/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10343608]

The best argument against Christianity is simply actually sitting down and reading this book.

It sucks, but whatever, at least I found my loophole. I assume that God, for whatever reason, has hardened my heart like that one Pharoah, because if I don't believe in him, it's obviously god's will. The story of the paroah never made sense to me anyway, like why would god harden his heart so that he would refused to let the israelites go, and then claim that he saved them from the pharoah? The whole problem was because he hardened the pharoah's heart to begin with, if he hadn't have done that, the phaorah would have let him go after like one plague. And then there was the ridiculously long instructions on how to build a tabernacle, whatever that is, I assume it's some sort of box. And the stupid rules about putting blood on your big toe? Yeesh. I'm going to keep reading it though for the cool stories like Daniel getting mauled by lions and david and goliath.

[Anonymous No.10343610]

>>10343608
Keep in mind the bush is literally Satan

[Anonymous No.10343621]

>>10343608
Reading it alone will lead to stupid mistakes like the ones you are making. At least look up explanations of the stories so you know what's up.

[Anonymous No.10343624]

>>10343621
trolled hard

[Anonymous No.10343629]

>>10343621
I'm literally reading the word of god directly, if I have to read something else to understand it, than that other thing would be the holy book.

Besides, your explanations are probably the dumbest leaps of logic one would have to make to twist this into a coherent faith. But I'm not here to start a religious flame war, I am just saying this book is bad.

[Anonymous No.10343641]

>>10343629
Tip harder, faggot. I see you are way too arrogant to be helped. I don't plan to throw pearls and gems to pigs like you. Have fun not understanding anything.

[Anonymous No.10343645]

>>10343608
repent kid

[Anonymous No.10343653]

>>10343641
>>10343645
trolled hard

[Anonymous No.10343658]

>>10343608
Don't expect actual arguments from christians on here, What they typically do is spend hours upon hours talking about how great their philosophical traditions are, how bad new atheists are and so on, but when they actually have to provide arguments they're no better than the basic bitch fundamentalists.

[Anonymous No.10343663]

>>10343658
Christian philosophers spend literally over a thousand years developing a rational defense of the Christian faith called "Scholastic". If you cared, you'd read it. You don't care enough to do that. So why should I care enough to educate you?

[Anonymous No.10343670]

The old testament is trash.
Throw out old wineskins.
Check out the Gospel only.
Pure word of God right there, man.
No contradictions out of Jesus's mouth. Perfect and holy.

[Anonymous No.10343672]

>>10343670
>the old testament is trash
you're not Christian right

[Anonymous No.10343673]

>>10343658
I actually larp as Christian but I see a lot Christians on here have solid arguments for their faith and they are basically onto something

[Anonymous No.10343674]

>>10343663
Scholasticism has been an object of derision for every serious philosopher from Hobbes to Kant

[Anonymous No.10343677]

>>10343663
I already know aquinas' arguments but thanks for giving everyone an example of exactly what I meant.
>>10343673
I've yet to see one answer objections to their arguments that are made by atheist philosophers rather than imbecile new atheists.

[Anonymous No.10343683]

>>10343674
You definitely don't know what you are talking about. Kant took it very seriously and tried to refute the famous ontological argument, which he failed, and the argument still goes by even today, completely undefeated. Aquinas tried to prove it wrong too, and he is part of Scholasticism himself.

Talking about Aquinas, that guy is probably the greatest philosopher ever. He managed to complement Aristotle's work really well.

Also, Kant himself was Christian.

[Anonymous No.10343684]

>>10343645
I want to [spolier]marry[/spoiler] Christ-chan

[Anonymous No.10343686]

>>10343677
Try me, I'm a capable Christian

>inb4 epicurus paradox

[Anonymous No.10343692]

>>10343677
Oh and by the way

>I already know Aquinas' arguments
Bullshit, you need to read dozens upon dozens of authors (at least all of Aristotle and Plato) before you start reading Aquinas' magnum opus, the summa theologica. You do not know his arguments, or maybe you read it from some blog written by a guy that did not read it either, which means you still don't know his arguments.

Aquinas supposedly proved God's existence rationally. Many atheist philosophers were converted by reading the summa theologica. I really doubt a random neet can "know his arguments" and remain a non-believer.

[Anonymous No.10343693]

>>10343672
Oh I am very Christian. I just don't believe in fairy tales or the traditions of men for fun's sake.

[Anonymous No.10343695]

>>10343683
>which he failed
That's where you're wrong, Feser fanboy.

I know Kant was a Christian, so was Hobbes. That doesn't mean they didn't shit on Scholasticism. Kant uses phrases like "subtle sophism of the schools" to describe the ontological argument, referring to its basis in exactly that discipline.

[Anonymous No.10343703]

>>10343695
Kant did not even reply to Anselm's ontological argument. Instead, he replied to Descartes', which is quite shittier.

Aquinas replies to Anselm, but misses the point.

It is still untouched.

[Anonymous No.10343704]

>>10343692
>Bullshit, you need to read dozens upon dozens of authors
No you dont' need dozens, you don't even need half a dozen.
>Bullshit
Yes, presuming to know someone else's mind is really top-tier argumentation.
I love how the rest of your argument is literally just "if you knew them you wouldn't be an atheist". Do I have to point out why it's shit or can you figure it out by yourself?

[Anonymous No.10343706]

>>10343704
Just answer this: Did you read the summa theologica?

[Anonymous No.10343709]

Kant's aesthetic theory can be used as an underhanded argument for God.
Beauty is the harmonious freeplay of intuition and understanding, blah blah, but more importantly it is the pleasure of purposeless purposiveness. Kant said it was purposeless because the purpose could not be rationalized, but clearly meant that if our minds were keen enough we could perceive natural beauty as it is truly meant to be recognized. As a grand argument for the existence of this purpose and what it is.

[Anonymous No.10343711]

>>10343686
In order to "try" you, you first have to give me argument.
Epicurus problem of evil, which no serious atheist philosophers consider an argument worth making, is an example of an atheistic argument. I was talking about atheistic objections to theistic arguments.
I mean, we can still do it that way if you prefer: how do you defeat the evidential problem of evil without appealing to extremely shaky epistemological theories?

[Anonymous No.10343714]

chriatianity is actually existing autism

[Anonymous No.10343716]

>>10343703
If I ask you to describe the meaningful difference between the two, I'm sure you'll start screeching that I haven't read either, but for my part, I cannot find it. Even the cosmological argument is just the ontological argument with a merely logical definition of causality included in it

[Anonymous No.10343720]

>>10343706
Just answer this: have you read any book or article by atheist philosophers of religion?
And by the way, no, I haven't read all of it, because most of it has nothing to do with making arguments for God's existence. I read the relevant parts to that topic.

[Anonymous No.10343724]

>>10343711
I don't like giving arguments because I think God is ultimately about faith. Reason can and will lead to God, but if you don't believe in God you will be blind to reason if you don't have faith.

I also don't believe in dishing unnecessary arguments when you already have one that works, so I'd give you the ontological argument and ask you to answer that.

>how do you defeat the evidential problem of evil without appealing to extremely shaky epistemological theories?
Free will to stray further from God. Asking why evil exists is like asking why darkness exists. I can't develop on this without you developing your argument since "the problem of evil" is quite broad.

[Anonymous No.10343730]

>>10343724
>I don't like giving arguments because I think God is ultimately about faith
No shit? So I have to give arguments for my position but you don't have to do it for yours?
>I can't develop on this without you developing your argument since "the problem of evil" is quite broad.
I didn't say "the problem of evil", I said the evidential problem of evil.

[Anonymous No.10343734]

>>10343716
Descartes claims that claiming God exists is like claiming a triangle has three sides, and Kant rabbles about how "existing" is not a property like the number of sides on geometry. He completely misses the point, and it's not part of the original argument anyway.

Aquinas gets closer. He attacks the very foundation which is the human ability of imagining God. The funny part is that for his argument to work you need to believe in God in the first step.

>>10343720
What "relevant parts" did you read?

And no. The closest I came to that was Pondé. He said that noticing the inexistence of God is the "simplest task ever, all you need to do is realize that the world around you is imperfect". Then he goes on about how believing is much harder, but also a much more sophisticated option, and that he deeply loves Christianity and Scholasticism and admires how complex it is and how rich its contribution is to Western society. Then he rambles about how stupid atheists are for trying to destroying that. You almost start thinking he is Christian, but then he insists he is an atheist, just a smart one. He calls himself a "non-practicing atheist" to differentiate himself from the ones like you or your authors.

[Anonymous No.10343742]

>>10343730
>rabbles about how christians don't answer his arguments
>I answer it
>he rabbles about how I implied I don't need to answer it while ignoring my answer
I guess I expected too much from fedora tipping faggots

[Anonymous No.10343746]

>>10343734
>What "relevant parts" did you read?
I don't remember the names of the sections if that's what you're asking, I read the section of the first book where he deals with what god is and how it can be known he exists.
>And no
So what I was saying in the beginning is true. Christians on here pretend knowledge but they don't actually know shit about the subject. How the hell can you know that something hasn't been answered or refuted if you haven't read anything on the topic by the people who are supposed to refute your hypothesis?
This is just incredible.

