Can Christians ever admit that the bible can be wrong instead

Of course Christians accept that the bible is "wrong". They can hardly ignore that the gospels directly contradict each other in many details. The old testament follows a gradual evolution in Hebrew theology, and even the most simple biblical scholar can see that their understanding of God and the world changed over time. They don't throw away the old stories because there is still something to learn from them, about people if not about god

>>1447409
>Can Christians ever admit that the bible can be wrong instead of being le metaphors?
The bible isn't wrong.

>>1447409
It's not wrong

>>1448654
>>1448669
Some top discourse here, not that I would expect any less from /his/

You can't see it or connect the dots yet, but that doesn't make it wrong yet, anon!

>>1447409

MUH METAPHORS are enough to safely ignore Christianity. They have no way to prove that the whole "son of god" thing is literal and not a metaphor, and without this they have no religion.

>>1448738
No wisdom

>>1447409
>I'm a raging autist who reads everything literally so it can't be a metaphor

Kill yourself you dull faggot

>>1448863
How the fuck else would you read anything?

Metaphors are for children. Facts are for adults.

>>1448851

I agree there is nothing wise in the Bible.

>>1447409
Catholics have no pretense of being biblical literalists, so this isn't a problem. Theologians and scholars are also well-educated in the syncretic and Jewish origins of their holy texts, but maintain the value of the NT anyway for moral reasons. Their argument for the retroactive importance of EVERYTHING else 100% hinges on the literal truth of Christ's resurrection, which is supported by the testimonies of Christians who supposedly maintained their beliefs even when they ought to have discarded them, for instance under the threat of torture by non-Christians. After all, why would they lie about something like that?

Any other arguments are basically dispensable.
>t. "catholic"

File: image.jpg (67KB, 400x409px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 400x409px

>>1448871
Facts are born out of metaphors.
Yes or no?
The ideas don't grow on or out of thin air, they're built up by smaller facts to become something more.
Everything in the bible is a possible eventuality given the possibility of a true singularity capable of many things.

Think deeper, anon.
Great point A to point D inventions weren't made by just looking at B, but by hypothesizing the possibility of C.

>>1448871
holy shit this is good bait

>>1448880
Spoken like a true autist

>>1448871
You got that switched around. Children think in more concrete ways and their thinking becomes more abstract as they mature.

If you can't get into symbolic thinking you might be autistic or otherwise mentally deficient.

>>1448903

Spoken like a good goy. Don't forget to tithe to your tax-exempt priest this Sunday!

>>1447409
Everything in the bible is true.

That doesn't mean that everything in the bible is literal. Attention for genre must be noted. Nobody reads the wisdom books and runs off shouting "Hey everyone, the bible supports nihilism!" Please read Origen, if you think that systematic analysis of the scriptures is somehow an Augustinian/Thomist meme.

>>1448871
Literally lol'd

Thanks anon

>>1448922
>I'm an autist with no life experience
>h-heh, th-there's no wisdom in sacred texts h-heh

Good goy, stay a sheltered little meme drone

>>1448626
>Of course Christians accept that the bible is "wrong".

Tell that to the retarded literalists who infest certain places, like the states.

I know #notallchristians but seriously.

>>1448922
>>1448930
>no, YOU'RE deceived by the Jews

good discourse

>>1448957
Maybe if you retards stopped repeating the same edgy teenage atheist bullshit I've been readding for 10 years you'd get actually insightful and interesting discussion instead of children who never even been in a fight talking about what is or isn't wisdom and metaphor

>>1448880
You don't even have to believe the Bible is true to know that there is wisdom to be found in it. If anything, it provides good life lessons and how to live a virtuous life.

>>1448982
>dont eat shellfish
>cut part of your penis off
>kill people who work on sunday
So much wise. Very wisdom.

>>1448987
epic, just epic

>>1448982
Most of it is just the national history of a middle eastern tribe that would be insignificant and obscure were it not for Christianity.

People think of the Bible as this book full of philosophy and moral judgements but really it's mostly political drama, ritual guidelines, and Yahweh getting angry about stuff

>>1448738
>MUH METAPHORS are enough to safely ignore Christianity.

This. Whenever anything is proven false, they say it's just metaphor. Which means there is nothing that would make them accept any part of it is wrong. Which means their belief has withstood no scrutiny whatsoever, and so is worth nothing.

>>1448987

At least hide the fact that you're from Reddit next time.

Where's the janny when you need him

>>1449028
reddit is currently undergoing an anti-atheist backlash and has been for a while because of the /r/atheism association

more 'le tip fedora' comments than here

>>1449028
You sure refuted his arguments. Good job I'm now a Christian.

>>1449079
>pasting 3 memes from a thousand page text
>an "argument"

dumb shit

>>1448963
So what if I have been in a fight? Can I talk about what is wisdom or a metaphor?

Though I personally can see a lot of wisdom in the Bible (currently reading it, up to Numbers so far), I just think it's mostly wisdom that only makes sense when viewed in the cultural and material conditions it was written in.

>>1449097
>"Vanity! All is vanity!"

read some ecclesiastes or job you utter utter pleb

>>1449104
I'll get to it, God damn, man. It's a dense book and I'm reading it in order. I already said there's wisdom in it, you just have to frame it in the context it came from.

>>1447409
Why do you think there are so many atheists in Europe? A lot of them did. Other than them and some East Asians, its pretty much everyone else that clings to their religions.

>>1448738
>They have no way to prove that the whole "son of god" thing is literal and not a metaphor, and without this they have no religion.

Peter, and the Apostles, and Paul, all without question went out of their way to abandon their homes and families and nearly all to a one died horrific and painful deaths. Their witness is proof enough of Christ's divinity.

>>1449937
Strength of belief !=accuracy of belief. Unless you're prepared to admit that the mass suicide of the Heaven's gate cult proves THEIR beliefs.

File: Thích_Quảng_Đức_self-immolation.jpg (33KB, 512x333px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 512x333px

>>1449937

And buddhist monks literally set themselves on fire as a declaration of their faith.

>>1447409
The story is genesis is similar to other culture meaning SOMETHING in all of those stories is true.

Also, Christ says the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, and that is it scattered amongst us and we do not see it.

So if Heaven translates to Stone as OP says, perhaps a Philosopher's Stone is the Gem to Eternal Life.

>>1448982
Virtuous in what sense? At least the Greeks provided reasons to live a certain way. The Jews didn't even bother, it was just to follow God's will. If you don't believe in that God it's an exercise in pointlessness.

>>1449994
A cult leader telling you to die peacefully with him is leagues different than being put to death brutally. Especially when these cases are literally "look all you have to do is say he wasn't messiah and you're free to go. No? Ok then I guess it's boiling oil for you."

*tips fedora*

>>1449097
I've read the whole thing. After Genesis it get boring for a while. Especially the genealogies. After that it gets good again. Especially Ecclesiastes psalms proverbs

>>1449994
>FAITH
>BEFORE
>UNDERSTANDING
St. Augustine

Stop trying to understand something that is impossible from your subjective perception.

>>1450052
>The story is genesis is similar to other culture meaning SOMETHING in all of those stories is true.

Not really, aside from the evident fact that the Universe has an origin in time. But many cultures don;t have a creation myth at all, considering the universe to have always existed, or considering the universe to have been shaped from pre-existing material rather than created (this is fact is the position in Genesis).

>Also, Christ says the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, and that is it scattered amongst us and we do not see it.

Maybe it's a metaphor for friendship :^)

>>1450073
>stop trying to think, your betters have already settled this matter, just pay your tithes and trust in "faith".

>>1450070
He also asked them to cut off their dicks beforehand, so you know, still very unpleasant. You're just moving the goalposts besides. There's plenty of Muslims, Mormons, Jews, etc who faced the exact same persecution and also died for their cause.

>>1450095
>>1450070

Not to mention the pagan prophet Empedocles who lept into an active volcano in order to prove his divinity. Christians are far from the only people willing to die for their ideas.

File: bc4041446d0e7bcf5f8a8183113ad3ea.jpg (134KB, 570x717px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 570x717px

>>1450058
Chastity and selflessness are virtuous concepts. Abstinence from addiction, both of substance and of flesh, make for stronger willed individuals. Peacemaking, forgiveness, brotherhood, and kindness naturally lead to harmonious communities.

Obedience to a higher authority out of free will choice is the highest respect and love one can give. To do so out of faith is a perfect love. To never impose one's will on another is a mark of righteousness. Christian morals are king because they save you, your community, and your neighboring communities from pain and violence. It's unfortunate that other non-christian ideologies swoop in, allowing rape and pillage and murder, and destroy true christian communities, like the Waldenses for example.

There are no goyim in Christianity. No kaffir or katakumens. We are all one in Christ Jesus. It's sad that people view the religion as a series of "thou shalt nots" like it's trying to impose a regime on you. Most of the sins are forbidden because they are actions that have tremendously damaging effects on communities. Think of how much better the world would be if all men and women were virgins until marriage, and you only chose partners based on true long-term compatibility and purposes of starting a family. If greed did not dominate the world. Christianity is wisdom.

>>1450115
>Think of how much better the world would be if all men and women were virgins until marriage, and you only chose partners based on true long-term compatibility and purposes of starting a family.

And here we see the creeping insecurity of this poster. Yes, I'm sure the world would be so much better if the sexual revolution hadn't ruined your chances of getting a GF. HAW HAW HAW.

>>1448738
The gospels are written in the form of Greco-Roman biographies, and therefore should be interpreted literally unless given good reason not to (such as when Christ engages people with parables). Jesus Christ that was difficult to determine.

>>1450121
constantine is a grill though

>>1450115
>Chastity

"Go forth and multiply"

>Obedience to a higher authority out of free will choice is the highest respect and love one can give.

This is the "virtue" of a slave.

>There are no goyim in Christianity. No kaffir or katakumens

Tell that to the Cathar's snapped necks.

>>1450095
Why does everyone take OT context for modern context.

