/lit/ - Literature

File: 10 KB, 237x252, received_10205069338225415.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon May 18 14:29:40 2015 No.6557213 [Reply] [Original]

What is the worst thing you can say to a person that believes in God? More specifically... To a Christian? Is there a book which makes people completely lose faith in supernatural entities?

What will shake their faithfulness? I usually hear stuff like: "You just have to feel it." It makes me feel quite... I don't even know, but it feels like my brain is melting. (Maybe because I'm Satan and can't handle the truth?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 14:31:09 2015 No.6557217 >>6557213 >thinking faith can be shaken through external means I actually laughed. Do you have a youtube channel where I can see more hilarious jokes?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 14:40:44 2015 No.6557258 >>6557213 Hey, you remember Santa Claus? Him not existing is what fucked my belief in anything up.

Anomalous Mon May 18 14:45:57 2015 No.6557281

It will be the words of a Christian man if anything. The second a man is outed as an atheist most Christians will shut their mind to you, ans nod and smile politely but never really hear what you have to say. As you ramble their minds just become enamored with the idea of getting you to believe, almost like an instinctual counterweight. What rustle your feathers more: a man of faith who tells him there is a god, or a man of none who says there could be?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 15:14:08 2015 No.6557424 >>6557213 a bullet to the head usually does the trick

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 15:39:04 2015 No.6557581 >>6557213 You can't. Not serious Christians anyway. (I'm Christian)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 15:41:14 2015 No.6557593 > Your life is a lie.

>>	Anomalous Mon May 18 16:51:42 2015 No.6557966 >>6557581 That's a bit overzealous. I'm assuming you weren't born Christian but adopted the beliefs once you thought you understood them. Why is it so radical to think it could go the other way?

Anonymous Mon May 18 17:34:46 2015 No.6558186

>>6557281
>become enamored with the idea of getting you to believe
You don't seem to have spoken to many Christians if you honestly believe this is what they're like.
>What rustle your feathers more: a man of faith who tells him there is a god, or a man of none who says there could be?
A man of faith telling him there isn't a God wouldn't be a man of faith.

>>6557581
Pretty much this

>>6557593
That means nothing to me

>>6557966
I'm not him but as the OP said, "You just have to feel it". It's not something I'm able to put into words, but I'm sure someone out there has. Basically, once you've fully and completely decided to become a Christian in the true sense, you know there is no going back.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 18:00:31 2015 No.6558306 OP here Thank you guys for clarifying. >>6557424 I guess this is the only thing that works in this case.

normcore jesus Mon May 18 18:04:04 2015 No.6558318
File: 40 KB, 357x400, wittgenstein-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

i got high mere moments ago and ive come across ridic religious experience, so much so that ive adopted a ridiculous name and feel i must spread the word

maybe i am worth interrogating

>>	∞ Mon May 18 18:50:29 2015 No.6558480 File: 963 KB, 1920x1080, 1417341483483.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6557217 sounds like a mental illness to me... plenty of people lose their faith through experience mate

>>	normcore jesus Mon May 18 18:53:07 2015 No.6558489 >>6558480 there is a reason that students in Zen move through different stages of Enlightenment - do not underestimate the power of forms of life, the Synthetic A Priori.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 18:54:36 2015 No.6558494 Here's a related question I've been pondering recently: can someone force themselves to believe in God (regardless of which actual religion). If humans can't force themselves to believe in a God, then is faith in God inherently anti-free will?

>>	∞ Mon May 18 18:57:28 2015 No.6558508 >>6558489 the synthetic a priori? get a load of these MEMES EMESM MESME ESMES SMEME

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 18:58:15 2015 No.6558511 >What is the worst thing you can say to a person that believes in God? "I bet Jesus had a HUGE cock." Then you get down on your knees and pantomime deep throating him while playing with his balls and fingering his butthole.

>>	normcore jesus Mon May 18 19:01:12 2015 No.6558520 File: 990 KB, 1400x2100, big-_mg_1442_2976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6558508 i am here to spill jargon and memes, cus they might just save us

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:01:30 2015 No.6558521 >>6558511 Then you call them fags and laugh

Anonymous Mon May 18 19:11:45 2015 No.6558556

>>6557213

What inside of you gives you this burning need to make other people conform to your worldview?

Why does it personally bother you that they believe something you don't? Furthermore, why must you feel like you have to shake the foundations of their belief?

Maybe you should examine yourself before examining others.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:18:33 2015 No.6558571 >>6558318 are beards and long hair "normcore" or are you not that kind of jesus?

>>	normcore jesus Mon May 18 19:19:32 2015 No.6558575 >>6558571 there is much that is normcore - i dare say 'you can't talk about it'

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:23:01 2015 No.6558585 Make it a lowly affair. You'd have to demonstrate to them that their relationship to god is reducible to sexual pulsion or narcissistic fantasy. I miss Freud.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:23:09 2015 No.6558587 read the bible, learn theology, learn something about religion besides memes. maybe try listening to people instead of just starting out thinking about how you can prove everything they believe is wrong.

Anonymous Mon May 18 19:35:59 2015 No.6558633

For me as a former Christian, it was bringing up verses from the bible that I had no idea were there because I was ignorant about what the Bible actually said. There are a number of verses where God, supposedly the most perfect and omnibenevolent force in the universe, directly commands the wholesale slaughter of entire towns including the children and infants (1 Samuel 15:3 comes to mind) and has a specific set of instructions for slavery. The usual response would be, "You have to read the whole thing for context" which is silly because there is, in my mind, no context in which slaughtering infants can be justified.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:37:15 2015 No.6558635 >teodicy >teistic determinism (predestined eschatology, etc...) Argue these and as long as the person has not had direct experience with the divine (and/or is not extremely stubborn), you should be fine.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:38:24 2015 No.6558639 >>6558587 you ask too much of the average atheist It would be like asking the Amazing Atheist to go to college

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:38:29 2015 No.6558640 >>6558318 I'll bite. What's your name and what is your message, wise one?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:39:02 2015 No.6558642 >>6558633 This is the most fedora way to lose your faith.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:42:21 2015 No.6558653 >>6558642 Really? Not that guy but, it's a legitimate argument. Also it doesn't sound like he had much faith to start with, more like he was coaxed into it by his enviroment.

Anonymous Mon May 18 19:43:03 2015 No.6558657

>>6558642
Explain. What do you mean by that? That was not the only reason I became an atheist, just the one that shook my faith the most and really made me rethink what I had been raised to believe, and the justifications coming from everyone around me were flimsy excuses.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:44:26 2015 No.6558660 >>6558633 >Derides Christianity based on its apparent 'justification' of immoral acts. >Offers no explanation or basis for any other type of morality independent of a universal lawmaker. Dawkins baby detected.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:44:50 2015 No.6558661 >>6558657 > and the justifications coming from everyone around me were flimsy excuses. I'd wager this is what did it. You arguably believed this stuff because the people around you seemed solid, which is easy for them to do when you're five.

normcore jesus Mon May 18 19:45:44 2015 No.6558666
File: 17 KB, 400x400, ornette-coleman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6558640

running up against the limits of our language (as ordained by philosophical systems, eg. Buddhism and Christianity) has the capacity to drive one mad

having developed bipolar disorder and a curious disposition that evinces religious prophesy, i decided to make an investigation out of the whole affair.

i took on philosophy + im a horrible dilettante, but i've got an object for investigation: the phenomenology of numinous experience, going mad, etc. the goal is prevent our destruction.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:46:01 2015 No.6558667 >>6558660 >morality independent of a universal lawmaker We don't need those.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:47:18 2015 No.6558672 It's ok man, just leave them be. If they are stupid enough to believe those things.. It's their decision >inb4 fedora because a meme is actually their best argument

>>	normcore jesus Mon May 18 19:47:20 2015 No.6558673 >>6558666 and you're right in accusing me of baiting

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:48:55 2015 No.6558681 >>6557213 >Maybe because I'm Satan and can't handle the truth Holy shit OP, how's the 8th grade?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:51:30 2015 No.6558686 >>6558667 >We don't need those. then why be moral?

Anonymous Mon May 18 19:55:30 2015 No.6558704

>>6558666

I'm not accusing you of baiting man - that's just a figure of speech. And the stuff you say sure is interesting. Maybe you ought to consider, that there are not only limitations in the language, but also in other spheres of human experience - every ontological model, if developed adequately, seems to arrive to determinism. Extinction of free will, inability to communicate, the existentialist 'dehumanization' of life in society...what does it all add up to? If we constantly keep bumping into walls, is not the logical conclusion that we're living in a maze?

Also, good luck with the numinous experience stuff. Sometimes, we all need to go just a little mad to realize we're not sane.

normcore jesus Mon May 18 20:00:46 2015 No.6558726

>>6558704

yes, we are in a maze (though the initial image that came to my mind in discovering that was a tube)! As such, we must keep careful so to not end the world.

no doubt, friend. I think I can take the name off until the next mania shows up.

