after passover?
> How did Judas die?
> What did Jesus say on his way to the cross?
> What did he say to Pontius Pilate
> Was Jesus baptised by John or not?
> How many women were at the tomb?
> What actually happened at the tomb?
> Where did Mary and Joseph go after Jesus was born?
etc. etc. etc.

Where in the Bible does it ever talk about a "Star of David"?

>>22112349
Was the stone rolled away from Jesus's tomb or not? Was there an angel there or not? You'd think these are some pretty straight forwards details a competent author, not to mention a divinely inspired author, could keep straight. Also, the odd inclusion of the line about all the tombs in the land opening up and all the dead walking around robs the narrative impact of Jesus's resurrection. In short, there are many flaws in this "story" and these are just off the top of my head.

>>22112349
>Destroys your "story"
Christcucks still haven't recovered

>>22116480
On every single one of those, the Gospels record different details that all individually happened and there is no contradiction with saying that fact.

> What did Jesus say on his way to the cross?
Luke 23:21-27 records it. The fact that the others don't isn't a contradiction.

>Was Jesus baptised by John or not?
This issue is entirely hallucinated as John the Baptist is always mentioned as baptising Jesus.
>How many women were at the tomb?
It doesn't say the exact number. The Bible also doesn't give the exact number of people in every crowd that is ever mentioned, and that's not a contradiction either.

>Where did Mary and Joseph go after Jesus was born?
They stayed long enough to go to the temple after the eighth day, then went to Egypt, then went to Nazareth. The fact that only Matthew mentions their sojourn into Egypt (and the fact that it matches Hosea 11:1) isn't a contradiction, for the same reason as above.
>What actually happened at the tomb?
Everything that the Gospels say happened. It can be shown how all of it happened if you need a rundown.
>What did he say to Pontius Pilate
Uhh... several different things. Is there somewhere that says Jesus only said one thing to Pontius Pilate? What kind of question is this, anon?
>How did Judas die?
He hanged himself (as it says in Matthew) and then while hanging his body fell from the tree and his bowels gushed out (as mentioned in Acts). Where's the contradiction there?

It is indeed an unusual punishment and highly unusual set of circumstances, but not impossible.

>Did Jesus die on or after passover?
To explain in simple terms: According to the Law, the 1st day of unleavened bread is when the passover lamb is killed. The date-change occurs at evening on that day according to that calendar. At evening, the calendar date changes to Nisan 14, signalling the start of the "Days (plural) of Unleavened Bread". The "Feast of Unleavened Bread" begins the next day after Nisan 14 - which is called "the Day of Preparation" - and that feast runs from Nisan 15-21 (seven days) inclusively. These seven days would start on Friday after sunset.

So, basically, late in the day on Thursday, the Last Supper occurred. Since it was already evening at this point, the date would be Nisan 14. The earliest part of the "Day of Preparation" which lasts until Friday at sunset. Afterward, the betrayal at Gethsemane occurred, early into Friday morning, which is still the Day of Preparation. So basically, Jesus died on the first day of the Passover, Nisan 14. According to our calendar, those 24 hours took up the last quarter of Thursday and the first 3/4 of Friday. They were rushing to take His body down before evening of Friday, because that was when the seven days of feasting officially began, and was also a Saturday or Sabbath. Jesus was buried toward the end of Nisan 14 on Friday, and rose again in the morning of Sunday, within Nisan 16 - "first day of the week". This is three days counted inclusively.

>>22117652
>>What actually happened at the tomb?
>Everything that the Gospels say happened. It can be shown how all of it happened if you need a rundown.
Maybe try reading the Gospels my man, because Matthew says a guard was stationed outside the tomb, the other Gospels have the women approach the tomb with no guard, also Mark records 3 women, Matthew records only 2 women, Luke says at least 5 women, and John records only Mary Magdalene who then goes and gets Peter and the other disciples. Also, the time the women arrive at the tomb is different in every Gospel, Mark says they arrive after sunrise, Matthew says about dawn, Luke says before dawn, and John says it's dark when they arrive. Also, Matthew says the stone is still in place in front of Jesus' tomb while the other three say it was rolled away already. Also, who do they women meet at the tomb? Mark says one young man is there, Matthew says an angel is there and Pilate's guards are also there, Luke says two men suddenly appear there, John says the women never enter the tomb, but there are two angels there. And on and on and on, direct factual contradictions, some of them quite significant like whether there are angels there or not!