When God appears to you daily, and gives you commands, you should probably do them. The ancient israelites were put through harder tests because faith in whether or not God exists was never a challenge for them. They didn't have to procure faith in that way. They knew he existed. But they knew other gods (demons) existed as well, and more often than not, they chose to worship the pagan gods. This was their failure of faith, they had faith in the wrong virtues.

Don't you think this would annoy God?

>>1449937
>>1450070

You don't know anything about the circumstances of the deaths of any of the apostles besides hazy accounts usually written centuries later.

Assuming they were even actually martyred in the first place, we have no way of knowing what the charges they were brought up on were. If they were arrested for something like rabble-rousing then denying Christ wouldn't have saved them anyway.

For all we know they DID deny Christ. Or maybe they didn't. That's the thing when all you have are stories.

>>1450127
>"Go forth and multiply"
A blessing as this is something given also to animals
>This is the "virtue" of a slave.
Not an argument
>Tell that to the Cathar's snapped necks.
Maybe the Cathars shouldn't have incited a foreign king to invade France

>>1450124
>therefore should be interpreted literally

Except we know they were written generations after Jesus' time by people who never even met him. They may present themselves as literal but that's largely because the Church burned all the more obviously mythological and esoteric gospels when they decided what part of God's Word to preserve and what to consign to oblivion. Look at the Hag Nammedi gospels or the Gospel of Thomas, these are clearly not literal documents.

>>1450115
>Obedience to a higher authority out of free will choice is the highest respect and love one can give.

Yeah maybe, my point was that the poster insisted that the bible is a good moral guide independent of belief in YHWH though so you would be obeying something you didn't even believe in, stupid and pointless.

There are some solid reasons for following Christian and Jewish morality but those reasons are often independent of the bible. Normally they are justified with earthly (Jewish) or heavenly (Christian) rewards, rather than say, what Epicurus wrote about. Which were thoroughly reasoned arguments to live in a moderate and joyful way and why other methods of living are ultimately bad for you. There are premises, arguments, and conclusions and this is the sort of thing that's often missing from scripture. So they wouldn't really appeal to someone who didn't buy the supernatural component.

>>1450128
Did you respond to the wrong post comrade

>>1450128
>Don't you think this would annoy God?

No, because he's omniscient and knew before the beginning of time that this would happen?

>>1450136
>why should we even interpret the gospels literally if they think this other book is a metaphorical account lol
>because the gospels were written in a genre that should be read literally
>YEAH BUT THESE OTHER BOOKS....
kys

>>1450170

So you read them literally even tho you know they can't possibly be what they claim to be? Why? This seems perverse.

>>1450183
Go back to whatever special ed class you crawled out of shitposter.

File: 1468211840574.jpg (376KB, 1600x1509px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1600x1509px

>>1450121
I have had a lot of premarital sex. It's not something I'm insecure about, it's rather a pain I've become familiar with.

I have broken some girl's hearts because I would say anything just to sleep with them. I would even convince myself that I wanted to be with them, even though part of me knew I'd probably leave them. And once the novelty of sex wears off, you're not left with much. You start looking for a way out because it's a relationship that can never last.

Now, some of these girls really got hurt. Sex affects women differently than men. When someone takes your virginity, that's a big deal to a lot of women. By disregarding this simple truth of nature ni the name of personal self-gratification, you risk the chance of ruining that person's ability to love forever. That is so much more tremendously sad and damaging than all the sex was worth. It's not even comparable.

I did this for a while, until I fell in love myself. I finally met a girl I loved more than anyone in the world. I had never been jealous over any of my prior GFs, but this one relationship was my whole world. And you know what? She was seriously screwed up from an earlier relationship in youth. A guy came along, said he loved her, fucked her for a while, and left. It was like she could never trust again. It didn't permeate our relationship, but her inability to truly love anyone was a sad truth I had to deal with. Our relationship only lasted two years.

Sex is a powerful thing, anon. You might not think so, because it's just a bit of fun, but when you see the damaging effect it can have on both yourself and people you become involved with, you start to feel more responsible about it.

Think of how many people get together based solely on physical attraction, only to have a kid they don't want. Think of how much pain this child will suffer. Is it worth the sex? Is sex worth more than potentially destroying someone? You have to think about stuff like this.

>>1450121
tumblr is that way

File: stop.jpg (83KB, 409x555px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 409x555px

>>1450127
>This is the "virtue" of a slave.

Only because your understanding of obedience has a negative bias. Obedience is a good quality when the master is kind and just. Why wouldn't you obey such a man?

Disobedience to a perfect, peaceful and just being is like saying "i don't like how you run things", which is another way of saying "i don't like peace and justice unless I'M in charge!"

Humility, anon.

>>1450185

You do realize that fiction is a thing, right? Just because the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts doesn't magically make that true, and given that we know they were written generations after Jesus to read them literally seems positively obtuse. It's like reading Harry Potter and then going on a quest to find Hogwarts.

>>1450208

Why would god need my obedience? The only person who benefits from suhc a twisted "virtue" is the lying priest lining his nest with your gullible shekels, the all-powerful and omni-prescient creator of the universe has no more need for you obedience than he has for you permission to create.

File: goyim_YES.png (12KB, 327x154px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 327x154px

>>1450186
Moral of the story is: the Jews were responsible.

>>1450224

And yet if the Jews hadn't had him killed, his mission would have been a failure and your religion wouldn't exist. Remind me why you hate them?

>>1450186
>I have had a lot of premarital sex. It's not something I'm insecure about, it's rather a pain I've become familiar with.

I'll buy that for a dollar!

>>1450208
>Buddha says: "Do not flatter your benefactor!". Let one repeat this saying in a Christian church : it immediately purifies the air of everything Christian.

t. fruit loving mustache man

>>1450227
they hate God and worship Satan

>>1450186
>Now, some of these girls really got hurt. Sex affects women differently than men. When someone takes your virginity, that's a big deal to a lot of women. By disregarding this simple truth of nature ni the name of personal self-gratification, you risk the chance of ruining that person's ability to love forever. That is so much more tremendously sad and damaging than all the sex was worth. It's not even comparable.

Yeah, that's entirely a product of a society which pushed Judeo-Christian standards of purity on them.

>Sex is a powerful thing, anon. You might not think so, because it's just a bit of fun, but when you see the damaging effect it can have on both yourself and people you become involved with, you start to feel more responsible about it.

Dude, the same can be said of all social behaviours.

>Think of how many people get together based solely on physical attraction, only to have a kid they don't want.

Birth control and abortion both exist, and have proven more effective in minimizing this than your ideals.

>>1450238

Not according to their holy book they don't. And they claim they got this book from the same god Christians worship.

File: 1468211770781.jpg (328KB, 561x464px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 561x464px

>>1450221
Here, let me explain:

>God wants to create children
>God wants none of his children to hurt
>God laws out a set of laws to prevent hurt
>God wants you to obey these laws so no one is hurt
>God wants you to have free will

There you go, bub. You can't make a being that is both inherently good yet has free will. The very definition of free will entails that it might choose evil. You can't permit evil things, because evil things hurt your other children. So you tell your children—"anyone who does these things is not welcome in my kingdom", and you're not FORCING them to obey, you're just signalling to them that those actions are not allowed, and that if they don't want to comply, they don't have to, but that means they will die. Because he is the only reason you live in the first place.

God doesn't want you to obey because he's an authoritarian. He wants you to obey because he loves you, and these precepts will give you a happy life. And by accepting God's wisdom, you are acknowledging back to God that you love Him, and what He stand for.

It's not hard.

>>1450238
And they say the same thing about you (more or less).

>>1450252
God's love is that of a twisted, abusive drunk.

>>1450252

But this is pure hogwash, god is all-powerful and omniscient, he knew before time who would break his rules, and yet chose to create those people in such a way that they broke his laws anyway. If god had rules for us, they would be as immutable as the laws of physics, because anything less would be unworthy of an infinitely powerful creator.

File: The Son of Man.jpg (1MB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3504x2336px

>>1450233
If all you can do with my honest confession is mock me, I'm not sure what more to tell you.

Sex has the potential for spiritual murder. I have never been the same since I lost my old girlfriend. It's a pain that will never go away. Once you become hurt like that, you don't want to do the same to anyone else.

Someone being in love with you yet not being able to return that love is a horrible, guilty feeling that never really washes off.

I'm just saying. I've seen it hurt people. It's wise to think of the repercussions before placing sexual gratification at the top of your own personal value system.

>>1450276
>Sex has the potential for spiritual murder.

Prove it.

>I have never been the same since I lost my old girlfriend. It's a pain that will never go away. Once you become hurt like that, you don't want to do the same to anyone else.

See a therapist.

>Someone being in love with you yet not being able to return that love is a horrible, guilty feeling that never really washes off.

They should do likewise.

>I'm just saying. I've seen it hurt people. It's wise to think of the repercussions before placing sexual gratification at the top of your own personal value system.

It's not at the top of my value system. I just don't demonize it, and I certainly don't act shocked that a society which has extensively demonized it occasionally produces people with intimacy issues.

>>1450243
>Yeah, that's entirely a product of a society which pushed Judeo-Christian standards of purity on them.

Source?

>Dude, the same can be said of all social behaviours.

Not all social behaviors lead to societal collapse.

>Birth control and abortion both exist, and have proven more effective in minimizing this than your ideals.

Birth control and abortion don't make for good relationships. Sex based relationships lead to pain more often than not from my observation. Family based societies tend to skew happier, according to sociological studies.

People who want to live life their own way without regard for the pain they might cause others or themselves—that's all this is. People who base their lives around sex seem sad to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I pass no judgment. I just don't think it's a wise value to hold so dearly.

It's like a teenager telling a parent that there is no way they'll get in accident even though they're driving 80mph. Sex is risky, that's all I'm saying.

>>1450311
>Not all social behaviors lead to societal collapse.

SOCIETAL COLLAPSE?! HAW HAW HAW.