>>	normcore jesus Mon May 18 20:02:09 2015 No.6558731 File: 6 KB, 387x105, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6558704 oh boy, what a set of trips I got

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:03:27 2015 No.6558734

>>6558686
> then why be moral?

You're implying moral behavior is somehow caused by rational arguments or rational toughts and are not determined some other ways.

But it's trivially easy to show that religion is not sufficient for morality, neither is it necessary.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:07:49 2015 No.6558744 The worst you could say is nothing at all, a large majority of Christians faith would falter not having a social recognition to their effort, because religion is largely a social function and can thrive equally in competition or agreement.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:07:53 2015 No.6558746

>>6557213
Why would you want to? I mean sure, you know that they are wrong, and their arrogance about it can be sometimes annoying, but to me it's too disheartening to see their childish hope get crushed and have them fall into the inevitable despair they will feel afterwards to want to really say anything.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:15:14 2015 No.6558773

Why are Atheists so concerned with having people agree with them. What's the motivation?

I understand with evangelical religions like Christianity and Islam where it is an essential part of the religion, but why should an atheist care if people agree with them?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:17:57 2015 No.6558784 >>6558773 It comes from conflict from within the research funding arena + education.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:19:03 2015 No.6558790
File: 35 KB, 332x500, Caesarmessiah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The worst thing you could do is make them read this book OP. Then they would learn they've been worshiping the whole time some long dead Roman emperor without knowing it.

Jesus' ministry is a typological parody of Titus Flavius' campaign through Galilee and Judea. It justifies his mass murder of Jews and the destruction of their metropolis and Temple.

Christians are worshiping History's most successful troll. It sheds new light on the New Testament's literary merit, and the gullibility of men everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:23:44 2015 No.6558810 >>6558660 OP wanted to know what kinds of things would cause Christians to think twice about their religion, not secular moral systems, and the question of God's character has been repeatedly handwaved away many Christians.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:27:34 2015 No.6558840

>>6558633
>>6558653

God is benevolent so long as his covenant with Abraham is fulfilled.

When Jesus died on the cross that covenant was permanently fulfilled. I don't see how people can claim to have lost their faith because of God's immorality. It's crass ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:29:40 2015 No.6558849 >>6558790 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnV0cJgTRiM

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:31:22 2015 No.6558857 >>6558840 The fact that he stated clearly the conditions under which he would be a dick does not making him any less of a dick.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:31:55 2015 No.6558860 >>6558849 Strawman: the video. This guy has some serious reading comprehension problems. When youtube commenters sound more brilliant than you, it's time to reevaluate your life.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:33:25 2015 No.6558869 >>6558790 The claims in this book are completely absurd. I was hoping to be convinced, but I put it down almost immediately because of how ludicrous it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:36:56 2015 No.6558878 >>6558869 >I put it down almost immediately So you haven't read it. It's all heuristics, there is plenty of ground to agree or disagree. But the author's thesis is logical contrary to all Christian tradition, and that's why it's worth a read.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:39:44 2015 No.6558891

>>6558840
"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps."

I don't support slavery, yet the God of the Bible clearly does. My morality is therefore superior.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:40:52 2015 No.6558894

>>6558860
>Strawman: the video

No the video clearly assess the claims made by the book.

The arguments made in the comment section are mostly attempting to refute the doctrines of the faith set forth in Nicaea, however the existence of Coptic and Nestorian Christianity sharing a number of these doctrines most notably the trinity debunks these claims

Furthermore you responded without watching the entire video so you clearly have no base from which to argue the invalidity of it.

See Mortimer J Adler bases of argument

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:42:54 2015 No.6558900 >>6558891 >I don't support slavery, yet the God of the Bible clearly does No he clearly doesn't. You need some reading comprehension skills. This passage claims that God doesn't want slaves to resist, not that he wants slavery to exist.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:46:08 2015 No.6558909

>>6558633
>which is silly because there is, in my mind, no context in which slaughtering infants can be justified.

Dude, do you realise that, if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values?
Do you also realise that the only reason you think the slaughter of infants is unacceptable, is because you were raised as a christian?
And do you realise that if you were raised in a different culture, even being an atheist, you'd have different values?
Do you realise that if you are pro-abortion, then you're pro-infant slaughter?

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:47:40 2015 No.6558914
File: 98 KB, 450x599, 450px-AlexGraffito.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6558894
I watched this video a few months ago, and I can tell you it mostly assess claims made by an imaginary book which exists only in the videomaker's head. Syllogisms and strawmen the video.

The heart of his argument is chronological
>B-b-but Flavians couldn't have invented Christianity.... P-P-Paul was there first

Guess what, Paul, like Jesus, like Santa Claus, is an imaginary character. The Epistles prove nothing, especially not chronology. This video refutes nothing, probably because the videomaker hasn't read the book.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:49:58 2015 No.6558927 >>6558900 What a dishonest reply. Slaves are slaves because they don't resist enslavement.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:52:49 2015 No.6558934 >>6558909 I agree with you but that "God and morals" thing is a whole nother can of worms that will NEVER get a common ground. Prepare your an us for the storm to come from that

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:53:09 2015 No.6558936 >>6558909 I don't think there's any objective moral value and I think infant slaughter is pretty wrong.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:54:35 2015 No.6558944

>>6558914
>Guess what, Paul, like Jesus, like Santa Claus, is an imaginary character. The Epistles prove nothing, especially not chronology. This video refutes nothing, probably because the videomaker hasn't read the book.

It really is amazing what absurd narratives people will force themselves into believing just for the sake of confirming their biases. You people are just as bad as /pol/lacks crying about the holohoax and the death of the white race.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:57:51 2015 No.6558957

>>6558914
>watched this video a few months ago, and I can tell you it mostly assess claims made by an imaginary book which exists only in the videomaker's head.

No it directly assess the claim that Christianity as we know it today was created by the Flavian dynasty. Which is the key argument in the book.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:59:17 2015 No.6558962

>>6558914
>Paul, like Jesus, like Santa Claus, is an imaginary character.
holy shit, so you're saying not only was there no historical Christ, but the early church was just completely made up? are you a dummy? is this what they call "bait"?
>hey, guys. you ever hear about "church"? not real, just another theist "fairy tale"
>the bible? sure, i keep hearing people talk about it, but have you ever actually seen one? no? that's because it's bullshit, doesn't exist

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:59:31 2015 No.6558963

>>6558914
>The heart of his argument is chronological
>>B-b-but Flavians couldn't have invented Christianity.... P-P-Paul was there first

Even if Paul wasn't there first the Vulgate and Septuagint directly conflict the aims of Rome, despite being collected after Rome invented Christianity as we know it for their benefit.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:59:42 2015 No.6558966 >>6558936 Why do you think it is wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:00:38 2015 No.6558968 >>6558936 >I don't think there's any objective moral value If moral value isn't objective then how does it exist?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:02:48 2015 No.6558974 >>6558914 >Guess what, Paul, like Jesus, like Santa Claus, is an imaginary character. You are aware that there are Roman records of Saul of Tarsus (Paul) before he was a Christian right?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:03:09 2015 No.6558980 >>6558966 By and large children and completely innocent of anything, nor are they a threat of any kind. There's really no reason to go out of your way to make children suffer.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:03:25 2015 No.6558983

>>6558944
Nice strawman m8

>>6558957
No it doesn't. The video is so terrible it makes a glaring mistake 5 seconds into it. Atwill isn't a dot com businessman. The videomaker could have made a serious effort and researched his subject (that includes reading the book) instead of spouting bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:05:14 2015 No.6558990 >>6558983 >strawman Are you fucking daft

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:05:15 2015 No.6558991 >>6558983 >No it doesn't. The video is so terrible it makes a glaring mistake 5 seconds into it. That may be true, but it doesn't invalidate the assesments made on the claim that Christianity was created by the Flavian dynasty

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:05:35 2015 No.6558992

>>6558968
My feelings and my personnal experience of the world can be said to exist, in the sense that it exists for me, phenomologically, but there's nothing to assert it as "objective", whatever that might mean.

There is no way for you to assess my inner experiences, which is the whole problem of psychology.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:06:49 2015 No.6558997 >>6558790 >>6558860 >>6558914 >>6558983 >conspiracy theorist has his absurd fairy tale book get BTFO

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:07:32 2015 No.6559001 >>6557213 My main point is not knowing which branch is 'correct' So I just form my own interpretation

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:07:55 2015 No.6559003

>>6557213
just tell them that you deny the holy spirit. it butt blasts them.

it's the one unforgivable sin.

also depends on the type of christian you're dealing with. come up with a very complex system of apologetics that boils down to satanism.