>>10343742
I didn't ignore it, you ignoramus, "free will" is an objection to the logical problem of evil, not the evidential. I charitably assumed you had misread what I wrote because unironically using the free will defense to address the evidential problem of evil means you don't even know what the latter is.

[Anonymous No.10343765]

>>10343746
>in order to be Christian you need to read at least 50 fedora tipping shit books
No thank you

Christians are probably ignoring you for a variety of reasons:
a) They simply don't have the knowledge and want to live their simple lives
b) They have the knowledge but follow the Bible on not giving away pearls to dogs who will just stomp on them and then eat these who gave them away
c) They know that it's pointless to discuss rationally if the answer can only be grasped through faith, and know that the rational job was already done by Scholars anyway

Why someone would even become an "atheist philosopher" is beyond me too. If you have two neurons to rub together you'll notice that Christianity is not bad for society, it is actually quite good and necessary to counter the evils that currently attempt to overtake it. No idea why some people dedicate their lives to destroying it, but just be aware that you are not the first one to attempt that, it is an old game that people have been playing it's been more than 2000 years, and it is a game they always fail at.

[Anonymous No.10343767]

>>10343765
Not him but I really enjoyed your posts m8. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10343768]

>>10343746
Also:
>refute this: Argument
>what? you don't know what Argument is? haha idiot you are not on my level to debate

This is so pathetic and arrogant, only a fedora tipper could do that. If you did not know the ontological argument I'd happily explain it to you. It takes a great lack of humility to just insult someone because they do not know the special snowflake argument you pointed. I probably know several arguments you don't know, that's not anything to boast about. At one point you'll debate with someone much smarter than you, who will know arguments you don't know, and they probably won't claim victory just because they found one you did not know

[Anonymous No.10343769]

>>10343734
>Kant rabbles about how "existing" is not a property like the number of sides on geometry

This is not his contention at all; he states explicitly that existing *is* a property like the sides of a triangle. It's a matter of what this property has reference to. Kant's point is that the triangle itself is not real, and that the supposition of its three-sidedness holds good only when we apply it to empirical conceptions, intuitions, or perceptions that relate back to the notion of a triangle. Otherwise, e.g. if we have for instance a circle, to posit the necessary use of the triangular mode is pointless, regardless of whether or not the things that follow from the premises of a given triangle hold good of themselves (i.e. generally speaking, without reference to the particular problem). It is the same with God; if we posit that he is the being "than which no greater can be conceived," then it follows from this in a purely logical way that he must exist. But this refers only to the notion of existence, not to the existence of any object in the world, since God is given himself as an idea -- and his existence as an object in the sensuous world was precisely what was to be proved. The argument, in the words of Kant, "shows itself to be a miserable tautology." It doesn't really matter whose iteration we're talking about, they all rely on the same fundamental idea of God as the Being of all Beings.

[Anonymous No.10343773]

The efficient cause argument and contingency argument ring true.

Big Bang as counter-argument : What if one supposes that God does exist? Then there would be a time beyond time preceding our universal time.

Self-existence of universe as counter-argument : What makes a universe self-existent if it does not possess within itself (abstractly or informationally) the reason for it's own existence. It would appear Reality itself comes before the universe in it's abstraction as an underlying unity of substance, and that this Reality must be God.

[Anonymous No.10343776]

>>10343765
>in order to be Christian you need to read at least 50 fedora tipping shit books
But that's not what I said, your reading comprehension skills are even worse than your knowledge of the subject. I said that people on here pretend that Christianity has all these great arguments and atheism has none while instead your knowledge of the subject is very small and extremely partial, as both of you have admitted either explicitly or implicitly.
>Christians are probably ignoring you
Christians have been replying to me all throughout this thread so I don't even know what you're on about. Again, how can you know that the rational job was done by scholars if you don't even know what the other side says? You don't.
>Why someone would even become an "atheist philosopher" is beyond me too
Of course, since you seem to be a zealot. Normal people understand that people become an X philosopher (moral realist, coherentist, whatever-ist) is if they think that X is true and it's part of an interesting subject of study. So you have people who are interested in philosophy of religion and who think atheism is the correct answer, and that's how you get atheist philosophers of religion.

>>10343768
>takes a great lack of humility to just insult someone because they do not know the special snowflake argument you pointed
Except a) I only replied to your insult, I wasn't the first to throw around insults and b) it's not a special snowflake argument, it's literally one of the most well known contemporary arguments against the existence of god.

What's so pathetic and arrogant is you people who keep shitting up the board parading around with a "we actually have the good arguments" attitude without even knowing what the other side says.

[Anonymous No.10343780]

>>10343769
Huh? I am completely sure Kant denies that existence is a property of an object on the same way of the sides of a triangle. For example: You can imagine some geometric form and then attach the concept of three sides to it, thus imagining a triangle, but you can't imagine God and then "attach existence to Him". Instead, existence is something that can be proved by observing reality. That's why God's existence is something that has to be proved for Kant, and proof that can't be determined from that argument alone, since existing or being is not a predicate.

But Anselm's argument is not about adding the idea of "existing" to "God" like you add "three sides" to a "triangle". In fact, even if we assume Kant is right, Anselm's argument is still untouched, since it is much more related to the correlation between the existence of God as an idea and the existence of God in reality.

Does anyone even consider Kant's objection valid to Anselm anyway? I thought it was agreed upon he answered the wrong guy.

[Anonymous No.10343795]

>>10343776
No one here claimed atheism has no arguments.

Let's remember how this started: You complained about how no Christians ever answer your arguments. I wasted my time offering to answer them. You named the "evidential problem of evil", I mistook it for the "logical problem of evil", you laughed at how retarded I looked, and now we're having this discussion that is just you jerking yourself off about how smart you are and how dumb Christians are.

Let's put it this way: I know some atheist arguments, but not all, and you know some Christian arguments, but certainly not all, and if you actually wanted to discuss you'd probably actually develop your arguments instead of pointing one and then jerking off to people not instantly recognizing it. And when I questioned why atheist philosophers exist, I was not doubting their interest on the subject. As I said, Pondé is a great philosopher, and also an atheist who thoroughly studied Scholastic, and he claims that trying to destroy Christianity is foolish and would just bring doom upon western society, so he avoids doing that. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise, unless it's just some blind chase for what they think is the "truth", which is funny coming from secularists but I can understand that

[Anonymous No.10343797]

>>10343724
No, faith is the opposite of reason. Like morality is meant to do for actions, reason prescribes what to believe. Faith is giving up and believing what feels good. Giving into lower human nature and bias and denial and ego stroking.

[Anonymous No.10343798]

>>10343780
Existence is a necessary property of all objects, conceptually speaking, just as all triangles necessarily have three sides.

If existence were not a logical, abstract property in the way a line is, the argument would not be tautological, it would simply be contradictory, because the predicate (exists) would annihilate a necessary part of the subject (the idea of God), and so no conception at all could be formed (by the definition of contradiction). In other words, if the idea of existence could not be imagined of or "attached to" God, saying "God exists" would be like saying "Nothing exists." But, again, this is not Kant's contention. Existence can very easily be attached to God, but this attachment is of a purely formal and necessary character, like the attachment of the conception of one hundred and eighty degrees to that of the interior angles of a triangle.

[Anonymous No.10343800]

>>10343742
Do you like frogs? You trolls all seem to have the same style and tactics.

[Anonymous No.10343802]

>>10343798
Your argument is nice but are you sure that is Kant's position? If existence is a property, then it is a predicate, but Kant really enforces that existence is not a predicate. Even if it is not Kant's position, it seems valid.

>>10343800
>troll

[Anonymous No.10343803]

>>10343608
Come on OP, the OT is the best part. Just enjoy the /lit/ of the whole thing. The Judgement of Solomon is so damn good.

t. agnostic

[Anonymous No.10343805]

>>10343795
>You complained about how no Christians ever answer your arguments.
No, I didn't complain, I matter-of-factly said to OP that he shouldn't expect actualy meaningful replies because that's not what christians do here.
>mistook it for the "logical problem of evil", you laughed at how retarded I looked,
Except that's not what happened either, I charitably corrected you and you replied by saying I'm a "fedora tipping faggot". Only at that point I proceeded to insult you. I mean, why lie about what just happened? You can literally read it a few posts above this one.
>you'd probably actually develop your arguments instead of pointing one
I didn't point one and that's it, I asked you a question, which I'll ask again. How do you refute the evidential problem of evil without resorting to shaky epistemological theories? Do you want to answer that question or not? I mean, you don't want to make arguments for theism, you don't want to read arguments against theism made by academics, you apparently don't want to answer questions on the topic, so what the hell am I supposed to do?
>which is funny coming from secularists
I'm not a secularist.