>>22117687
>Matthew says a guard was stationed outside the tomb
It also says the guards "became like dead men" when the angel rolled back the stone, which happened before any women showed up. The fact other Gospels don't focus on them isn't a contradiction. Find where any Gospel explicitly says there "were no guards" and then you can post here about this again.
>Mark records 3 women, Matthew records only 2 women, Luke says at least 5 women,
If there are 5 women, that means it is possible to focus on 2 or 3 of them. None of them say there were "only" or "exactly" X number of women. Similarly the fact that two men were cured that had been possessed of devils according to Matthew 8:28 doesn't contradict the fact that Mark and Luke only focus on one of them in their accounts.
>John records only Mary Magdalene who then goes and gets Peter and the other disciples.
Just because John focuses on Mary doesn't mean the other women can't exist. It never explicitly says Mary was alone when she came to the tomb either. In fact, other women must have been there because while Mary was going to Peter + John, the other women are going to tell other disciples when they encounter Jesus, so they must have split into different groups, and the Gospel of John focuses on Mary. Very easy to explain.

>Mark says they arrive after sunrise, Matthew says about dawn, Luke says before dawn
Luke says "very early in the morning," not "before dawn." No contradiction.

>Also, Matthew says the stone is still in place in front of Jesus' tomb while the other three say it was rolled away already.
Matthew describes what happened before the women arrived (while they were still on their way to the tomb). Anything else you need to know about this?
>Also, who do they women meet at the tomb? Mark says one young man is there, Matthew says an angel is there and Pilate's guards are also there, Luke says two men suddenly appear there, John says the women never enter the tomb, but there are two angels there.
Matthew says that the angel rolled away the stone from the tomb and the soldiers "became as dead men." This is before any women arrived or while they were still traveling to the tomb for the first time.

Mark says it was a young man clothed in a long white garment. Angels appeared as men, so that isn't a contradiction - See Judges 13:6-11 where an angel of the Lord is described as having the appearance of a man.

Also, no issue with the fact that Matthew and Mark just focused on what one angel did and said.

>John says the women never enter the tomb, but there are two angels there.
That's a separate encounter with two angels after Mary got Peter (and John) to come to the empty tomb and they left, with Peter "wondering in himself at that which was come to pass." Mary stays behind after this, and sees two angels inside the tomb, one standing at either end of the place where Jesus laid. Also, this resembles the two cherubim which stood on either end of where the Ark was, in the Holy of Holies.

>>22112349
Because nobody actually understands it but everyone thinks they do

>>22117756
>John 20:1
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
>Mark 16:2
Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb

All that work and you ignore the direct contradiction of whether it was dark or whether the sun was up.

>>22117783
It was right at dawn when they got to the tomb.

Matthew says: "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre"

Mark says "they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun."

Luke says: "very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre"

John says: "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre,"

The difference is that John's Gospel is referring to them as they are coming to the sepulchre. That's why it says "cometh," because it is focusing on the specific moment that they are still heading to the tomb. So it was still dark while they were walking to the tomb, and it was right at dawn as they arrived according to these accounts.

>>22117802
Laughable cope. Christcucks are always fun when they twist themselves into pretzels trying to deal with direct contradictions.

Depends on what rubric. Obviously as a dramatic form, none of the Gospels is well out together, but none of them is supposed to be strictly a poetic of dramatic work but a knitting together of didactic episodes coupled with a drama. I would say a great deal of the power of the story is its place in our culture rather than its innate power. That isn’t to say it is by itself, the story per se, is not of a high caliber, just that its potency is magnified by being etched into our consciousness and woven into everything on a deep psychological level. When someone goes crazy, they often start talking a lot about it because it is so deeply embedded even in the unconscious at this point

>>22115534
I think God used those authors as human typrewriters.

>>22116519
Why would it mention a symbol from the 17th century?

How do i get into the Bible, bros? What should i look for and how should i start?

I liked this one! I couldnt put it DOWN.

>>22118119
Read The Age of Reason

>>22112349
>story
B-but I thought it was the truth, not a story?
>>22114668
>the Author of all
Uh, you mean a bunch of random Jewish mystics, thrown together by the ecclesiastical councils? There was no single author, dumbass.