>I love reading my bible
>every day
>I worship the lord
>I owe everything to him
>teaches me how to be a better person
>to love myself
>to achieve my goals, make friends, get everything I ever wanted
>hail satan

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:09:39 2015 No.6559007 >>6559003 >it's the one unforgivable sin. There are no unforgivable sins, at least in Catholicism.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:11:22 2015 No.6559012
File: 42 KB, 394x450, Alexorig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6558962
First material proof of the existence of the Christian church only appears in the very late 1st century. See the Flavia Domitilla graveyard and the Alexamenos graffito (Pic related). Both link Early Christianity to Rome and the Flavian dynasty. The early church is indeed completely made up, you have nothing to back it up but magic thinking. Science contradicts it.

>>6558963
>the Vulgate and Septuagint directly conflict the aims of Rome

You may interpret it that way but I sure don't. A messiah prompting his followers to pay theirs taxes to the Romans authorities isn't anti-Roman to me.

>>6558974
No there are not. But please produce some fraud if you want, Catholics have been doing this for the last 17 centuries with a great comedic effect.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:14:25 2015 No.6559023

>>6558991
>it doesn't invalidate the assesments made on the claim that Christianity was created by the Flavian dynasty

They are invalid. As a I said, he refutes claims Atwill didn't make. This is straw manning, and there is no point in replying to this.

>>6558997
You wish m8

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:16:47 2015 No.6559031

>>6559012
Chi-Square Test of Independence
Even the most liberal theologians will acknowledge the validity of the Apostle Paul. Theological perceptions about the Apostle Paul range from extremely negative to extremely positive. But they all agree that the Apostle Paul was a historic personality that spread the Christian faith across the Roman Empire. The primary reason for this acceptance is due to the fact that the archaeological records match the book of Acts so closely and the fact that Paul wrote so many epistles.

Due to the wide acceptance of the Apostle Paul, I will simply calculate a probability by assuming that someone may not believe that the Apostle Paul existed as a skeptic, then became a Christian and spread the Christian faith. Therefore, let's hypothesize by stating that "the Apostle Paul is a myth due to no supporting evidence." Having made that statement as the hypothesis, we simply calculate a level of confidence that the hypothesis is true or false.

Since the hypothesis is "the Apostle Paul is a myth due to no supporting evidence," we would expect to find zero evidence supporting that the Apostle Paul actually existed.

This leads to a math-based problem in the chi-square test of independence. Since we are expecting zero events, we must be able to divide by zero, which is impossible. How can this problem be solved?

There is a viable math-based answer. Anytime the chi-square test of independence expects zero to be the answer, the inverse calculation must be done. Of course, the answer will need to be reversed when applied to the hypothesis after the calculation is done.

Since this method most likely confuses most people, I will walk through this problem with you by example. We expect zero items since the hypothesis is that the Apostle Paul is a myth due to no supporting evidence. But the research cited above reveals there are 3 credible independent authors, the negativity that Saul of Tarsus as an educated man persecuted the early Christians, 162 archaeological discoveries that correlate Acts 13 - 28 to the Apostle Paul's mission trips, and the fact that Paul wrote 13 epistles before the year 66 AD. In addition, the authors wrote these books between 51 to 68 AD, which supports contextual credibility for a total of 15 items. Therefore, we have a total of 181 items that support the Apostle Paul existed.

The inverse calculation would be the same as expecting 181 items, but finding zero items. Therefore, let's do the calculation using 181 as the expected value and zero as observed value, which is done below:

Hypothesis
The Apostle Paul is a myth due to no supporting evidence

Chi-square
Value

Observed

0 true

Expected

value

(E – O)

(Expected
minus
Observed)

(E – O)2

(E – O)2/E

0

181

181

32,761

181

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:17:47 2015 No.6559035

>>6559031
>>6559012

The chart above shows that we expected 181 items and observed zero. This yields the following values of 0 (Bottom Left Corner Above). The difference between the expected (+181) and observed (0) is +181units (Middle Column Above). The number +181 is squared to equal 32,761. The value of 32,761 is divided by the expected value of +181 to yield a chi-square value of +181 (Bottom Right Corner Above). What does the value of +181 mean?

The analysis supports that the hypothesis (The Apostle Paul is a myth due to no supporting evidence) is false. We can conclude that the Apostle Paul was a real personality. The probability of the Apostle Paul being a mythical person is less than 3 chances in a 10,000 billion, billion, billion, billion (2.9 x 10-41). The primary reason for this conclusion is due to Paul's epistles and the archaeological records that correlate to the book of Acts.This leads us to a very important question.

Did the Apostle Paul's experience on the road to Damascus with a blinding light spiritual experience with the resurrected Jesus actually occur?

This is where faith is required.

We can state that the Apostle Paul was a real historic person at a high probability level. And it appears certain that the Apostle Paul met with other New Testament characters such as Peter, James, Luke, John and many other apostles.

But all this does not prove the spiritual stories to be true. The reason being that the spiritual experiences of the Apostle Paul are subjective and cannot be confirmed by archaeology.

Nevertheless, the probability levels infer that the Apostle Paul did in fact meet Jesus on the road to Damascus as the resurrected Messiah. The analysis done herein supports that biblical faith is credible. The Apostle Paul did exist with about 8 chances in 10,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, that this would be false.

This analysis leads to a very important conclusion: "Any biblical character referred to in the book of Acts did exist and did as Luke recorded. But the spiritual stories require a small amount of faith to accept."

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:19:01 2015 No.6559037 File: 10 KB, 512x156, 938cdad52808f178eb9713aee51baf2f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6559035 >>6559031 >>6559012 Actual chart for refrence

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:19:16 2015 No.6559039

>>6559007
no, especially in catholicism. all sins are forgivable. except denying the holy spirit. that one is specially singled out.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/12-31.htm

that's right, you can fiddle kiddies, you can rape your sister, you can murder your father. but god forbid you say the holy ghost is grade A horseshit.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:22:40 2015 No.6559046

>>6559031
>>6559035
>>6559037
I see no produced evidence. Only magic thinking, with some laughable mathematics equation whose elements were produced with a dubious methodology. Mathematics is a language m8. You may start writing all this in Sanskrit, this won't change the fact that Paul is a literary character, not an historical one.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:24:20 2015 No.6559054

>>6559039
“The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. ‘My spirit shall not always strive with man,’ God said long ago (Genesis 6:3).

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/unpardonablesin.html

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:25:42 2015 No.6559060 >>6559012 what the fuck is this scribble meant to prove?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:28:29 2015 No.6559075 >>6559060 It is the first artistic representation of Jesus Christ ever produced. It's satiric, Jesus having the head of an ass. It proves the existence of Christianity in Rome at the end of the first century.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:33:42 2015 No.6559103

>>6559060
It's Roman graffiti mocking one of the various Christ cults. Whether it's depicting Chrestus, Yeshua, or any of the numerous "I-am-le-messiah" types who came in between is a mystery however. The crucified person has an asses head as mockery due to the connection of said ass with Christianity. The Pagans found this comical apparently.

As to OP's quest, Revelations is always a good one. The whole "The end times will come in your life time" bit is pretty fun.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:33:55 2015 No.6559104 >>6559075 >it proves the christianity in rome at the end of the first century >therefore Paul doesn't real how so?

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:36:12 2015 No.6559115
File: 64 KB, 600x784, ec82_horse_head_mask.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6559012
>romans thought jews and early christians worshiped donkeys
does this mean the horsehead mask meme is really some clever self referential joke about ancient rome?

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:39:39 2015 No.6559132

>>6557213
>What is the worst thing you can say to a person that believes in God? More specifically... To a Christian? Is there a book which makes people completely lose faith in supernatural entities?What will shake their faithfulness

Why do you need to do this? If you don't agree with Christians, don't engage with Christians.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:41:13 2015 No.6559140 >>6559104 The graffito doesn't prove Paul didn't exists. You can't prove a negative. You claim Paul existed. The burden of proofs is on you m8. Bring evidence, this is how science works. With proof, not faith.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:44:17 2015 No.6559148 >>6559140 >the burden of proof is on you m8 proof has already been posted in thread, tho

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:46:35 2015 No.6559160

>tfw raised atheist and never had any kind of "spiritual experience"
>tfw pretty sure "spiritual experiences" are merely glorified aesthetic feelings
>tfw could be wrong, and ignorant of what some claim to be a whole dimension of life
I blame the uncertainty on Postmodernism.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:47:57 2015 No.6559164 >>6559160 as someone who was brought up somewhat religiously, youre absolutely right

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:52:04 2015 No.6559180 >Flavian Dynasty Guy is back Fucking hell, just ignore him, he's a meme poster like Butterfly. Once you actually read into the genuine details of what he spouts it makes literalist Christian belief look completely sensible.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:54:04 2015 No.6559188

>>6559160
nope, religious experiences are schizophrenic episodes.

I guarentee you this 100%. no matter how much you try to make sense of it, becoming "drunk" on the holy spirit, having incomprehensible visions accompanied with some sense of euphoria and love ect. its just their brains having slight meltdowns. not all christians have a religious experience. only the happy clapper evangelical crazy ones do.

also there are a lot of fakers because they understand that it's good to get into the club for business reasons. also, retards need to be told the fairytales to keep them on the straight and narrow and leaders know this. being a leader is all about crafting the lived experience of retards below you because they're too retarded to craft their own life narratives.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:56:14 2015 No.6559199

>>6559164

Well, sure, you think that, but how can I be sure the True Tao isn't out there?

