[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1706808924895.png (4.63 MB, 1536x2048, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1746923[Last 50 Posts]

if pacifistic incrementalism and winning people over by being nicer than the other guy doesn't work, then how did Christianity take over the Roman empire?

 No.1746932

1) Christianity isn’t pacifistic, Christ repeatedly advocated violent action against evil, to say nothing of how the ancient Hebrews confronted those who sacrificed infants
2) Christ is Lord, his dominance is inevitable

 No.1746937

>>1746923
because christianity was a roman spy-op to begin with.

 No.1746938

File: 1706809541322.png (144.17 KB, 600x600, CApBnH4UQAA8cio.png)

Christianity isn't pacifist but they did use pacifism.
and Christianity took over the Roman Empire through divine providence

 No.1746954

>>1746923
>constantine siezes power through a bloody civil war and instates christianity
>theososius bans paganism and institutes repression and killings
RELIGION OF PEACE, GUYS

 No.1746955

1. It was considerably more organized and made a deliberate effort to recruit others. Paganism was extremely decentralized and regional, and instead of trying to convert others, it typically drew parallels between itself and local beliefs, e.g. the Ptolemies claiming Zeus and Amun were actually the same god, the Romans referring to Cathaginians as "worshippers of Hercules" because they thought he was similar to Melqart, etc. Roman pagans felt no need to get others to worship their gods because they considered them to already be doing so. If a Christian moved from Egypt to Italy, he would likely feel compelled to start his own Church and form a new religious community. If a pagan did so, he would just pray at the temple of Jupiter instead of Serapis, because they were seen as being equivalent.

2. Like a lot of Eastern mystery cults, but unlike ordinary paganism, it put a big emphasis on salvation and the existence of an blissful afterlife. This, combined with its universalist morality, made it particularly appealing to slaves and poor people. Supposedly its ability to psychologically prepare its adherents for death was a major draw, with famous descriptions of Christians remaining calm and praying as they were fed to lions, etc.

3. State sponsorship. Although Christianity had grown considerably by the time it began being favoured by Constantine, it was still firmly a minority religion. Getting the sponsorship and protection of the Roman state is what really guaranteed its rise to dominance.

It's worth considering that the various aspects of Christianity that helped it spread weren't lost on Julian the Apostate, the only emperor to convert back to paganism. He sought to centralize pagan worship, practice, and doctrine, give it a stronger philosophical basis and code of ethics, and systematically favour it over Christianity. In other words he wanted to repeat the Christianization process up until that point, but in reverse. He might have been successful since there were still many pagans at the time, including among the upper rungs of society. However he was killed in a campaign against the Persians and his ambitions died with him.

 No.1746969

>>1746932
>>1746938
you need to go back

 No.1746976

>>1746938
Shame le hecking based Christball is being wiped out by modernity

 No.1746980

>>1746932
>to say nothing of how the ancient Hebrews confronted those who sacrificed infants
You mean the same mfs who exterminated every last man woman and child standing between them and their promised land?

 No.1746989


 No.1746991

>>1746938
Assad still lives though

 No.1746996

>>1746989
>here's a situation where god saw evil and wanted to stop it
<Those Canaanites are killing babies, better kill all of them including the babies
Damn, such a paragon of universal morality and definitely not a petty tribal deity taking sides in squabbles between bands of Bronze Age goat herders. Sorry m8 I'm with the Gnostics on this one. If God is real then Yaweh isn't worthy of being equated with Him.

 No.1746998

>>1746996
>Doesn't even continue watching to the point where his argument is directly addressed
typical

 No.1746999

>>1746996
Yahweh makes so much more sense if you understand him as the Jewish version of Zeus who is just stronger and wah more neurotic

 No.1747004

>>1746989
I thought God said to kill everyone except for the virgin girls which should be kept for themselves. Or is that a different genocidal massacre?

 No.1747006

>>1746999
>Yahweh makes so much more sense if you understand him as the Jewish version of Zeus
This is ahistorical even from a secular and materialist perspective. YHWH started off as a storm/war God with a consort named Asherah and part of the Canaanite pantheon. The Israelites had him as their national God. Then they put him at the head of the Canaanite pantheon and Yahwism (proto-Judaism) was born. Yahwism became increasingly henotheistic, demoting the other members of the Pantheon to roles lesser than gods. They became angels and demons. Angels existed as messengers in the Tanakh, but increasingly the angels and demons began to resemble concepts borrowed from Zoroastrianism and other Mesopotamian religions. The Platonic aspects of God were borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy which they encountered under the Seleucids. By the end of the Babylonian captivity they had become monotheistic, but old testament scripture still contains traces of the polytheistic Yahwism. During the 2nd temple period there was 5 main sects of Judaism: Pharisees, Sauducees, Essenes, Zealots, and Early Christians. Early Christians took inspiration from both Gentile philosophy as well as Jewish philosophy. Only the Pharisees and Early Christians survived the destruction of the 2nd temple in 70 CE. Sadducees and Essenes went extinct. Descendants of Pharisees founded Rabbinic Judaism while early Christians became less and less Jewish and more and more Neoplatonic in their theology, while still retaining their Israelite history and culture through the old testament.

TL;DR Judaism borrowed from neoplatonism, but the henotheistic yahweh of proto-Judaism came not from Greek Polytheism, but from Canaanite Polytheism.

 No.1747008

>>1747004
In Amalek the Israelites were ordered to slaughter all of Amalekians, women, men, children, and even the livestock were not to be spared. Soloman disobeyed as his people cried out for food so he let them keep the livestock, leading Yahweh to prefer David.

 No.1747009

>>1746976
there are more christians alive today then ever in history
cope

 No.1747011

>>1747009
Only due to high birth rates in the third world, those kids will be exposed to secularism in due time, it's over for christcels.

 No.1747012

>>1746998
>He didn't mean it literally
Selective declaration of what's a metaphor and what's not is the cowardly refuge of dogmatic Christians.
>God can kill people whenever he wants because he's God
How is this any different than the arbitrary morality of an atheist?
>Dead people aren't really dead they just move to the afterlife
Then why was it bad for the Canaanites to kill their infants? They were just going straight to heaven weren't they?
>>1746999
I mean that should be obvious no? There's a huge difference between the universalism of the God of the New Testament and the tribalism of that of the Old Testament, which is why Gnostics went so far as to declare them completely separate beings. The latter is so small and limited in his concerns and scope that he's functionally no different than a child with a mangnifying glass burning ants. In order to be worthy of the designation, God would necessarily need to transcend petty human distinctions of nation and tribe, and a moral God certainly wouldn't support killing of such things.

 No.1747013

>>1747011
>Only due to
so you admit thats the truth
>will be exposed to secularism in due time
two more weeks!

lmao the cope is hard

 No.1747016

>>1747012
>How is this any different than the arbitrary morality of an atheist?
because 'killing' isn't wrong, killing under correct circumstances is permissible
>Then why was it bad for the Canaanites to kill their infants?
Because they had no right to do so
They were just going straight to heaven weren't they?
no

 No.1747017

>>1747012
>I mean that should be obvious no? There's a huge difference between the universalism of the God of the New Testament and the tribalism of that of the Old Testament
this is an atheist meme, but if you were asked to elaborate as to why this is truth you wouldn't be able to

 No.1747020

>>1747016
>killing under correct circumstances is permissible
Again, to declare that killing is acceptable when God permits it simply because he permits it is no different than the abitrary morality of atheism. The existence of such a God doesn't remove the moral void that atheism struggles with, it just papers over that problem with an appeal to authority.
>no
Dead children don't go to heaven?
>>1747017
>this is an atheist meme
I'm not an atheist.
>but if you were asked to elaborate as to why this is truth you wouldn't be able to
It should be obvious insofar as the God of the Old Testament takes sides in petty disputes between minor Levantine kingdoms and that of the New Testament does not, explicitly stating that he transcends such distinctions and offers universal salvation.

 No.1747021

>>1747020
>Again, to declare that killing is acceptable when God permits it
acceptability is determined by what God permits.
> is no different than the abitrary morality of atheism
its completely different because atheism has no basis for morality or even whether or not morality even exists beyond taste preference
>The existence of such a God doesn't remove the moral void that atheism struggles with, it just papers over that problem with an appeal to authority.
it quite literally does because it grounds morality in something objective and universal.
>Dead children don't go to heaven?
that isn't christian theology
>I'm not an atheist.
I don't care you're repeating atheist memes
>It should be obvious insofar as the God of the Old Testament takes sides in petty disputes between minor Levantine kingdoms and that of the New Testament does not
that doesn't somehow make them separate beings

 No.1747024

>>1747021
God gave me permission to fuck you in the ass and if you don't comply you're an apostate.

 No.1747025

>>1747024
lmao cope
your concession is accepted

 No.1747026

>>1747021
God can't be a literal perfect being and also have a character arc like the contrast between the old and new testament suggests

 No.1747027

>>1747026
If God is all powerful he has the power to be a perfect being and have a character arc like the contrast between the old and new testament suggests

 No.1747028

>>1747027
Going through a character arc means you're imperfect, god is so perfect he made himself imperfect

 No.1747030

File: 1706816076887.jpg (278.84 KB, 800x1105, G-D.jpg)

>>1747025
Bend Over For Anon's Phallus In Your Anus Thy Lord Commands It

 No.1747033

>>1747008
What a cartoonishly evil fucking deity. Even the Nazis would prefer to seize the livestock for their own people than starve themselves.

 No.1747034

>>1747021
>its completely different because atheism has no basis for morality
Neither does religion if all it does is appeal to authority. If aliens developed the technology to surveil every moment of every human life, plus the ability to strike any human dead instantly, would this make them a moral authority?
>that isn't christian theology
Then you aren't making a good case for God being moral. If heaven exists then I can think of nothing more horrible than condemning a truly innocent person to hell or non-existence.
>that doesn't somehow make them separate beings
It makes their behaviour and apparent goals wildly incongruous. If Gnostic Christians thought that the NT God and the OT one were the true God and a Demiurge respectively, it's probably because that's how they acted.

 No.1747036

>>1747028
>Going through a character arc means you're imperfect
you're presupposing there is a character arc though,
so please elaborate on what exactly you mean by 'character arc' and how this is true
>means you're imperfect
ok if it is true that 'Going through a character arc means you're imperfect' )which you haven't shown ) how then does it make God imperfect.
>god is so perfect he made himself imperfect
God can in fact take ok limitations as he did when Christ became flesh.

 No.1747039

>>1747012
>why was it bad for the Canaanites to kill their infants? They were just going straight to heaven weren't they?

That's a Christian idea. The idea of heaven as a place humans go when they died was not common in Judaism during the Canaanite period. Humans went to sheol when they died, and God and the angels dwelled in heaven separate from humanity. The idea of hell also changed drastically over time.

 No.1747046

>>1747034
>Neither does religion if all it does is appeal to authority
no it can be an appeal to authority as the basis for morality.
>If aliens developed the technology to surveil every moment of every human life, plus the ability to strike any human dead instantly, would this make them a moral authority?
aliens don't exist anon.
>Then you aren't making a good case for God being moral
no I'm not making a good case for God fitting your idea as to what is or isn't moral. however you don't decide what is or isn't moral God does.
>If heaven exists then I can think of nothing more horrible than condemning a truly innocent person to hell or non-existence.
right but this is again just you not liking something. Christian morality doesn't fit your taste preference but that is meaningless
>It makes their behaviour and apparent goals wildly incongruous
ok how
>If Gnostic Christians thought that the NT God and the OT one were the true God and a Demiurge respectively, it's probably because that's how they acted.
so? 'Gnostic Christians' thinking something doesn't having any baring on the true or falsity of that thing

 No.1747051

>>1747046
>aliens don't exist anon.
Your morality is alien to every non-psychopathic human sensibility. Christcucks once again showing how artificial and antihuman their religion is.

 No.1747054

>>1746923
By mass murders and forced conversions, mostly

 No.1747056

>>1747051
They do have a higher incidence of psychos but it's not exactly inherent to the ideology.

 No.1747062

>>1747039
>That's a Christian idea. The idea of heaven as a place humans go when they died was not common in Judaism during the Canaanite period.
Okay, but the person defending the killing of the Canaanites in the video was a Christian.
>>1747036
>no it can be an appeal to authority as the basis for morality
Then how is that better than any other arbitrary basis for morality that atheists use? All you're saying is that God has the right to dictate morality by virtue of its power. By that logic so do human constructs like states. Hence my alien question. Moral authority doesn't follow from power alone.
>Christian morality doesn't fit your taste preference but that is meaningless
To paraphrase Galileo, I find it impossible to believe that the same God that endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. If reason is a gift from God, then surely its the best possible path to understanding Him, or at least must be a major component in doing so. Any explanation of God's supposed actions that requires the suspension of reason and explains away such behaviour with an appeal to authority is spitting in the face of the gifts we were given for the purpose of understanding Him.
>ok how
What do you mean how? I already explained it to you. One can't be a tribalist and universalist simultaneously, which means that God's entire moral orientation changed sometime between the Babylonian captivity and the birth of Jesus.
>'Gnostic Christians' thinking something doesn't having any baring on the true or falsity of that thing
That applies to Nicene Christians as well. Mfs think you're hot shit because a Constantine made a political decision to side with your incoherent, borderline pagan bullshit over other theologies in the 4th century. No wonder your moral framework is based around an appeal to authority, you're probably subconsciously aware that your spiritual "truth" would be nothing if it wasn't spread at the point of a sword.

 No.1747067

>>1747009
this is cope because the population in general is higher than ever before and Islam is growing faster than Christianity
>>1747011
This is also cope because secularization theory has been thoroughly discredited in religious studies. Statistically in the first world, people are becoming more religiously unaffiliated, but they aren't abandoning supernatural beliefs. They're just hitting the unsubscribe button on their particular religion while maintaining a more unique/individualized belief in God/Gods/Spirits/Astrology/whatever. In the imperial periphery religiosity is on the rise.

 No.1747072

>>1747062
>Okay, but the person defending the killing of the Canaanites in the video was a Christian.
Right, I'm just speaking historically and pointing out that the Christian idea of heaven hadn't even been developed yet, because rather than there being a monolithic truth that has existed since the universe was created, religions are socially created institutions and structures that change over time and are internally diverse. This is what makes them so stubborn. You aren't arguing with someone who's going to change their mind. This is a systemic thing.

 No.1747077

>>1747062
>Then how is that better than any other arbitrary basis for morality that atheists use?
because atheists have no basis for morality.
>All you're saying is that God has the right to dictate morality by virtue of its power
No I'm saying God is the basis for how we understand morality by virtue of him creating morality.
>To paraphrase Galileo, I find it impossible to believe that the same God that endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use
he didn't intend us to forgo their use
but that doesn't mean that your special conclusions you've come to on morality are correct.
>What do you mean how? I already explained it to you. One can't be a tribalist and universalist simultaneously
but it wasn't simultaneously, both were implemented in a different time and place.
>which means that God's entire moral orientation changed sometime between the Babylonian captivity and the birth of Jesus.
>moral orientation
such as?
>That applies to Nicene Christians as well. Mfs think you're hot shit because a Constantine made a political decision to side with your incoherent, borderline pagan bullshit over other theologies in the 4th century
do you have an argument or are you just whining?
>No wonder your moral framework is based around an appeal to authority, you're probably subconsciously aware that your spiritual "truth" would be nothing if it wasn't spread at the point of a sword.
yes, so what?

 No.1747078

>>1747067
>this is cope because the population in general is higher than ever before and Islam is growing faster than Christianity
and atheism is dying lmao

 No.1747093

>>1747077
>because atheists have no basis for morality
Their basis is equally as strong as yours. In fact its stronger I would say, since it at least tries to get there through philosophical inquiry and not the baseless assertion that strength = morality.
>but that doesn't mean that your special conclusions you've come to on morality are correct
It does mean that thought terminating clichés like "it's moral because God says so" are incorrect, since it's blatantly arbitrary.
>such as?
Going from a national God of the Israelites that condones the extermination of their enemies and takes sides in their battles to a universal God who promotes universal compassion.
>do you have an argument or are you just whining?
The argument is that you have no actual basis for your position. "Morality is what God says just because it is" and "Nicene Christianity is correct because the Roman state said so" aren't good arguments on which to base any philosophy.

 No.1747097

File: 1706818349366.jpg (135.27 KB, 881x1200, God inventing morality.jpg)

>>1747077
>No I'm saying God is the basis for how we understand morality by virtue of him creating morality.

 No.1747100

File: 1706818513158.jpg (880.78 KB, 1440x1104, memri mental illness.jpg)

>the christlarpers found this place
allah save us

 No.1747102

>>1747093
>Their basis is equally as strong as yours.
It isn't, they have no way of even showing morality exists.
>It does mean that thought terminating clichés like "it's moral because God says so" are incorrect, since it's blatantly arbitrary.
you keep saying that but you haven't made an argument for it.
>Going from a national God of the Israelites that condones the extermination of their enemies and takes sides in their battles to a universal God who promotes universal compassion.
and if you could read, I already responded to this:
both were implemented in a different time and place
>The argument is that you have no actual basis for your position. "Morality is what God says just because it is"
thats not what was said at all.
what was said was:
No I'm saying God is the basis for how we understand morality by virtue of him creating morality.
>"Nicene Christianity is correct because the Roman state said so" aren't good arguments on which to base any philosophy.
good thing I never made that argument

 No.1747103

>>1747100
How nu r you ? That kind of special boys wander here on a regular basis.

 No.1747113

>>1747078
All babies are atheists.

 No.1747115

>>1747113
ok prove it

 No.1747116

>>1747102
>It isn't, they have no way of even showing morality exists.
Neither do you, especially since you can't prove the existence of God either.
>you keep saying that but you haven't made an argument for it
I did, you just ignored it by missing the point and claiming aliens didn't exist. Why does the ability to see all and smite all grant moral authority?
>both were implemented in a different time and place
Why then? If God can do a complete moral 180 for esoteric reasons that are only comprehensible to Him, then you aren't making a strong case for the existence of an objective morality. It only makes it seem more arbitrary if slaughtering children is okay one day and wrong the next. You certainly aren't making the case for any kind of moral framework informed by reason. Maybe you should take a page out of the Muslims' book, where they argue that God's morality and wisdom never changed, but it has been imperfectly interpreted and applied by humans. That's a lot less retarded than trying to claim the absence of any contradiction between "slaughter all the Canaanites" and "pray for those who persecute you."
>No I'm saying God is the basis for how we understand morality by virtue of him creating morality.
What does "inventing morality" mean? Humans have had a sense of morality since long before worshipping Yaweh. God only "invented morality" if you presuppose that he has the authority to do so. Without this presupposition then God's moral pronouncements are just arbitrary declarations. Your reasoning is circular.

 No.1747119

>>1747077
>atheists have no basis for morality.
There are plenty of secular bases for morality. For example, a christian might conclude "it's bad to kill people because it's in the ten commandments." An Atheist would conclude "it's bad to kill people because they are alive like me and only get to live once."

Also most people tend to believe in the golden rule even if they aren't christian. And Christianity does not hold a monopoly on "do unto others…"

 No.1747124

>>1747102
It's piss easy to show morality exists.
What is morality ? A set of rules and judgements over actions that pretty much every group in hitherto history indulged in, and although it's content vary form time and place, thoses behaviors and enforcement trough shunning or violence is very much observable.

 No.1747129

>>1747124
morality comes from socially constructed norms based off of ingroup preferences and evolutionary tendencies GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

 No.1747132

>>1747124
Honestly even an entirely atheistic morality that goes along the lines of "moral codes serve an important evolutionary function in social animals like humans so we should develop and implement them" is way more convincing than "powerful being demands it so that makes it so". The secular morality here is ironically a more thorough application of the divine gift of reason than the religious one.

 No.1747141

>>1747132
>secular morality here is ironically a more thorough application of the divine gift of reason than the religious one.
not an argument

 No.1747146

>>1747116
>Neither do you, especially since you can't prove the existence of God either.
tu quo que fallacy
>I did, you just ignored it by missing the point and claiming aliens didn't exist.
they don't anon
>Why does the ability to see all and smite all grant moral authority?
so again i never said 'the ability to see all and smite all grant moral authority' for the third time, what was said was God is the basis for how we understand morality by virtue of him creating morality
>Why then?
the unraveling of revelation
>If God can do a complete moral 180
moral 180? no this did not happen the moral laws of the old covenant are eternal, the laws regarding the governing of Israel and ritual laws are superseded by Christ
>It only makes it seem more arbitrary if slaughtering children is okay one day and wrong the next.
just because something happened in the Bible doesn't mean it is some huge moral teaching that is true at all times. There are many actions that were taken solely on the basis of the events that were taking place.
>What does "inventing morality" mean?
its pretty straight forward what are you confused about
>Humans have had a sense of morality since long before worshipping Yaweh
I didn't say morality was first taught by God I said morality itself, was created by God before humans ever existed

 No.1747148

>>1747115
babies are incapable of believing in God because their brains aren't developed enough to grasp the concept. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in God, not the presence of disbelief. The same way a shadow is the absence of light, not the presence of darkness.