>>22117821
Nah, he completely showed you up, anon. Four direct quotes he provided. You'd have to have never seen a sunrise to not understand that. Also you abandoned all your other points and are trying to focus on that one. Take the L, go and sin no more.

>>22112349
Not literature

>>22116003
What was Satan doing in Job?

>>22117687
So the details are not right but the actual history is pretty good. Women not men showed up and saw the empty tomb

>>22112349
Dude, it sucks if you read it after the OT.

>>22112520
>story is ordered pretty neatly
>4 conflicting stories written generations after Jesus was dead and buried by men that never met him

>>22118472
Bamboozling God into torturing one of his most pious men for the lulz

>>22118472
The simple answer is: trying and failing to get Job to curse God.

>>22117821
How do you think it's a contradiction, that, at one point during the trip to the tomb, it was still dark, but then later during that same trip, it was dawn? Do you think that's impossible, anon?

>>22118786
He succeeded in getting Job to question God.

>>22116480
You are forgetting the only example that the Christians can't weasle out of with contrived bullshit, the genealogies.

>>22118794
Genesis 50:20 says, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."

I think it's the same with Job, because at the end we learned, as did Job. We grew in grace and knowledge of our Lord, as did Job. Also try not to be such a devil's advocate, anon.

>>22118805
Job learned nothing, aside from the fact that the creator is a complete sociopath that's willing to kill his entire family over a bet and will sperg out if asked why.

>>22118457
No, you have to twist the quote to try and redefine "cometh, while it was still dark, upon the sepulchre" to mean start going there, not coming upon it, which literally means arriving. I focused on this because it's the most blatant and direct contradiction. But of course, you have an ideological commitment to mental gymnastics over this so you can't see how ridiculous you look.

>>22118786
You have to rise to Bill Clinton levels of questioning what "is" means. When you say "This person cometh upon a place", it clearly means they arrived, they came across it, if you mean they began going there, you would say "they went to", so the author, when he says "cometh, when it was yet dark, upon the sepulcre" it's clear that's when she arrived. You have to twist yourself in a pretzel to make it fit your preconceived idea of what you want it to mean instead of reading it for what it is. Admit it, had all the other Gospels agreed they came upon the tomb in the dark, you would say this exact quotation is also saying she arrived when it was dark. This is the problem with Christians, they are willing to interpret passages in literal opposite meanings depending on their need at the time. The one true maxim in Christianity is the rather sinister injunction "Seek and ye shall find", because that's all you're doing, seeking to make it fit what you want to find.

I'd love to hear you guys try to defend the fact that John 1:18 says "No one has seen God at any time" even though in Exodus 33:11 it says "So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend." In short, there are tons of examples and I could post in this thread for days examining direct textual contradictions. Hell, Thomas Paine dedicated large portions of The Age of Reason to pointing out the numerous contradictions and irreconcilable notions in the Bible. I will state again, the only way you can excuse this is if you have a motivated mode of thinking, that it is so appalling to you to contemplate that this supposedly divine book shows all the hallmarks of a human creation, and a rather shoddy one at that. My only hope is that eventually you will see that this bias is clouding your ability to see the truth of the matter, that this cult mentality has pervaded your thinking and forced you to degrade yourself and your thinking faculties.

>>22119553
>When you say "This person cometh upon a place", it clearly means they arrived, they came across it, if you mean they began going there,
The Gospel writers sometimes describe their narrative with a present tense, describing things as they are happening. Modern translations often do not do this justice, but the KJV was careful to note those out.

"Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord."
- Matthew 13:51

"When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?"
- Mark 8:19-21 (notice verse 19)

>I'd love to hear you guys try to defend the fact that John 1:18 says "No one has seen God at any time" even though in Exodus 33:11 it says "So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."
Trinity and theophanies. You get confirmed examples of theophanies in:

Genesis 3:6
Genesis chapter 18 (see verses 13, 22, 33)
Genesis 19:24
Genesis 31:11-13
Exodus 34:5-28
Numbers 12:8 (mention of previous instance)
Joshua 5:13-15
Judges 6:11-21
Daniel 3:25
Daniel 7:13-14
Isaiah chapter 6 (see John 12:41)