>>6559188

Well, and again, I'm pretty sure that that's basically right, but so many around the world seem so very convinced that there's something to spirituality that I have a hard time sleeping easy.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:56:21 2015 No.6559201 >>6559188 My goodness, this post reeks of brimstone, or maybe that's just sweat.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:04:13 2015 No.6559227

>>6559148
Posting irrelevant mathematical equations with no sound methodology to justify its elements isn't proof. Try again.

>>6559180
Tens of thousand of people bought the book, and the reception is overwhelmingly positive. I have never posted about the book here before, but if it helps you to cope with your irrational belief, please think we're all a singular person.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:05:29 2015 No.6559232
File: 86 KB, 500x365, 9a79043827dc527765f9140a031e822c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6559199
that's generally how good salesmanship works. maybe there really is something to this whole church business. maybe I am missing out on some major part of my life and this can fill the hole.

if it worries you too much, just really really really get into the subgenius stuff. get a book of the subgenius, place it next to your toilet. every time you take a shit, flip to a random page like a rastafarian and read that paragraph while excremeditating.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:10:12 2015 No.6559258

>Dude, do you realise that, if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values?
Wrong. There are objective moral values, I just don't think they necessarily come from a god. Life is generally preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, pleasure is preferable to pain, and so on. The fact that nearly everyone on the planet would agree that slaughtering infants is a bad thing speaks volumes about an innate moral sense that humans share. I believe in natural law (so do Christians, they just think it comes from God). If your God told you to kill an infant, would you do it? I presume you would because God is the ultimate authority, and who are you to question almighty God?

>Do you realise that if you are pro-abortion, then you're pro-infant slaughter?

Don't know what this has to do with God himself commanding genocide and infanticide. Do aborted fetuses go to heaven? If so, isn't it a good thing that abortion doctors are sending them directly to God and sparing them a potential life full of pain?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 22:10:42 2015 No.6559260 So how do Christians feel about the fact that the vast majority of humans were created only to go to Hell? After all, from the moment of creation, God's omniscience guarantees that the outcomes of all human lives are known beforehand by God.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:11:01 2015 No.6559261

>>6559232
Well, actually, the whole mock-religion scene (Sub-Genius, Discordianism, etc.) really fascinates me. It's Postmodernity incarnate. The irony just never stops. Indeed, perhaps the bizarre writings of Discordians and suchlike can qualify as mystical, just in a strikingly contemporary way. Gone is the age of the hermit; here is the age of the suburbanite-mystic. Maybe. But again, I'm not just talking about the Abrahamic religions. I mean, those folks in India take their spirituality pretty fucking seriously. So I just feel like I can't know. But, I suppose, that is how we should expect the world to be if we don't subscribe to a a faith. It only makes sense that nothing be clear. Doesn't make it any easier, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 22:11:17 2015 No.6559264 >>6559232 >subgenius Fuck that postmodern shit. If he really wants to dive into a spiritual experience he should do it the old fashioned way: prayer, fasting, and mysticism. See if he can't spend a month in a monastery or something.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:12:07 2015 No.6559268

>>6559132
Should I free a person from a form of manipulation even tho they don't perceive it that way? Should I not interfere in something if it bothers me? Why would I not try and make them question what they hold as truth? They go around claiming they figured things out while in reality they wouldn't go around saying that if they really questioned their "religious feelings". I know it's hard to feel alone in the universe without the "big daddy" and accept that some things can't be answered with simple things as God, but come on... You seriously came up with those feelings and beliefs on your own? No manipulation? You believe there is no way non religious people are right? Personally I'm an agnostic and I don't want to claim there is or isn't a God but it's just sad that people don't question themselves more often. This is why I would like to provoke them. Provoke anyone if it can make them think about what they hold as truth. Is the question more clear now or did I just make it even more complex and hypocritical etc etc?
-OP

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 22:12:35 2015 No.6559271 >>6558891 Since when does God talk about himself in the third person ?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 22:25:52 2015 No.6559332 >>6559271 Jesus talk about himself in the third person as the Son of Man several times in the New Testament. It is generally agreed he refers to himself with this expression.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 22:32:12 2015 No.6559366 File: 44 KB, 640x360, 120807125613_jesus-tortilla.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6559264 >implying you can't find all of that self mortification at home and pray to your holy taco instead of needing guidance.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:32:14 2015 No.6559367

>>6559271
It's 1 Peter 2:18-20, I'm pretty sure that's not God himself speaking in that passage, I brought it up to show that the other poster was saying that Christians don't have to follow old testament law because the covenant was fulfilled, and I'm saying it's irrelevant because this was in the New Testament. However in Leviticus 25 God himself specifically tells Moses to ordain slavery:

>As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.
46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

These passages were also used to justify the slave trade in the United States.

>Isiah 40:8- The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.

Anomalous Mon May 18 22:34:41 2015 No.6559384

I'd like an answer from a Christian: I was raised in an atheist family, due to my father being estranged from religion from attending a Catholic public school in post-war england. Similar reasons to Month Python members of disregarding faith.

Several years ago I had what I would call a religious experience. I cannot put it into words, but it was as though the answers to questions I had not yet ask were lain before me. It was as though I were bathed in a humbling light of understanding. As time has progressed I have looked back on the moment and am fairly convinced it was a divine experience, a communication with God. Given this holy moment though, I am no more attracted to any existing religion, more so the opposite, and intend to spend my life serving God, and not the men who claim to speak for him. Its worth noting that although they were translations I have read the Bible, Torah and Quran.

Am I wrong, and why?

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:37:55 2015 No.6559393

>>6559261
well the proof of this is that you can literally direct your energy into anything. india has something like thousands of different deities, probably even more gurus all teaching different weird stuff. all of this shows that there is no divine, real one true path. but there is a common experience you can have with these people. hell, pray to charles manson if you want to. just realize that it's all ritual. there's nothing super important about the specifics, it's all just different paths towards spiritual alchemy. speculative masonry. consider your spirit to be a shitty lump of lead. well you want to transmutate that into pure gold. or grow your light or open your chakras(especially the butthole one) or chisel at your stone block. its all about self improvement through just having a good sit on the porcelain throne. consider all of your negative energy to just be leaving your body.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:41:10 2015 No.6559400

>>6559384
hail the light bringer.
you don't need to give up pussy, shave your head or wear a funny robe to serve your God. you don't even need to go to church. you can do it through service of yourself. make yourself a better person. then let this better person act upon the world. of course this is straight up satanism but who can really tell the difference?

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:48:36 2015 No.6559434

>>6559400
I don't get why it's so bad if you live like this but you're an atheist. Most people believe in the unity of one, whether it's the cosmos, God, or a manifold reality. Everyone gets so upset over our gutteral attempts to define the greatest possible thing. If a man is doing his best to serve his fellow man, or the earth, or god, or all things in existence, what more must we ask of him?

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:50:31 2015 No.6559442

>>6557213
Trying to convince a christian that God does not exist generally emboldens their belief. They're taught from childbirth that anything that disagrees with their God is of the devil and should be ignored.

You're pretty much just confirming what they've been taught.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:54:32 2015 No.6559454
File: 25 KB, 300x382, CS-Lewis1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6559384
I'll let Mr. Lewis take it from here:

"In a way I quite understand why some people are put off by Theology. I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F., an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, `I've no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I'm a religious man too. I know there's a God. I've felt Him out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that's just why I don't believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him. To anyone who's met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal !'

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably had a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God-experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it. In fact, that is just why a vague religion-all about feeling God in nature, and so on-is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work; like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map."

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:58:28 2015 No.6559468

Well, religion is a manifestation of the fear that we will never be acknowledged, so you have to hand people the tools that allow them to introspect and thus acknowledge themselves.

Unfortunately, most people do not want to introspect as it is far too uncomfortable, and people are conditioned to seek comfort, even if it is not what they need.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:01:39 2015 No.6559478 >>6559468 >acknowledge themselves nope, it's about the negation of the self. the abdication of the will to another.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:01:45 2015 No.6559480

>>6559454
Theology isn't like the map because they don't agree with each other.

To make this analogy work, we would have hundreds of maps all being directly opposed to one another and having people kill each other over those differences.

Even if you limit Theology to just Christian theology, you get the same problem.

He also assumes to know that the map is necessary, which is just him having a prejudice for his religion, nothing more. The man in the desert could do any number of things, or hell, even hear from God again. He won't need any of these damn maps.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:06:08 2015 No.6559500
File: 26 KB, 309x239, bible.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6559480
His last point I think is the most relevant to your situation (assuming you are the same poster). The divine, the transcendent, the supernatural- it's very great and good. But it can also be extremely dangerous. History is littered with examples of people who have delved into divine business without proper guidance, and the results tend to be disastrous.