[Anonymous No.10343806]

>>10343797
>Faith is giving up and believing what feels good.
Doesn't explain why Abraham tried to kill Issac; that wasn't a feel good moment. Have you ever read Kierkegaard? (Not a believer btw, I just like theology)

[Anonymous No.10343812]

>>10343608
The best argument against it, it is that it's a shitty religion for sheep based around a figure whose good teachings most Christians don't even follow. They rather worship idols in their fancy churches and celebrate holidays as if that's what their ascetic savior wanted. A joke attempt at spirituallity.

[Anonymous No.10343816]

>>10343802
Kant is unfortunately guilty of the same "subtlety" (opacity) which he demeans in Scholasticism, but in his case the fogginess of expression doesn't obfuscate a fallacy. At the outset of his criticism of the cosmological argument, he distinguishes between logical and real predicates. So, when he says, "being is evidently not a real predicate," his meaning is, that it is a logical one, not that "being" is not at all a predicate.

[Anonymous No.10343818]

>>10343805
I simply don't know the argument, what else do you want from me? I already googled it, read about it then googled refutations, I have like four right now, including the "shaky epistemological theories" that you mentioned. I'm not willing to present these for simple reasons:

a) Considering how easy it is to find these arguments, you probably already know them;
b) I hate presenting arguments that I don't fully grasp about subjects I don't grasp, I'd rather fully study the subject and read about it before trying to debate about it

[Anonymous No.10343820]

>>10343806
Be a little charitable. I didn't say they believe whatever feels best at any moment.
On the contrary, that shows how strongly he resisted giving up his dream of god and heaven. To do such an immoral thing rather than face the lack of evidence or compelling reason for his religion.

[Anonymous No.10343821]

>>10343816
>cosmological
Sorry, meant ontological. It's getting rather early over here in Burgerland

[Anonymous No.10343823]

>>10343816
I stand corrected and I learned a lot, thanks

[Anonymous No.10343825]

>>10343818
>I simply don't know the argument, what else do you want from me?
Nothing, but you seemed to want something from me and I've no idea what it is.

[Anonymous No.10343830]

>muh scholasticism
>mfw

[Anonymous No.10343836]

>>10343830
Hume has a very poor understanding of aristotle desu.

[Anonymous No.10343838]

>>10343823
Thank you. I enjoyed this discussion immensely.

[Anonymous No.10343844]

>>10343836
It's funny how far he got for someone that doesn't understand Aristotle. I've also seen other philosophers get far without understanding him, I really don't get how that happens

I'm not saying Aristotle is basic, quite the contrary, he's just way too essential and core to do anything without him

[Anonymous No.10343845]

>>10343836

And Aristotle had a very poor understanding of almost everything he wrote about

[Anonymous No.10343848]

>>10343845

[Anonymous No.10343849]

Why does no one here ever talk about how utterly BTFO Christianity has been by archaeology and historical criticism. You always just go straight to arguing about whether God exists or not.

The Old Testament and the story of Israel basically being fiction, Jesus essentially being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, preaching nothing close to the Christian orthodoxy, etc. Both of these have long been the standard views in academia.

[Anonymous No.10343850]

>>10343844
>It's funny how far he got for someone that doesn't understand Aristotle
Not really, lots of literature and philosophy gets created out of misunderstanding the people you're supposedly refuting/citing.
>>10343845
But not of Aristotelian thought. Which you kinda have to know well if you're trying to refute something that is based on it.

[Anonymous No.10343854]

>>10343849

Muh faith so that doesn't count

[Anonymous No.10343855]

>>10343849
The bible unearthed is a pretty good book on that topic.

[Anonymous No.10343857]

>>10343820
Well, no, I don't think you've read the story. God tells Abraham that his son will be a great King, and Abraham is an old man with only one son. So when God tells Abraham to kill his only son, Abraham has to have enough faith to believe God even if the statements are contradictory. It wasn't "Kill your son to go to heaven", it was "Kill your son so your son may become King". I'd really recommend Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling.

[Anonymous No.10343861]

>>10343845
We don't even have 10% of what Aristotle wrote.

>>10343849
For every historian criticizing the Bible, there are three others to defend it, there is no consensus, you people sound like these folk saying "this is what Science says", there is no consensus on these fields

[Anonymous No.10343868]

>>10343845
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.10343869]

>>10343857
I've also seen people question why God would do that. It is interesting to notice how Isaac is a huge metaphor for Jesus, as if he mimicked all the events that would happen in the future.

>>10343868
I stopped believing in people refuting Aristotle after my philosophy teacher said that "the problem with Aristotle is that he supports slavery"

[Anonymous No.10343874]

>>10343869
That story was written at least two millennia before Jesus was born, it was certainly not a metaphor desu.

[Anonymous No.10343875]

>>10343608
Including the "Old Testament" within the Christian canon was a mistake. Just read Homer, Plato, the book of Proverbs and some expository literature on 1st century Hellenistic Judaism, and then jump straight into the New Testament.

The Old Testament deals with the mythologised ethnogenesis of the Jews, and as such is of no interest to you. Nor should it be.

[Anonymous No.10343877]

Can we talk about how the new testament has been corrupted by Paul and co?
The Judas story does not make sense and was invented later to slander him. For two thousand years he has been hated and accredited with the most despicable deed of all. We must beg for Judas' forgiveness at this point.

[Anonymous No.10343878]

>>10343874
It's not just that particular story, but rather Isaac's entire life, it is all parallel to Jesus' life. The particular moment of the sacrifice symbolizes God sacrificing his only son, Jesus. This is used as proof for the Bible's timeless writing. You can alternatively claim that Jesus mimicked Isaac's life but we both know how nonsense that is.

[Anonymous No.10343879]

>>10343861

>there is no consensus, you people sound like these folk saying "this is what Science says", there is no consensus on these fields

Right, because there totally is in theology and religion

[Anonymous No.10343882]

>>10343608
>david and goliath.
The Jewish equivalent of stories like Heracles'. See also Samson etc. Again, it's safe to ignore the Old testament entirely, apart from the "Wisdom" books (Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Job) since those are the only ones truly relevant to Christianity.

The rest is mythology. You can just as well read the Eddas.

[Anonymous No.10343883]

>>10343879
You totally missed my point

[Anonymous No.10343884]

>>10343608
You didn't even get to Numbers 31:17-18 desu

[Anonymous No.10343886]

>>10343875
Old Testament is was more /lit/ than New Testament. NT is one shit story four times over and a handful of letters Paul couldn't even bother but template like mad-libs. Pretty lame desu, and like a quarter the length. Reads like fan fic, 2/10.

[Anonymous No.10343887]

>>10343861
>For every historian criticizing the Bible, there are three others to defend it,
Not really, there are no mainstream archeologists who study the bible that actually believe the exodus happened, jews were slaves in egypt and so on.

[Anonymous No.10343888]

>>10343663
Found the moron who doesn't know what he's talking about. The "Scholastics" were what you'd today call an "academic". They dealt with a whole lot more than theology. Maybe you should read some philosophy before spouting this sort of retarded nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10343892]

>>10343674
>Hobbes, Kant
They're pseuds. Stick to the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.10343893]

>The "Scholastics" were what you'd today call an "academic"
Not him but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.10343896]

>>10343692
>one massive appeal to authority
Nice.
By the way, I am a Christian. But the Christians on this site really are retarded.

[Anonymous No.10343902]

>>10343836
Hume has a poor understanding of everything. He's one of the biggest jokes of the Enlightenment. He sports literally pre-Socratic levels of confused retardation.

[Anonymous No.10343903]

>>10343896
>erroneously pointing appeal to authority on what really isn't that on /lit/, a board where that is actually acceptable if your authority is legit enough

[Anonymous No.10343907]

>>10343886
>one shit story four times over
Found the pseud. (The synoptic gospels are apocryphal, and they're very different from John's.)

[Anonymous No.10343910]

>>10343608
Trying to become a Christian made me hate Christians because they've got cognitive dissonance out the ass and are really just passive aggressive Muslims in terms of disposition.

[Anonymous No.10343915]

>>10343893
It's true. They were "professional" "philosophers" working in universities in a very bureaucratic manner. Literally the whole of modern academic practice has its origin with the "Scholastics".

I recommend reading the second volume of Anthony Kenny's History of Western Philosophy, so you at least have a clue of what you're talking about before laughing like a retard.

[Anonymous No.10343917]

>>10343915
I know how they worked. And that's because the Catholic Church created the first few universities. These priests and saints are primarily that, priests and saints, and only secondly "professional philosophers" as you say. Today's academics are morons and entitled atheists, Aquinas would never be one if he was born today.

[Anonymous No.10343918]

>>10343915
> the second volume of Anthony Kenny's History of Western Philosophy
Or any other equivalent that offers some exposition of the historical Scholastics, not the stupid memes you see thrown around on /lit/ (and elsewhere) both by the detractors and the muh Aquinas apologists.