 No.1747149

>>1747119
>There are plenty of secular bases for morality. For example, a christian might conclude "it's bad to kill people because it's in the ten commandments." An Atheist would conclude "it's bad to kill people because they are alive like me and only get to live once."
this would just beg the question how given an atheist worldview do they know right and wrong even exist

 No.1747151

>>1747115
Even anabaptists understand this, which is why they hold that baptism isn't valid until you're old enough to understand what you're getting into.

 No.1747152

>>1747124
you're just redefining morality to mean taste preference

 No.1747153

>>1747151
ok but anabaptists are wrong

 No.1747155

>>1747149
>i touch my hand to the fire. ouch it hurts. this is wrong. i warn others not to touch their hand to the fire. i am happy when i see others happy. this is good.

it is a mystery!

 No.1747156

>>1747148
belief in God involves the soul as well anon

 No.1747157

>>1747153
"ok prove it"

 No.1747159

>>1747155
this just further begs the question how do you know hurt = wrong

 No.1747160

>>1747156
"okay prove it"

 No.1747161

>>1747159
wrong is a concept humans developed to apply to things that hurt us or makes us upset.

 No.1747164

>>1747161
then you're not talking about morality you're talking about preference

 No.1747165

File: 1706819956758.png (14.4 MB, 2720x2390, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1747153
repent. anabaptism is objectively correct.

 No.1747168

>>1747165
no sorry its a denial of pentacost

 No.1747169

>>1747152
They ain't that different when you think about it.
Both boil down to "thing is good/bad."

 No.1747170

>>1747164
morality is a socially constructed set of cultural preferences created by humans, but it closely aligns with evolutionary imperatives like survival, reproduction, and prosocial behaviors that increase group cohesion.

 No.1747171

>>1747169
they are different

 No.1747172

>>1747168
the pentacost is heresy

 No.1747173

>>1747171
Elaborate

 No.1747174

>>1747170
wrong, morality comes from God

 No.1747175


 No.1747177

>>1747174
you are clearly an impostor larping as a christian to make us look dumb. begone, satan!

 No.1747183

>>1747141
God gave us minds to think Anon, not dogmatically follow the tribalistic teachings designed to justify the behaviour of Iron Age kingdoms.
>>1747146
>what was said was God is the basis for how we understand morality by virtue of him creating morality
Once again, the ability to create morality presupposes the existence of an authority to do so. What is the basis for this authority? Why should we recognize it to the point of suspending our own divinely endowed faculties of reason and empathy?
>no this did not happen the moral laws of the old covenant are eternal, the laws regarding the governing of Israel and ritual laws are superseded by Christ
That's still doing a 180 dummy. If God comes in the form of Christ to deliver a code of ethics entirely divorced from the previous one, then he's still adopting an entirely new moral code seemingly at random. Even saying that he was waiting for "the unravelling of revelation" is retarded since God himself was this revelation in the form of Jesus. All you're saying then is that he was waiting for an arbitrary time to come down and tell people that actually mass murder is bad (even though it was fine before).

 No.1747184

Damn christians sure are dumb

 No.1747186

>>1747175
C'mon dew it.

 No.1747187

File: 1706820273211.png (257.76 KB, 302x448, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1747183
god gave us free will in the hopes that we would choose to go to heaven and not hell. as for thinking, some people aren't capable of thinking, like the mentally ill, and the retarded. but they are capable of knowing god, repenting, and going to heaven without thinking.

 No.1747188

>>1747186
no elaboration is needed

 No.1747191

>>1747187
>god gave us free will in the hopes that we would choose to go to heaven and not hell
He also gave us the ability to better understand reality through reason. Why would he intend us not to use this to understand him better?

 No.1747192

>>1747188
But it is.

 No.1747194

>>1747183
>Once again, the ability to create morality presupposes the existence of an authority to do so. What is the basis for this authority?
the revealed word of God
>Why should we recognize it to the point of suspending our own divinely endowed faculties of reason and empathy?
Because God is perfect.
>That's still doing a 180 dummy
lol no it isn't you're clearly retarded.
>If God comes in the form of Christ to deliver a code of ethics entirely divorced from the previous one
it isn't entirely divorced from the previous one
>Even saying that he was waiting for "the unravelling of revelation" is retarded since God himself was this revelation in the form of Jesus
ok but you're just saying you don't like it and it makes you mad.
>All you're saying then is that he was waiting for an arbitrary time to come down and tell people that actually mass murder is bad (even though it was fine before).
Just War theory still exists so you're wrong on this one as well.
But yes God has revealed more and more to people as time goes on, that was the purpose of all the prophets and ultimately Christ, your only response to this was it hurts your feelings or something

 No.1747197

File: 1706820581017.jpg (84.52 KB, 1920x1280, 166573018112589149.jpg)

>>1747077
>>1747097
God is a cheater who saves his favorite people from consequences of their own actions. Just because they prayed a lot (but mostly not, he just likes them)

Just remember Faust. The guy committed such crimes that if he wasn't a super-duper favorite boy he would go straight to hell, as he even sold his soul. But because god liked him, instead he went to heaven! God cheated and broke a contract made in sane mind wtihout any fuckery going on. It's a moral obligation of any person who has any decency in them left to oppose such a deity that cheats for their favorites so damn openly

 No.1747198

>>1747197
>God is a cheater who saves his favorite people from consequences of their own actions. Just because they prayed a lot (but mostly not, he just likes them)
God judges his people more harshly as well.

 No.1747202

>>1747194
>the revealed word of God
Why?

 No.1747204

>>1747187
>god gave us free will in the hopes that we would choose to go to heaven and not hell

Riiiight, and then he goes and forgives unforgiveable crime of murder just because it was done in the name of spreading christianity. Or you get proclaimed a saint after a lifetime of a disastrous rule by yourself just because you represented a time before godless communists took over, yikes

 No.1747206

>>1747198
He doesn't, though. To begin with, heathens are supposed to go to hell by default. They aren't judged by their virtues, they are judged by getting bathed under the watchful eyes of a pedo priest

 No.1747208


 No.1747210

>>1747206
>He doesn't, though.
Yes he does

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law Romans 2:12


>heathens are supposed to go to hell by default

we don't know the soul's of any man but they will be judged by what they know.

 No.1747216

>>1747194
>the revealed word of God
Now you're presuming some kind of inherent truth to scripture, even though its known to have changed radically over the centuries and its canon to have been selected on the basis of secular considerations. Why should I take the KJV over the Dead Sea scrolls when they contradict each other? What about other religious traditions? I guess God only felt the need to talk to one random Levantine tribe and not the rest of the peoples of the world huh?
>Because God is perfect
I agree, God is perfect by definition. That's why all the nonsense you're pushing is just that, nonsense. If God is perfect then that doesn't make everything he is said to do in the Bible just. It means that any unjust thing he's said to do in the Bible either didn't happen or wasn't his doing. God can only be understood through the rigorous philosophical examination of concepts like justice and morality to which humans are naturally inclined. That is, using the divine gift of reason to understand and develop our most divine and Christlike tendencies. You don't study God to understand justice, you study justice to understand God.
>lol no it isn't you're clearly retarded
Yes it is, unless you're going to claim that Israelites are still allowed to live by Old Testament rules? I guess that makes what they're doing in Gaza okay then.
>But yes God has revealed more and more to people as time goes on
Completely contradicting yourself isn't "revealing more".
>our only response to this was it hurts your feelings or something
My response is that it doesn't make any sense, and each attempt to explain it only raises further questions that all seem to end with "because God said so."

 No.1747217

>>1746923
>if pacifistic incrementalism and winning people over by being nicer than the other guy doesn't work
It does work. The success/failure rate of violent movements is significantly worse than non-violent movements.

 No.1747221

>>1747210
>we don't know the soul's of any man but they will be judged by what they know.

I remember that story about some missionary converting indigenous people.
One autochton asked the priest if their ancestors were in Hell because they weren't Christians, priest answered no because they didn't know about the word of God.
Then the asked if he would go to Hell if he didn't convert.
The priest answered yes because now he knows about the word of God
"The why did you tell me about that since I had no risk of going to Hell before?"

 No.1747227

>>1747208
it's "caesar's messiah" schizoposting

 No.1747230


 No.1747233

>>1747197
>God cheated and broke a contract made in sane mind wtihout any fuckery going on. It's a moral obligation of any person who has any decency in them left to oppose such a deity that cheats for their favorites so damn openly

I am pretty sure Faust earned his salvation by doing a selfless act, at least under Goethe's version.

 No.1747238

>>1747230
The idea is Titus Flavius, his Jewish mistress Bernice, and Josephus the former jewish rebel came together to invent Christianity as a form of slave morality after the destruction of the 2nd temple, in order to reform Judaism into something wholly subservient to the Roman empire, and amenable to the imperial cult. The idea is that Josephus, as a member of Titus's court, and one of Titus's most educated slaves, wrote the gospels alongside War of the Jews. Nero persecuted the Christians, but he was a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, rather than the flavian dynasty.

 No.1747241

>>1747216
>Now you're presuming some kind of inherent truth to scripture
we are discussing Christianity after all
>even though its known to have changed radically over the centuries and its canon to have been selected on the basis of secular considerations
No one defends every single sect of Christianity, I don't care what some snake handling church does.
>Why should I take the KJV over the Dead Sea scrolls when they contradict each other?
the dead sea scrolls aren't scripture.
>What about other religious traditions?
which ones?
>I guess God only felt the need to talk to one random Levantine tribe and not the rest of the peoples of the world huh?
Yes.
>If God is perfect then that doesn't make everything he is said to do in the Bible just.
there is more nuance to it but generally God cannot sin so his commandments by definition are always just.
>It means that any unjust thing he's said to do in the Bible either didn't happen or wasn't his doing
no this logically wouldn't work.
>God can only be understood through the rigorous philosophical examination of concepts like justice and morality to which humans are naturally inclined
idk where you got this one from
>Yes it is, unless you're going to claim that Israelites are still allowed to live by Old Testament rules?
So like I pointed out a few posts ago, the moral laws in the OT are eternal, the laws regarding the Kingdom of Israel are done away with as there is no more Kingdom of Israel and the ritual laws are superseded by Christ's eternal sacrifice
>Completely contradicting yourself isn't "revealing more".
show the contradiction.
>My response is that it doesn't make any sense, and each attempt to explain it only raises further questions that all seem to end with "because God said so."
Yes and? God is in fact the law giver

 No.1747243


 No.1747245

>>1747233
Oh yeah, one selfless act will redeem all the crimes committed, will bring back the dead, undo property damage, and heal everyone's hearts

I like buddhism a lot more. The story about the spider spared by a murderer, and then that spider spins a thread for a murderer to climb out of hell, is a lot more humanist in nature and doesn't cheat anybody

 No.1747246

>>1747221
That isn't a real story, and it presupposes that they would all go to heaven if they never learned about God which is also not true.

 No.1747249

>>1747243
who is the artist of that? Its beautiful

 No.1747250

>>1747194
>it isn't entirely divorced from the previous one
i don't know, the whiplash between old and new testament was so strong that gnostics came up with the idea that YHWH was the demiurge, and Arianism held that Christ was created by God rather than co-eternal. Christianity was incredibly diverse and it was only through (literal) inter-nicene struggle that it became consolidated as what would become the roman catholic church.

 No.1747252

>>1747246
What about an american indian man who got burned alive for denying Christ - by saying that he'd rather fucking die than go to heaven with the likes of conquistadors?

 No.1747253

>>1747249
stablediffusion

 No.1747256

>>1747241
>the dead sea scrolls aren't scripture.
Why?

>God cannot sin so his commandments by definition are always just.

It's impossible that God cannot else He isn't omnipotent and therefore not God
Then he is not omnipotent

 No.1747257

>>1747245
>Oh yeah, one selfless act will redeem all the crimes committed
isn't it weird that you go to hell forever for not believing in christ but christ can pay for your sins with only about a week of suffering between the garden of gethsemane and golgotha? the wages of sin is an eternity in hell, but christ is capable of paying that eternity for all of humanity with only 1 week in 1st century CE jerusalem

 No.1747258

>>1747256
>Why?
because the church authorities decided against including them in the canon

 No.1747261

>>1747256
>Why?
the same reason all other extra biblical texts aren't scripture, they were not included in the councils that decided what scripture was
>It's impossible that God cannot else He isn't omnipotent and therefore not God
Then he is not omnipotent
Not true. Sin is a more away from God, for God to sin God would have to be able to be 'not God' to some degree

 No.1747262

>>1747258
So the Church get to decide what the Word of God is ?

 No.1747264

>>1747261
But he totally could, he's omnipotent afterall.

 No.1747267

>>1747264
No thats like saying can logic be illogical

 No.1747271

File: 1706822516441.jpg (74.78 KB, 960x761, christianityright.jpg)

>>1747241
>we are discussing Christianity after all
Yes and Christianity, like all religions, is full of nonsense and contradictions. This doesn't mean God isn't real, but that no single tradition is free of these problems.
>No one defends every single sect of Christianity, I don't care what some snake handling church does.
Picrel is you.
>the dead sea scrolls aren't scripture
They're the oldest surviving examples of biblical literature. They contain versions of books which made it into the Old Testament.
>there is more nuance to it but generally God cannot sin so his commandments by definition are always just
True, which is why any unjust thing he's said to have done couldn't have actually been his doing. Again, if both the Christlike desire for justice and love as well as the capacity for reason are divine endowments given to humans, then they must be the primary basis of our understanding of God. To propose otherwise is to suggest that God gave us tools of understanding and moral inclinations which he did not intend us to use. If the application of reason and compassion tells us that something is unjust (like say, genocide), then it's absurd to say "actually it is just because God said so in this book." The existence of the events in the book are uncertain, the existence of human reason, love, and compassion are not. Neither is their status as divine endowments. It makes a lot more sense then to conclude that when these two things are in contradiction, it's the book that is wrong and not our reason and Christlike inclinations.

 No.1747272

>>1747262
NTA but yeah basically whoever consolidated political power in early political history got to ban the other factions. The church were the bolsheviks of their days and the gnostics were the mensheviks.

 No.1747278

>>1747267
But God can fuck with reality itself trough miracles so there is no reason he could not fuck with abstract principles.

 No.1747284

>>1747271
>Yes and Christianity, like all religions, is full of nonsense and contradictions. This doesn't mean God isn't real, but that no single tradition is free of these problems.
well we were discussing christian theology but now it seems you're jumping to God vs atheism so which is it
>Picrel is you.
cute but not an arugment
>They're the oldest surviving examples of biblical literature. They contain versions of books which made it into the Old Testament.
old doesn't = scripture.
>True, which is why any unjust thing he's said to have done couldn't have actually been his doing
other way around, because God is just anything he says would not fall into the 'unjust' category

 No.1747287

>>1747284
>old doesn't = scripture
Anon, the Dead Sea scrolls literally contain versions of canon books from the Old Testament. They're scripture.
>because God is just anything he says would not fall into the 'unjust' category
So then it's your position that Christlike attributes like love, compassion, and justice aren't divinely endowed? That reason is not a gift God gave us and intended us to use? If this is the case then they must be first principles from which we begin to explore and understand God. Not scriptures plagued by problems of translation, removal from their cultural context, and the secular motivations underlying them (e.g. justifying the actions of Jewish leaders and the structure of their society). Scriptures which must be interpreted through the lens of reason to be useful anyways. You're making the same kind of argument about morality that the Church made to Galileo about cosmology: it's in the book so it must be true even when reason tells us otherwise.

 No.1747291

>>1747287
>Anon, the Dead Sea scrolls literally contain versions of canon books from the Old Testament. They're scripture.
sure but that doesn't mean the dead sea scrolls in totality are scripture.
>So then it's your position that Christlike attributes like love, compassion, and justice aren't divinely endowed?
how do you get that from what was said?
>That reason is not a gift God gave us and intended us to use?
again it depends what exactly you mean by 'gift God gave us and intended us to use'
sure reason like all transcendentals are rooted in the divine mind of God but that doesn't mean every conclusion your reason comes to is true.
>If this is the case then they must be first principles from which we begin to explore and understand God
I guess it really depends on what you mean by 'explore and understand God'
>Not scriptures plagued by problems of translation, removal from their cultural context, and the secular motivations underlying them
thats what we have the Church for to protect and preserve scripture
>Scriptures which must be interpreted through the lens of reason to be useful anyways
right but not reason alone because plenty of people can use their own reasoning and come to wildly different conclusions

>You're making the same kind of argument about morality that the Church made to Galileo about cosmology: it's in the book so it must be true even when reason tells us otherwise.

Galileo was a totally separate affair when his basis for what he was promoting was the telescope when no one knew what a telescope even was

 No.1747293

File: 1706823564791.png (399.88 KB, 800x800, ClipboardImage.png)

>/leftypol/ after this thread got made

 No.1747296


 No.1747300

File: 1706823681037.jpg (61.81 KB, 675x646, 605240.jpg)


 No.1747301


 No.1747302

>>1747291
Church is made of men, not God. So it's bound to make mistakes for only God is perfect.

 No.1747305

>>1747302
>>1747302
>>1747302
Church is made of mistakes, not men. So it's bound to make God gay.

 No.1747307

>>1747302
>Church is made of men, not God. So it's bound to make mistakes for only God is perfect.
Men in the Church can make mistakes but the Church itself is guided by the Holy Spirit Acts 15:28

 No.1747308

>>1747307
define "the church"

 No.1747310

File: 1706824039413.png (870.96 KB, 1600x1114, 1428295527400.png)

>>1747308
the eastern orthodox church

 No.1747311

>>1747307
And thoses guided men still can fail at their task cuz they're men.

 No.1747317

>>1747311
Men in the Church can make mistakes but the Church itself is guided by the Holy Spirit

 No.1747318

>>1747310
every church makes timelines like this where they claim to be the unchanged church. I've seen similar charts as this, but made by protestants and catholics.

 No.1747320

File: 1706824230813.jpg (61.63 KB, 567x534, 997199725676 junttila.jpg)

>>1747317
Men in the Church can make anal but the Church itself is guided by the retarded

 No.1747322

>>1747318
the timeline isn't the argument

 No.1747325

>>1747291
>how do you get that from what was said?
I'm saying that if you agree with my statement, then these tendencies combined with reason are a stronger basis for theological exploration than scripture. When the two are in contradiction, scripture should be discarded.
>but that doesn't mean every conclusion your reason comes to is true
Of course, but I'm trying to establish a framework for theological and moral inquiry here. When you assume essentially infallible the truth of scripture, you end up twisting yourself into all sorts of knots trying to reconcile it with reason and compassion. Even worse when you end up in a situation where the two are clearly incompatible, the response is to maintain the rigid adherence to the supposed truth of scripture and unironically say shit like "God is okay with genocide sometimes."

 No.1747326

>>1747322
why did you post the timeline?

 No.1747336

>>1747325
>I'm saying that if you agree with my statement, then these tendencies combined with reason are a stronger basis for theological exploration than scripture. When the two are in contradiction, scripture should be discarded.
when what and scripture and in contradiction scripture should be discarded?
>When you assume essentially infallible the truth of scripture, you end up twisting yourself into all sorts of knots trying to reconcile it with reason and compassion
how?
>Even worse when you end up in a situation where the two are clearly incompatible, the response is to maintain the rigid adherence to the supposed truth of scripture and unironically say shit like "God is okay with genocide sometimes."
so again 'genocide' is a very recent term, God isn't a pacifist, pacifism is used at time but also Just War theory

 No.1747337

>>1747326
as reference

 No.1747340

>>1747317
And trough which means the holy spirit guides if not by the men inside the church?

 No.1747343

What a dumb thread

 No.1747349

>>1747343
What a dumb jeb

 No.1747353

>>1747340
the church as a whole

 No.1747356

File: 1706824998610.jpg (42.27 KB, 538x613, oenaatiw.jpg)

>>1747336
>so again 'genocide' is a very recent term, God isn't a pacifist, pacifism is used at time but also Just War theory
kek Christards do be thinking pic rel unironically

>>1747353
Like an hivemind?

 No.1747360

>>1747353
the church as a hole

 No.1747361

>>1747356
No, the brick and mortar establishment, duh
>And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Matthew 6:5

 No.1747369

>>1747336
>when what and scripture and in contradiction scripture should be discarded?
The natural human tendencies of compassion, love, and the desire for justice, as well as reason.
>how?
Pick something from the Bible m8. How can I reconcile Genesis with what scientific observation guided by reason tells us about the origins of the Earth and humanity? How can I reconcile universal compassion with the genocide of the Canaanites? How can I reconcile the just principle of the equality of all human beings before God with the Bible's endorsement of slavery? Whenever you're confronted these contradictions you resort to the same explanation: none of these things are immoral, contradictory, or nonsensical because God said/did them. In other words, your insistence on the truth of scripture is in contradiction with what the vast majority of people, applying their reason and Christlike inclinations, would consider moral. At the end of the day I know that compassion are reason are real, and that alone makes it a better basis for theological investigation which should take precedence over scripture. Tbh it seems like most Christians agree anyway, since they regard large segments of the Bible as allegorical stories meant to illustrate moral/theological lessons. Only evangelical schizos take it to literally be true.