Organized religion- particularly the Abrahamic faiths, but also Hinduism and Buddhism- have survived as long as they have for good reason. They're not just whimsy. They are maps, in a sense. It's dangerous to go alone- take this.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:06:58 2015 No.6559506

>>6559454
At some point, in any debate with a religious person, an analogy drawn up from the physical world which does not correspond to the phenomena at hand will crop up, which will seem to land credibility to the religious position.

"Feeling god in the desert" is in no way akin to seeing the sea, nor are religious text and commentaries a map of anything.

Commentaries of religious scriptures are maps of maps, ultimately refering to nothing, and religious journal or account of personnal experiences are the descriptions of a private beach no one will ever be able to observe.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:10:37 2015 No.6559521

>>6559500
I am not the same poster (the guy who had the experience).

History is also littered with examples of people who have delved into divine business WITH "proper" guidance, and the results tend to be disastrous.

I mean really. Are you really saying what you are saying right now? How does the counterpoint not immediately appear in your mind?

>For good reason

I bet that reason has nothing to do with killing everyone who disagrees, and being better at divine murder then your fellow neighbor.

No. That would be silly. Organized religion in its early history was never a blood feud.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:12:49 2015 No.6559530 >>6559506 Exactly >>6559454 >>6559500 I am sure you mean well, but it is better to leave the divine as divine. The more you meddle with it (as theology rather than art) the more your mark will show itself and the less it will make sense of the divine.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:12:57 2015 No.6559531

>>6559454
>just because I've never been to brazil doesnt mean I don't know the plight of the children in the favelas
>understanding them does not require me to become an 8yo drug addicted afro child
>just because I have a dick doesnt mean I dont understand a womans maternal instinct.

the problem is that you need to stay the hell away from faggots like Kant and CS Lewis and remember that they are only popular, only published at all, when they went against the very grain of their culture because the powers that be wanted their religious nonsense to be presented as some kind of intellectual discourse.
>religion is for smartypants as well
what he is actually using there is a corruption of the map-territory relationship theory. the problem is that you can never escape the map. direct experience is always impossible, you can only have infinite regressions of maps. because we cannot act upon direct experience, we need to filter and classify that information so that we can act upon it. which is one of the most anti-religious ideas out there, but the terminology is borrowed by the religious apologist to make donkey worship for smarty pantses as well.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:13:22 2015 No.6559533

>>6559521
I might argue that all the killings you speak of are themselves examples of interpreting religion wrongly.

Still, you do make a somewhat good point. Who determines what is "proper"? I could say the Church, but if you're going to question everything you must question the Church as well.

Sooner or later you must put your faith in something. You must go beyond reason, know without knowing why.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:14:33 2015 No.6559538 >>6559531 Oh shit nigga don't actually go into it that deeply. Even if you take the metaphor as something representing the real, it is a shit metaphor.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:15:52 2015 No.6559542

>>6559521
Belief in something is also a part of that person identity. The same as telling someone they don't have a leg to stand on literally. Believing in something that cannot be proven, and arguing against that will go on forever. Faith is belief in something that cannot be proven. Basic facts of life. Now get over the butt hurt and move on, deal with these facts. P.S. use your name for closing nativity scenes only, not others you fags.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:17:13 2015 No.6559547

>>6559533
If you were to argue that then this would just be a true scotsman, and I am aware that you are aware of that, which is fine.

You are right, proper is just value language leading this conversation nowhere.

Again, not the guy you were talking to. Hopefully he can pop back in and you guys can talk.

I've had something of a religious experience though it was through Buddhist meditation, and no offense but what you are saying seems very silly. I won't get into it though.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:18:42 2015 No.6559554 >>6559542 I have no idea why you replied to me with this reply. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:18:59 2015 No.6559555 >>6559478 nah, plenty of people think that God's love is enough for them, because he knows all and he knows ~who~ they are on the inside, without all the extraneous bullshit we attach to our lives.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:19:05 2015 No.6559556 >>6559547 Well, Buddhism and Christianity are almost perfectly opposed, so that's not terribly surprising.

>>	Anomalous Mon May 18 23:22:08 2015 No.6559563 >>6559530 If all things are of God then aren't all things divine? How can anything in existence not be divine if it was created by God. How is even the most brutal act not divine?

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:22:17 2015 No.6559564

>>6559556
not at all. catholics make great buddhists. what with all the suffering.
both teach the abdication of the will.
suzuki taught that the enlightenned buddhist warrior merely feels the sword move around their body.
christianity teaches that if commanded by a superior, it is not your choice and you are merely an instrument of the divine firing off rounds, free of all moral obligations.

both extremely dangerous.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:25:00 2015 No.6559573

>>6559564
I would disagree, again. Their difference, it seems to me, lie in the nature of their approach to desire. Put simply, Buddhism is focused on the complete purging of desire- the ending of desire. Christianity, by contrast, is focused on the amplification and redirection of desire. As Christians we are taught that our truest, deepest desire is for God, and all other things we think we desire are merely us setting up simulacrums for God out of ignorance. So, in a sense, Buddhism rejects desire and Christianity embraces it. At least, that's my understanding.

Anonymous Tue May 19 00:02:44 2015 No.6559675

>>6559454
Maps were edited and redrawn many times, so I guess it's an apt biblical analogy. The map reader thinks nothing of the changes of topography, eras as they take, but they still change, and two maps of the same location several thousand years apart would seem very different. Just as I would not trust a map written long ago for direction, why should I trust the moral teachings of a time equally distant?

Anonymous Tue May 19 03:31:58 2015 No.6560292
File: 64 KB, 520x679, John.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6557966
I was raised Christian.
Is it wrong for a flower to bloom when it is planted in good soil, and for another to become weak and wither after its seed lands on barren ground?
To say so would require implicit reference to things that could possibly happen, yet didn't; as if to say "Because this other thing could possibly be, there is no hope for the first thing."
And neither does my saying this gain me any ground in the name of Christianity.
I entered into true Christianity cumulatively by virtue of the passionate.
Beyond the aesthetic, and beyond the poetic and all else, there is the very kernel of Christianity: faith.
Faith is unknowable, but one can be in it, but to live in the world is to lose the perspective and without the perspective faith only manifests in the desire for faith.
The desire for faith brings me continually to theology, and the right theology successfully destroys my impersonal convictions which themselves are gained in an academic groupthink, and after this I can be passionate.
But to be truly faithful is an enigma.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 03:36:45 2015 No.6560299 >>6560292 In reading this, I feel if you placed any faith in place of Christianity it would be valid. What then is the true faith

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 03:59:10 2015 No.6560341 >>6558666 lol 666 get

Anonymous Tue May 19 04:04:53 2015 No.6560350
File: 28 KB, 720x480, gally.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6560299
I would say perfect faith tends toward personality, as in the knight of faith.
It is a faith of all faith which includes the assertion of oneself as the single individual.

Now, if we are willing to say that consciousness is not an illusion, and that it is not constituted wholly by mere self-awareness, then consciousness holds a peculiar power in the universe, it can be a source of things; a cause in and of itself.
This property is interesting because the only other thing that exhibits it is God.
If God is the prime mover, then human consciousness (or more precisely, the human being) is the composite mover.
Kierkegaard says that the human being is a synthesis, meaning the soul is cumulative.
It follows that knowledge and experience are things that can mediate faith.

What makes Christianity particularly true against all of the other religions of the world?
Love, embodied in the Christ.
The exact reason one needs the son for love is complicated.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 04:29:28 2015 No.6560397 >>6558686 feelings the same reason anyone is "moral"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 04:39:41 2015 No.6560418 A history book would just be fine. Problem of evil yo. Made me lose my faith. Why the fuck would I worship some kind of demonic entity of pure evil that clearly disregards worship and adores suffering of humanity?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 04:44:13 2015 No.6560428 >>6557213 Have them read Hegel

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 04:45:19 2015 No.6560433 >>6559132 >If you don't agree with nonbelievers, don't engage with nonbelievers. And thus the Christian cult dies.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 04:46:32 2015 No.6560436 File: 6 KB, 228x221, 1411573840126.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6557966 >overzealous

Anonymous Tue May 19 04:50:18 2015 No.6560442

>>6560350
I want to know that complication, else i can see nothing discernible between Christianity and any other faith of man. I want to know if it is God that drives Man, or the Doctrine. If people are act in His name, or merely in the name of those who proclaim themselves His Mouth.

Christ to me is one figure of many, but I have heard his words and seen them echoed through humanity. Why do people worship the man, and not his ideals? Why is it not enough to simply act as he acted, in good faith to all man? Why must I have the selfish want of eternal good life, when I can give well to others and want nothing but silence and darkness in return?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 04:56:50 2015 No.6560452 That their book condemns polytheism despite the fact that we know monotheism wouldn't exist without polytheism The anti-semitic version is obviously that Christians hate Judaism, despite the fact that Christianity wouldn't exist without Judaism

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 06:02:13 2015 No.6560539 >>6558642 What is an un-fedora way to lose your faith?