Oh wow, I think need to go somewhere else before my sides burst irreperably.

>>1450319
hi jack chick

File: 4e2d838beddc6c698b002c8b.jpg (22KB, 367x332px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 367x332px

>>1450266
>do these things because they will make you incredibly happy
>don't do these things because it will make everyone incredibly sad
>trust me I am like a billion times smarter than you
>no seriously any deviation will wreck your shit and everyone else's shit
>please why won't you listen

Twisted!

>>1450081
But if in the beggining (time) God created the heavens (space) and Earth (matter)Now and then the creation of Adam (mankind)

So the allegories are precious

Aside from friendship outside, the heart within.

>>1450342
>But if in the beggining (time) God created the heavens (space) and Earth (matter)Now and then the creation of Adam (mankind)

The actual origins of the universe don;t really resemble the Genesis account, and Yahweh doesn't actually create a universe, his face moves across the "waters" before he starts his work, he is a demiurge at best.

File: fb9ff29f781444f503fc12c3baafbfda.jpg (9KB, 190x265px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 190x265px

>>1450296
>Prove it.

You want me to prove that having your heart broken beyond repair is soul crushing and has the potential to be life changing?

My best friend was with a girl for seven years. He worked on a farm and was ready to settle down. She left him. He has been miserable for five years now, currently lives in Brooklyn working a software job he despises, in a place he despises, with people he despises.

He can't farm anymore, a job he loved, because it rips his very heart out to return to that way of life, because that chapter of his life is when he lost the one woman he loved. Why did she leave? She wanted to "find herself" and became a hippie. Now she lives in a tree and has apparently gone batshit insane.

>See a therapist.

I don't need one. I have Jesus Christ. I play music and talk to people about letting go of their hatred. Living for others instead of living for the self. I'm very happy, but thank you for your concern.

>They should do likewise.

Not sure what this means.

>It's not at the top of my value system. I just don't demonize it, and I certainly don't act shocked that a society which has extensively demonized it occasionally produces people with intimacy issues.

I'm not demonizing it either, that's what you don't understand. I don't think God's intention was "never sin!" He knows full well people are going to sin. I don't think yelling at young people and overstressing sexual sins is healthy. But that doesn't mean we should ignore how incredibly volatile and life-changing sex can be. It can get us into some serious trouble, is all I'm saying.

>>1450243
>cheapening the very nature of creation for hedonistic and temporary purposes
Yes, goyim. Silly goyim.

>>1450319
The age of decadence is often marked by excess sexual liberation and is a precursor to societal collapse...not sure what you're on about m8.

>>1450351
Genesis isn't an account of the origin of the universe. It's an account of the origin of man.

Angels held dominion over the earth before man. Read the book of Enoch.

>>1450212
Fuck off retard

Source is God, and the origin of Time Space and Matter is the Creation of the Universe. That is what everything is made up of.

And Mankind, even if "Yhwh is Demiurge", is still and extension of original Creation would originally stem from Source and all the events prior to the Big Bang.

You have to see allegorically as much as literal

>>1450384
->>1450388

File: Saint_Maximilien_de_Theveste.jpg (82KB, 293x373px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 293x373px

>>1450127
I'd rather be a loyal slave than a treacherous freedman.

>>1448895
This is even the case in Early Christianity. Even the so called literalism of Early Christian exegesis of Scripture actually accommodates allegoricalism!

How's that following those usury rules coming along?

>>1448987
bait

>>1450083
this is literally the point of having peer reviewed journals fuktard

>>1447409
if you want to live the degenerate life of a heathen go ahead

>>1447409
I can smell your disgusting teenage edge from here

>>1450360
>You want me to prove that having your heart broken beyond repair is soul crushing and has the potential to be life changing?

Prove that whole soul bit, then prove the supposed damage it does to it.

>I don't need one.

Honestly. It sounds like you do. "I never got over this and it has permanently impacted my ability to form intimate relationships" is a pretty clear sign that you need some mental help. Jesus clearly isn't doing the trick.

>Not sure what this means.

They also need a therapist.

>is all I'm saying.

No, that's not all you're saying. You're saying "don't do these things, because they don't fit my book's morals, and also swallow all of its theological conclusions without question." There is no simple statement here, everything you've said is with the baggage that you want to spread your particular meme around.

>>1450502
No, that's not it at all. You're free to question peer-reviewed journals, and if you have the academic chops to do so, you can even challenge them.

>>1447409
The average christian in the modern first world could give a rats ass less what the bible has to say about anything.

This thread exemplifies the two basic attitudes. You either go with everything else is metaphor except Jesus' resurrection, or you double down and claim everything is literally true and modern science is wrong and every bible scholar is out to get you. Both are sad in their own way, but the former is somewhat more honorable in my opinion. The latter is pure desperation.

>>1450530
That is precisely the point. Think about it, don't be a close minded fuck. You shouldn't waste everyone's time by questioning scientific journals unless you have the requisite academic training. Which is similar to how you should not question religious doctrine unless you've had qualified training and a working brain which most atheists don't have. In effect, keep quiet and let your betters work, stick to your ice palace you damn snowflake.

Think of it this way, you know how annoying it is when your children keep asking "why?" even if they don't understand the reason? That's precisely it. It does not mean that you have the capability to read and post on imageboards that you are already qualified to have a valid opinion on a subject matter you clearly have no understanding about.

The thinking that everyone had the right to do that has led to the creation of dangerous sects and cults. However, the reverse also led to corrupt leaders, but this can be avoided by having multiple experts with various points of views. Experts which have done more studying that you have breathing.

>>1450552
Yes, but this isn't a matter of something where error can be objective demonstrated. We're talking about a subjective matter of faith, where error can only be demonstrated by a piss off pope burning you alive after promising safe passage. The fact is the crazy man in front of your 7-11 knows as much about the divine as Thomas Aquinas.

You're also neglecting to appreciate the fact that Christianity is just one of several competing ideologies. Why should I take it at face value because my "betters" (as though wasting your life on a snipe hunt is a mark of virtue) know it more than I do over any other faith?

>>1450536
I find it strange that while science is continually proving concepts like superintelligence, time travel, immortality, and transmutation are physical possible, this new scientific knowledge doesn't seem to suggest proof of God to most.

It seems to stem more from a misunderstanding of what the bible teaches than science, honestly. Like how people suggest the bible says the world is 6000 years old when it actually implies the world is much older than that, and that only man is 6000 years old.

>>1448895
I am a Catholic and I interpret the Bible literally where it is possible.

>>1450564
>I find it strange that while science is continually proving concepts like superintelligence, time travel, immortality, and transmutation are physical possible,

[citation needed]

>>1448924
Actually all of my secularised friends do this. One girl even tried to justify premarital sex by saying "everything has its season"

>>1449937
Lol

>>1450468
Spoken like a true faggot

>>1450561
Can you objectively demonstrate to me the effects of quantum tunneling through a wormhole created by running a huge current through a massive singularity before it collapses into a black hole?

No? Or are you going to tell me we haven't got the technology yet? Only the theory? Get where I'm headed?

I never mentioned Christianity alone, but what I meant was that in regards to Christianity. For example, if you want to know Hindu doctrine you listen to a guru, to a terrorist for islam, or to a rock for wiccans

>>1450577
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/12/07/physicists-send-particles-of-light-into-the-past-proving-time-travel-is-possible/

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

You can look these things up yourself you know. The second article includes an explanation on immortality and the physical possibility of transmutation.

There are tons of sources out there anon. You don't have to just assume I'm lying because you're not up to date with science

>>1450385
Excellent rebuke.
Where can I subscribe to your debate club?

>>1450595
>Can you objectively demonstrate to me the effects of quantum tunneling through a wormhole created by running a huge current through a massive singularity before it collapses into a black hole?

No, but they can objectively demonstrate the math behind it.

>I never mentioned Christianity alone, but what I meant was that in regards to Christianity. For example, if you want to know Hindu doctrine you listen to a guru, to a terrorist for islam, or to a rock for wiccans

Or you read yourself and make your own damn judgements. Like someone who isn't a servile bitch.

Honestly all these justifications for God being loving authoritarian for your own good are nice until you remember he decides to torture people for eternity if they disobey him.

>>1450604
I can't find an academic source for either of these. So I'm going to take them with a grain of salt, as I would a crystal healer's claims.

>>1450615
As opposed to the excellent point of "It's fiction because I say so and ignoring that it's clearly not written as a work of fiction"?

>>1450637
He doesn't. The only scriptural evidence of hell outside the lake of fire for people like Satan and the antichrist is just a state outside the light of God. You're not tortured, you're just miserable because you exist outside his light.

>>1450637
That is yet ANOTHER corruption. Seriously, there is so much misinformation about the bible because the Catholic Church sucks.

The bible teaches that the wicked are DESTROYED forever. They don't suffer forever. The bible says that death is like sleep, and that if you are judged wicked you die "the second death". There is no biblical support for the "tortured forever" doctrine. All passages that refer to eternal fire only apply to the FIRE being eternal, and that wicked souls are destroyed forever when thrown into this eternal fire. They aren't tortured. That's not biblical doctrine, it's Catholic doctrine. Look it up!

Also, God doesn't judge you for sins you aren't aware of. So everyone who hasn't heard of Jesus in their lifetimes arent damned, they will have a chance to learn and accept Christ in the millennial reign. There is a passage in the bible that says God turns a blind eye to ignorant sins. So if you're not aware it's wrong, you're not guilty.

Really, if you're wondering what the bible teaches, look up the Church of God. You'll discover that Christianity makes perfect sense when you ONLY look at what the bible says, and you let it define itself instead of "interpereting" it.

>>1450639
In the secon article, they literally quote academic sources that are leading figures in artific intelligence. But ok, believe what you want.

>>1450658
>But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 8:12

>Then the king told the servants, 'Tie him hand and foot and throw him outside into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' Matthew 22:13

>There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves are thrown out. Luke 13:28

>They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:42

Kind of ironic you're ignoring what's in the bible while shitting on the Catholic Church for doing the same, don't you think?