 No.1747372

I blasted a fat uygha nut inside a woman that went to catholic girls only school AMA

 No.1747373

>>1747361
So like an hivemind then?

 No.1747376

>>1747369
>The natural human tendencies of compassion, love, and the desire for justice, as well as reason.
what about it
>Pick something from the Bible m8. How can I reconcile Genesis with what scientific observation guided by reason tells us about the origins of the Earth and humanity?
such as?
>How can I reconcile universal compassion with the genocide of the Canaanites?
I guess it really depends what you're claiming 'universal compassion' to be
>How can I reconcile the just principle of the equality of all human beings before God with the Bible's endorsement of slavery?
equality of all human beings before God is a matter of salvation of the soul where as slavery is an earthly arrangement
>Whenever you're confronted these contradictions
they're not contradictions as i just pointed out.
>In other words, your insistence on the truth of scripture is in contradiction with what the vast majority of people, applying their reason and Christlike inclinations, would consider moral
majority of people claiming something doesn't = truth.
>At the end of the day I know that compassion are reason are real, and that alone makes it a better basis for theological investigation which should take precedence over scripture.
so without God how do you know this?
>Tbh it seems like most Christians agree anyway, since they regard large segments of the Bible as allegorical stories meant to illustrate moral/theological lessons.
appeal to majority

 No.1747377

>>1747375
i said woman, anon

 No.1747378

>>1747372
Did the priest watch to satiate his cuck fetish?

 No.1747379

>>1747377
Old enough to bleed…
t.god apparently

 No.1747380

Is it christian to behead your own father because he works as DMV agent and went to church while you yourself rotted inside a room while brainwashing yourself with rightoid LARP and then you uploaded a schizo rant video on youtube where you showed off the decapitated head of your own father and talked about being a real christian?

 No.1747386

>>1747376
>they're not contradictions as i just pointed out
Murdering an entire race of people isn't in contradiction with compassion?
>so without God how do you know this?
It's precisely because of God that I know this. God gave me and everybody else the tools to distinguish between the truly divine and the attempts of Iron Age priests to justify the murder of their neighbours and oppression of their fellow man. You just refuse to use them.

 No.1747388

>>1747380
It is if God says so.

 No.1747392

>>1747376
>such as?
The world being created in 7 days from nothingness to humans vs an history of the universe before earth being 10 billions years long, an history of earth before life being at least 2 billions years long, and the history of life before human being more then 1 billion years long.

 No.1747397

is it christian to rape little children for 600 years starting with the borgias and have the church cover it up?

 No.1747399

>>1747397
If G*d says so

 No.1747403

>>1747392
Clearly the earth being made in 7 days was euthamism.
It actually took god 6000 years to create the earth, because obviously on the last 1000 years he rested.

 No.1747405

>>1746938
Is it christian to enrich yourself from the trans-atlantic slave trade and genocide of native americans?

 No.1747410

>>1747405
Of course not. Christ calls on us to love our fellow man and to show them unconditional selflessness and compassion.
Jk lol its okay if God says so.

 No.1747411

>>1747392
has the 7 billion year theory been observed? no?
quite telling…

 No.1747417

>>1747411
I have observed it im gods child my name is jebus

 No.1747418

Starting to think this God fella is a real bastard sumbitch

 No.1747419


 No.1747420

>>1747403
>euthamism
when you euthanize a euphamism

 No.1747421

>>1747411
We can literally observe stuff that happened billions of years ago by looking at the night sky.

 No.1747423

>>1747421
Ignore flag

 No.1747424

>>1747419
You deny god

 No.1747425

>>1747337
to what

 No.1747427

File: 1706827012359.webm (6.19 MB, 360x360, 1inchpenis.webm)


 No.1747430

why doesnt god come down and stop world hunger, war and disease?

why should a kid get ripped in half by a drone attack or slowly starve until you can see the inside of their eye sockets?

 No.1747431

>>1747421
we can't though

 No.1747433

>>1747430
>why doesnt god come down and stop world hunger, war and disease?
God isn't here to give you a comfy life

>why should a kid get ripped in half by a drone attack or slowly starve until you can see the inside of their eye sockets?


God isn't your butler

 No.1747441

>>1747433
so he isnt almighty?

 No.1747445

>>1747431
you observe the past by watching the night sky as light takes time to travel to us

 No.1747450

>>1747441
Either he's not almighty or he gets off on it. The Problem of God being a Sick Fucking Bastard.

 No.1747451

>>1747445
yes but you're presupposing consistency over time

 No.1747456

>>1747451
And there would be not because ?

 No.1747465

File: 1706828126911.png (215.56 KB, 472x347, 356247356745678696.png)

>>1747433
>God isn't your butler
Indeed because he is mine, goy.

 No.1747478

>>1747456
because you can't show there is

 No.1747491

>>1746999
> Jewish version of Zeus who is just stronger and wah more neurotic
Zeus but played by Larry David?

 No.1747500

killin a bunch of uyghas

 No.1747501

File: 1706832469226.png (25.85 KB, 396x400, 1563428060776.png)

I hate prots cos they lack soul catholics are better even if they are all sinners

 No.1747513

File: 1706833739146.png (2.84 KB, 210x161, fukken saved.png)

>>1747243
pic goes hard

 No.1747568

>>1747478
>he doesn't even think the physical laws are constant
this has to be a troll. isaac newton was a devout christian

 No.1747572

>>1747191
that guy is yanking your chain, I am 100% sure about this

 No.1747576

>How did Christianity take over
The Roman empire was so fucked all it took was one guy converting because he saw a sun dog and was convinced it was a sign from God so he forced everyone else to convert and then everywhere else they went they also forcefully converted people.
So not peaceful at all, just subvert power and then forcefully convert all others. This but unironically, socialist jihad now.

 No.1747591

>>1746996
Someone post the webm justifying the death of all children of bourgeoisie and how the Romanov children dying are based. That's why.
In theory you could convert those kids, but why bother, just kill them, just fucking kill them, shoot them, slam their soft skulls against walls, why bother the risk of revenge when it's just easier to kill them.
God does and says a lot of detestable stuff in the old testament, but if there's one that's justified, it's telling them to kill the babies and children too.

 No.1747596

>>1747568
>Catholic
>Christian

 No.1747607

File: 1706842258909.webm (11.97 MB, 360x360, leninhat_speech.webm)

>>1747591
i literally made that webm as a satire of leninhat

 No.1747611

The Romanov brats did deserve it though

 No.1747619

>>1747611
even the bolsheviks didn't actually want to kill them and only did so because they might be recaptured, but I guess you know better

 No.1747620

I dont think it did.
That was probably revisionism.

Christianity has a strong persecutiin complex.

 No.1747624

>>1747619
Yeah, I do. Death to all aristocrats. Spare no one taller than a wagon wheel.

 No.1747629


 No.1747631

>>1747611
you rehab puyi
i shoot romanovs
you dig dengism
i buried gorbachev
you on that succdem
you succ on dem nuts
i'm on that mayhem
i'm spillin booj guts

 No.1747632

>>1747629
Honestly I don't really agree with putting all capitalists to the sword but I can kind of understand it, their families too though? That's just deranged.

 No.1747634

>>1747632
Anakin did nothing wrong

 No.1747642

>>1747619
You're implicitly saying that if the Romanovs were allowed to live they'd collaborate in counterrevolutionary activity with their liberators. If they didn't have their just desserts coming to them then it wouldn't matter.

 No.1747644

>>1747642
I'm sure lots of people would collaborate with reactionaries potentially, that doesn't mean we should kill all of them pre-emptively

 No.1747650

File: 1706844138467.jpg (2.01 MB, 2100x3300, CxFKMPQ.jpg)


 No.1747651

>>1747644
>wah wah, won't someone think of the children

 No.1747652

>>1747644
"Lots of people" aren't fucking aristocrats directly responsible for overseeing a vast system of exploitation and oppression.

 No.1747654

>>1747652
The kids didn't do anything. As for the adults, sure, but they're also victims of circumstance just like everyone else. I mean if you were born a royal and educated and socialised as one in the 1800s/early 1900s are you honestly telling me you would just shake off everything and decide to give up and just go become a peasant? Come on.

 No.1747655

File: 1706844305899-0.gif (3.9 MB, 320x180, qTz.gif)

File: 1706844305899-1.gif (209.05 KB, 329x353, 3d6.gif)

>>1747607
Wait really?
Damn, Poe's law is real because I immediately agreed with it.
>>1747619
I don't give a fuck what the executioner himself said about it being a mistake, if I were there I'd beat the fuck outta that baby uygha, I'd body slam them little girls, fuck them kids, I'm punt kicking their 3 foot bodies across a football field like the tiny bourgeoisie flesh ragdolls they are, I'd grab them by their tiny necks and dribble them like basketballs before slam dunking them. I'd go full on Jojo on they asses and throw a thousand punches at their faces. Fuck them kids bro.

 No.1747657

>>1747652
>voluntarily give up your power, ending 300 year dynasty
>go into house arrest under provisional government
>bolsheviks take over
>now in house arrest under bolsheviks
>you do whatever they tell you to
>czechoslovak legion is nearby
>your children all get shot
<retards argue about how it was/wasn't based 100 years later
<schizos can't differentiate between the obviously guilty parents and the children/servants/pets
<libs spend way too much breath trying to make that distinction for schizos who don't care and never will

it will never stop being funny as fuck tbh.

 No.1747658

>>1747657
You forgot that it was the SRs that actually pulled the trigger, the Bolsheviks didn't even order it

 No.1747659

>>1747657
I mean I don't think them giving up power was exactly 'voluntary'

 No.1747661

>>1747658
>You forgot that it was the SRs that actually pulled the trigger
No it wasn't. It was Yakov Yurovsky, a bolshevik, who commanded the ural mountain soviet. It is unclear whether he got the orders from lenin or not, but it was definitely bolsheviks who did it, not SRs.

 No.1747666

>>1747659
>be born into family with 300 years of hereditary feudal power
>no choice as to whether to be part of that oppressive political structure
>a bourgeois revolution happens
>your ministers give you the suggestion to abdicate
>you abdicate
>die anyway

even if it was zero pressure it's still funny how milquetoast nicholas was and got nothing in return. if anything the lesson for reactionaries is to be even more ruthless and not ever voluntarily surrender power. it creates a future precedent for them to be more sociopathic. They will chant "remember the romanovs" when they would rather nuke the earth than give up power.

 No.1747668

>>1746923
Regardless of how it may have started, and there is reason to believe it started as a liberation theology, by the time it was preached by Saul (Paul who wrote the majority of the New Testament non-Gospel texts) Christianity was an upper-class Roman-fad religion. These are the texts which your average Western Christian cherishes the most as they are reactionary interpretations of the Gospels (or direct word of the originators of Christianity and possibly a charismatic leader named Jesus). I’ve attended Church thousands of times as I was raised protestant. For every 1000 sermons regarding quotes from Paul we covered maybe one or two quotes by Jesus. I cannot recall a single service in all my years at Church which covered the Sermon on the Mount. I think I’ve heard it at funerals, but never at Church.

Point being, Christianity was a petit bourgeoisie fad religion by the time Paul became the most important influence in Christianity. Paul is still the most important influence in modern Christianity. Next time a Christian appears on Fox News there is a 99.99% probability that they will quote Paul, but claim that whatever Paul says is what Jesus wanted.

Now Paul ran a Church of wealthy members. Back in Rome, the proles did not have fancy jewelry and fine dresses. They lived in rags. Yet Paul advises in many of his books in the New Testament to not wear fine jewelry and dresses to Church. There would be no meed to say this to a Church of the Roman working class in his time period.

These petit bourgeois Christians were a bulwark and hammer of the empire. Very easily brought to bare in protection of the class system. Once Constantinople gave it tax exempt privileges there became a very strong profit motiff for the rich Romans to bevome rich bishops who could avoid paying taxes. Bishops were allowed to marry back then.

After that, the institution ingrained itself into the capitalistt cultural hegemony and was determined to be an effective tool for manufacturing consent towards imperialism.

That’s how modern Christianity became what it is today.

 No.1747669

funny thing is a lot of the ural mountain soviet guys who killed the romanovs got purged later on, so not only did nicholas receive death after voluntarily giving up the throne and going under house arrest, but the executors of the romanovs were rewarded by being purged. definitely a situation to emulate in the future.

 No.1747674

>>1747245
>Oh yeah, one selfless act will redeem all the crimes committed, will bring back the dead, undo property damage, and heal everyone's hearts
Unironically yes? With Faust's selfless act, God won the wager against Mephistopheles. Faust did do all those things with the presence and probing of Mephistopheles after all.

 No.1747677

>>1747669
It's a good thing that bloodthirsty ubertankies are irrelevant in real life

 No.1747680

File: 1706845208512.jpg (7.22 KB, 480x360, thanksgiving turkey.jpg)

>>1747669
I don't care, go ahead and purge me if you must, it won't undead the multiple bourgeoisie children I'll kill with my bare hands.

 No.1747681

>>1747668
>(Paul who wrote the majority of the New Testament non-Gospel texts
The consensus of secular academics in the fields of archeology and religious studies is not that Paul wrote "the majority of the new testament." In fact, it's disputed that Paul even wrote a lot of his own epistles. The consensus is that the gospels started off as an oral tradition among many early christians and were eventually standardized and written down by Greek-speaking affluent Christians between the late 1st century and early 2nd century, after the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. The earliest new testament manuscripts are in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, and reflect not the education level that the apostles they are attributed to would have had, but the education level of Greek-speaking Hellenized Jewish/Christian aristocrats. It is thought that Mark is the earliest gospel, that Matthew and Luke draw heavily from Mark, and that John is a more embellished and creative gospel written later. Apocryphal gospels like Thomas and Judas have disputed authorship but are generally thought to have been written later, but in the case of Thomas, since it's a collection of sayings, it could have started off in the very early tradition, and then got added to over time.

 No.1747682

>>1747680
You're just like bourgeois murderers yourself, you have the exact same personality type

 No.1747685

>>1747677
it's funny that the actual soviet government was not nearly as proud of the dead as they are. For example, the soviet government, rather than proudly announcing to the world "we killed the royal cunts including their royal crotchspawn and their lickspittle servants and their filthy mutts!" they tried to cover it up because they knew it was bad PR. It wasn't until the 20s that they admitted they killed nicholas (and only nicholas) and it wasn't until the 70s that forensic analysis confirmed that the whole family was killed.

 No.1747686

>>1747682
Say it with a hard ie pussy. I stand on business, you can't even say the full word.

 No.1747687

>>1747686
this pic goes unbelievably hard

 No.1747689

>>1747686
Bourgeoisie is plural

 No.1747690

File: 1706845534251.jpg (163.25 KB, 977x697, IMG_20220814_181306.jpg)

>>1747687
Save it, it's all yours my friend.

 No.1747691

>>1747689
he means tankie

 No.1747692

>>1747654
With the exception of the tsarvich all those "kids" were well into adulthood by then and knew full fucking well how much blood was spilled for the sake of their lifestyles. Fuck em.

> I mean if you were born a royal and educated and socialised as one in the 1800s/early 1900s are you honestly telling me you would just shake off everything and decide to give up and just go become a peasant?


That's my point. If they had walked away from their aristocratic titles and tried to make amends that would be one thing. If they had even the slightest chance of getting back onto the throne they would have taken it. They deserved to fucking die and it will forever be based as hell that they did.

The only thing the Bolsheviks did wrong in regards to the execution was not making it a public beheading like the Bourbons but that's hardly their fault.

 No.1747695

>>1747692
Two wrongs don't make a right

 No.1747696

>>1747682
>wanting to kill murderers to stop them from murdering makes you the same as them
yeah bro i hear you i get my morality from stephen universe too

 No.1747697

>>1747692
you talk about child murder the way libertarians talk about child sexual consent

 No.1747698

>>1747696
>we have to kill these kids from a family that has already abdicated the throne because they are pre-emptively guilty of what their parents have done
makes perfect sense

 No.1747937

>>1747698
did you hear guys, they abdictated
that will stop the foreign reaction from flocking around them and using their claim to justify an invasion

 No.1747939

>>1747430
>come down and stop world hunger, war and disease
Is that God's fault or Man's? When was the last time you fed the poor of your own homeland?
>why should a kid get ripped in half by a drone attack or slowly starve until you can see the inside of their eye sockets?
He shouldn't. But which country made those drones? Which people are responsible for stopping the factory making the drones before the drone can even fly? And if the people in that country refuse to stop it then how is that God's fault?

 No.1747943

Kill the bourgeoisie. Men, women. children, it don't matter.

 No.1747967

>>1747939
God created men as they are, i.e cunts.
when Boeing fuck up repeateadly the planes it makes, at some point Boeing is held responsible.

 No.1747974

>>1747939
>omnipotent all-powerful unrivaled being
>implying anything is not their responsibility and their decision

 No.1747976

>>1747151
what if the child consents tho

 No.1748072

>>1747967
No he created them in the perfect utopia (Garden of Eden). Mankind chose to fuck things up.
>>1747974
In this same thread you have people bending over backwards to defend the enemies of the Old Testament because "god is a tyrant" or "god shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone". You can't both want a God who actively intervenes and then bitterly complain when he decides to do so.

 No.1748102

>>1747937
foreign reactionaries didn't need to use the romanovs to justify the invasion. in fact, the united states upheld the february revolution but was against the october revolution. in fact, most of the white army were bourgeois republicans. monarchist revanchists were a minority faction. in fact, it is utterly idealist to think the romanovs posed a threat after the february revolution. in fact, the main justification used by the 14-nation coalition that invaded after october was NOT pro-monarchism, but basic bourgeois anti-communism, as well as a desire to get Russia back into WW1, under kerensky's leadership, to use them as a bludgeon against germany. Lenin coming into power resulted in the signing of brest litovsk. This infuriated the allies of russia, who didn't care whether the government was monarchist or bourgeois republican, but only cared whether russia was throwing bodies at germany. so restoring the abdicated monarchy was not the main goal of the foreign reactionaries. Nor was it even remotely important to them. Which is why this batshit "we had to kill the kids because they would have growed up to restore the throne" is just idealist game of thrones brain worms.

 No.1748104

>>1748072
Why the fuck did God allow there to be a snake to trick Adam and Eve into eating from a forbidden tree that he himself put into the garden

It makes no sense unless God is just an abusive narcissist who wanted to give himself an excuse to punish mankind

 No.1748115

>>1748109
>knows everything
>gives a "choice"

If you know everything, you also know HOW people will act based on their conditions. There's no free will in this. Unless you are going to say that god isn't allpowerful, meaning he doesn't have enough calculation capacity to see into the future based on inputs. Or that he isn't benevolent, because he decided NOT TO look into the future so that humans can "free choice" themselves into oblivion, lol. And if he thinks that giving people "free choice" over constant inputs, without the ability to change premade conditions so that the choice would be meaningfully between good and evil and not between conscience and survival (of yourself and your friends/family)

Honestly, jealous prick of a god from the old testament is more logical and believable than this oxymoronic hypocrite. Objectively good thing to do when you have to worship an oxymoronic hypocrite is to boycott him with your whole people

 No.1748117

>>1748072
Non-tyrannical benevolent god wouldn't want to be worshipped in the first place, because religious nonsense brings only death and despair when unconstrained by laws that actively punish organized religions and prevent them from having free access to vulnerable impressionable people

 No.1748120

>>1748104
some gnostic sects held that YHWH was an evil demiurge who created earth but that jesus was an emanation of the monad, which was the true source of all reality

 No.1748124

>itt anons just now discovering the God of the bible is a supreme egoist that does whatever tf he wants without regard for “morality”
I mean, duh?

 No.1748134

>>1748120
In Gnostic theology Jesus was also the serpent in Eden.
>>1748072
>You can't both want a God who actively intervenes and then bitterly complain when he decides to do so.
So there's no middle ground between doing nothing and wiping out an entire people? Shit, he could have instantaneously struck dead all the perpetrators of human sacrifice, he could have miraculously intervened so that none of the sacrificed infants were harmed when placed in the fire. In fact he does exactly this for Israelites in Babylon when they refuse to bow to the king. He could have "softened their hearts" the way he hardened Pharaoh's. He could have done a million other things. Instead he unleashed his "chosen" band of desert hillbillies to slaughter entire nations, a narrative that their descendants are using to justify the exact same behaviour today. Honestly the biggest thing holding back religion and theological inquiry its this dogmatic need to defend texts that were obviously written to serve the secular needs of Iron Age kingdoms. The Old Testament is the ancient Israelite equivalent of a Tom Clancy novel, it's political propaganda designed to justify the actions of the Hebrew ruling class. It's still a wonderful work of literature that retains many kernels of spiritual wisdom, but its limitations should be acknowledged instead of poorly reconciled.