Anonymous Tue May 19 06:33:33 2015 No.6560581

>>6559384
>had a divine experience
>Needs books and religion to help you contextualize said divine experience

All you have to do is to look within. God is in you and nothing else can guide you to divinity.

>>6559400
>satanism
that can also apply for luciferianism and gnosticism

Anonymous Tue May 19 07:01:47 2015 No.6560608

There is nothing you'd say that make a Christian recant.

If you want to get them mad, the only sure way is to dismiss not God but any relation to him.

There are some pieces ITT though not well redacted. Basically, pretend that Christianity is anything else but relation to God. Some retards prefer the sociological approach, but it has been btfo so hard over time it doesn't rustle jimmies anymore and was weak from the beginning.

Others go for a more psychological approach, differing according to author. Basically psychologism, the cancer of philosophy (read Husserl) is also the best way to get us angry.

>"lelelel god just your projection of daddy"
would be an example.
>"it's just [insert random psychological illness here]
is the most cringe inducing.

Another way is to use the classical "tails I win, head you lose". A few examples :
>Say it's merely an offshot of judaism, if that doesn't work, say it's antisemitic
>Say that they are merely reproducing parents religion, if not (convert or lost faith and came back) say they are being contrarian to parents
>Say that they are just trying to find solace in sorrow, if they are happy, say that God is just an avatar of their hapiness and they would recant if confronted to hardship
All of these are prime fallacies but they will still get some people mad.

Note the constant use of terms like "just" "merely" in the post.

T, a Christian.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 07:08:50 2015 No.6560620 >>6560608 I should add that this only works with the feeble minded and/or people not accustomed to journalist-tier pseudo-philosophy. After a while you get used to it. I don't even get my jimmies rustled by these philistines anymore.

Anonymous Tue May 19 07:47:57 2015 No.6560696

>>6560452
>the fact that we know monotheism wouldn't exist without polytheism
Orly? Who's "we", and why is "we" so retarded?

Here in the real world it's widely known to be true that monotheism predates polytheism in almost every human culture ever.

(The catch is that monotheism, by itself, is not that useful as a religion in practical terms, which is why there is always a strong incentive to revert to polytheism. Monotheism only works if there is a strong and pervasive ideological supporting structure around it. Then again, had you read the Bible you would have known this; most of the Old Testament is a longform explanation of this dynamic.)

Anonymous Tue May 19 07:58:42 2015 No.6560716
File: 17 KB, 231x346, 51g0Z6O7gAL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6560696
>Who's "we", and why is "we" so retarded?
>archaeologists and religious researchers
>somehow dumber than basement dwelling NEET faggots who get all their information from image macros

Pic very related

Anonymous Tue May 19 08:04:07 2015 No.6560731

>>6560696
It is characteristic of fedora to only ever consider the existence of religions having 200million+ followers at the present date.

I bet most don't know that the majority of religions are atheistic. For instance they often treat some Buddhist sects (the ones that are atheists) that get publicity in the West as a special snowflake. Totemic influence means nothing to them.

Their commentary on religion mostly comes from disdain if not hatred for some religious forms.

I was taken aback in a conversation with some fedora by how little he knew about Roman religion. Some people hear about some goofy mythology and think it was the main body of ancient paganism whereas the usual mythological themes were secondary to the indo-european religious view, the cult of penates, the cult of the city, of the gentes, of contracts, of the various purifications and what they meant.

Anonymous Tue May 19 08:06:21 2015 No.6560737

>>6560716
Read the words on your own damn picture, you fucking retard. There's a reason why the author specifically cites "yahwism" and "israelite monotheism" instead of simply "monotheism".

That reason is the fact that "yahwism" is monotheism + the ideological supporting structure I mentioned. Monotheism, as a philosophy without the religious ritual bits, of course existed long before any sort of polytheistic cults took root.

Anonymous Tue May 19 08:09:44 2015 No.6560743

>>6560452
Monotheism is more ancient than polytheism. The first men worshipped the Creator. Polytheism is a degenerate religion that occurred when men forgot their Creator and began to flirt with demons and fables.
The ancient Chinese, for example, worshipped "Shang Di" (Almighty God) and offered him the border sacrifice every year.

The whole, "the Hebrews took Yahweh out of a pantheon of gods" is just modernist spin. Same with the idea that the Torah was written over centuries.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 08:14:34 2015 No.6560751 >>6560743 In fact, they offered the border sacrifice all the way up to the 20th century when the communists took over. For 18 dynasties, thousands of years.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 08:18:58 2015 No.6560762 >>6560737 >Monotheism, as a philosophy without the religious ritual bits, of course existed long before any sort of polytheistic cults took root. Sorry, this is based on...?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 08:22:03 2015 No.6560772 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8TiG97za0g&hd=1 Varies depending on how old the Christian is.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 08:59:56 2015 No.6560881 >>6560772 lmfao

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 09:30:09 2015 No.6560968 >>6560762 >Sorry, this is based on...? Records of what ancient people actually believed. (Note: not what they worshipped; the two are different.)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 09:34:45 2015 No.6560979 >>6560968 Which records?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 09:47:06 2015 No.6561011 >>6558790 >Jesus wasn't a real person. Said no reputable scholar ever.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 10:09:33 2015 No.6561057 >>6559260 St. Gregory of Nyssa and Metropolitan Kallistos would like to have a word with you. >https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/universal-salvation-what-are-the-odds/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 10:53:22 2015 No.6561133 >>6560539 To be tormented by the thought of your loved ones in hell. Since I have no loved ones I use DFW.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 11:15:57 2015 No.6561175 >>6560299 True faith is believing in something while you know it's not true. That's true faith. To know that something "is" despite everything indicating it "is not".

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 11:18:11 2015 No.6561181 >>6561175 So it's lying to yourself?

Anonymous Tue May 19 11:18:15 2015 No.6561182
File: 703 KB, 500x332, [bad news intensifies].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6560696
>Here in the real world it's widely known to be true that monotheism predates polytheism in almost every human culture ever.
>(The catch is that monotheism, by itself, is not that useful as a religion in practical terms, which is why there is always a strong incentive to revert to polytheism. Monotheism only works if there is a strong and pervasive ideological supporting structure around it. Then again, had you read the Bible you would have known this; most of the Old Testament is a longform explanation of this dynamic.)

Wow, who the fuck let /x/ in?

>monotheism being other than polytheism

That's just fucking retarded.

What's next? You're saying that MOTHERFUCKING CAVEMEN wrote the bible with fucking sticks and stones in a cave?

Anonymous Tue May 19 11:29:11 2015 No.6561201

>>6560608
>are prime fallacies
...for you they are, since you presume Christianity to be, for lack of a better word, a true doctrine. However, when you entertain the possibility that it might not be so, they are no longer "prime fallacies", but serious candidates for the actual causes that make people convert to Christianity.

Ironically, all the reasons you happen to mention are probably the ones causing most Christians to be what they are.

Anonymous Tue May 19 12:00:00 2015 No.6561297

>>6561201
>If you are happy or content, this is why you are Christian
>If you are miserable, that's why you are Christian

Some superior fedora logic is at play here. It seriously reads like someting Paul Krugman would say.
The case has absolutely nothing to do with the Christ by the way. They are, as I said, "tails I win, head you lose" scenarios. I could just as well say
>You are atheist because you are sad
>You are atheist because you are happy
Whatever someone tell you about his beliefs or his life, you will always have the joker of this...argument.

Anonymous Tue May 19 12:19:02 2015 No.6561352

>>6561297
>If you are happy or content, this is why you are Christian
>If you are miserable, that's why you are Christian
>Some superior fedora logic is at play here. It seriously reads like someting Paul Krugman would say.

I fail to see how this has to do with anything I said. Are you saying that there is in principle no single cause for why a given individual turned Christian?

>The case has absolutely nothing to do with the Christ by the way.
What case? What are you talking about?

>They are, as I said, "tails I win, head you lose" scenarios. I could just as well say
You do realize that some atheists are atheists because they have been convinced on rational grounds and not make-believe impulses or reasons that may fit their agenda ("reproducing parents religion", etc.)? Christianity, lacks (or is less persuasive with respect to) this rational basis.

You seem to be like one of those linguistically confused Christians; buying into Christian theses and practices based either on linguistic misinterpretation or a misinterpretation of your "religious" experiences.

Anonymous Tue May 19 13:21:31 2015 No.6561558

>>6561352
>Are you saying that there is in principle no single cause for why a given individual turned Christian?
>they have been convinced on rational grounds and not make-believe impulses or reasons. Christianity, lacks (or is less persuasive with respect to) this rational basis.

Is this bait? Christians are Christians whether they are happy or sad, tall or small, male or female, white or yellow, master or slave. Where is the variationnal element?
If you had taken the time to read account of conversion, you would have seen how little "cause" there is to it.