>>1450658
which church of god? wiki lists about 40 demoninations

>>1450656
>The only scriptural evidence of hell outside the lake of fire for people like Satan and the antichrist is just a state outside the light of God.
All the faithless will be thrown in, and you can be thrown into the Lake of Fire for simple cowardice. Now, I think only the Dragon/Satan, the false prophet and the beast are explicitly noted to be tortured forever, so hey, there's your comforting ambiguity. Outside Revelation, there is sufficient description of hell, such as in Luke from Jesus' own mouth.

>>1450658
>Also, God doesn't judge you for sins you aren't aware of.
Then every single minute we allow the concept of sin to exist in the human lexicon we condemn more people to the punishment that has been clearly defined. Talking about Christianity is the single most destructive thing you can do to a person.

>>1450658
What even constitutes as not aware? Jesus directly said the soldiers killing him were not aware of what they were doing, but it's almost certain that they heard the general claims about christ being the son of god, as they were among those mocking him about it.

>>1450680
>All the faithless will be thrown in, and you can be thrown into the Lake of Fire for simple cowardice

Never stated really, only figures we know of are Satan and eventually death and hades, though they seem to outright die rather than be tormented.

Most sinners just exist outside the light of god.

It's absolutely not all the faithless, the only people explicitly said to be tormented are the ones you mentioned, most of the rest simply exist in agony due to them existing outside God.

At most it's considered to be a place where the consciously wicked go when they die. As in you know what you're doing is shit, and that it goes against the word of god, but you did it anyway. Hell seems to be where rebels against God go, not just sinners.

>>1450695
>Never stated really,
>But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
Revelation 21:8

>>1450698
Revelations presents a very different idea of hell to the rest of the bible. It's explicitly described as the second death within, which does imply you're just destroyed unless you're bearing the mark of the beast or are Satan or the false prophet, which it says will be tormented forever.

Look at them being the names not included in the book of life. This, to me, suggests they will not attain eternal life.

>>1450695
>most of the rest simply exist in agony
what an amazing distinction

>>1450715
There's a difference between existing in a state of emotional agony simply because you exist outside of the light of god, and being actively tormented. One's purely your regret of your actions.

>>1450708
>Revelations presents a very different idea of hell to the rest of the bible.
And? It's still scripture.

>the second death within, which does imply you're just destroyed
You weren't destroyed in the first death. Why would you be destroyed in the second?

>you're bearing the mark of the beast
So you're unfortunate enough to live in a time where Yahweh is constantly sending plagues onto mankind and you trust the person who can actually feed you during a famine. This is instead of submitting to the one who is covering your body with boils and sending giant scorpions to sting you.

>This, to me, suggests they will not attain eternal life.
Eternal Life is being reunited with God. If eternal torture counted as Eternal Life, Satan and the Beast would have it.

>>1450670
>But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 8:12

He said the wicked would be “cast into outer darkness,” were there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12), and described this place as a “furnace of fire” (13:42), as “everlasting fire” (18:8), as the “fire that never shall be quenched” (Mark 9:43), and as Gehenna fire, where “their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (9:46, 48).

Which is what I said. The FIRE is not quenched.

>“Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness. And the DESTRUCTION of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the LORD shall be CONSUMED "(Isaiah 27-28)

There are many articles written about this. The soul is not immortal according to the scripture, and the wicked are consumed and destroyed.

https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/what-does-the-bible-say-about-the-immortal-soul
https://rcg.org/books/ttah.html
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/heaven-and-hell-what-does-the-bible-really-teach/will-a-loving-god-punish

There is ample evidence to support this claim. The Catholic church is wrong, friend.

>>1450729
unbiased sources there, anon

File: 1469028120498.jpg (109KB, 755x960px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 755x960px

>>1450273
/thread

>>1450728
>And? It's still scripture.

If there's a different image presented in the end times, it's fair to assume that the end times are different.

>You weren't destroyed in the first death. Why would you be destroyed in the second?

Your body is destroyed in your first death, it stands to reason that something equally important must be destroyed in the second for it to be a death.

>So you're unfortunate enough to live in a time where Yahweh is constantly sending plagues onto mankind and you trust the person who can actually feed you during a famine. This is instead of submitting to the one who is covering your body with boils and sending giant scorpions to sting you.

Well yeah, if you just abandon your faith as soon as it gets tough, you're not truly faithful and shouldn't get into heaven. You're essentially a fairweather Christian.

>Eternal Life is being reunited with God

Source? Eternal life is eternal life.

>If eternal torture counted as Eternal Life, Satan and the Beast would have it.

Both are considered immortal beings, and as such have eternal life, yes.

>>1450729
You're just flat out ignoring parts of the bible here mate. Those links you gave just twist words around to go "But it could mean this instead!", while ignoring the outright statements that hell exists, and you do not sleep after death. The rich man and lazarus are a good example.

>>1450677
I like United Church of God or Philadelphia church of God. The former because they have a lot of excellent articles explaining various questions, and the later because they have some great literature that covers topics more in depth.

I highly recommend Mystery of the Ages by Herbert Armstrong. It restores 18 truths of the Bible that people were unaware of, and some of them are truly amazing. The explanation of the purpose of man is brilliant.

>>1450681
The bible suggests that if you are following God to the best of your knowledge you are ok. So if you're unaware about certain commandments or whether or not Old Testament law still stands, and think "all I have to do is accept Christ", and you do that, you're not guilty. But if you think "I should probably look up and see what the laws are" and don't do that because you don't want to find out you're sinning...you're guilty by wilful ignorance.

File: 1468763082199.jpg (97KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 640x360px

>>1450749
>You're just flat out ignoring parts of the bible here mate. Those links you gave just twist words around to go "But it could mean this instead!", while ignoring the outright statements that hell exists, and you do not sleep after death. The rich man and lazarus are a good example.

No, the Bible is plain. You're just not reading it with an open mind.

>“Give light to my eyes, so that I may not fall asleep in death.”—Psalm 13:3.

>“‘Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him.’ The disciples then said to him: ‘Lord, if he is sleeping, he will get well.’ Jesus, however, had spoken about his death.”—John 11:11-13.

>“David, on the one hand, rendered service to God in his own generation [and] fell asleep in death.”—Acts 13:36.

>“Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death.”—1 Corinthians 15:20.

>“We do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope.”—1 Thessalonians 4:13.

here are more articles proving immortal souls and burning torment wrong:

http://lifehopeandtruth.com/life/life-after-death/immortal-soul/
http://www.eternalgod.org/booklet-675/

That last article is long, but sums it up quite nicely at the end:

"Ultimately and inescapably, God’s Word proves that eternal life is a gift of God, and that physical mankind does not possess an immortal soul. The deceptive and false doctrine of inherent “immortality” has held countless millions in a state of confusion, false hopes, and tormented fear."

What parts of the Bible am I ignoring? I'd love to see proof of eternal hell in the bible. To think such proof would first be discovered on 4chan!

>>1450758
Here you go anon, a page full of these sources.

>https://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell

Maybe you should read the bible before you start acting like an expert on it.

>>1450749
>If there's a different image presented in the end times, it's fair to assume that the end times are different.
It's only being interpreted as different because you've decided that eternal torture isn't a thing and you need to discredit the evidence for it. Jesus describes it in Luke, so it's pointless.

>something equally important must be destroyed
Your ability to do anything other than weep and cry about how awful it is to be on fire, constantly, seems pretty precious.

>it gets tough
"It" does not get tough. Yahweh decides he's going to torture people, an accusation theoretically you were disputing. But they were probably Buddhist or something so they deserve it.

>Source
If immortality was Everlasting Life, Adam and Eve already had that.

File: sot.jpg (1MB, 2370x2321px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2370x2321px

>>1450765
>"When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that THEY SHALL BE DESTROYED FOREVER": Psalm 92:7
>"Who shall be punished with EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"; 2 Thessalonians 1:9
>"That the wicked is reserved to the day of DESTRUCTION? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath." Job 21:30
>"But the wicked shall PERISH, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they CONSUME AWAY." Psalms 37:20
>"As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked PERISH at the presence of God." Psalms 68:2.
>"Let the sinners BE CONSUMED out of the earth, and let the wicked BE NO MORE. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD." Psalms 104:35.
>"The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he DESTROY." Psalms 145:20.
>"Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, IT SHALL DEVOUR THEE, and I will BRING THEE TO ASHES upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee." Ezekiel 28:18.
>"All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and NEVER SHALT THOU BE ANY MORE." Ezekiel 28:19.
>"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh SHALL BURN THEM UP, saith the LORD of hosts, that it SHALL LEAVE THEM NEITHER ROOT NOR BRANCH." Malachi 4:1.

I have read the bible. You are spreading a doctrine that turns people away from the faith. Stop it.

The wicked are destroyed forever and its mentioned CONSTANTLY in the bible. The soul is not immortal, we are given life by God alone. Get out of here with your unbiblical heresy and garbage tier distractionary arguments.

>>1450778
>It's only being interpreted as different because you've decided that eternal torture isn't a thing and you need to discredit the evidence for it. Jesus describes it in Luke, so it's pointless

No, I agree that it is, but I personally don't find enough evidence that people go to hell for sinning, rather they go to hell for conscious rebellion against God. Eternal torment seems to be just a state outside the light of God for most.

>Your ability to do anything other than weep and cry about how awful it is to be on fire, constantly, seems pretty precious.

But you don't have this ability before revelations and the idea of the second death.

>"It" does not get tough. Yahweh decides he's going to torture people, an accusation theoretically you were disputing. But they were probably Buddhist or something so they deserve it.

What are you even talking about here? Are you talking about hell or the mark of the beast?

>If immortality was Everlasting Life, Adam and Eve already had that.

Well yeah, they did, what's your point.