 No.1748136

>>1747386
>Murdering an entire race of people isn't in contradiction with compassion?
only if you think the totality of Christ's teaching was some vague idea of 'compassion'
>It's precisely because of God that I know this
ok how it

 No.1748138

>>1748136
>only if you think the totality of Christ's teaching was some vague idea of 'compassion'
The totality of it was unconditional love and kindness to your fellow man, even your enemies. There is nothing vague about this, its explicitly spelled out in everything he says and does.

 No.1748140

>>1748138
>The totality of it was unconditional love and kindness to your fellow man, even your enemies
So again you're mistaking unique events that happened for specific reasons and standing orders which are eternal

 No.1748141

>>1748140
You're mistaking propaganda written by parasitic slavers to justify their misdeeds for spiritual wisdom.

 No.1748143

>>1748141
lmao cope,
no argument?

 No.1748146

>you can’t just kill all the Nazis! They’re people too! Why would you be so cruel?!?
How some of you sound bitching about God being a “tyrant”

 No.1748149

>>1748143
Your only argument is "Bronze Age tribal deity did it so its okay." Literally as good as saying rape is fine because Zeus did it.

 No.1748152

File: 1706894534795.jpg (116.98 KB, 760x540, 1652307221305j.jpg)

>>1748149
try replying to what was actually said

 No.1748156

>>1748152
That's all you've been saying this whole time though. "Genocide was good before even though its incompatible with later teachings, and any contradiction is fine because God did it."

 No.1748160

>>1748156
>That's all you've been saying this whole time though.
no thats your strawman you've bee saying this whole time

>"Genocide was good before even though its incompatible with later teachings, and any contradiction is fine because God did it."

so again like I've said a dozen times, just because an event happens in scripture doesn't mean that single event is some moral teaching for all time. Thats the difference between doctrine and unique events

 No.1748164

>>1748160
>no thats your strawman you've bee saying this whole time
So then God is capable of acting immorally? Because if he isn't and you believe the genocide of the Canaanites to be God's work then what I'm saying isn't a strawman. You literally believe that anything God does is moral, even when these actions are completely contradictory. In which case there is no objective morality, just the whims of a petty deity. Objective morality is universal by definition, it doesnt change with time and place. You're no better than an atheist at this point.

 No.1748169

>>1748164
>So then God is capable of acting immorally?
again more things I've never said.
>Because if he isn't and you believe the genocide of the Canaanites to be God's work then what I'm saying isn't a strawman
It was justified
>You literally believe that anything God does is moral
God is the basis for how we understand what is moral, how we understand what is immoral is what is not God
>even when these actions are completely contradictory
they're not contradictory you just have a hard time understanding the difference between doctrine and unique events
>In which case there is no objective morality, just the whims of a petty deity. Objective morality is universal by definition, it doesnt change with time and place. You're no better than an atheist at this point
conclusions derived from a misunderstanding, so no this is incorrect

 No.1748174

>>1748169
>again more things I've never said
If God is fallible then how can he be a basis for understanding what is moral?
>It was justified
<Genocide is good actually!
Lol, lmao. Maybe you should go join the IDF since you love indiscriminate slaughter of Israel's "enemies" (i.e. women and children) so much. It's okay Anon, it's just a unique event and its justified so there's no contradictions here.

 No.1748176

If god is so tough why can't he do any of his own dirty work, and why does he have to have dumb rubes defend him on the internet

 No.1748179

>>1748175
>he isn't
So then he's incapable of acting immorally, which means that two contradictory codes of morality ("genocide against Israel's enemies is okay" vs "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you") can both be equally valid, which means that objective morality doesn't exist.

 No.1748180

>>1748146
No one really gives a shit about God who likeley don't even exist outside people's head.
Anons are just poking at inconsistencies within Christian dogma.

 No.1748181

>>1748104
>abusive narcissist
If you suppose this entity is almighty, then it's way worse. Imagine the most fucked up shit imaginable. Yeah, he done did that.

 No.1748182

>>1748179
>So then he's incapable of acting immorally
thats quite literally what I've been saying
>which means that two contradictory codes of morality ("genocide against Israel's enemies is okay" vs "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you")
so again this is the difference being doctrine and unique events love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you is always true however there are times in history were idolaters were fought against and that was good however you can't seem to understand that the later is not some moral teaching like the former is.

 No.1748185

>>1748182
>love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you is always true
If it's always true then how can it be reconciled with the actions of Old Testament Israelites? They weren't just fighting against idolaters, they waged a war of extermination against entire peoples, they were explicitly ordered to eradicate every man, woman, and child. Were these actions not immoral? Were they not a contradiction with Jesus' prescription to love your enemies which you admit is always valid?
>you can't seem to understand that the later is not some moral teaching like the former is
But it was ordered by God, which according to you makes it a moral act by definition. How then could it not reflect a moral teaching?

 No.1748187

>>1748182
If God cannot act immorally, he can't act immorally period. He can't suddenly order something immoral even if it's convenient for the time being or in the name of the greater good.

 No.1748188

>>1748185
>If it's always true then how can it be reconciled with the actions of Old Testament Israelites?
because you can love your enemy pray for them and still fight them, thats Just War theory.
>They weren't just fighting against idolaters, they waged a war of extermination against entire peoples
this is incorrect, the cannanites were idolators.
>they were explicitly ordered to eradicate every man, woman, and child. Were these actions not immoral? Were they not a contradiction with Jesus' prescription to love your enemies which you admit is always valid?
It was a Just War so it was no it wasn't
>But it was ordered by God, which according to you makes it a moral act by definition. How then could it not reflect a moral teaching?
because its a unique event not a moral teaching.

 No.1748189

File: 1706897832984.png (1.12 MB, 720x1000, 1706452600116-3.png)

>300 posts arguing about le invisible sky wizard

grow

the

fuck

up

 No.1748190

File: 1706897864600.jpg (43.68 KB, 680x510, 1618696453305.jpg)

>>1748188
>because you can love your enemy pray for them and still fight them
<You can murder a person and still love them
Yours is a religion for psychopaths.

 No.1748192

>>1748190
and again no argument

 No.1748194

>>1748192
You've made all my arguments for me, since if your concept of loving a person can include murdering them then its effectively meaningless. Your claims to uphold any "objective" morality are unironically weaker and less convincing than that of most atheists.

 No.1748197

>>1748194
>since if your concept of loving a person can include murdering them then its effectively meaningless
so again all you're saying is that God doesn't fit your idea of what is 'loving'.
> Your claims to uphold any "objective" morality are unironically weaker and less convincing than that of most atheists.
personal incredulity fallacy

 No.1748199

>>1748192
There doesn't need to be an argument against a genocidal maniac, him being such is an argument in itself. That's kind of why Westoids are so obsessed with claiming that their enemies are committing genocides, btw, it overrules any kind of context

>>1748197
Why worship a god whose idea of loving includes the possiblity of murdering loved ones for not believing in a god?

 No.1748205

>>1748199
>There doesn't need to be an argument against a genocidal maniac, him being such is an argument in itself. That's kind of why Westoids are so obsessed with claiming that their enemies are committing genocides, btw, it overrules any kind of context
your concession is accepted then
>Why worship a god whose idea of loving includes the possiblity of murdering loved ones for not believing in a god?
the wages of sin is death

 No.1748207

>>1748197
>so again all you're saying is that God doesn't fit your idea of what is 'loving'
I'm saying that any concept of "love" which allows for the extermination of entire peoples is effectively meaningless. What's the point of such love when the results are indistinguishable from hate?

 No.1748208

>>1748134
>In Gnostic theology Jesus was also the serpent in Eden.
To be clear, I said "in some gnostic sects" because there is no unified gnostic theology. Gnosticism wasn't a self-identifying category in early christianity. rather, it was a collection of different non-Nicene ideas that existed alongside what would eventually become mainstream nicene Christianity. In the early centuries, when the christian tradition was still highly influenced by laypeople, and bishops had not yet risen to power and made up the criteria to identify "orthodoxy" and "heresy" and had not yet set up the political mechanisms for uplifting "orthodoxy" and purging "heresy," there existed a great many competing and cooperating ideas that would later get termed "heresy" by bishops and eventually "gnosticism" by scholars. But sometimes the "gnostics" were deriding each other as heretics too. And while there are some identifiable "gnostic tendencies" these people never had a strict doctrine nor even saw themselves as anything distinct from christianity. gnosticism is a grouping for a collection of different christian sects that can be characterized by some overarching tendencies, such as belief in a demiurge, or the idea that the material world is corrupted, or belief in the soul being made of a material substance called pneuma, or belief in mankind having the divine spark of the monad, etc. Note, these are not not requirements, but merely tendencies, so you will see that some sects classified by scholars as "gnostic" lack a belief in the demiurge, for example. It's not entirely consistent.

 No.1748209

>>1748205
>your concession is accepted then
this is how a troll talks; why should anyone waste time talking to you

 No.1748210

>>1748188
>because its a unique event not a moral teaching.
Something God ordered.
The same God who cannot act outside of morality.
Like it's impossible for him to prescribe anything that is not moral.
Because once again =HE CAN'T ACT IMMORALLY==
Not even "just this once bro"
Not even "for da greater good dude trust me"
It's just impossible in the first place.

Either morality is absolute and suffer no exception, then God couldn't have ordered to kill the babies of the canaaites (who are not idolaters, unless you claim Googoo gah gah is a codeword for long live Moloch)
Or you say Just war by which God itself disprove the idea of absolute morality valable in all circumstances since he himself doesn't abide by it, which makes morality depending on the circumstances, so relative.
You can't have it both way.

 No.1748213

>>1748197
God doesn’t even fit the Christian idea of what love is if the bible is anything to go by.
> Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Yeah, this aint god

 No.1748214

>>1748189
>trying to understand religion as a social force and its effect on society is "arguing about le invisible sky wizard"
perhaps you should grow up or take at least 1 religious studies class.

 No.1748216

>>1748210
>Either morality is absolute and suffer no exception, then God couldn't have ordered to kill the babies
he didn't order that though,
>Or you say Just war by which God itself disprove the idea of absolute morality valable in all circumstances since he himself doesn't abide by it, which makes morality depending on the circumstances, so relative
it doesn't disprove idea of absolute morality you're just acting like everything in scripture is a moral teaching which it isn't

 No.1748218

>>1748213
>God doesn’t even fit the Christian idea of what love is if the bible is anything to go by.
>> Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
>Yeah, this aint god
of course not, those are rules for Humans

 No.1748220

>>1748214
>many people in society argue about invisible sky wizard therefore it’s more legitimate
No

 No.1748224

>>1748218
It’s not a “rule” it’s a definition, one that god doesn’t fit

 No.1748229

>>1748224
<God doesn't fit a human made definition of love.
ok why should I care what your definition of love is

 No.1748231

>>1748229
The bible is supposedly inspired by God.
It’s “gods” definition

 No.1748234

>>1748231
drop the verse then

 No.1748239

>>1748216
>he didn't order that though,
Didn't he ordre the slaughter of the cannaites? There were children but not babies among them?

>it doesn't disprove idea of absolute morality you're just acting like everything in scripture is a moral teaching which it isn't

It describes an order from god, not the reporting of some random dude scratching his ass.
Does God can be immoral yes or no?
If no then he cannot suddenly order something immoral, just because he isn't currently teaching someone about good and evil.
He can't be on the level of a teacher who tell kids "don't do drugs" then smoke weed at home.

 No.1748240

>>1748231
God shows his love to us by giving us a chance to redeem ourselves through faith in Christ. Were God simply interested in being “fair”, we would all be condemned to hell with no hope of salvation, rather than being given a way out. You just sound really entitled

 No.1748242

>>1748234
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 is quoted here
>>1748213

 No.1748249

>>1748104
If he didn't you'd complain about God making everyone a robot with no real choices programmed to follow him for eternity. Your critique is not rooted in any real logic you just have an agenda because you hate the very idea of a deity and so you desperately grasp at whatever can provide you justification even if it contradicts your own views in other ways.
>>1748134
If you actually read the Bible rather than coping with Wikipedia articles and magazine articles from angry atheists you'd realize that whatever YHWH ordered done against the Canaanites was in retrospect much more merciful than what he did to the Israelites when they screwed up and started doing evil things. His moral standard applies to all regardless of whether they're Jews or not.

 No.1748251

>>1748234
you don’t even recognize that Corinthians verse when you see it?
Bro, you outted yourself.
Fake ass Christian.

 No.1748255

>>1748240
>”fair” is creating hell in the first place
Christianity is pathological masochism.

 No.1748257

File: 1706900468618.png (88.86 KB, 600x599, 3467397609475.png)

>>1748249
>If he didn't you'd complain about God making everyone a robot with no real choices programmed to follow him for eternity.
If God didn't there would be no one complaining or else God would have programmed us to be whiny which would not make him a tyrant but a retard.

 No.1748258

>>1748134
>Shit, he could have instantaneously struck dead all the perpetrators of human sacrifice, he could have miraculously intervened so that none of the sacrificed infants were harmed when placed in the fire.
This is what comes from not bothering to actually read the source material and relying on third parties to tell you what the Bible says instead.

The Canaanites who were sacrificing their kids had been given FOUR HUNDRED YEARS TO STOP. If you think four hundred years of patience is not enough time for a society to realize they've fucked up you're an idiot this isn't even theological anymore. America is collapsing without even reaching 300 yet and you'll still be attacking God even though we can all see with our eyes today that judgement is being accelerated.

Also I just love this blindness that atheists love to display:
>a narrative that their descendants are using to justify the exact same behaviour today
So people manipulating a text or idea is reason enough to abandon said idea or text?

What about the IDF propagandists bragging about how they're making Palestine safe for LGBT because Hamas and most Muslims are homophobic? Will you turn your back on homosexuals now simply because they're being weaponized by the IDF and not just the IDF but the West in general (intervening in Afghanistan for "women's rights" for instance)? You are so quick to condemn religion but you utterly fail to apply the same standard to other ideas.

 No.1748260

>>1748242
Thats Paul describing how people should treat each other that isn't describing God

 No.1748261

>>1748255
Yes, hell was intended for Satan and his demons but we condemned ourselves to it, NOT God, when Adam and Eve traded eternal life in paradise for Satan’s promises. Or would you prefer evil go unpunished?

 No.1748264

>>1748220
>many people in society try to study religion as a social system arising from material conditions in order to better combat its negative effects, rather than just childishly doing "sky wizard" jokes from 2005 amazingatheist youtube channel

yes

 No.1748265

>>1748260
It’s the go-to description of love.
You only LARP as a Christian which is why you don’t know it.

 No.1748267

>>1748265
Thats Paul describing how people should treat each other that isn't describing God

 No.1748270

>>1748261
Yeah, I’ve heard it all before.
We supposedly condemn ourselves to it despite him creating the exact circumstances in which we will likely go to it despite having the power to fix any of these eventualities. It’s the typical Christian cop-out.

 No.1748271

>>1748267
It’s describing what love and the bible is divinely inspired by God.

 No.1748273

>>1748270
Do you believe a student getting an A on a test should be treated the same as a student who flunked and didn't even bother to prepare or study for it?
If you're at all honest you would admit that your answer is no. Why then do you take issue with the idea of heaven and hell and God rewarding or punishing people according to their merit?

You do realize that Satan did not eat the fruit but he still fell from heaven? Rebellion is not only intrinsic to Mankind but other beings such as Angels as well.

 No.1748275

>>1748271
Thats Paul describing how people should treat each other that isn't describing God

 No.1748276

>>1748270
we choose where we want to go. If a person decides he does not want to be with God forever then he's free to do so

 No.1748279

>>1748260
Ok so love for humans should go as the follow:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

But it does not apply to God somehow so I must conclude that God's love is neither patient, nor kind, God can envy what it loves and brag about how much he loves stuff, God's love can defile (looking at you Mary lol), be selfish, goes ballistic, hold grudges. God's love allow shadenfreude and making shit up. It throws you under the bus, is suspicious of its object, lets you down and huuuurt you.

Being heretic doesn't sound so bad after all.

 No.1748280

>>1748275
Why do you keep repeating yourself like it negates what I said?

 No.1748281

>>1748273
Teachers also don’t have the power to make it so that everyone passes or instill knowledge in you from the start. Any circumstance you can think of that can’t be placed on an equal playing field with God is a false analogy.

 No.1748282

>>1748279
Too tired to go through all your BS right now but I'll focus on one: patience.

How long of a life have you had so far? I'll round up and say about 20 years since you sound young enough. Assuming no accidents and you not doing stupid shit like getting addicted to cocaine, you will have another 50-60 years of life on average. If at 70 or 80 you still refuse to accept the faith then when judgement comes you will not be able to stand before God to claim that He did not give you enough time. How much more time would you have needed? You made your choice.

 No.1748285

>>1748276
We don’t choose anything because Gods Omniscience conflicts with freewill.

 No.1748288

>>1748282
>can’t win argument
<threaten hell instead
Christoid cope

 No.1748290

>>1748281
God instilled all the knowledge Adam and Eve needed in the Garden. Who are you to claim that humankind was unprepared for the choice they made? And what right does a creation have to demand of their creator to instill a level playing field? Does an Ant have the right to demand your arms and mind and body? Why would it be any less silly for a human to make such a claim against an all powerful being?

 No.1748291

>>1748288
>Can't read
>Decides to greentext to try to make fun instead of actually arguing
channer cope

 No.1748296

>>1748291
You lost the argument when you brought up the threat of hell. It was funny tho

 No.1748299

>>1748296
I didn't mention hell once. Which you would have known if you read.

Argument was as follows:
>Anon claimed God was not patient
>I pointed out the amount of decades anon had to decide whether or not they wanted to trust God or not as an example of patience
<You decide to jump into the debate and accuse me of "threatening hell" because you can't read or follow a discussion

 No.1748302

>>1748258
>The Canaanites who were sacrificing their kids had been given FOUR HUNDRED YEARS TO STOP
The question is why he chose such a brutal method to stop them, one which made no distinction between individual guilt and innocence.
>Also I just love this blindness that atheists love to display
I'm not an atheist.
>So people manipulating a text or idea is reason enough to abandon said idea or text?
There's barely any manipulation going on here on the part of religious Zionists. The Old Testament spells out clearly that the Israelites were justified in exterminating the people standing between them and their promised land, or alternatively that the wrongs of the Canaanites justifies their extermination. They're basically just taking it at face value. It's the Christians and others who have to twist themselves into knots to show that actually such behaviour isn't horrifically immoral. I find this bizarre when the easiest course of action would just be to claim that it was allegorical (as most Christians do with respect to fantastical stories like the flood, Genesis, etc.), which is a position I would actually respect a lot more. If the OT has any spiritual value, most of it comes in the form of allegorical stories which point us towards moral and spiritual lessons (which are then improved and elaborated upon in the NT). Insisting on taking it literally and then trying to reconcile what is essentially secular Hebrew propaganda with spiritual truth is how you wind up with absurd moral positions like claiming you can love somebody while murdering them.

 No.1748305

>>1748273
If you ain't a boomer I'm probably older than you my dogmatic friend but our respective ages aren't relevant to the discussion.

From your reply I can infer than indeed, God's love is patient so at the very least, that part of Paul quote apply to him as well. So will you show how the love from God is different for the love from man or will you agree that Paul decrition is something that apply to both God and man?
How heretical would it be to suggest that love is universal, that the love of the deity is not fundamentally different from the love of its creature? Didn't God create Man in his image?

 No.1748306

>>1748290
well depending on your biblical interpretation, not all the knowledge hence the the tree and apple. I also don’t appeal to rights when it comes to God because I don’t believe it’s real in the first place. If he was I would vouch for total war on him like any tyrant.
>but you’re le ant!
Who cares?

 No.1748309

>>1748299
>didn’t mention hell once
So I’ll assume God only sends me to the nice place when he “judgement” comes, huh?

 No.1748311


 No.1748316

>>1748310
>driving the cannanites out isn't a moral teaching its a historical event, you can't seem to understand that one
I understand it just fine, but I'm saying that's a terrible explanation since it ignores the problem of it being a "historical event" which is very clearly at odds with Christian moral teachings.

 No.1748318

>>1748313
Oh, cool.
I’ll just continue to be an atheist and decide to go to heaven after I die then

 No.1748320

>>1748313
I stick around >>1748318 and I bring booze and hookers.

 No.1748328

>>1748313
>God doesn’t send you anywhere, but he will “judge” you
Sounds like I can tell God to sit-and-spin then while I’m on my merry way to paradise

 No.1748330

>>1748322
But I decided to go to heaven anyway so who's stoping me, God ? He doesn't send me anywhere that's what you said.

 No.1748331

>>1748322
No it’s not.
Me choosing heaven is like “hey, I choose heaven”. Me being an atheist is mostly disposition.

 No.1748333

>>1748327
So what are christian moral teachings? Murder is wrong except when it isn't?