[Anonymous No.10343920]

>>10343917
>I know how they worked.
You clearly don't.

[Anonymous No.10343921]

>>10343608
>at least I found my loophole. I assume that God, for whatever reason, has hardened my heart like that one Pharoah, because if I don't believe in him, it's obviously god's will.
But anon, that story shows that even if God is the one who hardens your heart he'll still wreck your shit.

[Anonymous No.10343923]

Wrong. That isn't an argument against Christianity
>hurr durr i dont understand SO ITS FUCKIN DUMB
>>10343629
ME SMART 2500 YEARS OF SCHOLARS DUMB

[Anonymous No.10343933]

>>10343677
>atheist philosophers
No such thing exists
Shite from heretic.org or whatever is not 'atheist philosophy. It's shite.

[Anonymous No.10343935]

>>10343720
>atheist philosophers of religion
hurr durr muh positivism

[Anonymous No.10343937]

>>10343797
>reason is good becuz i lieg it

[Anonymous No.10343942]

>>10343923
>2500 YEARS OF SCHOLARS DUMB
Literally yes. I used to believe this meme that there must be SOME deep insights in all the hundreds of years of Christians analyzing the Bible until I read the Haydock Bible. >>10343629 is right to assume that the mental gymnastics necessary to make the Bible into something compatible with Christian philosophy are astonishing. It just goes to show the difference between quantity of writing and quality.

[Anonymous No.10343944]

>>10343797
hurr durr muh raisin is good becuz i sed so i cannot defend this in any way but its troo despite the original arguments which i depend on all defer to a deistic god which i reject making my point literally at most an appeal to evolution which is not orderly as assumed and merely pragmatic and corresponding making reason just 'reliable' not 'absolute'

I'm fucking waiting.
inb4
>hurr durr u use rasin
THAT DOES NOT MEAN I AM IMPLYING IT TO BE ANYTHING BUT RELIABLE
YOU ARE THE PLATONIST HERE
>>10343902
Hume is a satirist who never meant a single thing he wrote.

[Anonymous No.10343946]

>>10343942
Go back to plebbit

[Anonymous No.10343947]

>>10343937
>>10343946
christfags, everyone.

[Anonymous No.10343950]

>>10343947
>i dont want to defend myself so ill just repeat positivist nonsense without ever applying the same criticism to positivsm

[Anonymous No.10343959]

>>10343950
If the only way you can defend your position is by rejecting reason itself then you've become an embarrassment to your own side.

[Anonymous No.10343965]

<- OP

[Anonymous No.10343969]

>>10343663
>>10343608

That fact that Christian apologia even exists seems to be a pretty good starting point to show that it's not the word of god. Like wow, god made this glorious book that's so cryptic in its metaphors you need scholars debating what the metaphors and stories mean for thousands of years, coming up with different answers. Ask a hundred pastors, get a hundred answers

[Anonymous No.10343971]

>>10343969
Don't blame the Bible for non-scholars having insufficiently high IQs.

[Anonymous No.10343976]

>>10343773
that has nothing to do with the bible.

[Anonymous No.10343982]

>>10343877
there was a judas in the first bit who sold joseph for twenty pieces of silver

is that the same guy?

[Anonymous No.10343990]

>>10343921
yeah but it doesn't matter because my heart is hard

[Anonymous No.10344004]

>>10343969
I just don't know how someone could read this book and agree with it. I assume most Christians must simply not read it to save themselves the conundrum. Like, for one, it's pretty obvious if you followed all the rules you would be a hardcore jew, apparently there is no difference. But I don't see Christians bringing me a turtledove and a sparrow to atone for their sins.

[Anonymous No.10344008]

>>10344004
>"one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" refers to mosaic law

[Anonymous No.10344013]

>>10343969
You're confused. Biblical inerrancy and/or Sola Scriptura =/= Christianity. At most, you've disproven a school of Christian thought. But going after Protestant fundamentalists is low hanging fruit.

Try someone like Rene Girard for a change.

[Anonymous No.10344028]

>>10344004
And once again, the issue goes back to the Judaic Scriptures' inclusion in the Christian Canon. You can blame the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD for that. Christianity got a massive influx of Jews after their temple was destroyed, re-Judaizing the faith. All the way to the third century, the majority of Christians in the Roman Empire were Jew converts. (Rodney Stark makes a good case for this.)

(Don't mistake my point as an apologia for gnosticism though.)

[Anonymous No.10344033]

>>10343965
Well memed.

[Anonymous No.10344053]

>>10343877
On the contrary, the Judas story makes a lot of sense. What doesn't make sense is the Jesus of the Synoptics, because they're all apocryphal.
The Gospel of John is the only genuine one. The only one written by (or dictated by) a witness to Jesus' ministry, and the only one written before 70AD.
If anything, Paul tempered down some of the Petrine corruptions of Christianity, synthesising them with the genuine Johannine teaching.

[Anonymous No.10344054]

>>10344008
>"one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" refers to nothing

[Anonymous No.10344064]

>>10344054

[Anonymous No.10344066]

>>10344064

[Anonymous No.10344071]

>>10343933
>No such thing exists
Yeah, it's not like well over 60% of academic philosophers are atheists, right? It's not like there's plenty of essays, articles and books on the subject by academic philosophers who talk about atheological arguments and objections to the existence of god.
You guys are so laughable.
>>10343935
Here's another one who has never read anything on the subject from the opposite site.
You guys are so good at making my case for me.

[Anonymous No.10344074]

>>10344071
*side
Anyway, it's truly mind-boggling how shit christians here are at argumentation.

[Anonymous No.10344079]

>>10344066

[Anonymous No.10344091]

Isaiah 42:20
You have seen many things, but you do not observe them; Your ears are open, but none hears.

You're warned even there and not only, that what you're reading is not as simple as you think it is and EVEN THEN you still make the same mistake. Do atheists have a reading disability?

[Anonymous No.10344098]

>>10344091
Pot; meet kettle.

[Anonymous No.10344099]

>>10344091
>generic verse that could be used to justify anything
>SEE? ATHEISTS ARE LE DUMB
Are you convinced by muslims giving you some generic verse from the quran?

[Anonymous No.10344112]

>>10344099
This is the most simple way I can converse with people like you. You're posting on a literature board without having read The Holy Bible, this is beyond embarrassing. You also don't understand the historical and theological difference between the said religions which is basic knowledge as well.

[Anonymous No.10344116]

>>10344112
>You're posting on a literature board without having read The Holy Bible
Says who?
>You also don't understand the historical and theological difference between the said religions
Says who?

[Anonymous No.10344121]

>>10344112
This is the most simple way I can converse with people like you. You're posting on a literature board without having read The Koran, this is beyond embarrassing. You also don't understand the historical and theological difference between the said religions which is basic knowledge as well.

This is the most simple way I can converse with people like you. You're posting on a literature board without having read the Vedas or Upanishads, this is beyond embarrassing. You also don't understand the historical and theological difference between the said religions which is basic knowledge as well.

This is the most simple way I can converse with people like you. You're posting on a literature board without having read The Satanic Bible, this is beyond embarrassing. You also don't understand the historical and theological difference between the said religions which is basic knowledge as well.

This is the most simple way I can converse with people like you. You're posting on a literature board without having read the complete works of L. Ron Hubbard, this is beyond embarrassing. You also don't understand the historical and theological difference between the said religions which is basic knowledge as well.

This is the most simple way I can converse with people like you. You're posting on a literature board without having read The Schizophrenic Rantings of Some Random Caveman, this is beyond embarrassing. You also don't understand the historical and theological difference between the said religions which is basic knowledge as well.

[Anonymous No.10344125]

>>10344116
Its you who showed it with your lack of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.10344133]

>>10344125
Saying that a verse in the bible says "you've read this but you haven't understood it" is the most generic thing ever, now equals lack of knowledge?
K.

[Anonymous No.10344134]

>>10344121
It seems I hurt your ego really badly. For a man of reason you get emotional quite easy. The thing you're missing in your post is the geographical differences which also differ in dominant religions and academic relevance.

[Anonymous No.10344136]

>>10344134
you've typed way more than me in responses. ctrl-c ctrl-v ain't upset nicca

[Anonymous No.10344152]

>>10344133
There is a 2000 years of research on the book which examines it thoroughly and yet you without even reading the book, nor having a logically structured argument think that the book is wrong. Like I said already, there is a reason this book(s) is chosen instead of other religious texts.
>>10344136
Yes, but yours is more obnoxious and pointless.

[Anonymous No.10344160]

>>10344152
>and yet you without even reading the book
So you keep saying but that's wrong.
>there is a reason this book(s) is chosen instead of other religious texts.
Yes, the fact that you live in an area of the world where that's the go-to religious book.
However, archeological and historical discoveries have disproved most of the old testament, so insofar as we're talking about historical accuracy, the bible is very much wrong.