>>1450787
Rightio mate, you just keep on ignoring all the evidence for a conscious afterlife outside heaven. You can gnash your teeth if you don't exist, and you can't be resurrected either. There are many other examples of a conscious hell, which are in my source.

You're taking parts of the bible that are obviously talking about the living as proof that we stop existing after we die. Twisting scripture to mean something it clearly doesn't is incredibly dishonest.

And drop the "you're a heretic" shit, we're not in the fucking spanish inquisition.

>>1447409
>I doubt the original authors meant it to be a metaphor.
Why? What solid reason do you have to beleive that?

>>1450796
>Eternal torment seems to be just a state outside the light of God for most.
Ignoring parts of the bible you find troubling seems like concious rebellion to me. But while this is a nice justification, God is described as throwing people into hell, very at odds with the "oh he just respects your free will and no longer shines light on you~" apologetics that removes responsibility for his actions.

>But you don't have this ability before revelations and the idea of the second death.
So which is it? Does the rest of the bible support eternal torture or not?

>What are you even talking about here? Are you talking about hell or the mark of the beast?
People accept the mark in order to be able to buy or sell, in the context of war and worldwide famine. During this period, Yahweh continues to send plagues and tortures onto the people. Given the choice between the Beast or Yahweh, how could they not choose the Beast, given the fact that Yahweh is actively torturing them? And then as soon as they die they earned more torture, now eternal, for not submitting to it earlier? How the hell does that make any sense?

>Well yeah, they did, what's your point.
Then a tree of life doesn't make any sense.

File: 1468279001531.jpg (88KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x640px

>>1450796
Ok, you want to play by your rules.

These are the arguments from this
link you gave: >>1450765 These are the passages they cite to suggest consciousness in an eternal hell: It cites four passages. Let's look through them shall we?
>"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel 12:2-
If you lost your chance at immortality because of wickedness and unrepentence, wouldn't you receive everlasting contempt from those who were tormented by your type? Not an argument for eternal torture. Only an argument that the EFFECTS of your punishment (a second death) are eternal. Which they are. You are destroyed, and then are no more.
>"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. "Matthew 25:46
Same point. Your punishment of destruction and second death is indeed eternal. Next.

>"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John 5:28
Again. Damnation is just punishment. Which is second death. And death is likened to sleep, shown It's actually likened to sleep 53 times in the bible, in fact. Anyway, not an argument for torture.
>"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."Revelation 20:14-15
Right. Second death. Exactly what I said.

You gnash your teeth while you're being destroyed for the first and only time. The effects of this punishment are eternal. It's really quite plain.

And I could go on. There is so much more evidence, I haven't even begun.

>>1450817
'i speak to them in parables' - Jesus Christ

File: 1468762864772.jpg (11KB, 287x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 287x225px

>>1450796
>Rightio mate, you just keep on ignoring all the evidence

he just gave you a ton of evidence you blatantly ignored.

>>1450822
>Ignoring parts of the bible you find troubling seems like concious rebellion to me. But while this is a nice justification, God is described as throwing people into hell, very at odds with the "oh he just respects your free will and no longer shines light on you~" apologetics that removes responsibility for his actions.

God is described as throwing a handful of people into hell, very few out of revelations.

>So which is it? Does the rest of the bible support eternal torture or not?

For the worst of us, yes.

>People accept the mark in order to be able to buy or sell, in the context of war and worldwide famine. During this period, Yahweh continues to send plagues and tortures onto the people. Given the choice between the Beast or Yahweh, how could they not choose the Beast, given the fact that Yahweh is actively torturing them? And then as soon as they die they earned more torture, now eternal, for not submitting to it earlier? How the hell does that make any sense?

Because you don't truly have faith if you abandon it to serve one of the worst evils of creation simply because it's easier. That's like saying you're not a traitor if you swap sides in a war where it seems like your country is losing.

>Then a tree of life doesn't make any sense.

The same as the tree of knowledge didn't give them knowledge of everything, the tree of life doesn't grant eternal life. Re-read genesis.

>>1450824
Mate, you're just cherrypicking the parts you can twist to suit your argument at this point, and ignoring the ones that OUTRIGHT SAY that there is a conscious afterlife. Revelation 14:10, Mark 9:48 both outright say it. Many others imply it, such as the story of the rich man and lazarus.

>>1450838
I addressed them, they were clearly talking about destruction of their physical form, not their souls.

A part of the bible that explicitly says something is going to have more credibility than one you can barely interpret as meaning something.

>>1450128
If I was a god, I'd be far busier doing actually interesting things than worrying over whether some evolved apes in some backwater corner of a boring ass galaxy decided to eat a pig or pray to Adonis instead of me. Your god is painfully obviously made up by people living in a much simpler time.

>>1450858
*tips fedora*

>>1450858
>If I was a god, I'd be far busier doing actually interesting things than worrying over whether some evolved apes in some backwater corner of a boring ass galaxy decided to eat a pig or pray to Adonis instead of me.

Like what anon? Looking over his creation of "evolved apes" made in the image of him seems pretty important, considering there's very little else out there to do. No mysteries to figure out seeing as he fucking created everything.

>Your god is painfully obviously made up by people living in a much simpler time.

How many fedoras do you own?

>>1450851
>throwing a handful of people
Oh, well that makes it alright then. You know what they say, it's okay as long as you only do it to a handful of people.

>For the worst of us, yes.
And God seems to have an extremely lax definition of the worst of us.

>Because you don't truly have faith if you abandon it to serve one of the worst evils of creation simply because it's easier.
Who said they were even Christians in the first place? Besides, why would they assume they were serving the worst evil in creation, when the creator is treating them thousands of times worse and promises to send more where that came from?

>>1450750
Again, were the roman soldiers "willfully ignorant"?

They heard jesus was the son of god, and they mocked him. Jesus himself still asked god to forgive them as they did not know what they did. Were they forgiven? If they were struck down by a bolt of lightning while mocking jesus and not accepting him, would they have been forgiven?

>>1450865
You've never played Minecraft, have you? Just because you have absolute control to create and destroy doesn't mean you automatically become bored, unless you're autistic or something.

>How many fedoras do you own?

How many times do you pray for forgiveness for visiting 4chan? Does it hurt a lot when you flagellate yourself?

>>1450868
>Oh, well that makes it alright then. You know what they say, it's okay as long as you only do it to a handful of people.

Well when those people are those such as the anti-christ and other followers of Satan, I'd say there's a good justification for it.

>And God seems to have an extremely lax definition of the worst of us.

Based on what?

>Who said they were even Christians in the first place?

How is that relevant? It's stated you don't go to hell unless you're aware of your sin.

> Besides, why would they assume they were serving the worst evil in creation, when the creator is treating them thousands of times worse and promises to send more where that came from?

Because of the prophecies contained within revelation that outright say it is, first off, and secondly, have you even read revelations? It's pretty obvious it's not a good thing.

>>1450871
>You've never played Minecraft, have you?

What does minecraft have to do with anything?

>Just because you have absolute control to create and destroy doesn't mean you automatically become bored, unless you're autistic or something.

Have you considered that maybe the issue you're having comes from you assuming God is just a dude sitting in the sky at a PC, instead of an eternal being?

>How many times do you pray for forgiveness for visiting 4chan? Does it hurt a lot when you flagellate yourself?

Why would I pray for forgiveness for that? Using the internet isn't a sin mate.

File: 1468466455603.jpg (72KB, 560x538px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 560x538px

>>1450851
>Revelation 14:10, Mark 9:48 both outright say it. Many others imply it, such as the story of the rich man and lazarus.

No, they don't.

>"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:48

Where in that says anything about eternal consciousness? Can you point it to me? Because I see a worm that is eternal and a fire that is eternal but nothing about a man inside it that screams and wails in agony, eternally. There are other unquenchable fires in the Bible that don't require fuel, like God's throne in Daniel for example. In fact, this passage has no mention of consciousness at all. You must be twisting this phrase to suit your argument.

>"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:" Revelation 14:10

Ok I see tormented...but I don't see tormented forever...can you point it out to me? I mean if I was dying the second death by fire and brimstone, it surely would be a torment, but again can you point to me where it says this torment lasts forever?

Oh, and how do you refute these large chunks of the bible I quoted here? >>1450787 Is God lying in these passages? Is God having a goof with language? Or are you just willfully ignoring giant sections of the bible where it is plain and clear that we do not live forever if we're wicked, and Jew twisting the few measly passages you have that don't even say what you're saying at all?

Why is God so cryptic with his concept of Eternal Hell? You mentioned other passages, I'd love to read them.

>>1450878
>Have you considered that maybe the issue you're having comes from you assuming God is just a dude sitting in the sky at a PC, instead of an eternal being?
You're the one saying god 'wouldn't have much else to do', as if he was "just a dude".

Have you considered that god is an all powerful being, and as such has the power to make himself content no matter what state the universe is in?

>>1450878
>Why would I pray for forgiveness for that? Using the internet isn't a sin mate.

With the shit you believe being as arbitrary as it is, I wouldn't put that past it.


>Have you considered that maybe the issue you're having comes from you assuming God is just a dude sitting in the sky at a PC, instead of an eternal being?

Being an eternal being changes things how? If you're that bored, then make a super intelligence to have a conversation with. I can't think of any real reason to mess with humans when you live forever and have that much power. It's like people who believe in ghosts - do you really think someone who is transparent and can fly and phase through walls, etc, would stick around some abandoned home? Fuck that, I would take a trip around the world and once I got bored of that, I'd explore space.

Whatever, believe what you want. I have better things to do with my Friday night. I only came into this thread because I saw a book on the front page and clicked on it thinking it might be a book-collecting thread. Needless to say, I was disappointed.

>>1450879
>No, they don't.

They really do.

>Where in that says anything about eternal consciousness? Can you point it to me? Because I see a worm that is eternal

Are you actually retarded? Do you really think it refers to a literal worm owned by sinners that just hangs around forever?