 No.1748342

>>1748327
Ah yes, who could forget the following famous sayings of Jesus:
>If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, be sure to take revenge on them
>Love your enemies, but don't let that stop you from killing them
>Stone that whore, she has it coming lol
>Blessed are the warmongers
etc.

 No.1748354

File: 1706903907599.gif (148.3 KB, 425x417, 6452582765.gif)

>>1748350
>failing this hard at noticing sarcasm
You can't be that retarded

 No.1748358

>>1748353
If Hell is forever then Heaven must be a lie.

 No.1748360

>>1748352
But I choose not to go to prison/hell though. We’ve already established God can’t forcibly send me anywhere like police can.

 No.1748362

>>1748352
When you do crime, it's the cops who throw you to jail. That bears a name: coertion. If you crtl+f you might even see that word have been already used ITT.

 No.1748366

>>1748359
If angels can do whatever and remain in the sky.

 No.1748367

>>1748358
>>1748366
That one slapped.

 No.1748369

>>1748365
And it's the cop that dragged me in cell.
No cops= free shoplift.
And even if there is a magical prison that teleports me inside of it when i throw some garbage outside the bin, then the cop is the one who cast the spell.

 No.1748374

>>1748372
Law doesn't mean shit if no one enforces it.
Either God punishes me when I misbehave, either he doesn't and It doesn't make any difference whether I wipe my ass with his rules or not.

 No.1748381

>>1748366
The rules are shades of grey when you don't do what you say

 No.1748383

>>1748380
Except the part about God not lifting a finger. I do sin, I go to Hell because God made a rule about a magical prison sucking up anyone who doesn't kiss his ass. Not out of my own volition.

 No.1748388

>>1748359
Let's say there's a guy named Bob. Bob loves his family, but Bob went to heaven and they went to hell. How could Bob possibly be happy in heaven knowing his family is getting tortured for eternity?

 No.1748392

>>1748386
And punishing me over it is God's doing. Stop pretending God isn't both judge and executioner and take your fucking L.
Or does God teach you to deny the results of doing your fucking job?

 No.1748393

>>1748386
>>1748381

 No.1748400

>>1748397
you should chew glass and then someone should piss in your mouth

 No.1748401

>>1748381
When you make the wretched suffer just to kill them again!

 No.1748403

>>1748396
> heaven is so good that you can be happy despite people you know not being there.
<And they are suffering forever.
Wait, this actually sounds like another type of hell.

 No.1748404

File: 1706906143552.png (376.25 KB, 640x640, 1644962532991.png)

>>1748399
>Hey cab ! you did a great Job at driving thoses guys at destination!
<Nuh uh I didn't drive that car they booked that trip

 No.1748408

File: 1706906358009.jpg (63.65 KB, 1200x672, 1200-879956178.jpg)

>>1748401
You have to listen it was such a hard decision!

I wanted to save you the anguish it takes to

Do what was required!

 No.1748409

>>1748401
I was told not to trust in angels…

 No.1748411

>>1748406
The way you are explaining it, it’s like they hook you up to a happiness machine that makes you forget everyone you ever loved. Sounds dystopian as any hell I’ve heard of.

 No.1748416

>>1748407
I shat on God's picture while alive and then I wanted to be with him so I could shit on his real face forever, surpisingly, I ended up in Hell.
What did happen?

A. I just decided he wasn't worth it so I choose eternal BDSM in volcano heart.
B. God didn't respect my decision to shit on his face and sent me somewhere where demon would shit on my face instead.

Hint, I stilll wanna badly shit on God's face.

 No.1748424

File: 1706907085581.jpg (93.73 KB, 601x508, 57949546890384905894.jpg)

>ok schizo cope

 No.1748427

It's okay to be a coked up dick sucking ho.

 No.1748429

>>1748411
you can tell this bozo is just a troll by the way he always types less than the other guy. he's just trying to get maximum reaction for minimum effort

 No.1748431

I don't even understand what is being argued in this thread anymore.

 No.1748434

>>1748431
It's pretty obvious the Dogmatard parrot stuff and doesn't understand its implications so now it's only pic rel.

 No.1748435

>>1748419
>“See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind"
He’s referring to past sins in this passage.
> If you're not going to like heaven you're probably not going
No, I’m going.
I need to free other people from the happiness matrix. I could be the One.

 No.1748445

>>1748431
It looks like you could use some help from the big man of Hell himself

 No.1748450

>>1748249
>If he didn't you'd complain about God making everyone a robot with no real choices programmed to follow him for eternity. Your critique is not rooted in any real logic you just have an agenda because you hate the very idea of a deity and so you desperately grasp at whatever can provide you justification even if it contradicts your own views in other ways.

Why couldn't god have created a world with no suffering? That would literally have been easier, he took extra effort in order to add it. Besides nobody would say 'ooh you should have let that baby fall into the swimming pool and die, you took away free will'. God could have made a world which was just as varied and diverse as this one except when you die you just 'respawn' at your house without any pain. He could have made a whole ecosystem without suffering where the prey animals just poof into a pile of meat when they get caught and just respawn. Or he could have created an ecosystem without predation at all. There's so many ways the world could have been better than it is without 'removing free will' (which doesn't exist anyway so it's a moot point).

 No.1748451

55 unique IPs took the bait today
OP really is good at fishing

 No.1748455

>>1748396
Heaven is literally hell, you have to spend the rest of eternity worshipping god with no breaks.

 No.1748456

>>1748450
>Why couldn't god have created a world with no suffering?

He did, but the secret godfags don't want you to know is that Satan is more powerful than him. That's why he hides in heaven while Satan rules the universe.

 No.1748457

>>1748453
>theologians are a better authority than historians and archeologists and scientists
source?

 No.1748458

>>1748456
Satan only killed like a dozen people in the bible whereas god kills millions, it's clear who is the real bad guy. Even Satan being the snake in the garden of Eden is just a retcon.

 No.1748459

>>1748451
I posted this yesterday but yes, ty

 No.1748460

>>1748451
No he's not. Fishing for replies at /leftypol/ is like riding a bike with training wheels.

 No.1748461

>>1748458
satan only kills good guys
god only kills bad guys
cope/seethe/checkmate

 No.1748462

File: 1706908379737.png (48.43 KB, 800x800, baitchads.png)


 No.1748463

>>1748455
le heaven understander
God is all that is good, and living near God (so in heaven) is the most pleasing experience due to taht

 No.1748464

File: 1706908432564.png (123.56 KB, 227x237, 7686739673.png)

>>1748457
theologians

 No.1748467

File: 1706908457536.jpeg (270.3 KB, 1125x1096, nice argument dante.jpeg)

>>1748463
Really, because the bible makes god look like a massive asshole

 No.1748470

>>1748467
the more you think he's an asshole the more he is based tbh

 No.1748473

>>1748458
The Bible is one long text soyjak written by a seething yahweh about the chad devil partying it up in hell with all the cool people

 No.1748475

>>1748458
>>1748467
gnosticism intensifies

 No.1748476

>>1748461
why would god let Sarah kill good people

 No.1748478

>>1748475
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Satan is real either, or even a good guy in himself, but yeah, clearly the lesser evil

 No.1748484

>>1748477
Yeah I'm sure the christians that spend like two days a year going to church are gonna love an eternity of mindless, soulless worship.

 No.1748486

>>1748484
>souless worship
mental retardation…

 No.1748487

File: 1706908865365.png (83.95 KB, 255x255, A8E375296Y8349086.png)

>>1748473
YOU TAKE THAT BACK I CURSE YOU AND YOUR DESCENDANTS YOU 'LL EARN YOUR BREAD WITH THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW STACY WILL GIVE BIRTH WITH PAIN AND YOU WILL DIE

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 No.1748489

>>1748486
You think you can genuinely spend 24 hours a day 365 days a year infinity years per infinity in genuine worship?

 No.1748494

>>1748489
>implies being in heaven and therefore near God is like worshipping him on earth and that's the full understanding of it
ropemaxx tonight

 No.1748496

>>1748487
Lol maybe god should have said "let there be valium" instead

 No.1748499

>>1748489
That's the best part, you don't have any choice! NO REFUNDS

 No.1748500

>>1748494
Join us in prayer we all float up there

 No.1748523


 No.1748528

>>1748476
Sarah?

 No.1748530

>>1748494
Just saying that as described, and based on what we know about God from the Bible, it sounds awful. The stuff about cloud mansions and an eternity of luxury with your family and friends, well that's first centuries of fanon, it doesn't actually say that in the Bible, it just says you'll be spending eternity worshipping him

 No.1748534

>>1748530
*just centuries

The new testament seems to suggest heaven might be like a Persian royal garden apparently. That's pretty cool I guess. It still doesn't say what you'll actually be doing there though.

 No.1748560

>>1748534
Sounds boring af tbh.
At least let me bring my xbox

 No.1748570

>>1748562
> Like a never ending church service for all eternity.
Black evangelical Church service might be fun for a minute because they sing gospel and do goofy stuff. Wanting to do that for forever would become grating though.
If it’s white heaven it’s going to suck big time.

 No.1748675

>>1748617
>the crosstards come here try to convert the commies to their dying religion, despite the fact we've been historical enemies from the get go,

Not a Christian, but I disagree with this. Marx's take was never "Christianity le bad" but rather "Christianity is a drug for people who haven't become class conscious yet."

Also liberation theology is a thing. I think it's mostly a weird attempt to hold onto religion while being a socialist, but I'm not going to spit in the face of those people if I meet them IRL. They could be useful allies.

 No.1748684

File: 1706927417667.png (256.88 KB, 1005x668, pow.png)

Not today Yaldabaoth, Sophia should have had that abortion.

 No.1748875

>>1748562
Dante's inferno isn't canon. Revelation, however, is, and its description of heaven is a lot more creepy. Everyone has the tetragrammaton on their forehead for one thing.

 No.1748877

File: 1706946971361-0.png (156.59 KB, 645x875, ClipboardImage.png)

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY
TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED

https://thebrickbible.com/legacy/acts_of_the_apostles/accept_communism_or_die/ac04_32p34-35.html

ACCEPT COMMUNISM OR DIE

 No.1748971

File: 1706954202395-0.png (1.92 MB, 1584x1584, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1706954202395-1.png (290.91 KB, 360x527, ClipboardImage.png)

Why did the mods delete my post for posting Jesus quotes?

I replied to:
>>1746932
And posted these two Jesus quotes.


Is it not allowed to point out Jesus Christ said these things?

That's factual and correct. Read your bible.

 No.1748985

File: 1706954792914.png (102.21 KB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1748875
Well in the canon, in Revelation, Jesus is a freaky sheep monster who is the one who activates the end times. Jesus is also the scariest monster of revelation. Jesus comes back for revenge on the people of Earth and sets out to destroy everyone, from the slaves to the masters(except for his 144k virginal Jew bros.) But of course no one wants to accept that's what it says so we pretend Jesus fights the horse riders vs he is the one who commands them.

The Seals

6 I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” 2 I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

3 When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” 4 Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make people kill each other. To him was given a large sword.

5 When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. 6 Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “Two pounds[a] of wheat for a day’s wages,[b] and six pounds[c] of barley for a day’s wages,[d] and do not damage the oil and the wine!”

7 When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” 8 I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters,[e] were killed just as they had been.

12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us[f] from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their[g] wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

The Lamb and the 144,000

14 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

 No.1749003

File: 1706956422024.png (1007.35 KB, 864x786, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1746923
It didn't "take over" at all, rather Constantine saw the potential Christianity had for keeping people in line and decided to make it the official state religion of the empire. What Constantine didn't consider is that Christianity was a minority religion in the empire, and that many of the bishops - despite the considerable power they would come to enjoy - were unwilling to carry out the will of the emperor. This aggravated many of the existing problems plaguing the empire, accelerating the decline of Western Rome. The resulting power vacuum would then be filled by the church over the next millennium (with some infighting, of course, but when haven't Christians been at each other's throats?).

The success of Christianity was ultimately a state-sponsored affair. Without the Romans giving them power and killing their opponents, there wouldn't be any Christians here today to tell you about how the Romans oppressed them.

 No.1749028

>>1748240
Leveraging the threat of pain to get someone to do someone is not love, it's abuse. This is textbook gaslighting and coercion.

>>1748290
>God instilled all the knowledge Adam and Eve needed in the Garden
He literally didn't?? They ate the fruit because the serpent told them they would be like God if they did. Either that's true and God should have told them why that's apparently a bad thing, or it's a lie and God should have warned them about it.

Or, y'know, maybe he shouldn't have put the fruit in there in the first place, the same way you don't put a baby in a bathtub and then plug a fucking toaster next to it.

>>1748276
Neurology proves that free will doesn't exist.

 No.1749066

>>1749003
Christianity was a cult of greco-roman pantheon. That's why it spread around so quickly - it was just like any other "heathen" cult out there. Look at religious freedumbs USA has, and just how many cults are there in the US

 No.1749071

>>1749066
It was always funny to me how people diffetentiated "cults" in the modern sense from religions. What is your definition?

 No.1749074

>>1749071
NTA but a religion is a cult that have grown well.

 No.1749078

File: 1706962324277.jpg (103.51 KB, 800x416, scientology-1.jpg)

>>1749074
Well cult used to have a diffetent meaning originally. But yeah I always thought it was some bullshit hearing Christian friends decrying Scientology as if there made up bullshit group wasn't fundamentally the same.

 No.1749108

>>1749028
<They ate the fruit because the serpent told them they would be like God if they did.
God literally tells them that eating the fruit will kill them in the introduction to the tree even before they meet the snake. The snake lied, God told the truth. Adam and Eve had all the information available already.
<But then god shouldn't have allowed them to eat
The point is that humans would always make the choice in any similar scenario. If Revelation is read literally, after Jesus comes back there is peace for 1000 years and then many people who were saved decide to rebel anyways despite peace and despite the best life of all time basically. The point is that a large segment of humanity (not all) makes the wrong choice consistently regardless of whatever the scenario is so there is no escaping responsibility and you cannot blame your wrong choices on God.

 No.1749126

File: 1706965838644.gif (2.15 MB, 498x202, 1683344217982.gif)

>>1749108
>people be retarded. It's your own fault
Then. why. make. them. retarded?

 No.1749128

>>1749078
<Christian friends
Here is the mistake you made.

 No.1749191

>>1749108
God is literally the one who designed people to be that way, and even if we say 'people making bad choices is part of free will', fine, just make all the possible choices not cause suffering then.

 No.1749199

>>1746923
>how did Christianity take over the Roman empire
It did not, it was co-opted.

 No.1749258

File: 1706980186689.jpg (16.01 KB, 532x766, 1676224004178.jpg)

The demeanor of that fellow is also quite clownish

 No.1749290

>>1749240
free will is a sin

 No.1749298

>>1749290
Touching your willy is a sin

 No.1749425

File: 1706994530903.png (81.68 KB, 999x722, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1749108
>The snake lied, God told the truth
Genesis 2:16-17 (NIV):
<And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Genesis 3:4-5 (NIV):
<“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:22 (NIV):
<And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

The snake didn't lie. Eating the fruit did not kill Adam & Eve, and they became like God by learning about good & evil. God lied twice - directly (the fruit doesn't kill them, and nothing suggests they were immortal at any point) and by omission (he leaves out the part about good & evil). Furthermore, God neglects to tell them about the curses he will lay out if they eat the fruit (i.e. pain in childbirth, working the land, etc.).

Let's suppose "you will certainly die" is just a metaphor for "you will lose immortality" as a way to sidestep the direct lie (despite literally nothing in Genesis suggesting Adam & Eve were immortal at any point). If that was the case, then Adam & Eve wouldn't have understood the gravity of death when they ate the fruit, meaning they wouldn't have full agency over their decision. It's like a baby pulling a cat's tail - it's bad, sure, but the baby doesn't understand that the cat is in pain, so you can't judge them for it.

Either way, God did not give Adam & Eve enough information to make an informed decision. And if you read the subtext, it's God himself who kills them by denying them the cure for death.

>The point is that humans would always make the choice

Did you just gloss over the part where I said neurology disproves free will

>there is no escaping responsibility and you cannot blame your wrong choices on God

Then why does God get to escape responsibility for the existence of sin? If someone does something wrong, and you have the power to stop them, completely and utterly and without consequence, but refuse to do so, you are part of the problem.

 No.1749431

>>1749425
>>1749108
It's not even a cat tail pull. It's kids wanting to be just like their parent. This story is like saying that growing up is a sin, and if somebody says that it's not, then he is an evil liar

 No.1749433

>>1748675
>Marx's take was never "Christianity le bad" but rather "Christianity is a drug for people who haven't become class conscious yet."

He didn’t speak in absolute terms like “bad”, but he did see its abolition as valuable. Everyone always remembers the first part of that quote but leave out the two paragraphs that follow where he says:
> The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
> Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
>It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

 No.1749436

>>1748985
I think it’s under appreciated by Christians how cool freaky lamb Christ is tbh.

 No.1749473

>>1749425
I'm convinced that story from Genesis may have started off as an ancient riddle people started to take seriously after a while. Because clearly the myth is about a paradox. God tells totally innocent creatures what not to do, but they aren't able to avoid doing it, because they lack knowledge of good and evil. They're so ignorant they don't even know that they're naked until they eat the fruit. Only once they eat the fruit are they even able to conceive that it was a bad idea to disobey God.

Also you can tell it's a very early myth that must have come from polytheistic Canaanite Yahwism because Yahweh in the story is not omnipotent. He asks "where are you" after Adam/Eve have eaten the fruit. They are able to hide from him. How? He also asks Adam if he has eaten the fruit, showing he doesn't know. Adam blames woman, woman blames serpent, God curses all 3, and then Adam names the woman even only after he has been cursed and driven from the Garden. Another sign that it comes from polytheistic canaanite yahwism is god's worry that "man has become like us, knowing good and evil," woah woah woah, wait a minute, like US?!?! plural?! does he just mean the angels, or does he mean other Gods? Why would God say "like us" when including angels, if angels are lesser beings than him? is it possible that Yahweh used to be the head of a pantheon and only later were his companion gods downgraded to a host of angels?

Also the serpent being Satan was only established later after Satan was invented. Satan was not invented when the earliest parts of Genesis was written. Indeed, the Satan in the Book of Job is better translated as "adversary". He is a type of stock character in Jewish literature who argues with God in the court of heaven like a lawyer or a defendant, not the prince of darkness who has fallen from heaven and lives in hell.

You can see how internally diverse early Judaism was because the book of Genesis contains several internal contradictions and signs of having been stitched together from earlier books and stories with several different authors.

 No.1749476

File: 1707000385815.jpg (93.97 KB, 750x917, 6yxnqdy8gv581.jpg)

>>1746923
Revolutions ending up with military dictatorship instead of proletarian dictatorship is a huge problem that marxist-leninists are unable to resolve.

 No.1749477

>>1749436
check out animated apocalypse by Nina Paley

 No.1749481

>>1746954
Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion. He simply legalized it. It was a later emperor who made it the state religion. Also the bloody civil war Constantine waged against his brother in law was not over the question of whether Christianity or Paganism would be supreme. That is a backwards projected analysis.

 No.1749837

>>1749473

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daeva

Zoroaster was a jealous god (deus)

>In the Gathas, the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and credited to Zoroaster himself, the daevas are not yet the demons that they would become in later Zoroastrianism; though their rejection is notable in the Gathas themselves. The Gathas speak of the daevas as a group, and do not mention individual daevas by name. In these ancient texts, the term daevas (also spelled 'daēuuas') occurs 19 times; wherein daevas are a distinct category of "quite genuine gods, who had, however, been rejected".[5] In Yasna 32.3 and 46.1, the daevas are still worshipped by the Iranian peoples. Yasna 32.8 notes that some of the followers of Zoroaster had previously been followers of the daevas; though, the daevas are clearly identified with evil (e.g., Yasna 32.5).


They tried to lead man astray with lies!

>In the Gathas, daevas are censured as being incapable of discerning truth (asha-) from falsehood (druj-). They are consequently in "error" (aēnah-), but are never identified as drəguuaṇt- "people of the lie". The conclusion drawn from such ambiguity is that, at the time the Gathas were composed, "the process of rejection, negation, or daemonization of these gods was only just beginning, but, as the evidence is full of gaps and ambiguities, this impression may be erroneous".[5]


>In Yasna 32.4, the daevas are revered by the Usij, described as a class of "false priests", devoid of goodness of mind and heart, and hostile to cattle and husbandry (Yasna 32.10–11, 44.20). Like the daevas that they follow, "the Usij are known throughout the seventh region of the earth as the offspring of aka mainyu, druj, and arrogance. (Yasna 32.3)".[16] Yasna 30.6 suggests the daeva-worshipping priests debated frequently with Zoroaster, but failed to persuade him.

 No.1749838

>>1749837
As a side note, I fucking HATE wikipedia. They intentionally write their text in such a way that you don't understand anything as a result, they try to give as little context as possible and give out the most vague general descriptions possible, so instead of interesting god descriptions you get "hurrdurr he was a god associated with pastures". It's just amazing how shit professional wikipedos are at their job

 No.1749841

>>1749477
Nice.
I use to like revelations a lot when I was still a Christian. It reads like a psychonaught’s trip report.