>Hell, Thomas Paine dedicated large portions of The Age of Reason to pointing out the numerous contradictions and irreconcilable notions in the Bible.
I know people have made endless lists of supposed contradictions, and they think if even one "lands" that it will justify them. But people should say in their own words what they think is a supposed contradiction. I myself have looked for such things, to be prepared and know whether there are any. And while there are blatant errors in some corrupted versions, if you are using the received text, you won't find them. Not even 2 Chron. 22:2 or 2 Chron. 16:1.
>I will state again, the only way you can excuse this is if you have a motivated mode of thinking
No, not really. At least not in any of the cases you have brought up.
>this cult mentality has pervaded your thinking and forced you to degrade yourself and your thinking faculties.
Serving the ultimate truth is not an act of degradation, although it is an act of giving glory to one's Creator instead of oneself. Like it says in John 3:30, "He must increase, but I must decrease."

>>22119636
What is your take on the Jesus' speech about the birds of the air? Matthew 6:26-27 "26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[a]?" He draws a comparison between you and animals in nature who do not sow fields or store things for the future and asks if you think God cares more for the animals than for you? Is this not a piece of teaching which is against thrift? Does Jesus not say "take no thought for the morrow"? What kind of teaching is this?

>>22112349
Content, really. Can’t be matched. Unless you did the whole origin story thing and then continued it into outer-space but I suppose the Book of Enoch already alludes to something like that already.

>>22120313
I would consider the broader context of Matthew 6:24-34

>What kind of teaching is this?
I think it supports the conclusion, which is that God is keeping closer track of us than we are able to do of ourselves, and because of this we should follow what Jesus said in Matthew 6:33, which is, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

I'm also reminded of another passage in Matthew 10 that mentions sparrows in a similar context as being compared to man.

"What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
- Matthew 10:27-33

>>22118119
Put simply: read the New Testament, then the Old Testament, then the New Testament again. The books are ordered that way for a reason, so despite what idiots here say, you pretty much can read it front to back if you want. I only recommend reading the NT first because it's shorter and more "relevant".

I highly recommend the Douay-Rheims version, which is itself a translation of the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate is based on the superior Greek Septuagint and more ancient Hebrew texts than others.
Not only have Protestants removed the deuterocanonical texts, but protestant translations are all based on the corrupted Masoretic texts which were written by rabbinic Jews.

>>22118870
Le complete sociopath? Wow, really? This is reaching reddit levels of retardation. Hell, can you even explain why it’s wrong for God to do what he did to Job?

Just giving you a >>22113734 out of pity.

>>22116519
>Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
Acts 7:43

>>22120543
Also referenced in Old Testament.

>>22119512
The first and primary definition of come is to advance towards. You don't need to twist anything, and you're free to look up the dictionary and try to point out that the fifth or so of twenty definitions of come can mean to arrive, but it doesn't say "came," it says "cometh." Present indicative, not past tense. You're making an entire semantic argument when the other three accounts state it's early in the morning while the sun is rising, and you act as if it couldn't be dark before that and it's some sort of crazy oversight. You might have had some ground to stand on if it said "cometh upon," but it doesn't and the expression exists because it's used in Job 27:9. Likewise it doesn't say "arrived" which is used in Luke 8:26 and Acts 20:15. You've resorted to ad hominem and have to focus on ONE WORD because all of your other examples were shot in the foot and you're desperately clinging to this one.

>>22120339
So you agree that there is no point in saving money? No point in sowing fields or storing things in barns? To quote Jesus in another place "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." In short, Jesus teaches you to actively rid yourself of material possessions. I ask again, what kind of teaching is this? I will say it clearly, these are the teachings of a man who thought the world was rapidly coming to an end. Spoken in the context of a cult who believed they would see the end of the world while some who were present there still lived. "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"

>>22121137
If you say "we have come upon a fork in the road" you mean to say you have arrived at the fork in the road, not that you've just begun moving toward the fork in the road. To "come upon" means you have come across it, you have found it, you have, in your movement, arrived at it. I don't know how you can possibly read the phrase "come upon" differently than that.

>>22121137
Again, I am perfectly willing to arbitrate a whole host of examples, for example, the women present. Doesn't that seem rather a central point for each Gospel to get differently? If, as the other anon said, John means that Mary Magdalene went with other people, why omit any reference to those other people and put it down as if she is alone? In fact, it seems pretty direct that she went alone, and then went to find the disciples after finding the tomb empty. Again, the only response is "well, he didn't say there weren't other women so we'll just add them in ourselves" which is pretty pathetic if you ask me.