>Ok I see tormented...but I don't see tormented forever...can you point it out to me?

Ignoring that being tormented outright proves your "You're just gone when you die" theory wrong, as well as, to repeat myself again, lazarus and the rich man, the next part of the bible proves that it's eternal.

>And the smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever. Day and night there will be no rest for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”

Forever and ever pretty clearly says eternal.

>Oh, and how do you refute these large chunks of the bible I quoted here?

The same way I already did, by saying that those are clearly talking living people, not their souls.

>>1450884
>You're the one saying god 'wouldn't have much else to do', as if he was "just a dude".

No I'm not? You were the one who said that you'd be doing something more interesting if you were God, implying that God is just a person.

>Have you considered that god is an all powerful being, and as such has the power to make himself content no matter what state the universe is in?

Sure, but it's proven that he doesn't several times throughout the bible, where he feels anger or regret.

>>1450878
>I'd say there's a good justification for it.
There is no justification for eternal torture, even just by the fact that they only had a finite time to commit crimes.

>Based on what?
The Bible, when describing God's own attitude.

>How is that relevant? It's stated you don't go to hell unless you're aware of your sin.
So people who accept the mark but weren't Christian don't go to hell? Again, why do we let people talk about Christianity if talking about it is this dangerous?

>It's pretty obvious it's not a good thing.
Yahweh and the saints consider their bloodlust as justice, actually.

>>1450369
There is nothing permanent, and no desire is based on anything other than hedonism. Apply yourself, asshat.

>this argument

Why does God allow people to interpret his word so radically differently?

>>1450889
>With the shit you believe being as arbitrary as it is, I wouldn't put that past it.

Is your hat on a bit tight or something? Do you even know what the words you use mean?

>Being an eternal being changes things how?

Because an eternal being by definition isn't human. There's no reason to think that he would be experiencing boredom except for you saying that you, as a human would.

>Whatever, believe what you want. I have better things to do with my Friday night. I only came into this thread because I saw a book on the front page and clicked on it thinking it might be a book-collecting thread.

What, you're incapable of reading?

File: 220px-HerbertWArmstrong.jpg (16KB, 220x298px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 220x298px

>>1450851
>such as the story of the rich man and lazarus

lazarus and rich is a parable
http://bible-truths.com/lazarus.html
http://www.bibleexplained.com/Gospels/Luke/Lu16b.html
http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/q-and-a/id/1596/what-about-the-rich-man-and-lazarus

Not a substantial argument for hell desu.

>>1450893
>There is no justification for eternal torture, even just by the fact that they only had a finite time to commit crimes.

Well that's your opinion mate, it doesn't necessarily relate to what's just. I'd say that eternal punishment is a just response to you trying to trick others away from eternal joy.

>The Bible, when describing God's own attitude.


It's a pretty big book mate, why don't you tell me which parts in particular about the judgement of who does and doesn't go to hell is lax?

>So people who accept the mark but weren't Christian don't go to hell?

No? If you accept the mark with the conscious knowledge that what you're doing is bad, you go to hell.

>Yahweh and the saints consider their bloodlust as justice, actually.

Which saints, in particular? And which unjust attack was perpetrated by the Christian god (so not the OT, which is Jewish)?

>>1450901
Kind of convenient that the parts that support your argument are all meant to be interpreted in the exact way you do, but the parts that don't are obviously just parables and don't count, don't you think?

>Not a substantial argument for hell desu.

It's a hell of a lot better than a bunch of quotes that are clearly talking about physical death.

>>1450901
so what were this guy's actual credentials?

>pioneer of 'tele-evangelism'
>nontrinitarianism
>biblical tithing
>british israelism
>imminent second coming
>some followers regard him as a prophet or even an 'apostle'
>likens himself to john the baptist

granted that's just when i gleaned from wiki, care to enlighten

>>1450914
>with the conscious knowledge that what you're doing is bad,
Apparently, you're literally too stupid to understand what the other anon is saying. If damnation requires conscious knowledge, then stop talking about your skydaddy. If everyone was ignorant of him, everybody would be better off.

>>1450918
Damnation requires it, but without faith you spend an indeterminate amount of time in emotional turmoil existing outside the light of God. If no-one knows about God, no-one can be saved.

And I can absolutely say that I'd rather spend eternity in heaven than spending it outside of gods light where there is described as being weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

>>1450918
*tips fedora*

File: 1468215160271.jpg (92KB, 726x544px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 726x544px

>>1450892
>The same way I already did, by saying that those are clearly talking living people, not their souls.

The Hebrew word most often translated into English as “soul” in the Bible is nephesh. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible succinctly defines this word as meaning “a breathing creature.” When used in the Bible, nephesh does not mean a spirit entity or the spirit within a person. Rather, it usually means a physical, living, breathing creature.

Among the plainer statements in the Bible about what happens to the soul at death are Ezekiel 18:4 and 18:20. Both passages clearly state that “the soul who sins shall die.” Again, the word for “soul” here is nephesh. In fact, this same word was even used of corpses—dead bodies (see Leviticus 22:4; Numbers 5:2; Numbers 6:11; Numbers 9:6-10).

How can a soul DIE if it's "immortal" like you claim? Death is sleep. This said 53 times in the bible. Daniel 12:2 describes the dead as “those who sleep in the dust of the earth,” who later “shall awake” through being resurrected.

Before going to Bethany, Jesus discussed the condition of Lazarus with His disciples. He told them Lazarus was asleep and that He was going to awaken him (John 11:11-14). The disciples responded that sleep was good because it would help him get well (John 11:12). Jesus then plainly told them, “Lazarus is dead” (John 11:14). Notice that Jesus stated emphatically that Lazarus was dead, but at the same time He described death as a condition like sleep.

>Forever and ever pretty clearly says eternal.
They burn. They're tormented. They die. The smoke from their burning rises forever and ever. That's what it says. Nowhere does it say they burn forever.

>>1450923
So basically he still punishes you even without the conscious knowledge part. Why the distinction then?

>>1450914
>just your opinion
I never killed a guy's family to prove a point, so for now I will trust my opinion about what is and is not just.
>why don't you tell me which parts in particular about the judgement of who does and doesn't go to hell is lax?
All the parts that mentioned how many people go to hell that you dismissed for one reason or another. What does "narrow path" to salvation mean to you? That most people somehow won't end up in hell for stupid, petty reasons?

>Which saints, in particular?
"The saints" in revelation chapter 6 who cry out for blood, against people who had nothing to do with their death. All God does is tell them to wait a little longer so the full number of their brothers and sisters are killed, then the judgment can begin. This would imply that no Christian is left on earth when the judgement happens, so by your logic nobody would be punished for taking the mark as none of them would know better. Still get the shit tortured out of them though, but again they probably deserved it.

>>1450927
>If you just translate it differently you'll see I'm right!

Not really a good argument mate.

>How can a soul DIE if it's "immortal" like you claim?

There's several arguments for this, including it being a cutoff from eternal life, which is provided by god, and not actually talking about immortality.

>They burn. They're tormented. They die. The smoke from their burning rises forever and ever. That's what it says. Nowhere does it say they burn forever.

>Notice that Jesus stated emphatically that Lazarus was dead, but at the same time He described death as a condition like sleep.

Notice that Abraham and the rich man are clearly described as being conscious and talking. Are you arguing for death being a state where you're annihilated, or one where you're merely unconscious, too?

Because annihilation is outright provably false, and sleep at best implies that you don't go to hell or heaven until the second coming.

Nowhere does it say they die, and it outright says there will be no rest for them, and the smoke of their torment will rise forever. Not the smoke of their destruction.

>>1450017
They don't believe in shit though, so that's hardly relevant.

>>1450914
>I'd say that eternal punishment is a just response to you trying to trick others away from eternal joy.
nobody could be "tricked away from eternal joy" if the alternative of eternal punishment did not exist. you have the rationality and critical thought of a stillborn.

>And I can absolutely say that I'd rather spend eternity in heaven than spending it outside of gods light
why doesn't god just give souls their own light instead of being eternally dependent on him for any sort of happiness whatsoever? what is he so afraid of, that no one will ever for all eternity be allowed to enjoy existence without him? why does his absence HAVE to be teeth gnashing?

>>1450928
No. You aren't punished when you exist outside God's light, hence it not being a place where you're tortured, just one where you exist miserably.

>>1450931
>I never killed a guy's family to prove a point, so for now I will trust my opinion about what is and is not just.

How prideful.

>All the parts that mentioned how many people go to hell that you dismissed for one reason or another.

Which one?

>What does "narrow path" to salvation mean to you?

It's not hard to be saved mate, follow the commandments, attempt to live as Christ did and accept him as your saviour. That's not super hard, you don't need to be a perfect saint to get to heaven.

>"The saints" in revelation chapter 6 who cry out for blood, against people who had nothing to do with their death

I assume you're talking about the souls behind the fifth seal, who aren't saints. And they ask for God to judge those on earth and avenge them for being unjustly killed. That's not saints baying for blood.

>This would imply that no Christian is left on earth when the judgement happens

It really doesn't. The rest of revelations proves this.

>>1450937
>They don't believe in shit though,
In other words, you're saying he died solely to achieve some earthly goal he wouldn't be able to partake in?

Isn't that even more damning to the claim that it must have been true for people to die for it?

>>1450946
>No. You aren't punished when you exist outside God's light, hence it not being a place where you're tortured, just one where you exist miserably.
Spoken like a true disgusting sniveling cowardly little jew ratfuck.

>>1450939
>nobody could be "tricked away from eternal joy" if the alternative of eternal punishment did not exist

What's your point? We're operating under the assumption it does. And those that act as false prophets obviously aren't just going to keep their mouths shut and not talking about God, they'll continue to spread their lies and cause others to be turned away from God's light. "Just don't talk about it" doesn't stop this, it just makes their job easy.

>you have the rationality and critical thought of a stillborn.

How very mature of you.