 No.1749868

>>1749841
>It reads like a psychonaught’s trip report.
It may very well have been. Perhaps John of Patmos took something before having his visions.

 No.1749871

File: 1707033849426.gif (483.14 KB, 512x512, 1706107258170.gif)

Is it so cruelly inconceivable to grasp God with the senses? Why should He hide himself in a mist of half-spoken promises and unseen miracles? What is going to happen to those of us who want to believe but aren't able to?

 No.1749874

>>1749436
SEX with Lamb Jeebus

 No.1750012

>>1749841
Jewish apocalyptic literature is full of that sort of shit. You should read the Books of Enoch, it's the source of the "Biblically accurate angel" meme even though it's technically not part of the Bible.

 No.1750014


 No.1750019

>>1746932
>Christ repeatedly advocated violent action against evil
examples?

 No.1750020

>>1750014
>Christian doctrine holds that natural reason and natural law provide common ground by which the Christian and the unbeliever can debate their differences and cooperate in pursuing common ends… The Gnostic mindset is not interested in such common ground or tolerant of such differences.
Lmao what? Are they just hoping everybody would forget about centuries of inquisitions, burning of heretics, crusades, the doctrine of discovery, and wars of the reformation? If there has ever been an institution in Western society that was incredibly and violently intolerant of such differences it's the Catholic Church. Shit they didn't even tolerate differences between interpretations of Christianity, let alone "non-believers".

 No.1750049

File: 1707064999283.png (759.92 KB, 1200x1200, le_demiurge.png)

>>1749871
not religious but i can imagine the argument being something like "if it was so evident that faith wasn't required, then you wouldn't be exhibiting the virtue of faith"

Basically it's presupposed that faith is virtuous, and one of the preconditions for avoiding hell, then it's presupposed that God reveals himself indirectly, through signs, because his unfiltered presence is too powerful for us unworthy mortals to bear (or something along those lines). So when you ask a religious person why faith in God is one of the preconditions for avoiding hell, or why God doesn't simply reveal himself to us, we seem to them petulant and pedantic and unpious. Because the answer to that why is "because God has built it that way". And there's no getting to the heart of their presupposition because they treat their presupposition as the First Cause an the Unmoved Mover upon which all other assumptions are built. If you take that from them, you are removing the foundations from the building

 No.1750051

>>1750019
Driving the money lenders from the temple (come on this is the most famous thing attributed to him besides dying on the cross and performing miracles)

 No.1750052

>>1749258
lol my man is doing the T pose from freaking fortnite xdxd

 No.1750054

>>1749126
>they chose to be retarded b/c free will
>free will is important b/c otherwise there would be no choice
>god has to punish bad choices b/c otherwise god wouldn't good
>the punishment has to be eternal because…. umm…. uh????

 No.1750056

File: 1707065425652.png (55.64 KB, 1020x209, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1749078
cult has several different meanings today. In religious studies it means any kind of collection of devotional practices among a religious group. in common language however it is used as a pejorative to only refer to zealots, fanatics, and marginalized religious groups. It is a common joke that cult+time = religion. Because the mists of the past and historical illiteracy allow well-established religions to be viewed as more "legitimate" than religions that are new.

 No.1750057

>>1749003
> Constantine saw the potential Christianity had for keeping people in line and decided to make it the official state religion of the empire.
see >>1749481

 No.1750068

>>1750051
That's literally the only time he does anything that could be considered "violent" and even then he just destroys their property. There are some passages that could be interpreted as advocating some form of violence, but the pacifist nature of Jesus' actual conduct is pretty indisputable. That in and of itself undermines any attempt to characterize his other statements as literal calls for violence imo.

 No.1750167

>>1750051
That's the only thing that historical jesus actually did.

 No.1750169

>>1750167
There was no historical jesus

 No.1750219

File: 1707080698083.png (89.07 KB, 1280x1057, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1749871
>Is it so cruelly inconceivable to grasp God with the senses?

For thousands of years such phenomena have been investigated, studied, and generalised, the whole ground of the religious faculty of man has been analysed, and the practical result is the science of Raja Yoga. Raja Yoga does not, after the unpardonable manner of some modern scientists, deny the existence of facts which are very difficult to explain; on the other hand, it gently, yet in no uncertain terms, tells the superstitious that miracles and answers to prayers, and powers of faith, though true as facts, are not rendered comprehensible through the superstitious explanation of attributing them to the agency of a being, or beings, above the clouds. It declares to mankind that each being is only a conduit for the infinite ocean of knowledge and power that lies behind. It teaches that desires and wants are in man, that the power of supply is also in man; and that ==wherever and whenever a desire, a want, a prayer, has been fulfilled, it was out of this infinite magazine that the supply came, and not from any supernatural being. The idea of supernatural beings may rouse to a certain extent the power
of action in man, but it also brings spiritual decay. It brings dependence; it brings fear; it brings superstition. It degenerates into a horrible belief in the natural weakness of man.== There is no supernatural, says the Yogi, but there are in nature gross manifestations and subtle manifestations. The subtle are the causes, the gross the effects. The gross can be easily perceived by the senses; not so the subtle. The practice of Raja Yoga will lead to the acquisition of the more subtle perceptions.

==The Christian asks you to believe in his religion, to believe in Christ, and to believe in
Him as the incarnation of God, to believe in a God, in a soul, and in a better state of that soul. If I ask him for reasons he says, “No, it is my belief.” But if you go to the fountain head of Christianity you will find that it is based upon experience. Christ said He saw God; the disciples said they felt God; and so forth.== Similarly, in Buddhism, it is Buddha’s experience—He experienced certain truths, saw them, came in contact with them, and preached them to the
world. So with the Hindus—in their book the writers, who are called Rishis, or sages, declare that they have experienced certain truths, and these they preach. ==Thus it is clear that all the religions of the world have been built upon that one universal and adamantine foundation of all our
knowledge—direct experience. The teachers all saw God; they all saw their own souls, they saw their eternity, they saw their future, and they saw what they preached. ==

The teachers of the science of Yoga, therefore, declare that religion is not only based upon the experiences of ancient times, but that no man can be religious until he has had the same perceptions himself. Yoga is the science which teaches us to get these perceptions. It is useless to talk about religion until one has felt it. Why is there so much disturbance, so much fighting and quarrelling in the name of God? There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause, and the reason is that people never went to the fountain head; they were content only to give a mental assent to the customs of their forefathers, and wanted others to do the same. What right has a man to say he has a soul if he does not feel it, or that there is a God if he does not see Him? If there is a God we must see Him, if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoke atheist than a hypocrite. The modern idea, on the one hand, with the “learned,” is that religion and metaphysics, and all search after a Supreme Being, is futile; on the other hand, with the semi-educated, the idea seems to be that these things really have no basis, that their only value consists in the fact that they are strong motive powers for doing good to the world. If men believe in a God, they may become good, and moral, and so make good citizens. We cannot blame them for holding such ideas, seeing that all the teaching these men get is simply to believe in an eternal rigmarole of words, without any substance behind them. They are asked to live upon words; can they do it? If they could, I should not have the least regard for human nature. Man wants truth, wants to experience truth for himself, to grasp it, to realise it, to feel it wihtin his heart of hearts; then alone, declare the Vedas, will all doubts vanish, all darkness be scattered, and all crookedness be made straight. “Ye children of immortality, even those who live in the highest sphere, the way is found; there is a way out of all this darkness, and that is by perceiving Him Who is beyond all darkness, and there is no other way.”

 No.1750221

File: 1707080907215.jpg (18.01 KB, 352x264, giorgio.jpg)

>It's a "I'll believe in any old bullshit so long as it makes Christianity bad" thread

Hey guys, what if Jesus was actually an alien and his miracles were actually just him using advanced technology. It sure would make Christianity look silly if they were worshiping an alien this whole time, wouldn't it?

You now have to believe in ancient Jewish aliens or you're a christcuck or christcuck apologist. Your vulgar contrarianism compels you.

 No.1750222

>>1750167
was I arguing the contrary?
>>1750068
Matthew 10:34-36 doesn't sound very pacifistic
>>1750169
secular scholarly consensus is there was.

 No.1750224

>>1750221
>waltzing into an incredibly long thread with very diverse range of opinions, quoting absolutely nobody, and making shit up

 No.1750225

>>1750224
One of the "Jesus was made up by the Romans as some wacky conspiracy" is one of the first posters in this thread

 No.1750227

>>1750225
then actually respond to that post

 No.1750229

File: 1707081257853.png (1.48 MB, 1516x1200, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1750221
How is an alien particularly more silly than a guy who walks on water?

 No.1750230

File: 1707081345598.png (413.11 KB, 1079x1016, 1689629778767.png)

>>1750221
How about that there were probably no miracles, fucking retard. Typical xtoid to just make things up to suit their narrative

 No.1750246

File: 1707082271645.png (116.36 KB, 867x433, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1747187
>god gave us free will
>>1748115
>If you know everything, you also know HOW people will act based on their conditions. There's no free will in this


Can one of /leftypol/'s resident theologians explain to me if free will is supposed to be real?

In Exodus 4:21 God in the form of the Burning Bush says to Moses:

>“When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in your power, but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go."

(emphasis mine)
Why does YHWH harden pharaoh's heart? Doesn't that nullify Pharaoh's free will? Doesn't it needlessly escalate the conflict between the Israelites and the Pharaoh? This verse implies pharaoh would have let the Israelites go if it weren't for YHWH hardening his heart. What is the purpose of this?

Also what happens next is even weirder. After God speaks to Moses, Moses travels to an unnamed place to spend the night, and God tries to kill Moses right after telling Moses all the plans he has for Moses in Egypt. Moses's life is saved because Moses's wife takes a flint knife and circumcises Moses's son and lays the foreskin on Moses's feet. This is very strange because you would think that if God took issue with Moses's son being uncircumcised, he would have mentioned it during the discussion with the burning bush, and not during the later encounter the same night. Why try to kill Moses? Why not just tell him "Moses, circumcise your boys, as is tradition."

 No.1750248

File: 1707082291740.jpg (106.6 KB, 1229x805, Faith-Healing.jpg)

If a rational Christian really believes in the miracles, shouldn't they devote all their effort into understanding rhe mechanisms of Jesus magic? We have the power to bring people back from the dead let alone heal any ailment. Jesus tech would be the most valuable tech ever invented if it was real. That's why I haveore respect for full schizo fairh healer Christians. Maybe they are failing at developing Jesus tech but at least they are trying.

 No.1750249

>>1750248
>shouldn't they devote all their effort into understanding rhe mechanisms of Jesus magic?
they'll just say there is no mechanism because Jesus is God The Son, and God is above reality, and God is able to bend or break the laws of physics to his will

 No.1750252

>>1749240
>God didn't design us to be inclined towards sin that happened after

He's omnipotent so he has perfect knowledge of everything that will happen, he knew what humans would do from before he ever created them

>that is the eschaton


Why exactly do countless billions of humans and trillions of animals have to suffer for god's 'divine plan', if he wanted to end suffering he can just do it whenever

 No.1750253

>>1750219
> Raja Yoga does not, after the unpardonable manner of some modern scientists, deny the existence of facts which are very difficult to explain
science does not "deny the existence of facts which are very difficult to explain"

 No.1750255

>>1750252
they're a troll, don't expect a conclusive answer, but rather a dismissive answer that makes you ask more questions. To a dogmatist, the one who has no questions is always more intelligent seeming than the one who has questions. To ask a question is to reveal ignorance. To claim to know enough is to reveal intelligence. At least to the dogmatist.

 No.1750256

>>1750255
I mean they may well be a troll but they are basically spouting the standard Christian apologetics for these questions, this is literally the answers they give

 No.1750259

File: 1707082750955.jpg (101.58 KB, 820x466, Happy-Jesus-Pointing.jpg)

>>1750249
>>1750249
Well Jesus's message was "I am magic and so can you"

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

==

20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” ==

Beaides Jesus wasn't the only one with magic powers in the bible. Clearly biblr magic c is a learnable skill is the message.

 No.1750266

>>1750249
>>1750259
And faith otself can be described as a mechanism.

<This person doesn't have faith = no magic powers

>This person has faith of mustard seed = magic powers.

That's the point of giving instruction in the first place.

 No.1750282

>>1750259
>>1750266
>you won't have magic powers unless you believe you have magic powers, your magic powers will be obvious to all who believe in magic powers, but they will be invisible to people who don't believe in magic powers

convincing

 No.1750284

>>1750259
>>1750266
cool now answer this one: >>1750246

 No.1750304

File: 1707085397583.jpg (83.79 KB, 1280x720, ass.jpg)

>>1750246
As long as you don't take the old testament seriously it's pretty fucking funny, stuff like God coming down and trying to kill a child with his own hands before being stopped because of circumcision is hilarious. The entire book of job is written out like a comedic film before anything you'd think would be biblical scripture.

 No.1750309

>>1750304
Why do many Christians bundle the old testament with the new testament and take it seriously? Why isn't the new testament the only holy scripture of Christianity?

 No.1750313

>>1750304
Sorry I meant Jonah.
>>1750309
Christians historically have not been the smartest lot, especially in modern times when Israel needs a ready and willing support base of Judeo Christians, who if anything probably regret defanging Christianity too much in retrospect and wish they could call for another Crusade right about now.

 No.1750341

>>1750313
but bundling old testament w/ new testament didn't start in modern times. It has been conventional for bibles since the 4th century. There was only about 3 centuries prior to the canon of what would become the Catholic Church and its offshoots being affirmed by the Council of Rome (382CE), the Synod of Hippo (393CE), two of the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419CE). Those established the biblical canon consisting of 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 73 books.

 No.1750355

>>1750246
>Why does YHWH harden pharaoh's heart? Doesn't that nullify Pharaoh's free will?
here's the cope article that has been written:
https://christianquestions.com/bible-questions/did-pharaoh-really-have-free-will-if-god-hardened-his-heart/

Here are the main points:

<Pharaoh was naturally inclined to be stubborn and proud. He had been raised to think of himself as a god from earliest childhood.

<God put him in the right place at the right time to accomplish His purposes, using Pharaoh’s free will decision to obstruct the Jews leaving Egypt.
<God certainly allowed the circumstances that forced Pharaoh into making a decision. In that sense, we could say God “hardened” his heart.
<God took Pharaoh’s natural propensity and used it as a tool. God can advance His plan according to the characters people already possess.
<Pharaoh may have thought he was the supreme ruler in Egypt, but God positioned Pharaoh into his position and used him as only one of the many tools for the ultimate working of God’s plan. God’s plan will ultimately work out for the good of everyone.
<Because Pharaoh saw himself as above everyone else, he was not going to take the word, will, threat or suggestion of a lowly human. God used that trait to glorify His own name.

So they don't really answer the question, they just make a bunch of unrelated points about pharaoh's personality, and then slip in there some scare quotes that contradict scripture. God didn't really harden pharaoh's heart! See! We put scarequotes around harden so you can ignore Exodus 4:21 and Exodus 7:12-14 which both suggest that Pharaoh's heart was hardened by YHWH directly, interfering with Pharaoh's free will.

 No.1750361

>>1750309
I've thought rhe same thing. You think every Christian should know the =°red letter text== by heart. Jesus's transcriptions must be 1000000…* More potent than anything else in the bible considering he is the one and only god incarnate.

But also he said:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 No.1750392

>>1750361
>not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law

this is kinda funny since a lot of theologians insist that an iota was dropped from the famous verse about a camel passing through the eye of a needle. They say that the Greek word kamelos, meaning "camel"should really be kamilos, meaning "cable" or "rope." Still, passing a rope through a needle's eye is nevertheless impossible. But the analogy of a thick rope passing through a needle instead of a thread makes more sense and is less random than a camel.

 No.1750485

>>1750229
Because miracles are evidence of divine intervention. The evidence that Jesus was divine is the fact that he was able to do the impossible.

That's fundamentally different from it being revealed that Christianity is essentially a cargo cult.

>>1750230
I'm talking about the people who accept any bad history or archaeology that makes Christianity look bad, I'm not arguing for a divine Jesus. There was already a "Jesus never existed and Christianity was a Roman conspiracy" guy in this thread.

 No.1750488

>>1750485
Are you religious

 No.1750491

>>1750355
I love all the "it's just God's plan" stuff where free will exists just to absolve god of all the responsibility for the evil shit he does.

 No.1750492

>>1750057
But that’s wrong only <20% of the Roman population was Christian at the time Constantine legalized it

 No.1750495

>>1750491
Imperfection is the only way experience can happen. In a perfect state problem finds sution immediately.

 No.1750496

>>1750488
No, but what does that matter? The Ancient Aliens guys are explicitly non-religious and that doesn't stop them from proliferating bullshit.

 No.1750498

>>1750495
>sution
Solution*

 No.1750505


 No.1750508

>>1750496
As opposed to rational shit like all the stuff in the Bible

 No.1750509

>>1750508
If the bible/Quran isn't real how did it take over the globe?

 No.1750513

>>1750508
The stuff in the Bible isn't supposed to be rational. It deals explicitly in the supernatural and unknowable.

 No.1750518

>>1750491
Has any theologian ever addressed the fact that the concepts of free will and a divine plan seem mutually exclusive? Even in that attempt to explain the hardening Pharoah's heart without contradicting free will, it still just says that God deliberately created conditions which he knew would cause Pharoah to act in a particular way. Its not free will if your behaviour is being engineered. You might as well argue that the dwellers of Plato's cave have free will.

 No.1750519

>>1750492
What point are you arguing with? I think you are assuming that I was saying what in fact I was only quoting. None of what you have said contradicts what I have said, either explicitly or implicitly.

 No.1750522

>>1750509
some of the stuff in the bible/quran is true and some of it isn't. also both books contradict each other. muslims hold that the bible is corrupted. your question is poorly formed and lazy. for what it's worth the person you are responding to is also being dismissive and lazy. this entire conversation is going poorly.

 No.1750524

>>1750518
theologians have constantly addressed this question. though they haven't do so in a way that satisfies secular people because that was never their goal.

 No.1750528

>>1750524
In that case their goals seem to have a lot less to do seriously inquiring about the nature of God and creation and more to do with contriving excuses for all the obvious contradictions and incoherence of scripture.

 No.1750530

>>1750518
Well in regards to the specific example it is obviously bullshit no independant records exist of these events. But free will can exist within a non-free will framework, just as any game or system allows free will in the framework of absolute rules.

 No.1750533

>>1750528
Yes. that's why it's called apologetics.

 No.1750540

>>1750227
(he won't)

 No.1750655

File: 1707098749939.png (694.77 KB, 1804x1072, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1750361
those laws btw

 No.1751018

File: 1707124666396.jpg (29.83 KB, 383x424, 1665540751216.jpg)


 No.1751550

>>1751544
Brah get off his cock, I don't think he needs you bouncing on His Dick

 No.1751552

>>1751544
you don't really believe the things you say

 No.1751562

>>1750518
Egypt had enslaved the Jews for years upon years before God commissioned Moses to sort things out. Assuming the hardening of Pharoah's heart was "God's fault" The Egyptians had ample time before then to stop behaving terribly. After all God didn't harden "every Egyptian's heart" and there is no evidence given to suggest that the average Egyptian wanted to stop the system of slavery just like how there is no evidence today that Americans feel any remorse over bombing Yemen/Syria/Iraq/etc. Thus they were punished.

 No.1751568

File: 1707166999850.png (37.16 KB, 854x214, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1751562
>Assuming the hardening of Pharoah's heart was "God's fault"
Why do you put this in scare quotes? YHWH directly says "I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go." Not only is he expressly doing this, but he is expressly stating that he is doing it so that the conflict will go on longer than it needs to.
>The Egyptians had ample time before then to stop behaving terribly.
If you paid attention, the question wasn't about whether you think the Egyptians had it coming, but whether or not free will can really be said to exist if God randomly nullifies it to produce a desired outcome, and can predict how people will behave in advance.
>God didn't harden "every Egyptian's heart"
wasn't the question
> and there is no evidence given to suggest that the average Egyptian wanted to stop the system of slavery
wasn't the question, also YHWH lays out the laws for how the Hebrews should handle slavery later in Exodus 21. So YHWH has no issue with slavery.
>just like how there is no evidence today that Americans feel any remorse over bombing Yemen/Syria/Iraq/etc. Thus they were punished.
This wasn't the question. You are dealing with "did the egyptians deserve it?" and not the question of free will that was brought up.