[Anonymous No.10344163]

>>10344152
>Yes, but yours is more obnoxious and pointless.
You wrote it.

[Anonymous No.10344175]

>>10344091
do you think atheists take warnings in the bile seriously? You haven't even developed basic theory of mind?

[Anonymous No.10344178]

>>10344160
>insofar as we're talking about historical accuracy, the bible is very much wrong.
Not the New Testament. See >>10344013

[Anonymous No.10344180]

>>10344178
You mean making up stuff about the census, messing up dates and which king was alive isn't being wrong?

[Anonymous No.10344189]

>>10344160
>So you keep saying but that's wrong.
It up to you to prove me wrong. You're just making baseless claims that are usually the most debunked "arguments".
>Yes, the fact that you live in an area of the world where that's the go-to religious book.
That's why I said in a previous post that the different geographical regions have different dominant religions. The reason why a region keeps a religion is because of the values it shares with it. Do you even keep an attention? If this is the way you're reading books in general it would make sense why you have such a big hole in your knowledge.
>so insofar as we're talking about historical accuracy, the bible is very much wrong.
If you only read pop-science articles it may seem so but if you actually spend time making even a simple research would prove you wrong.
>>10344163
I did but you remade it to look atrocious
>>10344175
It is a warning to not speed read the book in 10 minutes and then think that you have become a Bible scholar and a Theology pro.

[Anonymous No.10344193]

>>10344189
>If you only read pop-science articles it may seem so but if you actually spend time making even a simple research would prove you wrong.
So the exodus happened? Jews were slaves under the egyptians? They roamed the desert for decades? They were not the same people as Canaanites?
Becasue that's all wrong, and we've know about all of this for quite a while. The only people who think otherwise are fundamentalist christians who don't even accept evidence as to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.10344209]

>>10344180
>census
Filling up expository gaps with fictional events was standard hagiographical practice in the antiquity. Just read Hesiod for similar examples.
The gist of Luke-Acts is historically accurate. As is John.
(Matthew concerns me little since it's Apocryphal.)

Sorry to brake it to you, but any argument against New Testament historicity would destroy the rest of the historiography of that period much more thoroughly. Sure, you're welcome to argue against scholarly consensus. Plenty of cranks do.

[Anonymous No.10344219]

>>10344209
>Hesiod
That's too easy. Thucydides is a more relevant example. Plenty of the details in his recounting of the Peloponnesian War were pulled straight out of his ass.

[Anonymous No.10344227]

>>10344189
false its a warning against trying to critique the bible at all. Its a copout essentially.

[Anonymous No.10344233]

>>10344193
There are enough sources that you can find even with a simple google searching. If you want an absolute recreation of the events it is simply impossible considering the amount of time it took since they happened. Once again you're just making embarrassing posts and if the next one is as simple as this I will not reply to you anymore.

[Anonymous No.10344248]

>>10344227
Why would it be, Jesus himself tells stories and then actually explains them.

[Anonymous No.10344271]

>>10343608
Listen Anon, I speak to you as a fellow atheist so I hope I'll be able to shed some light on the matter. What opened me to taking Christianity seriously was a perennial approach. Your conundrum about resistance to faith -"has hardened my heart like that one Pharoah, because if I don't believe in him, it's obviously god's will"- is takes the form of the Problem of Evil which has been the subject of Christian apologetics for centuries. I advise you look into it. Depending on how you experience God, the Problem of Evil is either a problem or a non-issue.

You need to understand Christianity is now ruled by doctrinal heterodoxy. There is infighting not just among denominations, but within them as well. Hell, there are voices within the Anglican Communion who declare themselves agnostic as to the personhood of God and his nature, and employ the most extreme Calvinist reading of the scriptures, on par with that of Jung - to the point where they take a non-theistic interpretation of the Bible. Some of their fellow protestant brothers consider them heretics; you'll see evangelical fundamentalists who insist on the personhood of God, the historicity of Christ who accuse everyone but themselves of heresy; Catholics who have strong objections of the five solas that came to define Protestantism, etc.

I really do think that Religious Perennialism is your way into the scriptures. You'll find that there is still much to chew on, despite your agnosticism with regards to the nature of well... nature itself.

Understand this though. Fedoras look terrible both on atheists and Christians.

[Anonymous No.10344326]

>>10344233
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel.[26] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.[27] Such elements as could be fitted into the 2nd millennium could equally belong to the 1st, and are consistent with a 1st millennium BCE writer trying to set an old story in Egypt.[28] So while a few scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier, continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the story, arguing that the Egyptian records have been lost or suppressed or that the fleeing Israelites left no archaeological trace or that the large numbers are mistranslated, the majority have abandoned the investigation as "a fruitless pursuit".[29][30]

inb4 it's wiki
Check the sources, they're good.

[Anonymous No.10344343]

>>10344271
You're wrong. OP's problem is that he is an apostate fundamentalist. For him Christianity is fundamentalist Evangelical Protestantism or not Christianity at all. So I either the Bible is literally true in every verse, or it's useless. It's a typical American phenomenon, since America is filled with the descendants of all sorts of zany protestant cults.
Atheists elsewhere aren't such spergs.

[Anonymous No.10344345]

>>10344343
Correction: UK atheists are pretty similar also. Let's say it's an Anglosphere thing. I am willing to bet OP has Puritan ancestors.

[Anonymous No.10344358]

>>10344343
Well yeah, this is why I was suggesting a perennialist approach for him. Which might, or might not open him to a doctrine, but at the very least will ameliorate his disgust for religious thinking.

Was brought up in the Anglo apostate tradition as well and perennialism took off the fedora hat for me.

[Anonymous No.10344362]

>>10344326
>still nothing against it
You're trying to justify your view, you're not looking for an objective truth. All you try to do is make things look plausible. Just in the post you replied to I said things have changed in the regions so much more considering how long ago those events happened. For example the tunic was wrongly attributed to a different year, the epic of Gilgamesh was discovered a just a few centuries ago and not to talk about the many cover-ups and corruptions of archeology. Like I said the sources are there, you're looking for easy, plausible information, even in your source nothing is stated as absolute.

[Anonymous No.10344369]

>>10344345
>Let's say it's an Anglosphere thing
It isn't, It's pretty common among younger Europeans, they consume so much American television they literally don't know there's a difference between the Christianity practised in America and their own countries.

Germans are among the worst for this, they're so divorced from the culture of their parents its insane.

[Anonymous No.10344382]

>>10343608
>Contemporary moral reflex is the reason Christianity isn't true!

[Anonymous No.10344386]

>>10344369
I'm not raised Christian and I have to inform fellow countrymen the pope of our Church is a women and the diocesan bishops with ex officio seniority are either black, arab, gay or anarcho-feminists (I'm not even joking).

[Anonymous No.10344405]

>>10344369
>American television
Are you implying something about the owners of TV stations, Hollywood producers? That they might have a different religion that doesn't agree with Christianity and doesn't paint it realistically?

[Anonymous No.10344417]

>>10344405
I wasn't implying that, but I mean they don't paint it realistically do they?

I'm talking about completely different denominations, people don't even know the basic differences between Reformed, Baptist or Methodist, they only know Christianity through the stereotypical American Evangelical churches they've seen on TV.

[Anonymous No.10344447]

>>10343608
>if he hadn't have done that

which conditional sentence is this

[Anonymous No.10344456]

>>10344362
In other words, a handful of fundamentalists are right because of circular reasons for which we should also discard all the available archeological evidence.
Nice, really strong arguments as always.

[Anonymous No.10344457]

>>10343610
Can you explain this?

[Anonymous No.10344468]

>>10343629
You are reading a translation probably so it is subject to human mistakes; read in hebrew or seek out explanation.

When so throws out a "truth" saying its was begotten through the scientific method do you seek explanation or do go on a sperg on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.10344474]

>>10344468
Also the Bible; for the most part, is divinely inspired (according to all Christians), not divine but divinely inspired there is a distinction. Only some Protestant group take it wholy a Truth.

[Anonymous No.10344479]

>>10344362
>You're trying to justify your view
This is what they call the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.10344484]

>>10344474
>[the Bible is] divinely inspired (according to all Christians)
That depends on your understanding of "divinely inspired" and your definition of "Christian".

[Anonymous No.10344492]

>>10344484
It's the word of God, not the speech of God and the distinction is made in almost all doctrines. It's not the Quran and very few Christians are literalist fundamentalists.

[Anonymous No.10344507]

>>10344369
>Germans are among the worst for this, they're so divorced from the culture of their parents its insane.
Not in the Germany that matters though. *tips Weißwurst*

[Anonymous No.10344564]

>>10344492
>>That depends on your understanding of "divinely inspired"
>It's the word of God
Nice begging the question there buddy. What is your understanding of "the word of God"? I can make a strong case for Ipsissima Vox when it comes to the dialogues in the Gospel of John and the some of the sayings in the other gospels, but I'd be hard pressed to accept any of the accounts feature the exact words Jesus spoke. Not to mention Bible passages that are provable false on an intertextual basis, a notable example being the genealogies of Jesus in Luke and Matthew, which you can dismiss by appealing to Paul which himself dismissed them as irrelevant inanities when they were still in the process of being editorialised, decades before the respective gospels were written, or the fact that James makes no reference to it, and likewise John. (Note, all this without pointing out that they are clearly contradictory, and that both genealogies show clear signs of fictional dramatisation, like the #7 numerology behind the sequences).