>>22118119
If you have the money to spend, get a MacArthur Study Bible. It has a really good reading plan. If that's a bit too expensive, then get the hardcover ESV Study Bible. About $50.

>>22121140
How do you confuse "Be charitable" with "BRO HE'S DOING THIS BECAUSE HE'S A CULT LEADER WHO THINKS THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO END"

>>22121137
Also, again, Matthew records the stone still being in place, the other anon was pretty quick to just gloss over this, but the Gospels clearly contradict each other on this point. To state it as plainly as possible, just because I address one point at a time does not mean I am "clinging" to that one and have abandoned the others, I'm willing to post again and again and again and cover each and every point in exquisite detail.

>>22121175
He does not say "be charitable" he says to be perfect, you must SELL YOUR POSSESSIONS. Add in the part about how fowl of the air do not sow or store things in barns and the Lord provides for them, and it's clear he means you should not own possessions. You can't read these teachings any other way unless you just contradict them.

>>22121157
>In fact, it seems pretty direct that she went alone, and then went to find the disciples after finding the tomb empty.
Like was mentioned before, they split up after seeing the empty tomb. Mary went one way, while other women went a different way to tell other disciples about it. That way, Mary has time to get Peter and John to race down to the sepulchre, then turn back wondering what had just happened. After they leave, Mary sees the two angels inside the tomb (again) and then encounters Jesus, which is the first encounter. Meanwhile, the other women are still heading to tell other disciples who are probably farther away. While they are still running from their initial departure from the tomb, they also encounter Jesus, making it another encounter after the one Mary had. The fact that they split into groups seems obvious, and the fact John focuses on Mary would probably suggest that she was alone after the group of women split and headed separate ways away from the tomb.

If I say that "I went to the store," does that absolutely exclude the possibility I went with some friends or family? No, it does not.

To explain the reasoning here in literary terms, keeping the subject of the narrative focused on myself from the beginning of the narrative might make things simpler to explain if we are going to focus on what I did. This would be more straightforward rather than me having to bring up the group I traveled to the store with, only to dismiss them from the narrative when the group and I go our separate ways at the location.

This is kind of similar to how, it would be strange to expect me to describe exactly what I was wearing at the time I went to the store, or expect me to include every single little detail about what happened, unless it is relevant to something in the narrative I am trying to tell at that moment. This is just obvious, obvious common sense. The fact that John doesn't mention the group Mary was with tells me that John's narrative is about her: she went alone from the group she was with at the tomb. It implies the other women went somewhere different after finding the empty tomb, such as to tell different disciples aside from John and Peter, which would also explain what Matthew's account says about their encounter with him as they were running, and Mark's statement that He first appeared to Mary in Mark 16:9.

>>22121194
If you were writing a narrative, and you focused on one character going somewhere, finding something surprising, then going to get other people to inform them, it would be nonsensical to then think there had been companions with that person the whole time who were completely unmentioned. If they were together and then split up, a single mention of any kind would be required, especially if it had implications for other events (which you evince as your reason for thinking there were other people to begin with!)

>>22121140
>In short, Jesus teaches you to actively rid yourself of material possessions.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with that.

>I will say it clearly, these are the teachings of a man who thought the world was rapidly coming to an end.
The Gospels say that Jesus knew all things.

"And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.
And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God."
- Luke 5:20-25

"But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."
- John 2:24-25

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?"
- John 18:4

>"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"
The Transfiguration happened in the next passage of all three Gospels with this statement.

>>22121179
>it's clear he means you should not own possessions.
He says already that the mammon of unrighteousness is not ours, we are only temporary stewards of it. See Luke 16:11-12, also Luke 12:16-25. In reality all material things are God's, and it is certain every man leaves this world with none. See Psalm 49:16-17, Job 1:21.

>>22121225
>>In short, Jesus teaches you to actively rid yourself of material possessions.
>There's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
And this is the mask off moment. This is essentially an admission that the whole project of civilization, discovering technology, developing medicine, producing art and literature, building infrastructure, the theist wants all of this to be dispensed with. The eschatological element of religion is fundamentally anti-human, it reveals the essence of the death cult. If it were left to people who champion Jesus' teachings, there would be no thrift, no savings, no building towards a better future for one's children, just a longing for death and the "heavenly kingdom". This is misanthropy, pure and simply. This is wickedness and stupidity.