 No.1751574

>>1751562
>Assuming the hardening of Pharoah's heart was "God's fault" The Egyptians had ample time before then to stop behaving terribly.
First off, I'm not assuming anything. The text says that explicitly that God hardened Pharoah's heart. But even still, were they behaving terribly? The Old Testament doesn't condemn slavery, in fact it spells out rules to regulate it. Pharoah wasn't bad because he was enslaving people, he was bad because he was enslaving God's people. It's the same logic that Zionists use, where "never again" only means never again for Jews, but genocide is fine when its directed at other people. That's just another indication that Yaweh is a petty tribal diety and not a genuine God imo. How exactly were the Egyptians supposed to know that this particular group of desert tribesmen was off limits?
>After all God didn't harden "every Egyptian's heart" and there is no evidence given to suggest that the average Egyptian wanted to stop the system of slavery just like how there is no evidence today that Americans feel any remorse over bombing Yemen/Syria/Iraq/etc.
If God uses the same logic as third worldists then he's an even bigger and more morally bankrupt retard than I thought.

 No.1751586

>>1751574
>That's just another indication that Yaweh is a petty tribal diety and not a genuine God imo.
NTA but this is a false distinction. A "genuine" God often starts off as a petty tribal deity whose domain of worship expands to those outside of the original group. YHWH started off as a storm/war God in the Canaanite pantheon, became the national God of the kingdoms of Israel/Judah, and his cult was elevated to a henotheistic status (supreme above other gods which were still assumed to exist), before finally becoming monotheistic some time before the second temple period, after the Hebrews were introduced to Platonic ideas through the Seleucids and Zoroastrian ideas through the Babylonians. The monotheistic YHWH emerged out of a pantheon. Ironically the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten tried and failed to elevate Aten to a henotheistic/monotheistic deity through a top-down religious reform around the same time it is thought that the Hebrews were in Egypt, leading Sigmund Freud to speculate that Moses was a priest of Aten who fled to Canaan after Polytheism was restored to Egypt by King Tut, though that is a fringe theory.

 No.1751587

>>1751574
>>1751586
watch vid related btw

 No.1751593

>>1751586
I understand the history of how Yahweh evolved into the God we know of today. What I'm saying is that the more abstract philosophical idea of God as a universal consciousness equivalent with Being itself that emerged later is clearly incompatible with how God is described in the Old Testament. OT Yahweh is not universal, he's arguably not even omniscient. He's petty and personal, more like the Olympian gods. His origins as a member of a pantheon are plainly visible when looking at the distinction between the OT and later Abrahamic ideas.

 No.1751618

Blaming it all on Pharaoh ignores the however many centuries Egyptians were using their free will to oppress the Israelites. It was a direct answer to the question. Yes Pharaoh was emotional seeing the judgements and seemingly wanted to stop. But then after all it was Pharaoh's choice to, after receiving a brief respite, to continue the slavery. It was freely made. The text makes clear that there are many instances where Pharaoh hardens his own heart
[Exodus 8:30-32]
>30 So Moses left Pharaoh and pleaded with the Lord. 31 The Lord did as Moses asked, and removed the swarms of flies from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people; not one remained. 32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go.

Just like every other Egyptian had the free will to choose to reform themselves or abolish it.

tl;dr

1) Pharoah still demonstrated his own free will in retracting his promise to free the slaves after receiving a brief respite, under his own will with no compulsion from God
2) The entire nation of Egypt had free will as well during this period of judgement and there is no recorded evidence of any of them repenting for what they were doing.
3) Egypt had plenty of time (measured in centuries, even) to stop. Their free will was also unaffected during this entire period.

>>1751574
>That's just another indication that Yaweh is a petty tribal diety and not a genuine God imo.
Yes you could make that argument were it not for the dozens of books in the Old Testament explaining all the national disasters YHWH inflicted upon Israel and the Jews for behaving terribly in their own way. It is honestly disgusting how little thought atheists put into their arguments. Israel was at one point condemned to mass famine for disobeying God and committing genocide against innocents and you still have this stupid idea in your head that YHWH treated the Jews lightly when they did evil.
>If God uses the same logic as third worldists then he's an even bigger and more morally bankrupt retard than I thought.
So God cannot punish America for the oceans of blood its spilled, or the British for the Empire that subjugated the Earth in cruelty? You atheists are all the same. You don't have any consistent standard and will bend over backwards to apologize for even your enemies if you think can "own God" in some petty way. Thank God that our Lord's divine justice does not rely on your stupid conceptions of respectability. Yemini can starve and die from hellfire missiles but if God accelerates the decline of America in response then that's Him being "morally bankrupt" "petty" "retarded" etc.? Why would a Just God allow a nation that generates so much conflict in the world remain in peace at home? Or has it not occurred to you that the disastrous condition of the American homeland is a direct spiritual consequence of their unhinged bloodthirst abroad?

 No.1751644


 No.1751649

>>1751618
>The entire nation of Egypt had free will as well during this period of judgement and there is no recorded evidence of any of them repenting for what they were doing.
Repenting for what exactly? The Old Testament does not condemn slavery, not even the Israelites considered it wrong. Also lmao at you bringing up "recorded evidence" as if we're talking history and not mythology here. There's no recorded evidence of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt either.
>you still have this stupid idea in your head that YHWH treated the Jews lightly when they did evil
I didn't say that, but he very obviously favours them over everybody else. Were this not the case he wouldn't have objected to their enslavement in a world where slavery was widespread, and was practiced by the Israelites themselves.
>So God cannot punish America for the oceans of blood its spilled, or the British for the Empire that subjugated the Earth in cruelty?
God could punish the actual perpetrators, i.e. the ruling class. It's both factually incorrect and morally bankrupt to treat all people living in a society as being guilty of the crimes of their government. God has the power to distinguish between these two and to single the guilty out, human beings aren't so lucky.
>You atheists are all the same. You don't have any consistent standard and will bend over backwards to apologize for even your enemies if you think can "own God" in some petty way.
I'm not an atheist, and my problems with OT Yahweh is precisely that he deviates so sharply from the moral standards set by Christ. You're the one desperately trying to resolve obvious inconsistencies here, not me. As far as I'm concerned I'm not criticizing God, I'm criticizing a text written by Iron Age priests to serve the secular goals of their class society, one which far too many theologians and philosophers feel the need to cling to.
>Yemini can starve and die from hellfire missiles but if God accelerates the decline of America in response then that's Him being "morally bankrupt" "petty" "retarded" etc.?
If God wants to strike down every American politician, intelligence officer, and soldier then I would fully support it. If he were to strike down every man, woman, and child in the US then this would be a radically different proposition. It's the difference between defeating Japan and nuking them. Don't you think the latter is at least a little morally suspect? Or do kids and old people deserved to have their flesh melted from their bones because of the actions of their fascist government?
>Or has it not occurred to you that the disastrous condition of the American homeland is a direct spiritual consequence of their unhinged bloodthirst abroad?
Possibly, but I think a morally perfect God would be able to distinguish between a CIA agent and some inner city school children don't you?

 No.1751807

>>1751649
you're so patient with this dumbass lol
couldn't be me. peace

 No.1752072

>>1751644
Baito desu

 No.1752103

Cheesus Crust did for your blin(i)s

 No.1752317

File: 1707245324500.png (89.29 KB, 255x255, ClipboardImage.png)

MOSES! MOSES! ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME? MOSES! SAY TO THE ISRAELITES THE FOLLOWING:

‘A WOMAN WHO BECOMES PREGNANT AND GIVES BIRTH TO A SON WILL BE CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN FOR ONE WEEK, JUST AS SHE IS UNCLEAN DURING HER MONTHLY PERIOD.

ON THE EIGHTH DAY THE BOY IS TO BE CIRCUMCISED. OKAY?!?!

THEN THE WOMAN MUST WAIT THIRTY-THREE DAYS TO BE PURIFIED FROM HER BLEEDING. SHE MUST NOT TOUCH ANYTHING SACRED OR GO TO THE SANCTUARY UNTIL THE DAYS OF HER PURIFICATION ARE OVER. IF SHE GIVES BIRTH TO A DAUGHTER (YUCK!!!!), FOR TWO WEEKS THE WOMAN WILL BE UNCLEAN, AS DURING HER PERIOD. BECAUSE GIRLS ARE ICKY, OKAY?!?!?! THEN SHE MUST WAIT SIXTY-SIX DAYS TO BE PURIFIED FROM HER BLEEDING.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2012&version=NIV

 No.1752343

>>1751649
nta, by the idea that God has a different morality in the OT and the NT is a purely Catholic Dante's inferno-tier heresy, and it's disproven by how he kills kulaks in Acts 5, or how he forgiven Nineveh in the Book of Jonah because they fasted and worse sackcloth after hearing prophet Jonah preaching that they will be destroyed, he has also forgiven Jonah for disobeying him and first trying to go to Tarshish instead of Nineveh.

 No.1752360

>>1752343
>the idea that God has a different morality in the OT and the NT is a purely Catholic Dante's inferno-tier heresy
explain circumcision being necessary in Judaism but not Christianity

 No.1752364

>>1752360
It's mandatory for Jews, but it never required for gentiles.

 No.1752366

it was never*

 No.1752374

>>1751649
From what I could find the only peoples that were somewhat expelled or had an exodus were the Hyksos, a semitic tribe of the time. Then you had the Canaanites but you're right that Hebrews or at least Jews were never enslaved the way the bible described it and then left to the "promised land" since the Jews were already there.

 No.1752436

File: 1707253085656.png (631.07 KB, 700x700, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1752360
>>1752360
>explain circumcision being necessary in Judaism but not Christianity
Circumcision of the Heart. Something, something, something, because Jesus died for our sins he also removed the foreskins of our hearts. Making all Christians real Jews without having to cut their penises. Christards can't into anatomy.

>25 For circumcision benefits you if you observe the law, but if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if an uncircumcised man keeps the law’s requirements, will his uncircumcision not be counted as circumcision? 27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, and true circumcision is not something visible in the flesh. 29 On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter.[a] That man’s praise[b] is not from men but from God.


Jesus said not one letter will be changed. But Paul wanted to get more sales by preaching Paulstianity to his gentile buddies and convincing guys to cut their dick is a tough sell. I think it's pretty clear that you are out of the covenant if your dick isn't cut.

 No.1752511

>>1750361
>>1750655
The vast, greater consensus among Christan churches is that Jesus is the living embodiment of the law and that with his sacrifice on the cross he created a "New Covenant" with humanity which invalidated the "Old Covenant" (Jewish Law) and therefore all this shit was a just a set of rules for a particular group of people for a particular period of time that is no longer relevant in the age of the New Covenant.

Conservative churches like to bring this verse up when the pastor happens to like one of the old laws, but this is never consistent. For instance, they'll claim that putting homosexuality to death is still the law, but try to "New Covenant" themselves our of the prohibition on eating pork or mixing two types of cloth.

Fun fact: these same conservative "the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God with no metaphors or allegories" have argued that the bit about not mixing two types of cloth is a metaphor or allegory for race mixing being bad.

 No.1752524

>>1752436
>Circumcision of the Heart. Something, something, something, because Jesus died for our sins he also removed the foreskins of our hearts. Making all Christians real Jews without having to cut their penises. Christards can't into anatomy.
The funny thing is that the motif of "circumcised hearts" also appears in the old testament, in the book of leviticus, and possibly also elsewhere, so that's not even original to the NT.

 No.1752527

>>1752364
>It's mandatory for Jews, but it never required for gentiles.
In the old testament YHWH instructs the Israelites to circumcise their gentile slaves

 No.1752594

>>1752364
Wasn’t Timothy circumcised?

 No.1752602

>>1752594
A lot of Americans are circumcised even though not Jewish because a schizo named Dr. Kellogg told puritanical burger parents that it would make little jimmy stop jerking off (it didn't)

 No.1752608

File: 1707265122495.png (794.75 KB, 768x490, ClipboardImage.png)

Been listening to the old testament as audiobook since this thread started. Pretty hilarious stuff. In Numbers 18 it is made hilariously clear that Aaron and Moses and the priesthood are embezzling the burnt offerings for themselves and their families, if you read between the lines. After several books of constant repetition of certain themes, such as YHWH instructs the Israelites "through Moses" rather than directly, and YHWH demands that every Israelite make burnt offerings to YHWH that is overseen by the priestly class, there is this stunning admission, right after an episode in which a rebellion against Moses is put down (Numbers 17), in Numbers 18:

>8 Then the Lord said to Aaron, “I myself have put you in charge of the offerings presented to me; all the holy offerings the Israelites give me I give to you and your sons as your portion, your perpetual share. 9 You are to have the part of the most holy offerings that is kept from the fire. From all the gifts they bring me as most holy offerings, whether grain or sin[a] or guilt offerings, that part belongs to you and your sons. 10 Eat it as something most holy; every male shall eat it. You must regard it as holy.


>11 “This also is yours: whatever is set aside from the gifts of all the wave offerings of the Israelites. I give this to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it.


>12 “I give you all the finest olive oil and all the finest new wine and grain they give the Lord as the firstfruits of their harvest. 13 All the land’s firstfruits that they bring to the Lord will be yours. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it.


>14 “Everything in Israel that is devoted[b] to the Lord is yours. 15 The first offspring of every womb, both human and animal, that is offered to the Lord is yours.


So if you read between the lines. You basically have these people in the Canaanite wilderness, living off of scraps, wandering in search of the promised land, sacrificing what little they have regularly in burnt offerings to YHWH to stay in his favor, and suddenly Aaron, brother to Moses, comes along and says "God told me I can keep the best stuff you offer to him and eat it and that it belongs to me and my family."

 No.1752612

>>1752608
I don't know if it shows that they were embezzling the offerings so much as they decided to stop burning all of it.

 No.1752728

File: 1707273611964.png (50.56 KB, 165x365, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1752612
mighty convenient for Aaron's lineage that YHWH suddenly changed his mind like that

 No.1752755

File: 1707276824830-0.png (15.13 KB, 420x125, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1707276824830-1.png (22.05 KB, 860x87, ClipboardImage.png)

>Numbers 23:19
<God does not change his mind

>Numbers 25:10-11

<God does change his mind

EXPLAIN PLS, I AM TRYING TO BE A GOOD BOY

 No.1752809

File: 1707282619868.png (1.11 MB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1752511
>un fact: these same conservative "the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God with no metaphors or allegories" have argued that the bit about not mixing two types of cloth is a metaphor or allegory for race mixing being bad.

regarding the cloth, in that same chapter, YHWH thru Moses tells the israelites that they also shall not sow two types of crops in one field. As a gardener I find this laughable because many crops exhibit a mutual symbiosis when planted together such as the 3 sisters (corns/beans/squash). Also many plants serve as pesticides to kill off bugs, or bait to lure bugs away from crops intended for human consumption.

 No.1752839

TIL Jesus had to persuade his disciples for 40 days that he actually resurrected, they didn't believe him, and yet Christians say that you are doomed to Hell if you refuse to believe. smh frfr

 No.1752851

>>1752839
I'm surprised there isn't a conspiracy that the guy who resurrected was simply his twin brother from out of town.

 No.1752854

File: 1707286924810.png (689.86 KB, 640x866, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1752851
He must've come back from Japan

 No.1752855

>>1752851
I'm actually considering it. There must have been an impostor, or at least the disciples wanted to have an impostor, to continue doing their church cultish things like before

 No.1753094

File: 1707317975927.jpg (137.37 KB, 1500x979, yeed.jpg)

>>1752317
I swear the Ark of the Covenant had some weird little alien like Baby Yeed riding around in it giving orders to this retard tribe that decided to worship it
Only explanation for some of this shit.

 No.1753109

File: 1707319945330.jpeg (146.11 KB, 1080x1228, 1679958174247.jpeg)

>>1752436
>removed the foreskins of our hearts

 No.1753272

>>1752728
it's kinda crazy that the earliest images of Yahweh show him as like this tribal figure hanging a huge uncircumcized dong

 No.1753278

File: 1707328078811.png (16.21 KB, 619x100, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1753109
>>1752436
Confirmed that the motif of the circumcized heart appears in the old testament and it's not just a christian thing.

 No.1753294

File: 1707328943019-0.png (44.88 KB, 862x188, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1707328943020-1.png (199.39 KB, 600x315, ClipboardImage.png)

Deuteronomy 14:11-18 calls bats birds, kek

 No.1753306

File: 1707329350738.png (1.91 MB, 1024x872, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1753094
In the Exodus myth, God isn't in the ark itself but floats ahead of the tribe as a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. The ark carries the tablets from mount sinai, along with Aaron's staff, and a pot of manna. Some argue that the actual historical artifact, which was probably destroyed by the Babylonians, may have contained a cultic image of YHWH and his consort Asherah, or may even have been Egyptian in origin.

 No.1753339

I'd like to interject for a moment. When you guys look up the bible then you should use the non-proft blueletterbible.org which supports interlinear and Strong's concordation, instead of the commercial biblegateway which doesn't even have free interlinear and is owned by the same company which publishes the terrible "translation" of the Bible full of insertions and omissions that is the NIV and also such titles as 'the satanic bible' or 'the joy of gay sex'.

 No.1753340

>>1753339
>'the satanic bible' or 'the joy of gay sex'
Real shit?

 No.1753341

>>1753306
>which was probably destroyed by the Babylonians
Nah fam its in a church in Ethiopia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion

 No.1753364

>>1753339
>blueletterbible.org which supports interlinear and Strong's concordation
explain what
cool, thanks
> commercial biblegateway which doesn't even have free interlinear
yeah that sucks
>NIV
why is the NIV bad
>such titles as 'the satanic bible' or 'the joy of gay sex'.
i don't get why this part should get me hot and bothered

 No.1753367

>>1753341
>t present time, only the guardian monk may view the Ark,[13] in accordance with the Biblical accounts of the dangers of doing so for non-Kohanim. This lack of accessibility, and questions about the account as a whole, has led Ethiopians and foreign scholars alike to express doubt about the veracity of the claim.[14] The guardian monk is appointed for life by his predecessor before the predecessor dies. If the incumbent guardian dies without naming a successor, then the monks of the monastery hold an election to select the new guardian.
sounds like BS

 No.1753399

>>1753367
>t present time, only the guardian monk may view the Ark,[13] in accordance with the Biblical accounts of the dangers of doing so for non-Kohanim
Ah yes, the steamed hams strategy of managing a divine relic.

 No.1753410

>>1753340
yes
https://www.harpercollinschristian.com/
https://www.harpercollins.com/products/satanic-bible-anton-la-vey?variant=32117050966050
https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-joy-of-gay-sex-charles-silversteinfelice-picano?variant=41231591079970
>>1753364
Interlinear allows you to look at how the original text has been translated in the verses that you're reading and Strong's concordance allows you to search by the original word, instead of the translated word and see how it's translated in the entire Bible, like here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3068/kjv/wlc/0-1/
NIV is bad because it corrupts the Bible to fit later non-Biblical doctrine, especially trinitarianism, so that regular people who read it don't figure out what the original text says.

 No.1753418

>>1753410
>NIV is bad because it corrupts the Bible to fit later non-Biblical doctrine
That would arguably apply to anything other than the original ancient Greek versions.

 No.1753422

It wasn't pacifistic lol.

 No.1753451

File: 1707336835372.png (61.39 KB, 1024x768, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1753278
Well that confirms that removing the hearts foreskin is not enough because everyone in the OT is dick-circumcised as well. The heart circumcision is just a bonus circumcision, it's the penis one that determines the covenant.

 No.1753452

>>1753451
Did you ever wonder what went trough the mind of the first guy who ever performed a circumcision? How did they even come up with something like this?

 No.1753460

>>1753418
Not really, even the old KJV is quite good in this regard, while the NIV is easily one of the worst ones.

 No.1753462

File: 1707337403680.png (9.65 KB, 259x195, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1753452
Well the story is Abraham was really old and demented and God randomly appeared to him one night and said he would give him Israel if he cut all of his friend's and family's(and slave) penises. That must've been an awkward conversation in the morning when he broke the news.

 No.1753463

>>1753452
Honestly in a world where people bind infants heads to elongate them and stretch their necks out with metal rings, that seems like a relatively benign form of ritual mutilation.

 No.1753464

>>1753462
>That must've been an awkward conversation in the morning when he broke the news.
It went something like vidrel.

 No.1753465

>>1746923
Christianity didn't conquer the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire conquered Christianity. Its like how alot of early utopian socialist projects in the 19th century got co-opted into the social democracy grift. Essentially attempting to change the system from the inside results in you becoming a part of that system and it using you to reinforce its hegemony.

 No.1753490

>>1753452
They probably had a lot of penile infections back in the day, and cutting off infected skin was fairly commonplace. Then they started to prophylaxy this infection out of existance by circumcising the babies >>1753451 "will be cut off from his people, he has broken my covenant" sounds like keeping the infected out. Maybe ancient Jews thought that leprosy was spread through foreskin contact or something

 No.1753493

>>1753306
>The ark carries the tablets from mount sinai, along with Aaron's staff, and a pot of manna

What kind of a mage uses stone tablets? Manapot and staff are a staple for mages, though

 No.1753574

>>1753493
Spellbooks are a caster staple, so in a time before paper and bookmaking are common stone tablets make sense.

 No.1753632

>>1753465
>539 posts in someone finally correctly answers OPs riddle
Good job!

 No.1753634

>>1753493
>What kind of a mage uses stone tablets?
Does he know???