[Anonymous No.10344610]

With regard to the Bible, inspiration denotes the doctrine that the human authors and editors of canonical scripture were led or influenced by the Deity with the result that their writings many be designated in some sense the word of God." B.M. Metzger & M.D. Coogan, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," Oxford University Press, New York, NY

Christianity attaches its self to the Divinity of Christ (hence why Muslims are not Christian).

If didn't know this i hope it will make a conversation a bit clearer.
P.S i am the one you replyed to.

[Anonymous No.10344621]

ow the edge

another rick and morty atheist im pickle rick

[Anonymous No.10344629]

>>10344610
Or, if you still don't get it:

The Bible isn't the Quran.

[Anonymous No.10344710]

>>10344610
Your quotation is merely a rewrite, in so many words, of what you said earlier. What does it mean for the human authors and editors of the canonical scripture to be led or influenced by 'the Deity'?
What does this influence consist in. How do you detect it.

[Anonymous No.10344716]

>>10344629
Stop repeating that please. It's less cogent than you think. Actually, it's practically gibberish.

[Anonymous No.10344775]

>>10344716
He's not repeating it. I'm the one who mentioned it here >>10344492 but haven't replied to you >>10344564 since, because I agree with your post and don't see how the potential historicity of your observations is at odds with the concept of transcribed divine revelation.

Do you consider several bishops of the Anglican Communion as heretics for being agnostic with regards to God's nature? Do you consider the Church of England heretical for not excommunicating them? Do you deny extreme Calvinist readings?

Do you only accept Evangelical Protestants of the literal fundementalist variety as members of Christianity?

[Anonymous No.10344832]

>>10344775
You're confused. I am not one of the atheists. I am the anon who originally started pointing out that most of OP's issues stem from the inclusion of the "Old Testament" books in the Christian canon.

(In case anyone is wondering, I'm neither a Marcionite, Valentinian, or any other sort of "gnostic" Christian. And since you asked, I have a lot of sympathy for the Anglican Church. John A.T. Robinson and his insight about the priority of the Gospel of John being one of the reasons for my returning to Christianity after being a convinced irreligious atheist for well over a decade.)

[Anonymous No.10344903]

>>10344775
>don't see how the potential historicity of your observations is at odds with the concept of transcribed divine revelation
Isn't it obvious? Where does divine influence begin and where does it end? Why did God "inspire" the author of the epistle of Jude to quote a clearly fictional account (the Book of Enoch) for example? Or is it that in spite of being rejected as apocryphal by almost all extant Christian branches, the Book of Enoch is actually divinely inspired also? Why did God "inspire" two evangelists to fabricate genealogies for Jesus?

The concept that the whole Bible as it stands is in some sense divinely inspired strains credulity, which is why I guess, everyone is so coy when it comes to providing a clear definition of the idea, because we can all see that anyone trying to defend it is standing on very thin ice. (And I am not talking here about contemporary moralistic concerns when it comes to God as portrayed in the Old Testament books, but of matters of doctrinal and authorial authenticity.)

How do you discriminate between what is and isn't divinely inspired? The history of Christianity is littered with fakes and forgeries that were believed to be genuine only to be repudiated later, and in some cases only half-repudiated because doctrinal development had become so intertwined with their existence (e.g. perpetual virginity of Mary; or the theology of Pseudo-Dyonisus).

[Anonymous No.10344912]

>>10344832
>>10344903
Both mine by the way. Didn't get the chance to reply in full earlier.

[Anonymous No.10344955]

>>10344710
I have given you what divine inspiration is; anything more and it would be verbose. I believe you are pushing this point for the sake of it.
>What does it mean for human authors and editors of canonical scripture to be led by God?
This is in theology Revelation, i think General revelation might be the nearest to what you or we are discussing.
Inspiration is now rendered in English as kind of God's Breath. What (usually) this is driving at is the Bible being the WORD of God but not the WORDS of God as the Bible is man-made but the source being these Breaths.
I have the feeling this will not resolve you. Could you be "clearer" in your questions?

[Anonymous No.10345010]

>>10344955
You're repeating yourself again.
>Could you be "clearer" in your questions?
I want an actionable definition of "divine inspiration", something by which one may discern whether a given text is or isn't divinely inspired.

[Anonymous No.10345075]

>>10344271
fuck off protestant ape

[Anonymous No.10345084]

>>10345075
hahaha, fair enough. Not protestant, but I get your sentiment. Always found it weird how Catholics deny a whole branch of Protentastism that is more Catholic than the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.10345131]

>>10344091
mister if my ears are open and I can't hear then there's nothing I can do. That's what that means. There is a similar passage in the qu'uran, telling that some men are simply born with blindfolds and there is no cure.

[Anonymous No.10345133]

>>10345075
fake emotion, nobody feels that way. i grew up in an actual sectarian city and nobody cares about shit like that

[Anonymous No.10345136]

I have decided that religion is essentially a global, much less fun version of Calvinball. Everyone follows different rules and makes it up as they go and no one knows how to actually win the game.

[Anonymous No.10345140]

>>10344112
I've read the bible mister.
>>10344121
Qu'uran*

[Anonymous No.10345151]

>>10344343
You have to follow all the rules, otherwise why bother with it at all? Either he's real and my heart is hard(If you knew me, you'd know this), or he's not and it doesn't matter anyway.

But if we're allowed to just pick that some verses are metaphors and others aren't then I just get to make up my own religion where i get a cute Asuka in heaven without any effort.

[Anonymous No.10345153]

>>10345136
>calvin and hobbes
Plebbit core

[Anonymous No.10345166]

>>10345153
you're reddit

[Anonymous No.10345167]

Stop being a papist.

[Anonymous No.10345174]

>>10345084
>more Catholic than the Catholic Church.
What?

[Anonymous No.10345298]

>>10343608
Romans 1:28
*tip*

[Anonymous No.10345310]

>>10345151
The whole Pentateuch is mythological. There is value in it regardless, just as there is value in Homer's Odyssey.
And whether God exists or not does not depend on how comfortable you are with certain narrative elements in the book of Exodus.

[Anonymous No.10345322]

> In order to slay the Christian God you have to defeat me!
> I AM THE KNIGHT OF FAITH
*unsheathe sword, teleologically suspend the ethical*
*ominous Catholics chant starts playing*
> nothing personal kid

[Anonymous No.10345330]

>>10345322
shit forgot pic related for my shitposting

[Anonymous No.10345355]

>>10345322
Kierkegaard is a meme anyway.

[Anonymous No.10345395]

>>10345298

[Anonymous No.10345403]

>>10344071
>Yeah, it's not like well over 60% of academic philosophers are atheists, right?
And they're all idiots
>Here's another one who has never read anything on the subject from the opposite site.
Wrong.
Insider criticisms are much more doubt-producing than 'le science XDDDDD' fedoralord criticisms. You turds can't understand religion, therefore you cannot criticize it.

[Anonymous No.10345406]

>>10343969
Not an argument. Go back to plebbit

[Anonymous No.10345410]

>>10345167
Seconded.

[Anonymous No.10345413]

>>10343959
>still hasn't defended 'muh rasins'
Back to plebbit
>>10344160
>However, archeological and historical discoveries have disproved most of the old testament, so insofar as we're talking about historical accuracy, the bible is very much wrong.
High schooler spotted

[Anonymous No.10345416]

>>10344193
>Becasue that's all wrong
becuz muh anti-christian STEMspergs sed so
Go read some philosophy of science. Your ideology is not as unbiased as you think
Evidence doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10345421]

>>10344326
>fedoralords sed it so its troo
Historians are grand liars and story-writers. Go back to plebbit

[Anonymous No.10345424]

>>10345355
you are a meme

[Anonymous No.10345447]

>>10345416
>>10345421
Assuming you're not a falseflagger, please list your denomination so I can properly curse you in my prayers and bind you all to hell for all eternity.

[Anonymous No.10345470]

>>10345416

God isn't autistic. I wish stemfags and youtube atheists wouldn't look at megachurch retard pastors with their retirement profiles from goldman sachs or literal heretic protestants (while reading protestant translations and editions of the bible) and think that a God that would execute whores for being whores and wiping out sodomites is actually represented by that.

[Anonymous No.10345482]

>>10345447
>>10345470
Ah, so you're a papist. I guess I don't really need to pray for your damnation, since all the saints and martyrs are filled with joy at the thought of you burning in hell already.