I went on a strall yesterday. What was the "cause". Oh sure you will find reasons to do it, like, say, the temperature of the room I was in or the precession of Uranus. In fact I would give you one hundred reasons to go on a strall. And none was cause.
Why did Caesar cross the Rubicon? You may display all of the world on his time in a particular manner and claim something caused his action. Many historians have tried that. And many have seen it as "rationnal" not to cross the Rubicon. At the end of the day, why did Caesar cross the Rubicon? Because he was Caesar.

The Turkish imperial guard, at least before Mustafa Kemal, were so apathetic and mesmerised by islamic indolence and everyday quetism that they would ask British and French diplomats why they would go on stralls in Constantinople. They were so indolent and near dead in their minds that they could not understand why anyone would willingly go on a strall.
Fedoras are the Turks. They are so far lost that they search for cause. They just can't bring to themselves that one would believe, without "reasons".
If you want to push it, the grace of God is the cause.

I like the condescending " you do realize" only to say that fedoras are so much more "rationnal". instead of buying "make believe impulses".
Do you realize that some Christians have been convinced not because, but on the occasion of rationnal discussion? Say, for the record, people like John von Neumann, Edmund Husserl, my cousin, Fritz Haber, Richard von Mises, the guy that sat next to me in engineering school...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 13:21:42 2015 No.6561559 File: 9 KB, 300x451, hook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The thread is so catchy I just gotta bump it and hope you get sick of it as much as possible.

Anonymous Tue May 19 14:55:37 2015 No.6561917

>>6561558
>Is this bait?
Is this an embarrassing attempt at rhetoric?

>Christians are Christians whether they are happy or sad, tall or small, male or female, white or yellow, master or slave.
No, that's not how it works. What it means to be a Christian is rather vague, but nevertheless we may attempt to construct a plausible abstract definition. For starters, you are Christian only if you possess some properties. Say, P, Q, R. Now, by that line of reasoning, there may be people that satisfy P, Q, R and so be Christians, but are not aware of Christianity and Christ, as a doctrine and the man who started it all, respectively. Do we call them Christians? Or do we put "be aware of Christianity and Christ" to the list of properties one must satisfy? How increasingly and interestingly vague! I'll leave to work out the definition of Christianity to you, however.

>If you had taken the time to read account of conversion, you would have seen how little "cause" there is to it.
I doubt it. Have you ever entertained the possibility that you just do not know how to think and theorize about causality? If so, it only attributes to your muddled thinking patterns, which is, again, pretty much evident.

>I went on a strall yesterday. What was the "cause". Oh sure you will find reasons to do it, like, say, the temperature of the room I was in or the precession of Uranus. In fact I would give you one hundred reasons to go on a strall. And none was cause.
The prime reason why you went for a stroll yesterday was your intention to do so; you either committed (=action) to this intention the same day, or the day before (say, it was in your plans), etc. Your "one hundred reasons" to go for a stroll would be reasons in terms of *recommendation*, just as one can give reasons of recommendation for why you shouldn't smoke.

>Why did Caesar cross the Rubicon? You may display all of the world on his time in a particular manner and claim something caused his action. Many historians have tried that. And many have seen it as "rationnal" not to cross the Rubicon. At the end of the day, why did Caesar cross the Rubicon? Because he was Caesar.
I'll let others to parse your logico-philosophically confused nonsense.

>Say, for the record, people like John von Neumann, Edmund Husserl, my cousin, Fritz Haber, Richard von Mises, the guy that sat next to me in engineering school
This is one of the worst bits in the history of rhetoric; I swear. You do realize that being a scientist, engineer, mathematician, or a philosopher has little to do with whether or not you may, at some point in time, fall into the nonsense of Christianity? It is a rare occasion for these type of people to convert to Christianity mid-life. That's why for most cases of these type of people it is a struggle with the indoctrinated experience from birth rather than a natural consequence of their "religious" experience(s); It is hard to let go, I understand; even for Kripke and Plantinga.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 14:57:22 2015 No.6561925 >>6561917 >definition of Christianity definition of what it means to be Christian*

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:26:41 2015 No.6562037 >>6560442 I would recommend checking out father robert barron's youtube channel.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:31:48 2015 No.6562061

>>6557213
To desire to do so, you do expose yourself as a child of satan, yes. You can change that, though.

You can never "un-christian" anybody. Once a person in this age becomes a christian, it is a permanent transformation sealed with the Holy Spirit of God.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:34:31 2015 No.6562076

>>6561925
A christian is a person who has confessed Jesus to be their Lord, out loud, believing in their heart God raised Him from the dead. That confession leads to righteousness; and that belief to salvation. Upon that confession, the Holy Spirit of God enters into a person, and grants them eternal life, transforming them from a spiritually dead human being into a new creation in Christ Jesus, and a part of the Body of Christ.

Being a christian is not a philosophy; it is a radical transformation; consent to be changed into something new.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:36:50 2015 No.6562085

>>6560442
We worship Jesus because He is God; He created the universe, and then manifested in the flesh about 2000 years ago to redeem us from our plight.

Jesus is God, eternally, and came down from heaven to become one of us, and to suffer as we suffer, and more. He came to bear on Himself the sins of all of us, and by dying on the cross, paid the sin debt of humanity.

The sin barrier between man and God, erected when Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, has been torn down; the veil has been rent from top to bottom.

God's justice, holiness and righteousness satisfied, God in His mercy and grace can offer eternal life, adoption into His family, to all who believe in Christ Jesus.

There are none like Jesus, because Jesus is God.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:47:13 2015 No.6562115

>>6559384

would you like to describe the particular experience?

i've got a pet experience too that i think of as existentially significant. i was standing on a mountain, overlooking a valley in the dead of some night with a couple friends. i started thinking about how many different sentient beings had covered the land we stood on and how time and distance are illusions in a similar sense and i felt myself in a way i haven't quite been able to capture in words, unified with *the* all

i guess i'm looking to contrast this wh

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:50:08 2015 No.6562126 >>6561175 >>6561181 That is not at all what faith is

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:51:57 2015 No.6562131 >>6558734 You didn't answer his question

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:53:23 2015 No.6562135 >>6558980 But there's no reason not to do it either. Why is slaughtering children any worse than picking a flower?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:55:03 2015 No.6562142 >>6559003 That's blasphemy against the holy spirit, and it's very unclear what that means exactly. If you think simply vocally denying the holy spirit is an unforgivable sin, you obviously haven't studied christian theology past a very shallow level.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:58:26 2015 No.6562153

>>6559258
>Life is generally preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, pleasure is preferable to pain, and so on
But I disagree with you. Do you have any way to prove that those things are preferable to their alternatives? Anything to base those values on other than your subjective ideology? No? Then how can you say objective morality exists?

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:02:05 2015 No.6562162

>>6559384
It's always been about having a personal relationship with God.

The Torah is the first five books of the bible. If you cannot distinguish the Quran from the bible, I would have to say that your reading of those books were not time well spent.

You describe an epiphany, but not necessarily a religious epiphany.

How did you interpret your goal to spend your life serving God? What has that looked like, so far?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:03:01 2015 No.6562164 >>6562153 i promise you wouldn't say that if you were strapped down beneath a swinging pendulum made of fresh human shit i'd put a fat bet on it

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:03:40 2015 No.6562167

>>6561175
Faith is the human ability to believe something even though you have not seen it. It is not even a religious term, particularly, because all men have a measure of faith, and all men use their faith for different reasons.

Nor is having faith important; nor is the quality or intensity or strength of that faith important; what is important is the object of your faith.

If your object of your faith is you, your faith will not serve you well.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:04:11 2015 No.6562169 >>6562164 Maybe not, but that doesn't answer my question or prove your point.

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:09:26 2015 No.6562182

>>6557213

Ask them why Jesus died.

If they say that he died in recompense for our sins, ask them why our sins can only be forgiven with a sacrifice - is God not capable of forgiving them any other way? If he is, then Jesus's death was unnecessary; if not, then God is not all-powerful (or, at least, not all-merciful).

If they say that he lived and died so that we too might die to the flesh and live in the spirit, ask them what exactly that means. If it means that the Christian no longer feels fleshly temptation, then there must be only a handful of true Christians on Earth; if it means that those who have faith are rewarded with the Holy Spirit, through which they can gain entry into the kingdom of God, ask them where exactly Jesus's death figures in to that equation.

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:12:09 2015 No.6562191

>>6562182
Of course there was no other way. Jesus sweat blood the night before, begging for another way. Yet, the Father's will was done.

Forgiveness has a price to pay. Crimes demand punishment. That price was paid by Jesus, for you.

That you would mock and belittle Him for it is beyond wicked.

It means that the Holy Spirit of God lives inside of us, as He lived inside of Adam and Eve before they sinned.

I have one question for you.