 No.1753636

>>1753460
>the old KJV is quite good in this regard
everybody laughed

 No.1753947

>>1746923
>then how did Christianity take over the Roman empire

It didn't, the Roman empire took over Christianity. Christianity was gaining in popularity among slaves, women, and the lower classes in general and so the empire co-opted it. Big corporations tweeting #BLM didn't mean that black liberationists took over the US - same thing here. The official state religion of the empire had been effectively reduced to empty ritual for quite some time anyway, with people turning to various mystery religions for "authentic" spirituality anyways, so picking a new state religion went smoother than one might imagine. And the Christianity of the Roman empire owed much more to Hellenic mystery cults, neoPlatonism, etc. than it did to whatever the earliest followers of Christ were up to anyways.

 No.1753997


 No.1754008

>>1753418
technically there is no original. OT was cobbled together over centuries, from several lost sources, and NT was cobbled together over about a century, maybe even two centuries, also from several lost sources. Earliest fragments of NT we have, for example, comes the early 2nd century CE, so not even the same century in which Paul wrote.

 No.1754023

>>1753947
>Christianity was gaining in popularity among slaves, women, and the lower classes in general and so the empire co-opted it.

Christianity wasn't. Christianity had sects/cults all over the place and had wealthy patrons. There was plenty of impressionable people out there, and they got indoctrinated into a cult. Then the cult got access to those in power, say, by prostituting their members to rich assholes (just like scientologists do), they doxxed state officials (scientologists again, for tax exceptions), etc etc. Eventually, christians managed to start using state violence to propagate themselves

 No.1754030

>>1754008
Tbh. Religious obsession with an authentic scripture is dumb since all scriptures are cribbled together from sayings of their respective prophets over several decades and even centuries, and usually involved destruction of rival narratives. You can really see here the sublation from earlier modes of spirituality, the spirituality of shamans and sages who just regurgitated wise words and folk tales cribbled from random people, and then the rise of the priestly caste combined this into codified written canons they insisted is the original written by God

 No.1754036

>>1754030
Belief in soul is basically a belief in the last dying breath. People back then didn't know exactly why are they breathing, and hence the demons are "evil spirits" - and they can possess people, and that illnesses come from bad odors, and shit like that. Scriptures mention those breaths - like, a god breathing into clay figurines a life

 No.1754138

>>1754023
While it is true that the Christians had many wealthy adherents, its spread in popularity was largely due to being popular among the lower classes and especially slaves and women. This is because Christianity preached equal salvation and an equality before God, contrasted with the Roman state religion with its aristocratic priesthood and shit like the apotheosis of emperors. What's more, it preached a sort of equality for women in a society that largely viewed women as property.

Christianity was always very weak politically until they got the mother of all bones thrown to them in the form of one of the emperors more or less randomly converting.

 No.1754143

>>1754030
Most Christians don't think any part of the Bible was written by God. They merely state that the people who wrote the various passages of the Bible were divinely inspired. This is actually one of the major differences between Christianity and Islam. The Muslims believe that Allah himself is the author of the Quran, dictated through the Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad. Christians accept that the Bible had various human authors, albeit divinely inspired ones.

 No.1754263

>>1754138
No, that's what unmaterialistic christian researchers say. Reality is entirely different

 No.1754287

>>1754263
Both you and that anon were wrong. Christianity did not spread among lower classes (who in any way were closer to their own native religions as a coping mechanism) but neither did it spread among rich people. It spread mainly through urban, educated minorities who tried to establish themselves in Roman society; since Christianity provided a worldview that transcend ethnic division it became a good vehicle for this. It wasn't until the Empire started collapsing that lower classes converted to Christianity due to their stronger mutual aid network in the cities.

 No.1754289

>>1754287
In an ironic echo this is precisely how Socialism spread. Through the urban literati first, particularly among minorities who see the Movement as a way to escape second-class status in their respective nations. Then the proles started converting en masse as the contradictions intensified and people seek for a new social cohesion as the old one frayed

 No.1754295

>>1754289
This is why we must always appreciate radlibs and anarchists. Who are the ones doing mutual aid? Anarchists. Who are the ones protesting against workplace violence? Anarchists and radlibs. Same people are the ones protesting wage slavery, defending poor people in general, attacking domestic violence, etc. They are the vanguard of the Left, not MLs

 No.1754310

>>1754295
Vanguards represent the will of the working class. There's plenty of religious organizations that help out the poor - so fucking what, are they suddenly the vanguard of the working class? And if we talk about the amount of help given, then both republicans and democrats vastly outperform any anarkiddie organization. What vanguards of the working class those parties are!

 No.1754590

>>1754143
>Most Christians don't think any part of the Bible was written by God
i wish

 No.1754591

File: 1707419005145.png (217.79 KB, 866x866, ClipboardImage.png)

found another bible gemmy today

 No.1755312

judges 19 is a good bed time story btw

 No.1755317

>>1754591
gemrald

 No.1756206

>>1753109
you haven't seen "silly" until you've seen samson kill 1000 philistines with a jawbone

 No.1756207

>>1754143
>Most Christians don't think any part of the Bible was written by God. They merely state that the people who wrote the various passages of the Bible were divinely inspired.
I think every Christian would say the 10 commandments and all the red letter text are the word of God.

 No.1756208

>>1753464
That's pretty hilarious. I vaguely remember that title but I had no idea it was a bible parody.

 No.1756210

>>1756207
And every other part that starts " and God spaketh" as well.

 No.1756275

>>1756208
>I had no idea it was a bible parody
It's just a few scenes that riff on the Bible, most of it is an entirely different story. Definitely worth watching if you like Jack Black.

 No.1756335

>>1754590
There are some Christians who believe that the Bible was literally written by God, but this isn't a part of actual, official theology, but widespread ignorance mainly among Protestants. It's this sort of ignorance that's causing some sections of Protestantism to have a backwards slide into a sort of monotheistic shamanism. I'm unaware of any actual church with an educated clergy that officially believes that the Bible was authored by God himself.

>>1756207
Yes, but those are the parts that are supposed to be directly written or spoken by God. Most Christians acknowledge that the God did not write every word of the Bible, that it was instead written by human beings under divine inspiration.

 No.1756389

>>1756335
>There are some Christians who believe that the Bible was literally written by God, but this isn't a part of actual, official theology, but widespread ignorance mainly among Protestants. It's this sort of ignorance that's causing some sections of Protestantism to have a backwards slide into a sort of monotheistic shamanism. I'm unaware of any actual church with an educated clergy that officially believes that the Bible was authored by God himself.
I mean doesn't it follow logically
<God created the universe
<the universe eventually resulted in the bible
<therefore God created the bible
simple as
call this "Monotheistic Shamanism" all you want, but it's pretty airtight. Cath and Ortho clergy are just bootyblasted that prots are taking the monopoly on theology from them.
>written by human beings under divine inspiration.
Ok so God used some people as pens

 No.1756409

>>1756389
Christianity usually holds that humans have souls and some kind of free will and aren't just the meat puppets of God.

 No.1756413

>>1756409
see the following >>1750246

 No.1756418

>>1756413
That is a quote from the Bible. That has nothing to do with actual church dogma, even if you think that the quote somehow contradicts the existence of free will within Christian theology.

 No.1756650

>>1756418
>the bible has nothing to do with actual church dogma
wait until the churchgoers find out about this

 No.1756656

>>1756335
>Yes, but those are the parts that are supposed to be directly written or spoken by God. Most Christians acknowledge that the God did not write every word of the Bible, that it was instead written by human beings under divine inspiration.
You said "don't think any" now you're backpedaling to "don't think every."

 No.1757098

>>1753493
>What kind of a mage uses stone tablets?
and just what the hell do you know about magecraft, huh?

 No.1757487

>>1747006
> By the end of the Babylonian captivity they had become monotheistic, but old testament scripture still contains traces of the polytheistic Yahwism.
ironically while railing against polytheism throughout. In the early books of the Old Testament you get these traces of polytheism. The earliest passages in which Yahweh is said to speak about other Gods, by the authors, Yahweh acknowledges that they exist, but forbids worshiping them. He says he will drive them out of Canaan and give that land to the proto-Jewish Yahwists returning from Egypt. So that is henotheistic Yahweh, and henotheistic Yahweh has very interesting contradictory themes. Only later, in the last books of the old testament, written after the Babylonian captivity, do we start to get traces of monotheistic Yahweh which claims that the other Gods are merely statues and don't really exist, but even when we get traces of monotheistic Yahweh, he is still called "lord of hosts" and the heresy of worshiping the hosts is brought up over and over. The theme emerges of Yahweh punishing infidelity on the part of the proto-Jewish Yahwists by giving them into the hands of enemies whenever they or their leaders stop worshiping Yahweh and/or start worshiping foreign Gods. So the Gods of the canaanite pantheon Yahweh originally came from were reenvisioned as first foreign Gods, but this leaves Yahweh without his hosts that he lords over, so the idea developed that there were angels that Yahweh ruled over, like the archangel michael. So even in Christianity, with its tripartite nicean trinitarian God (no longer Yahweh explicitly, but only implicitly) , and its many named angels and saints, you still see elements of henotheism in a religion nobody dares call anything but monotheistic.

Let's examine contrary themes:

1. He will drive out the "foreign" Gods of the Canaanite pantheon, along with their worshippers
2. He will give the land back to the foreign Gods and their worshipers and allow his own worshipers to be carried off into captivity if they lapse in faith and works.

So Yahweh not only gives and takes from his own worshipers, in order to reward and punish, but Yahweh also gives and takes from foreign pagans who don't even necessarily know he exists. This creates a very strange accounting system, where people who fail to worship Yahweh are punished by… being carried off into a land where nobody worships Yahweh, where there is no Yahwist superstructure to turn them back on the path to Yahwism, and the Yahwists essentially become pagans. And pagans are rewarded for lapses in faith on the part of Yahwists. Pagans are given the lands of the Yahwists as punishment against Yahwists… becoming pagans. So pagans are rewarded when Yahwists are punished, and Yahwists are punished by becoming embedded in a pagan superstructure. This narrative allowed Yahwism to become very powerful, because any time anything bad happened to Yahwists, the priesthood was obligated to attribute it to a lack of zealotry, and to chronicle that in their histories, so that in hindsight, any kind of material failure was transformed into a spiritual failure. Did a famine happen because everyone kept sacrificing their vegetables and meat on Yahwist altars? No! The famine happened because people weren't sacrificing enough food! And now we have starved for our sins.! Was our city taken by the Philistines and put to the sword because we did not build good enough fortifications? No! We failed to fortify our hearts by worshiping Yahweh.

 No.1757885

>>1746923
"If you are too poor to own a sword, then sell your clothes and buy one"

 No.1757959

>>1756650
>>1756656
Okay, so are you guys looking to discuss Christianity as a real, living social system or are you just fishing for cheap dunks? I'm talking about the positions of really existing churches and you guys are trying to make it about strictly Biblical theology.

When you're discussing a religion, its better to look at the beliefs of the major organizations that religion is built around and its official positions, not the positions of every uneducated hick that happens to adhere to that religion because their beliefs are funnier or more outlandish.

And, yes, very often many Christian theological positions aren't based on the Bible (or are even contradicted by the Bible.) Want to find the part in the Bible that forbids abortion? You won't find it. It isn't there. In fact, on the contrary, there's a prescribed ritual in the Bible that's meant to induce a miscarriage (though this is intended as a punishment for infidelity.) Every instance where you see some church or church organization make some big, cumbersome prayer in a public space is contradicting Christ's statement that prayer should be private primarily if not solely of the Lord's Prayer. So on and so forth. That said, I don't see how God messing with Pharaoh disproves the existence of free will in Christian theology. Were you once a part of some Protestant sect that was using that as a proof for something? That sounds like the start of the weird moon logic some Protestant cults use instead of the observation of a neutral observer.

 No.1757962

>>1757959
>That said, I don't see how God messing with Pharaoh disproves the existence of free will in Christian theology.
How do you figure? Christians often argue that evil in the world is the result of humans making their own decisions and thus God can't be blamed for it. Yet one of the primary antagonists of the Old Testament is very clearly being compelled by God to behave in an evil way.

 No.1757976

>>1757962
Once again, that's just a dunk. This has nothing to do with the existence of free will in general within Christian theology.

 No.1757993

>>1757959
> as a real, living social system
But it’s not one.
It’s more like a leech on a real, living social system.

 No.1757999

>>1757976
It’s a dunk but it’s also true.

 No.1758066

>>1757993
>>1757999
So, you're not here to discuss Christianity as a religion and social institution, you're just anti-Christian contrarians (as I originally thought).

There are people whose beliefs are based entirely on mimicking some group, and then there are contrarians, whose beliefs are based entirely on taking the opposite or opposing position of the beliefs of some group. These two are basically brothers to each other and both deserve to be thrown naked into cages and put on display for the public's amusement like the fucking chimps they are.

 No.1758070

>>1758066
Imagine calling people "anti-Christian contrarians" on a communist forum

 No.1758074

>>1758070
Communism is materialist, but it isn't inherently anti-Christian. It isn't the ideology for people who believe the opposite of whatever the Christians happen to think or whatever happens to make Christianity look bad.

In a word, communism is not a part of the Western counterculture movement. In many ways, the counterculture movement is as deeply reactionary as the Christian conservatives. Your "Californian Ideology" and techno-fascism movements coming out of Silicon Valley is largely a product of the counterculture movement, and counterculturalists are now and have been ardently anti-communist.

 No.1758130

>>1757959
> its better to look at the beliefs of the major organizations that religion is built around and its official positions, not the positions of every uneducated hick that happens to adhere to that religion because their beliefs are funnier or more outlandish.
Incorrect. It is the consensus of academics in the field of religious studies, the field of academics focused on the nonsectarian study of religion, that there is an over-emphasis of studying religions purely through the lens of institutional dogmas, and not enough emphasis on looking at religions as internally diverse, constantly changing, and emerging not just from the top-down orthodoxy of the clergy, but from the living practice of the believers, or "uneducated hicks" as you are calling them.

 No.1758138

>>1758130
Yes, but that's folk religion, not religion as an institution.

What you have here in this thread is people who want to imply that the uninformed opinions of random, uneducated rednecks is the same as actual church doctrine based on the fact that this makes Christianity look worse.

Looking at the folk beliefs and practices surrounding the Christian religion is an important aspect of understanding the religion as a whole and as a living movement, but that's not what people are trying to do in this thread.

 No.1758139

>>1758074
The thesis of divine revelation is at odds with the life of men being determined by their material conditions for this includes within it all religious ideals as well. Religion doesn't get some magical exemption, it's a product of the real world, of society.

 No.1758140

>>1758066
Scientific materialism is not simply a set of propositions. It's a unitary doctrine, the critique of religion as a socially ordained structure is included within it.

 No.1758142

File: 1707702882084.jpg (179.12 KB, 720x999, 1.jpg)

As Marx correctly noted, the criticism of religion is the basis for all other criticism, for it transforms the divine into the real world.
More annoying than ordinary religious people are self-professed "religious communists" or religion-sympathizing ones. How one claims to synthesize two polar opposite outlooks is beyond me. Pure cancer.

 No.1758145

File: 1707703118458.jpg (208.08 KB, 720x1094, 2.jpg)

Also religion will disappear after class society has been abolished, plus there will always be a need for immediate measures that can be taken against religion. I.e. 1917-22 Russia required violent offensives against religious institutions.

 No.1758147

>>1747119
>>1747077
>muh basis for morality
This at a time when workers are decidedly becoming less religious over time, especially in the West but even generally. It's evincive of a middle-class preoccupation with 'respect'. One wonders where the dictum of 'ruthless criticism' went, because it's clearly missing in this thread.

 No.1758149

>>1748675
>Marx's take was never "Christianity le bad" but rather "Christianity is a drug for people who haven't become class conscious yet."
For starters actual marxists don't speak in terms of "good" and "bad", and Marx himself stated religion in general is completely at odds with scientific socialism. >>1758142

 No.1758150

>>1758139
>>1758140
I'm aware that materialism contradicts most if not all religions. My point was that communism (and Marxist materialism) isn't an ideology of being contrarian against Christianity. It is not something that is specifically anti-Christian beyond the general refutation of all non-materialist ideologies and worldviews. Communism and materialism aren't ideologies that would endorse the claims that Jesus was an alien on the grounds that it makes Christianity look silly or that the Roman state religion was based actually because it had conflicts with the early Christian church.

 No.1758151

>>1758150
You're right in this regard. If someone's best criticism of religion is that i.e. Jesus didn't exist, then he's a retard.

 No.1758157

>>1758141
>>1758142
>>1758145
Marx saw religion as a coping mechanism. It was something people turned to when people couldn't accept the reality of their situation.

>This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.


>Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.


He also believed that people giving up their religious beliefs would make people fundamental re-evaluations of their assumptions about the world, society and their relationship to their fellow man, and in doing so would find the world intolerable and seek to change it instead meekly accepting the status quo in hopes for a better life in Heaven.

>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.


>Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.


This was actually the belief of many radical thinkers of the period and goes all the way back to Jean Meslier's Testament which expressed proto-communist ideas and expressed the belief that the common people would overthrow the established order if they weren't lulled into complacency by religion.

However, I think this belief is somewhat outdated. As it turns out, "Nature" can be a completely suitable replacement for God. People can very happily believe that the status quo is ordained by a supposedly self-evident set of natural laws rather than descending from divine law. In the here and now, I see more arguments for capitalism and the current world order appealing to nature than to religious doctrine. Even among the religious right, you're more likely to see the capitalist order justified by allegories to lions, wolves and anthills than by religious doctrine. We just had a wave of "New Atheists" who, quite contrary to the idea that their rejection of religion should have turned them into radicals, instead became arch-reactionaries claiming that all the old social order was mandated by nature.

 No.1758162

>>1758157
Fwiw there are only models and forms of thought that better correspond to reality as we experience it but the idea that there's one that perfectly corresponds to reality in an absolute sense is exactly the idealism marxists are opposed to.

 No.1758702

>>1758066
I don't see what is so contrarian about pointing out internal inconsistencies of Christian philosophy. I'm not rejecting religion, Christian moral teachings, the value of scripture (at least some of it) as a source of spiritual wisdom. I'm just saying that conventional Christian philosophy that tries to reconcile its own premises and principles with the entirety of the Bible ends up twisting itself into knots trying to explain all the inconsistencies. If anything my point is that this adherence to certain scriptures is a millstone around the neck of Christianity, and it would be vastly improved by discarding it.

 No.1759031

>>1758702
Because it's an irrelevant dunk. The Bible contradicting certain parts of Christian theology or even itself has nothing to do with if Christian theology upholds free will or if it claims that the Bible was authored directly by God or a group of divinely inspired humans.

To put it in perspective, this would be like if you were having a discussion on Islamic views on morality and someone came in with a "But Muhammad was a pedo so who are the Muslims to talk about morality?" This would be completely irrelevant to the topic. It's just a dunk. This sort of person, in my view, would just be an anti-Islamic contrarian. Bonus points if this same person openly upheld any distortion of Islamic theology or crackpot theory that happened to make Islam look bad.

 No.1759067

>>1758702
there aren't internal inconsistencies only poor protestant presuppositions

 No.1759068

>>1759031
> this would be like if you were having a discussion on Islamic views on morality and someone came in with a "But Muhammad was a pedo so who are the Muslims to talk about morality?" This would be completely irrelevant to the topic. It's just a dunk. This sort of person, in my view, would just be an anti-Islamic contrarian.
what would be the appropriate time to bring it up

 No.1759190

>>1759068
If you were critiquing Islam or the figure of Muhammad, or talking about Islamic views on sexuality. Or maybe having an argument with a person who claimed that Muhammad lived a perfectly moral life.

 No.1759192

>>1759190
where do christians get their theology of free will from and why is bringing up what their central religious scriptures say irrelevant?

 No.1759251

>>1759031
>Because it's an irrelevant dunk.
But it isn't if you follow the thread. Christians cite the doctrine of free will to defend against allegations that God is responsible for the evil in the world, so I think it's appropriate to point out elements of scripture which contradict this doctrine. Christians could easily respond by arguing that the passage is allegorical, or they could admit that they are openly going against scripture, but ITT we've seen numerous attempts to reconcile the obvious contradiction in absurd ways. This is what I mean about a dogmatic adherence to scripture being a millstone around the neck of Christian philosophy, which otherwise has many merits.

 No.1759259

>>1759192
Because
1) Church doctrine and theology isn't necessarily the same as scripture. Even if you find it hypocritical or contradictory for churches to hold doctrine outside of or contradictory to scripture, they still hold that doctrine. If Christian churches generally believe something that isn't supported by scripture, they don't suddenly stop believing it just because it's Biblically unfounded.
2) The scripture being quoted there doesn't actually prove what the poster was trying to say. It was just pointing out a contradiction of a (mostly Protestant) Christian talking point as a dunk, not proving that free will is contradicted by scripture.

 No.1759448

By dancing

 No.1759492

>>1759259
>where do christians get their theology of free will from


Unique IPs: 125

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]