>>22121252
Sorry if I said something that offended.

>>22121364
You advanced a case for people to remain in poverty. To eschew the project of civilization itself, of human struggle to make life better. This kind of backwards superstition leaves people destitute, keeps people in misery, prey to the whims of nature. What Jesus fails to mention is how brutal the fowl of the air often meet their end, but that is what he wishes you to embrace. No bulwark against predators or disease, no safety net against a harsh winter or a poor summer, it's an affront to the human condition, it takes the one thing that has the potential to free us from the shackles that nature imposes (our reason and ability to plan for the future) and advises us to forsake that. It is a case for wickedness and unnecessary suffering.

>>22112349
Because almost every passage has a moral lesson/implication in it
Meanwhile in most other stories
>And the leaves on the trees were a shade of green and orange and red and the waterdroplets were not quite blue but magenta and the splash of the droplets in the water made a sound like SWOUSH
like fuck OFF

>>22121375

Whatever this other anon has been trying to explain, the point is that there are many dichotomies in Scripture. Some of it seems like contradictions, but with closer examination really isn't. Just look at human nature and the contradictions in our own personalities, the contradictions in how we act, etc.

Whether you believe or not is whatever; it's up to everyone individually. If you want to know more, maybe look at scholarly examinations (like some NT Wright stuff).

For me personally, I think Creationism (whether you think it's the Christian God or god or aliens or whatever) is self-evident. That lead me to researching various religions. Christianity (ignore the Christians cause way too many people fuck it up) presents a worldview that made the most sense to me. Then I looked at various shit about the historicity of Christ and things just fell into place. I still have no issue reading opposing views and enjoy it. You do appear adamant about your beliefs, and you do seem intelligent, and your belief that Christianity is "misanthropic" and a wicked blight on culture/society - if true - makes your polemical posting make sense.

I've read through your posts and they've only solidified my beliefs, anon. I think you should keep fighting for what you believe (unironically), even if that means railing against Christianity. God bless, anon

>>22112349
The next iteration is kind of overdue. None of the Abrahamic religions really fit into the current age anymore. Too many inconsistencies, too much has to be explained away as metaphors and those metaphors get reinterpreted completely differently depending on the zeitgeist.

>>22121543
We of course disagree on almost every point it seems, but I'd like to hear what exactly convinced you "Creationism" is true, because of the following: if the origin of time and space was caused by something, why does "caused" mean? In the way we use it, "caused" refers to a temporal relationship, a thing happens, and then later in time an effect happens. How, then, can we say anything "caused" time to exist? It presupposes a time in which the cause can exist to create time, whereby the effect of the creation of time can follow, obviously an impossibility. (If you refer to the complexity of life, it's not helpful at all to simply push the mystery to a different complexity, I.E. life on Earth is to complex to occur naturally, it must have been Aliens or God, begging the question of how those complexities came to exist).

I am of course skeptical of the "historicity" case, but if it has convinced you it's not worth litigating here.

Ultimately, I will say that I appreciate anyone willing to question their beliefs, and it seems you have a bit of a cherry picking mentality when it comes to Christianity (or buffet table mentality if you prefer, taking what appears good and leaving the bad), and are not dogmatic about it.

At the end of the day, my values stem from the fact that all indications point to our lives being all we have. Everything we hold dear about ourselves seems overwhelmingly dependent on our physical bodies, and as such it's of the highest importance to safe guard ourselves and the only other beings with agency we can be sure exist, our fellow men and women. It flows from this that we must shore up solidarity, build ethical systems with fairness in mind to ensure the best lives for the most amount of people we can, and in my view, religion is an impediment to this by prioritizing an imagined second life, whereby it's adherents are admonished to forfeit the one life we can be sure we have in deference to that other, imagined life. It's a hucksterish trick that far too many people fall for. And in most cases, it MUST be a trick, since the religions conflict and the rules for one afterlife basically disqualify you from many others, so that if one teaching is true the others are false (but it could be true that they are all false). The tactics used are the same in Christianity as in other religions, meaning you can infer it is also a dubious proposition.

As I have said, you seem reasonable and honest in regard to your beliefs and I wish you all the best on your intellectual and spiritual journey, anon.