[Anonymous No.10345488]

>>10345470
>God isn't autistic.
What's with all the worldbuilding then?

[Anonymous No.10345526]

>>10345416
>skims against method once

[Anonymous No.10345530]

>>10343608
Long story short: Before Jesus things were different. There was no forgiveness of sin, people were stoned to death etc. If you didn't listen to the true god (Hebrew Yahweh) you were as good as dead. After Jesus came and preached the true message (I'm assuming the Jews must have got quite a bit of stuff wrong), and then was killed for it, forgiveness of sin became possible.

Jesus' death is God's gift to us, he died so we could live. Adam threw away his perfect life, Jesus death is atonement.

[Anonymous No.10345581]

>>10345395
10/10 refutation. I concede!

[Anonymous No.10345585]

>>10345526
Not a skim but okay.
Keep sucking dick

[Anonymous No.10345608]

>>10345585
I fucking knew it lol

[Anonymous No.10345625]

>>10345608
>held this opinion before reading against method
>held this opinion after
>held this opinion after taking courses on epistemology and philosophy of science
>'skim'

[Anonymous No.10345627]

When God says he's going to harden Pharaoh's heart, he means he's going to do something that will cause Pharaoh to harden his own heart (such as sending plagues).

This is very different from God supernaturally controlling Pharaoh's will and forcing him to harden his heart.

Get it?

[Anonymous No.10345643]

>>10345627
What textual variant are you using? <--- rhetorical question since your variant of the story doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.10345668]

>>10345643
What about my post isn't in Exodus?

[Anonymous No.10345671]

basically, yeah. i can't see many scenarios where the old testament isn't just a bunch of jewish ethnopolitics

[Anonymous No.10345699]

>>10345668
The part where God does not directly influence the Pharaoh's state of mind. Your claim is non-textual. Not to mention it's also reaching (it matters little whether the influence was direct or indirect).

[Anonymous No.10345722]

>>10345699
He doesn't though. If I say "I'm going to make you angry," and then proceed to do something that makes you angry, did I directly influence your state of mind? Did I control your will?

[Anonymous No.10345752]

>>10345699
>it doesnt le matter becuz it hurts muh argument
atheibrainlets, everybody.

[Anonymous No.10345754]

>>10345699
You can't harden your heart without God allowing you to.
look at romans 1:28

[Anonymous No.10345805]

>>10345722
He does. Stop inventing shit that isn't there. As portrayed in the story, God actively changes the Pharoah's mind. (It's because the book of Exodus is a redacted pastiche of two or three other older texts/traditions.)

[Anonymous No.10345814]

>>10345805
Christians don't take a verse out of the whole bible and believe it. look at romans,troll.
saged

[Anonymous No.10345821]

<<10345814
Kindly fuck off you pseud.

[Anonymous No.10345834]

>>10345821
10/10 refutation! I concede once again!

[Anonymous No.10345852]

>>10345834
You posit nothing. And lest you forget, I am still waiting for an answer to

>>10344832
>>10344903
>>10345010

[Anonymous No.10345869]

>>10345805
Find me the verse where God interferes will Pharaoh's will

[Anonymous No.10345876]

>>10345869
Exodus 9:12.

[Anonymous No.10345899]

>>10345852
I won't get in a side argument in the thread.
my answer is to your OP
>>10345754
>>10345298

[Anonymous No.10345905]

>>10345899
1. I am not OP.
2. It is not a side argument.
3. You addressed none of the issues raised.

[Anonymous No.10345919]

1. Fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.
2. Christ's crucifixion is the most important symbol for any rational, mortal being.

That's all you need boys, I'm outta here!

[Anonymous No.10345923]

>>10345905
troll detected. Spoonfeeding is bad for you.

[Anonymous No.10345932]

>>10345876
Once again, God hardened Pharaoh's heart by sending plagues. He did not mess with his will; Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Exodus 8:32

[Anonymous No.10345941]

>>10345923
You made a claim: that God did not actively change Pharaoh's mind. I pointed out that this has no textual basis. Also specifically gave you a verse where God is literally portrayed as actively changing Pharaoh's state of mind. Romans 1:28 has nothing to do with this, as it is talking about humans turning they back to God by their own will, whereas in Pharaoh's case, he is denied any agency on the matter.

[Anonymous No.10345948]

>>10345932
Those are two separate instances anon. Are you only pretending to be retarded, or what?

[Anonymous No.10345984]

>>10345941
Point is God doesn't give a person to a reprobate mind unless he wants to. Pharoh didn't want to release the jews.
you get the point. stop going in circles around it you know the answer yet talking about ''muh text didn't have it!''
So by that basis where did jesus say i'm god worship me? stop being dumb either on purpose or ignorance.
a person can't do anything without God allowing it.
Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it?
Typical reddit-tier fedoratipper desu

[Anonymous No.10346009]

>>10345984
>by that basis where did jesus say i'm god
Have you never in your life read the Gospel of John?
>''muh text didn't have it!''
I see my point went over your head: what I was pointing out is that Exodus 9:12 can't have been a scribe's error (this can happen when texts are copied by hand) because all extant textual variants of the chapter have it in that form, with God actively changing Pharaoh's mind in that instance.
>Typical reddit-tier fedoratipper desu
I am not even an atheist, let alone a reddit-tier fedora tipper.

You are a pseud and a brainlet though.

[Anonymous No.10346037]

>>10346009
>gospel of john
bring me a verse where jesus says ''i'm God worship me''
>scribe error
No one said it was an error.
God hardened pharoh's heart because pharoh himself wanted to. go to lamentations 3:37
>inb4 where is that in the text?
go back to my question about gospel of john.
>i'm not even an atheist
then you are either ignorant on purpose or just dumb.

[Anonymous No.10346074]

>>10343621
HERESY!!!

[Anonymous No.10346075]

>>10346037
>God hardened pharoh's heart because pharoh himself wanted to.
This is pulled out of your ass.
For a verse in which Jesus claims Godhood see John 8:58.

[Anonymous No.10346090]

>>10346075
>John 8:58
I don't see jesus saying ''i'm god worship me''

[Anonymous No.10346098]

>>10346090
Because you're a dumb fundie who knows nothing about the Scripture he supposedly holds in high esteem. In his reply there, Jesus uses the same formula God uses to identify Himself to Moses in the form of the burning bush.

[Anonymous No.10346112]

>>10346098
As a christian you shouldve known that christians don't pick a verse and interpret it alone without looking to the rest of the bible.
>same as burning bush
jesus didn't say ''i'm the God of abraham..etc'' though.
Get it? stop being a faggot

[Anonymous No.10346132]

>>10346112
>jesus didn't say ''i'm the God of abraham..etc''
You're clutching at straws at this point. Or maybe you're an Arian.

[Anonymous No.10346144]

>>10346090
>I don't see jesus saying ''i'm god worship me''
the name of God is "I AM" so that would be saying "God god worship me"...redundant to use once you know who you are

[Anonymous No.10346156]

>>10346132
My bishop is the one fought it in Nicea. Are you,God forbids, a protestant? it doesn't matter though. You get the point and the OP hopefully will get it.
>>10346144
So you don't take words out of context (and out of the whole bible and interpret it alone)? a baby's first step i guess.

[Anonymous No.10346164]

>>10344053
The gospel of John is also pseudepigraphic, and the latest gospel, being dated to 90-110 AD.

[Anonymous No.10346176]

>>10346156
>You get the point
What point. That God did not actively change Pharaoh's mind? Sorry, I don't get that. I don't think I ever will get that "point". Because there's no basis for it.
>My bishop is the one fought it in Nicea.
I doubt Satan ever fought against Arianism.

[Anonymous No.10346188]

>>10346176
> change Pharaoh's mind?
> hardened heart
these are not the same thing, The heart is deceitful above all things

[Anonymous No.10346195]

>>10346164
Wrong on both counts. The only argument for dating it in the late first century (textual evidence of some sort of excommunication of Christians by Jews) is very tenuous.

[Anonymous No.10346216]

<<10346188
The heart is the organ that pumps blood. See, I can do that too. Being purposely obtuse and hiding behind a web of metaphors is easy; the meaning of 'hardened heart' isn't as slippery as you'd need it to be for that to work, unfortunately for you.

(In any case, I'm done with you.)

[Anonymous No.10346219]

>>10346216
> <<
what kind of metashitposting is this

[Anonymous No.10346263]

>>10346216
>the meaning of 'hardened heart' isn't as slippery as you'd need it to be for that to work
can stop your own heart? no pressure if you can't. Does it keep on beating without any input from you? more slippery than it seemed at first isn't it

[Anonymous No.10346395]

>>10346219
How new are you? Or alternatively, for how long have you been away anon?
Why would I give the tard (you)s?

[Anonymous No.10346442]

Blue skies and beckoning winds...
Are trying to open the door of your heart.
But you're gazing at me as if you cannot see;
You just stand there, smiling vacantly.