Are you not evil?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:18:38 2015 No.6562212 >>6562191 >Forgiveness has a price to pay. Crimes demand punishment. So God is bound by the law of crime and punishment? Then he's not all-powerful, just like I said. >Are you not evil? My subjective opinion is that I'm not.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:22:48 2015 No.6562227 >>6562212 God will not do anything contrary to His nature. If you want to say He is therefore not omnipotent, you will find Him powerful enough to kill you and cast your soul into hellfire forever.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:28:39 2015 No.6562250 >>6562227 So God's "nature" is to act like an ancient Near Eastern king? Huh. That's funny.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:29:19 2015 No.6562254 >>6562212 God is not "bound" to crime and punishment, he has the capacity to act outside of it, but his perfect goodness means that he never will, as he is perfectly just.

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:35:42 2015 No.6562294

>>6562254

Why was it "good" for him to inflict the punishment that he arbitrarily assigned to the human race on himself/his son? If God can decide that that is fitting compensation for humanity's Original Sin (even though that makes no sense), why can't he decide that faith and repentance are compensation just as good, thus sparing himself/his son the pain of the cross?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:42:33 2015 No.6562327 >>6562250 He is the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords. >>6562254 You are saying God can be unjust. You are a liar.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:43:33 2015 No.6562332 >>6562294 Because he's not delusional, as you are. He faces reality squarely, and deals with it. You? You make up games, like "Show God isn't omnip

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:46:30 2015 No.6562351 >>6562332 ...opent, and God will thus disappear". That's a whole new level of stupid you have created, Anon.

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:51:09 2015 No.6562376

>>6562332

>Because he's not delusional, as you are. He faces reality squarely, and deals with it.

God DETERMINES reality, though. Ostensibly, the reality prior to Jesus's death was that all who live must also die; the reality after his death was that those who have faith will live forever. You still haven't explained why Jesus's death was essential to that shift.

>>6562351

God's omnipotence is an indispensable part of his character in most people's minds. If you can get them to question that, you can get them to question God himself.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:52:36 2015 No.6562381 >>6557213 You know Kierkegaard was a Christian, right?

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:54:37 2015 No.6562391

>>6562376
>You still haven't explained why Jesus's death was essential to that shift.

God and sin do not coexist.

Adam sinned, God left them, and exiled them from the Garden.

Sin keeps all men away from God.

Jesus paid the sin debt of humanity, fulfilling the Law by being the Passover Lamb, and took away the sins of the world.

That done, God in His justice, holiness and righteousness was satisfied, and in His mercy and grace offered mankind the free gift of salvation, which is Himself, His Holy Spirit, once again living inside human beings. An earnest downpayment on the full transformation into a new creation in Christ Jesus.

And that gift could not be offered to mankind until Jesus died on the cross; and that life was not available until He rose from the dead.

All of the dead prior to Jesus who believed Moses and the prophets, and whose heart was to God, were saved from Paradise into heaven; the dead who did not, remain in the Torment side of Hades.

God is reality. If you cannot deal with God, you cannot deal with reality.

Your idiotic questioning of God obviously has no effect whatsoever on God Himself.

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:00:37 2015 No.6562427

>>6562391

>And that gift could not be offered to mankind until Jesus died on the cross; and that life was not available until He rose from the dead.

Why not? I keep searching for an answer here, but all that you give me are references to "debt" and "punishment" that are more reminiscent of an ancient lord than a being that transcends time and space.

>Your idiotic questioning of God obviously has no effect whatsoever on God Himself.

That's fine: your spokesmanship on his behalf has had no effect on me, either.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:06:17 2015 No.6562457 >>6562427 The wages of sin is death. The life is in the blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THIS.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:09:16 2015 No.6562470 >>6562427 Not him but there are different ideas regarding the specifics of atonement.

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:09:23 2015 No.6562471

>>6561917
>I doubt it.

This confirms the bait.
You do nothing but show disdain for anything that could vaguely resemble an argument.
You appeal to the rational character of atheism and refuse to hear anything else.

Anyone that recognise the becoming real of the Messiah is Christian. Christ is the Greek word for Messiah. Christianity means Messianism if you prefer this word. There is nothing else. Of course you can still be full heretic. But that doesn't mean it is not Christianity. Arians were Christians if inconsistent in that, for denying the permanence of Christ precludes his divine nature. Donatists were Christians.
There is nothing vague about Christianity but in the minds of atheists that have not even bothered trying to learn what it is about.

Special bait point for going again, at the end, with the
>You do realize

Thanks for the super enlightment too. I really am convinced that I had merely a "religious" experience. I wonder what would have been a "religious" experience without quotes. then again you don't seem capable of writing the word without quotes.
This is Freud-like (that's an insult btw).

>the indoctrinated experience from birth
I'm sure 100% of atheists are purely there by being enlightened by their own intelligence. Absolutely zero (0) mimetism in that.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:12:59 2015 No.6562490 >>6558494 faith itself is a gift from God. You have to ask him for faith

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:13:31 2015 No.6562495 >>6562471 Professing to be wise, they became as fools.....

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:14:28 2015 No.6562502

>>6562457

>The wages of sin is death.

Yes, that would be the punishment that God has arbitrarily chosen. He could alter the punishment if he wanted to, but I guess that he likes it when innocents die.

>Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

Nonsense! Plenty of people have overcome their sins without the aid of human/animal sacrifice. Unless this passage refers to the fact that God counts our sins against us unless/until innocent blood is shed, in which case I refer you to the above paragraph.

>>6562470

Yes, but I've never encountered one that made sense to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:14:40 2015 No.6562505 >>6562470 Atonement is not propitiation, and there is only one biblical stance on each. There are as many opinions as there are people.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:15:54 2015 No.6562510 >>6562502 There's nothing arbitrary about it whatsoever. Nobody has ever overcome any sin without the shedding of blood, ever. Are you not evil? Is it not obvious that you are evil? Even to you?

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:20:06 2015 No.6562527

>>6562510

>Nobody has ever overcome any sin without the shedding of blood, ever.

That's an incredible claim you have there, my friend...

>Are you not evil?

>Is it not obvious that you are evil? Even to you?

I'm not evil, no. I have unhealthy tendencies that I would like to overcome, and I have faith that I will. I've done it before.

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:20:11 2015 No.6562530

>>6562502
>Yes, that would be the punishment that God has arbitrarily chosen. He could alter the punishment if he wanted to, but I guess that he likes it when innocents die.

It's not like that. Death of the soul results from sin in the same way that death of the body results from terminal cancer. It's the nature of the soul and what sin does to it. Sin isn't just a breach of some abstract law that God can choose to punish in whatever way He sees fit; it's a cancer on your soul that kills it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:23:21 2015 No.6562538 >>6562530 So you're saying that you don't believe in the immortality of the soul? Because all Christians sin.

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:25:57 2015 No.6562550

>>6562527
You are asking me about things I know, and you do not. You are asking me about things for which I have a foundation, and an authority, and you do not.

For one, you have no concept of "overcoming sin", likely thinking it is something akin to "stop drinking" for an alcoholic. Zero comprehension.

Of course you are evil. You are spending your energy attempting to keep people away from redemption, away from Jesus Christ, the only name under heaven by which a man must be saved.

You are literally trying to drag other people into hell with you. It's fine by me that you go to hell; that's your choice. You want that. You want separation from God, a being you do not know, do not understand, and slander at every possible opportunity.

But to attempt to drag other people down with you, into your darkness and despair, into your misery, into the very pit of hell itself....

Are you not evil?

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:30:56 2015 No.6562564

>>6562550

The same god that endowed you with sense, reason, and intellect did not intend for you to forgo their use.

All that I'm doing is encouraging people to use their God-given gifts. By discouraging them from doing the same, YOU'RE the one driving people away from God.

Who's the real evil one here?

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:30:56 2015 No.6562565

>>6559573
that's only because buddhism uses bullshit circular self validating rhetoric. it is like the question, "name an action you could perform that would not affect you." buddhism invalidated thank you, we can all go home.
only if you get brainwashed by it can it actually make sense on any level. like its possible to do something without desiring to no desire it. actually the stranger is very much about buddhism. the main character simply goes through the motions and the book condemns such a character, calling him, "mr antichrist"

there isnt much of this sort of stuff but this video on the nature of the catholic priesthood is a pretty good explaination of what it means to be a christian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGxWD9Yq73s
to be a christian is to serve christ. serve christ through others. it is not easy. but for me, my personal relationship with christ is the most rewarding part of my life. the wicked have told me of things that delight them but none such as [christs] law has to tell.

>>6558633
you can't question the will of God. you just need to roll with the punches and do your best to serve.

the search for christ is likenned to selling all your posessions to buy a field. because you know that in that field there is a treasure. and in that treasure is the great pearl of wisdom that comes from christ. it's worth more than anything in the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:32:11 2015 No.6562571 >>6562564 Nor did I. I worship the Truth, and shine a light towards Him. You. You are the evil one, between the two of us. May God have mercy on your soul.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:36:32 2015 No.6562583 >>6562571 >May God have mercy on your soul. Thank you for the kind words, my friend. May your contemplation of the next life bring you peace and comfort in this one.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]