>>22121983
>>22121543
We of course disagree on almost every point it seems, but I'd like to hear what exactly convinced you "Creationism" is true, because of the following: if the origin of time and space was caused by something, what does "caused" mean? In the way we use it, "caused" refers to a temporal relationship, a thing happens, and then later in time an effect happens. How, then, can we say anything "caused" time to exist? It presupposes a time in which the cause can exist to create time, whereby the effect of the creation of time can follow, obviously an impossibility. (If you refer to the complexity of life, it's not helpful at all to simply push the mystery to a different complexity, I.E. life on Earth is to complex to occur naturally, it must have been Aliens or God, begging the question of how those complexities came to exist).

I am of course skeptical of the "historicity" case, but if it has convinced you it's not worth litigating here.

Ultimately, I will say that I appreciate anyone willing to question their beliefs, and it seems you have a bit of a cherry picking mentality when it comes to Christianity (or buffet table mentality if you prefer, taking what appears good and leaving the bad), and are not dogmatic about it.

At the end of the day, my values stem from the fact that all indications point to our lives being all we have. Everything we hold dear about ourselves seems overwhelmingly dependent on our physical bodies, and as such it's of the highest importance to safe guard ourselves and the only other beings with agency we can be sure exist, our fellow men and women. It flows from this that we must shore up solidarity, build ethical systems with fairness in mind to ensure the best lives for the most amount of people we can, and in my view, religion is an impediment to this by prioritizing an imagined second life, whereby it's adherents are admonished to forfeit the one life we can be sure we have in deference to that other, imagined life. It's a hucksterish trick that far too many people fall for. And in most cases, it MUST be a trick, since the religions conflict and the rules for one afterlife basically disqualify you from many others, so that if one teaching is true the others are false (but it could be true that they are all false). The tactics used are the same in Christianity as in other religions, meaning you can infer it is also a dubious proposition.

As I have said, you seem reasonable and honest in regard to your beliefs and I wish you all the best on your intellectual and spiritual journey, anon.

>>22121543
We of course disagree on almost every point it seems, but I'd like to hear what exactly convinced you "Creationism" is true, because of the following: if the origin of time and space was caused by something, what does "caused" mean? In the way we use it, "caused" refers to a temporal relationship, a thing happens, and then later in time an effect happens. How, then, can we say anything "caused" time to exist? It presupposes a time in which the cause can exist to create time, whereby the effect of the creation of time can follow, obviously an impossibility. (If you refer to the complexity of life, it's not helpful at all to simply push the mystery to a different complexity, I.E. life on Earth is to complex to occur naturally, it must have been Aliens or God, begging the question of how those complexities came to exist).

I am of course skeptical of the "historicity" case, but if it has convinced you it's not worth litigating here.

Ultimately, I will say that I appreciate anyone willing to question their beliefs, and it seems you have a bit of a cherry picking mentality when it comes to Christianity (or buffet table mentality if you prefer, taking what appears good and leaving the bad), and are not dogmatic about it.

At the end of the day, my values stem from the fact that all indications point to our lives being all we have. Everything we hold dear about ourselves seems overwhelmingly dependent on our physical bodies, and as such it's of the highest importance to safe guard ourselves and the only other beings with agency we can be sure exist, our fellow men and women. It flows from this that we must shore up solidarity, build ethical systems with fairness in mind to ensure the best lives for the most amount of people we can, and in my view, religion is an impediment to this by prioritizing an imagined second life, whereby it's adherents are admonished to forfeit the one life we can be sure we have in deference to that other, imagined life. It's a hucksterish trick that far too many people fall for. And in most cases, it MUST be a trick, since the religions conflict and the rules for one afterlife basically disqualify you from many others, so that if one teaching is true the others are false (but it could be true that they are all false). The tactics used are the same in Christianity as in other religions, meaning you can infer it is also a dubious proposition.

As I have said, you seem reasonable and honest in regard to your beliefs and I wish you all the best on your intellectual and spiritual journey, anon.

>>22112349
The stories are complete bs and boring , the philosophy on the other hand is interesting (in both the old and new testament).

>>22112349
>*block your path*

>>22112349
Can't top it

I've read all of the religious texts, the classics, a large portion of the canon etc.

You simply cannot top the bible. The stories are so capturing, you think about them forever after you read them

>>22123200
Aesop's fables are better