Your eyes hold such innocence;
You're blind to the fate that will soon come to pass.
But it's summoning you with a touch like a sigh;
You seek it without knowing why.

But, someday, I know that you will be awakened...
And your eyes will finally see.
These wings on your back are just waiting to guide you;
The future will soon set you free!

This cruel thesis, a spiteful angel's litany,
Will soon soar from the window of your destiny.
White-hot pathos, a desecrated symphony;
Stay true to this and don't betray your memory!

Come now, reach out - you must embrace reality!

[Anonymous No.10346455]

>>10346442
What song?

[Anonymous No.10346478]

>>10346455
Just a translation of the Evangelion theme song that takes a bit of poetic license, looks like

[Anonymous No.10346498]

>>10346455
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJuexdl_c5s

[Anonymous No.10346511]

>>10346498
That is much worse than I expected. Couldn't make it more than 15 seconds in.

[Anonymous No.10346532]

>>10346511
You have no taste in music then. Instead of your heart, it is your ears that have hardened.

[Anonymous No.10346569]

>>10346498
>>10346532
> have pictures of 2d women in his pc
> call himself chrisitian

[Anonymous No.10346578]

>>10343797
>faith is the opposite of reason.

Not quite. To clarify, faith "is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."
>http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PX.HTM

[Anonymous No.10346596]

>>10343910
Try reading: Thomas Merton, The Seven-Storey Mountain.

[Anonymous No.10346618]

>>10343990
But anon, remember this:

"If today you hear his voice, harden not your heart."
-Psalm 95:7-8; Hebrews 3;15

Memorize it.

Because there is a moment coming when God's grace will touch you, and if you harden your heart *then*, you will be culpable for that act (on the hook, so to speak).

[Anonymous No.10346620]

>>10346569
>uses imageboards
>calls himself a Christian

[Anonymous No.10346725]

>>10345530
that's like one of those really passive aggressive gifts. I don't even know what's supposed to be so compelling about this "sacrifice" when Jesus was immediately brought back with super-powers, except that its highly dramatic, makes people feel sad and convinces them they are destined to be perpetual ingrates.

[Anonymous No.10346886]

>>10343797
>Faith is giving up and believing what feels good

Faith is not a feeling. In fact, it is often opposed to feelings.

[Anonymous No.10346889]

>>10343887
Really? Where can I read more about this?

[Anonymous No.10346893]

>>10346618
But is it not God who hardens and softens? What choice do we have?

[Anonymous No.10346903]

>this many people took the bait
>real literature threads die out with less than 20 posts
The absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.10346926]

>>10345488
lol

[Anonymous No.10346947]

>>10344610
Sorry to be so dense, but I was raised in a totally secular context and as such take everything literally. Why the "Word" of God? Not the words? Isn't Jesus the word of God?

[Anonymous No.10346952]

>>10344832
try eastern orthodoxy. I get a sense you're looking for authenticity

[Anonymous No.10346956]

>>10346947
Word meaning message, as in "send word"

[Anonymous No.10346973]

>>10346395
>withholding (you)s out of pure spite

this is next level shit

[Anonymous No.10346975]

>>10346532
level up homie

>>10346956
that makes things so much clearer. So the bible is God's message to humanity. Even if certain historical passages don't correspond to reality, the message is the most important part?

[Anonymous No.10346987]

>>10346893
You have free will, anon.

That said, freedom cannot be conceived of simply. "Free will does not mean one will, but many wills conflicting in one man," as Flannery O'Connor once wrote.

[Anonymous No.10347169]

>>10343629
>Word of God
>Bible

Nigger, this shit was settled in the fourth century. It isn't the word of God. Fucking American Dissenters.

[Anonymous No.10347258]

>>10347169
then there is no reason to follow the doctrine

[Anonymous No.10347302]

>>10347258
Why follow any doctrine?

[Anonymous No.10347317]

>>10343608
1.)The pharaoh was a very evil ruler. He killed male babies of Israel and enslaved an entire group of people.

2.)Pharaoh also hardened his own heart in multiple locations. God only did what Pharaoh wanted.

3.)He did it to reach the Egyptians. Every time he hardened Pharaoh's heart and he gave a plague, more and more Egyptians turned against Pharaoh and wanted to please God.

Read the entire chapter and finish the story, before you judge.

[Anonymous No.10347504]

you sure showed us, fedora

[Anonymous No.10347530]

>>10347258
Personal relationship with God>Church agenda, dummy

[Anonymous No.10347535]

>>10347504
How many levels of irony is this on?

[Anonymous No.10347537]

>>10343608
>expects to understand a 2000+ year old text after reading it here and there in one sitting
>expects a text written by ancient desert Jews about their struggle for survival to be consistent with modern standards of violence and just conduct in war

[Anonymous No.10347544]

>>10347530
False dichotomy. Christ established the Church, and the sacraments which are primarily administered through the Church, precisely to establish and continually enhance each individual's personal relationship with God.

He didn't have to establish a hierarchical Church, and give it teaching authority -- but He did.

[Anonymous No.10347553]

>>10347537
>>expects a text written by ancient desert Jews about their struggle for survival to be consistent with modern standards of violence and just conduct in war
But both those Jews and modern Christians are basing their morals on the same unchanging, objective God. Right?

[Anonymous No.10347557]

>>10347553
That's correct. The morality expressed in the OT is largely consistent with what Christians profess today. It's simply that we've achieved a level of stability in the world that we don't need to behave like that anymore. We aren't warring tribes anymore, we have governments and legal systems to ensure that we never have to act like that again.

[Anonymous No.10347558]

>>10347557
>The morality expressed in the OT is largely consistent with what Christians profess today.
Not remotely true.

[Anonymous No.10347643]

>>10347558
Muslims for sure, but not Christians.

[Anonymous No.10347786]

We really need a flowchart image for the Bible itself. There's one for the Greeks, recommending people read some other books before the Iliad and Odyssey and the Greek plays and tragedies, but somehow the Bible is ok to just read with no context despite how much more diverse it is in writers and history. Funnily enough, it's still in the top 5 most recommended books on this board for who knows what reason, basically dooming any discussion because there is zero expectations of having read anything beforehand, so naturally the discussion drifts towards personal interpretations and basic surface level readings.

[Anonymous No.10347826]

Christians display the same speec/thought patterns as schizophrenics when they try to make up some reason for why they believe.

Either that or they just call you a fedora, get really pissy and argue in bad faith, much like the Jews they worship.

That's all I ever get out of these threads.

[Anonymous No.10347830]

Christians display the same speech/thought patterns as schizophrenics when they try to make up some reason for why they believe. Either that or they just call you a fedora, get really pissy and argue in bad faith, much like the Jews they worship. That's all I ever get out of these threads.

[Anonymous No.10347875]

>>10347786
>Funnily enough, it's still in the top 5 most recommended books on this board for who knows what reason
It is arguably the most influential piece of literature in the world.Most of the great classics of Western Civilization have referenced passages from the Bible in one form or another. How can you be this much of a pseud to not make the connection?

[Anonymous No.10347880]

>>10347830
/thread

[Anonymous No.10347890]

>>10346578
Please explain why "act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace" is not gibberish.

[Anonymous No.10347895]

>>10347875
I was saying it's pointless and funny to have a book so highly recommended when people don't suggest any supplementary material to actually understand it. If anything my post is holding the Bible up to a higher standard, if you'd actually the rest of the thing. But please keep calling me a pseud while demonstrating the reading comprehension of a 10 year old.

[Anonymous No.10347900]

>>10343608
>a book that has been studied intensely for over a thousand years will be unraveled by an armchair thologist
make bait great again

[Anonymous No.10347927]

>>10346952
The "Orthodox" are just as inauthentic as the Roman-Catholics.

>>10346532
>strained shitty vocals
>barely matching tempo
>all the 1990s cheesiness of the original ruined
A philistine like you should not be talking about 'taste' in music.

[Anonymous No.10347932]

>>10343629
> sola scriptura

[Anonymous No.10347935]

>>10347927
> Roman Catholics
> inauthentic


Literally impossible.

[Anonymous No.10347937]

Can you fundies go back to 2 by 4 chan's /christian/ already?

[Anonymous No.10347942]

>>10347935
On the contrary, Roman-Catholicism is among the most inauthentic extant Christian denominations.

[Anonymous No.10348484]

>>10347927
You just don't know enough about music, it's like expecting your opinion of wine to match that of a sommelier.

[Anonymous No.10348490]

>>10346176
what a brainlet (prot). Congrats anon you are the most autistic (((christian))) ive ever seen on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10348512]

>>10347932
>>10347900
>>10347786
>>10347537
You're making some mistakes here. It never said in the bible it was okay for Christians to stop circumcising themselves if the world changed. And yet, they did. Either the book is to be followed or it is worthless. And ten million scholars "explaining" why it's okay to break the rules makes no difference.

[Anonymous No.10348520]

@10348484
Fuck off pleb.
@10348490
You too. Back to 8ch.