>why doesn't god just give souls their own light instead of being eternally dependent on him for any sort of happiness whatsoever? what is he so afraid of, that no one will ever for all eternity be allowed to enjoy existence without him? why does his absence HAVE to be teeth gnashing?

Because God is the source of light and life. A soul that's not in communion with god can't have its own light, by definition.

Going "But why isn't it different" is hardly compelling, the answer is that it's simply not.

>>1450946
>No. You aren't punished when you exist outside God's light, hence it not being a place where you're tortured, just one where you exist miserably.
Does "shining his light" on those miserable people cost Yahweh something, or does he just enjoy their wallowing?

>>1450954
Come on man, you can do better than that, at least put some thought into your insults.

>>1450958
It's neither. Those people made the choice to not exist in the kingdom of heaven. God is by his nature pure and without sin, he'd be corrupting himself by allowing sin into the kingdom of heaven. And if you're faithful in life, you're rewarded in the afterlife, don't bitch that your decision had consequences when you knew what they would be.

Your argument of "why isn't it different" proves nothing.

File: 1469233593451.jpg (532KB, 469x5000px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 469x5000px

>>1450935
Proof that the soul is immortal is your claim, bub. You have no scriptural evidence for your assertion. I only provided the translation to clear up your understanding, since you made an assumption that the soul is spirit when it's actually closer to metabolism or some undefinable "spark of life", according to the Hebrew. Was God trying to confuse them, but not us? Probably not. When you die, your soul dies.

>Notice that Abraham and the rich man are clearly described as being conscious and talking. Are you arguing for death being a state where you're annihilated, or one where you're merely unconscious, too?

What? You're mixing up your stories man. The other one is a parable. I gave three articles to support my claim and all you had to say was "WELL SURE IT'S A PARABLE SINCE IT FITS YOUR ARGUMENT" which is...not an argument, I'm afraid.

>sleep at best implies that you don't go to hell or heaven until the second coming.

Now you're finally beginning to understand what the bible teaches, I'm so glad.

>Not the smoke of their destruction.

Ok. Even though it says these things, about EVERLASTING destruction, plainly, which would apply to either a moral or immortal soul, because the destruction is everlasting, and if you're destroyed, you don't exist:

>"Who shall be punished with EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"; 2 Thessalonians 1:9

What does everlasting destruction mean here, can you tell me?

>"All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and NEVER SHALT THOU BE ANY MORE." Ezekiel 28:19.

Can you tell me what "never shalt thou be any more" means in an immortal soul context? What is God saying here, o sage?

>"When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that THEY SHALL BE DESTROYED FOREVER": Psalm 92:7

Can an immortal soul be destroyed forever? Is God just confused? Does he need your guidance?

>>1450946
>hence it not being a place where you're tortured, just one where you exist miserably.
>Sure, officer, I pushed her off that building, but I didn't kill her. Gravity and the earth did. My hands are clean as a whistle!

>How prideful.
The pot knows more about being a pot than the potter does, despite the arrogance of a potter. If I am responsible for a genocide, maybe my pride will fall a notch or two.

>Which one?
Literally all the ones you dodged by saying they didn't count because they didn't fit your predetermined conclusion.

>It's not hard to be saved mate
I'm starting to wonder if you have ever even opened a bible.

>who aren't saints
Are you using the Catholic definition of Saint? Because unless you are, they are literally, by the book, dictionary definition saints. They are even referred to as such in chapter 8.

>And they ask for God to judge those on earth and avenge them for being unjustly killed. That's not saints baying for blood.
>they're asking for vengence on all remaining humans, not specific people who wronged them. Besides, it's a little silly to say they weren't crying out for blood when Yahweh later has a giant winepress filled with it.

>>1448654
>>1448669
I really really hate dogmatists.

>>1450969
Genociding the Canaanites wasn't a sin and God is perfectly just in doing so, but if you ate a bacon sandwich once he can't stand it?

>>1450956
> they'll continue to spread their lies and cause others to be turned away from God's light
What's YOUR point? Their lies wouldn't matter if there's only one door to heaven.
>How very mature of you.
How very passive aggressive of you, you stinking little faggot cocksucker.

>Because God is the source of light and life. A soul that's not in communion with god can't have its own light, by definition.
Except for the part where god can do anything, by definition. Like giving a soul its own light. That's why you have the same capability for thought as a dead fetus. Mindless.

>the answer is that it's simply not.
>literally just "nuh uh" verbatim
What a pathetic worthless subhuman animal.

>>1450969
>Those people made the choice to not exist in the kingdom of heaven.
Keep up, mate. We were just talking about how those people are ignorant of Yahweh. I'll repeat the question.

Does "shining his light" on those miserable people cost Yahweh something, or does he just enjoy their wallowing?

>>1450977
>Proof that the soul is immortal is your claim, bub. You have no scriptural evidence for your assertion.

I've already provided proof.

>What? You're mixing up your stories man

How exactly am I?

> I gave three articles to support my claim and all you had to say was "WELL SURE IT'S A PARABLE SINCE IT FITS YOUR ARGUMENT" which is...not an argument, I'm afraid.


Your article was entirely twisting translations and taking quotes that obviously mean one thing as meaning something else entirely.

>Now you're finally beginning to understand what the bible teaches, I'm so glad.

Which is very different to "the soul is destroyed when it dies if it doesn't go to heaven".

>Even though it says these things, about EVERLASTING destruction, plainly, which would apply to either a moral or immortal soul, because the destruction is everlasting, and if you're destroyed, you don't exist:

Well gee, I didn't see that part at all! It says eternal torment, clearly. If you are destroyed, you can rest.

>What does everlasting destruction mean here, can you tell me?


Everlasting destruction from his presence, as in you can not be in the presence of God.

>Can you tell me what "never shalt thou be any more" means in an immortal soul context? What is God saying here, o sage?

How exactly is there any evidence ti's talking about souls there?

>Can an immortal soul be destroyed forever? Is God just confused? Does he need your guidance?

Once again, clearly talking about their physical form, not their soul.


You're twisting scripture to mean something else entirely.

>>1450960
>if i respond to it that will PROVE i'm not butthurt, even though responding at all is direct evidence that i am
>tells others to put thought into anything, meanwhile you literally post "the answer is that it's simply not."
about as rational as the rest of the retardation that slid out your ass tonight.

>>1450978
>Sure, officer, I pushed her off that building, but I didn't kill her. Gravity and the earth did. My hands are clean as a whistle!

It's more like you trying to claim that the owner of the building should be held responsible for the woman jumping off. God doesn't push you away from him.

>The pot knows more about being a pot than the potter does, despite the arrogance of a potter.

What do you mean by this? Are you implying you know more than an all knowing being?

>Literally all the ones you dodged by saying they didn't count because they didn't fit your predetermined conclusion.


Just answer the question please. Which ones?

>I'm starting to wonder if you have ever even opened a bible.

Why's that? What proves me wrong?

>Are you using the Catholic definition of Saint?

I'm using the fact that they're never called saints.

>They are even referred to as such in chapter 8.

Chapter 8 speaks about the trumpets of the angels, and passingly mentions God's people. Not saints.

>they're asking for vengence on all remaining humans, not specific people who wronged them

What do you gain by lying about this anon?

>“How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”

They're asking for judgement to be delivered, not baying for blood.

>>1450986
The Canaanites were an extremely corrupting influence that was unrepentant. And God didn't kill them.

>but if you ate a bacon sandwich once he can't stand it?

I'm not a jew mate.

>>1450991
>What's YOUR point? Their lies wouldn't matter if there's only one door to heaven.

That people spreading the true word of god is the only thing that acts as prevention for people spreading false ones.

>How very passive aggressive of you, you stinking little faggot cocksucker.

Really demonstrating your ability to have a rational adult discussion here, good job.

cont

>>1450991
>Except for the part where god can do anything, by definition. Like giving a soul its own light.

What do you mean by light? Are you saying that every soul should be a completely god like being capable of creating its own paradise? Or simply that they should be able to be filled with light? Because the latter is true already.

>That's why you have the same capability for thought as a dead fetus. Mindless.

Can you at least try to vary up the insults?

>literally just "nuh uh" verbatim

Come on mate. "Why aren't things different" isn't a question I can ever answer, I'm not God, and I'm not prideful enough to act like I can understand the mind of God. All I can say is that they aren't different, and complaining about that proves nothing.

>>1450994
>Does "shining his light" on those miserable people cost Yahweh something, or does he just enjoy their wallowing?

Those people made a decision to not embrace God. Then when it turns out that was a bad choice, whined about it. God's forgiving and willing to embrace those that love him, but being upset that you didn't get the best possible scenario isn't love.

>>1450998
I think you should go take a walk anon, try to calm down a bit.

File: bible what is a soul.jpg (468KB, 1156x1078px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1156x1078px

>>1450997
I'm tired of arguing with you. If you provided proof, I missed it. You could simply point me to it, as I have done with every single argument I've presented.

>"Your article was entirely twisting translations and taking quotes that obviously mean one thing as meaning something else entirely. "

No sir, that is what you do.

>"Which is very different to "the soul is destroyed when it dies if it doesn't go to heaven"."

This is what happens. You die. You are resurrected. You are judged. You DIE AGAIN if you are wicked (this is called the second death—everlasting destruction). Which is exactly what I've been saying the entire thread.

>Everlasting destruction from his presence, as in you can not be in the presence of God.

The presence of God is what gives us life. God is the God of life. He gives life. If you are cut off from God, you have no life.

>How exactly is there any evidence ti's talking about souls there?
>Once again, clearly talking about their physical form, not their soul.

You really need to understand what the bible means by soul. Here's another article you can discredit with vague assertions. I am fully aware that you won't actually use scripture to make your rebuttal, but will rather point me vaguely to stories in the bible where "it totally says otherwise", as you insist my article is "totally twisting words and stuff"

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/what-is-a-soul-spirit-meaning/

A choice quote:
>A further study of God’s Word will show you that nowhere in the entire Bible are the terms “immortal” or “everlasting” linked with the word “soul.” Instead, the Scriptures state that a soul is mortal, meaning that it dies. (Ezekiel 18:4, 20) Therefore, the Bible calls someone who has died simply a “dead soul.”—Leviticus 21:11,

>>1451010
>That people spreading the true word of god is the only thing that acts as prevention for people spreading false ones.
That is literally L I T E R A L L Y irrelevant. You will never ever at any point in this discussion acknowledge or explore the idea that god could do other things, because he has the power to do ~anything~. He could make it so that no matter what happened in your life, no matter how you were deceived, even if you died without accepting christ, that you could wash you soul clean and ascend to heaven. Your only answer to this, which isn't an answer but a direct denial of an answer, is: "because he doesn't".

The reason you respond with this is due to fear.

>>1451027
>ou could simply point me to it, as I have done with every single argument I've presented.

I have, you just denied that they counted and said "They actually meant that they died", despite no evidence for it.

>This is what happens. You die. You are resurrected. You are judged. You DIE AGAIN if you are wicked (this is called the second death—everlasting destruction). Which is exactly what I've been saying the entire thread.

But it objectively doesn't, people refer to hell all through the bible. Hell wouldn't exist if it just annihilation for anyone who doesn't go to heaven. There would be no torment, which is repeatedly mentioned.

>The presence of God is what gives us life. God is the God of life. He gives life. If you are cut off from God, you have no life.

Yet Satan very clearly is mentioned as burning in the lake of fire, despite obviously being cut off from god, as well as other mentioned that will be tormented forever with no respite.

>I am fully aware that you won't actually use scripture to make your rebuttal, but will rather point me vaguely to stories in the bible where "it totally says otherwise"

Do you know what scripture is? Stories in the bible are the scripture.

>as you insist my article is "totally twisting words and stuff"

>This word can also mean something else, but if it means that other thing then it completely defeats the point of heaven (your conscious body doesn't go to heaven) and of being tormented (Which is mentioned several times)

Also, your argument for "it's a spirit not a soul" is pretty much semantics. In modern society, a soul and a spirit are the same thing, and the words are used interchangeably. If you use soul to just describe an individual, and the spirit to be their essence, it still stands that hell is outright said to exist and to be where individuals are tormented.

>>1451015
>Those people made a decision to not embrace God.
No, you fucking moron. We were talking about people who are ignorant of god or their impending doom. No decision is there to speak of. Get it through your thick skull before you answer the question like a mongoloid.

>>1451010
>God doesn't push you away from him.
Sure he does, he's omnipotent. Creating someone with a distaste for genocide and then genociding people is a pretty clear message to send. Besidespite, Jesus himself was interested in blocking people from salvation. (See below.)

>Are you implying you know more than an all knowing being?
Sure, why not? Omnicience doesn't seem to do him much good if he has to solve his problems through authoritarian threats of violence.

>Which ones?
All the unbelievers, which specifically discounts Christians.

>What proves me wrong?
Jesus specifically speaks in parables for the sole purpose of making it difficult for people to understand him. Mark 4:10-13. Given that he also claims to be the only way, salvation is explicitly difficult, not easy.

>never called saints
They are, depending on your translation, and as saved souls in heaven they are literal saints.

>What do you gain by lying about this anon?
The definition of "lying" is not "pointing out implications I find uncomfortable. " Nowhere in the rest of Revelation do they limit their wrath towards those who wronged them, and the whole thing ends with a giant winepress of blood. Do the math.

>The Canaanites were an extremely corrupting influence that was unrepentant.
Ah yes, a "corrupting influence. " Same justification the Quran uses to justify the murder of the infidel. Good company Yahweh keeps.
>And God didn't kill them.
Right, if you don't personally pull the trigger you aren't responsible. That's why Stalin's hands are so clean. The man of stainless steel, they used to call him!

>>1450892
>Sure, but it's proven that he doesn't several times throughout the bible, where he feels anger or regret.
Yea I think it's suspicious too. It's almost like he's simply the fabrication of regular human authors with regular human feelings and emotions, and thus attribute those regular human feelings and emotions to the characters they create.

>>1451028
>That is literally L I T E R A L L Y irrelevant.

How do you figure? Your point was that if Christians stopped talking about God, no-one would have anything bad happen. Yet if believers stay quiet, false prophets can lead the people astray incredibly easily.

>You will never ever at any point in this discussion acknowledge or explore the idea that god could do other things, because he has the power to do ~anything~. He could make it so that no matter what happened in your life, no matter how you were deceived, even if you died without accepting christ, that you could wash you soul clean and ascend to heaven. Your only answer to this, which isn't an answer but a direct denial of an answer, is: "because he doesn't".

My answer to that has already been that a soul that carries sin cannot be allowed into heaven, as sin is completely contrary to the nature of God. And a soul isn't something you can just cut up and divide, a soul that is an unrepentant sinner is an unrepentant sinner. "Just take away their sins" doesn't solve this.

And the argument of it simply is is because I am not God, and cannot speak as to why he does things, simply that they are so. You're asking me to answer impossible questions and then acting like I'm somehow incompetent for not being able to do so.

>The reason you respond with this is due to fear.

Yeah, I'm terrified of getting struck down for not knowing the mind of God.

>>1451043
>Sure he does, he's omnipotent.

Being omnipotent isn't an argument for why he pushes you away.

>Sure, why not? Omnicience doesn't seem to do him much good if he has to solve his problems through authoritarian threats of violence.

Well then you're a moron. What colour shirt am I wearing right now anon? If you know more than an all knowing entity, that should be simple for you to answer.

>All the unbelievers, which specifically discounts Christians.

Which ones in particular anon.

>Jesus specifically speaks in parables for the sole purpose of making it difficult for people to understand him. Mark 4:10-13. Given that he also claims to be the only way, salvation is explicitly difficult, not easy.

That's not him trying to keep anyone out anon, you just flat out ignored his answer.

See here
>Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given . . . . And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive, for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them'

>They are, depending on your translation, and as saved souls in heaven they are literal saints.

The king james mentions the prayers of all saints. It never describes the people under the altar as saints.

>The definition of "lying" is not "pointing out implications I find uncomfortable. "

No, but it is saying something outright false. They aren't saints.

>Same justification the Quran uses to justify the murder of the infidel.

Cool, so you know nothing about the Quran either.

File: sweet pig.jpg (203KB, 1125x1125px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1125x1125px

>>1451039
>Yet Satan very clearly is mentioned as burning in the lake of fire, despite obviously being cut off from god, as well as other mentioned that will be tormented forever with no respite.

Satan and his angels get a different punishment. They are the ones who get 1000 years of torment before themselves are destroyed after the 1000 year reign.

>Do you know what scripture is? Stories in the bible are the scripture.

Wut. Everything in the bible is scripture. Source for this ridiculous claim?

>Also, your argument for "it's a spirit not a soul" is pretty much semantics. In modern society, a soul and a spirit are the same thing,

Modern society did not write the Bible. It doesn't matter how people today interpret the words. What matters is what the writers intended by the words they chose.

>"Whatever God I don't care what you're prophets (((MEANT))), I am going to read it MY way!"

It's your choice anon. May God bless you and keep you. I suppose as long as you love him in your heart, no harm is done. I am only passionate about the concept of eternal torment because it really damaging to the faith and also total interpretation with MOUNTAINS of scriptural evidence claiming otherwise in plain, clear English. Not hidden in metaphors or gleaned from misrepresentations of the text, and a completely stubborn refusal to acknowledge what the original Hebrew intended.

>>1451049
>"Just take away their sins" doesn't solve this.
Except for the part where yes it does absolutely, completely, and totally beyond anything you could possibly say or have said. You are just wrong, and yes I do know more than you about your own god as you seemingly can't wrap your tiny shriveled mind around the concept that he is god and can do whatever he wants to your contemptible little soul, including cutting away the sin or whatever other figure of speech you want to use for it.
sin isn't bigger than god, god is bigger than sin. sin has absolutely no power over god, he can dip his balls in it and come out squeaky fucking clean. because he is god, you utter stupid fuck.

>You're asking me to answer impossible questions
I've asked nothing a 4 year old couldn't solve.

>>1451057
>Being omnipotent isn't an argument for why he pushes you away.
No, being a dick is an argument for why he pushes people away. The omnipotence just makes it easier.

>What colour shirt am I wearing right now anon?
No idea. But I do know it's wrong to ask someone to kill their child to prove their love for me, just to jump out a bush at the last second and yell surprise. I think that is a more important kind of knowledge.

>Which ones in particular anon.
I just said. All the unbelievers will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. It is very specific and you rejected it because it is in Revelation.

>flat out ignored his answer
Did you? He just said that if they were not given understsnding, and if they did he would have to heal them. Turns out Jesus is a Calvinist. Who knew?

>It never describes the people under the altar as saints.
What is the definition of a saint?

>Cool, so you know nothing about the Quran either.
"Spreading mischief" is grounds for execution, similar to your corruption justification.

>>1451059
>Satan and his angels get a different punishment. They are the ones who get 1000 years of torment before themselves are destroyed after the 1000 year reign.

So why aren't they destroyed while apparently all humans are?

>Wut. Everything in the bible is scripture. Source for this ridiculous claim?

I think you misinterpreted me, I was saying that stories in the bible are scripture, not that they alone are scripture. I agree that anything in there is.

>Modern society did not write the Bible. It doesn't matter how people today interpret the words. What matters is what the writers intended by the words they chose

My point was that you were arguing semantics. Whether it's the soul or spirit that's eternal isn't really important, it's just a word choice.

>It's your choice anon. May God bless you and keep you. I suppose as long as you love him in your heart, no harm is done. I am only passionate about the concept of eternal torment because it really damaging to the faith and also total interpretation with MOUNTAINS of scriptural evidence claiming otherwise in plain, clear English. Not hidden in metaphors or gleaned from misrepresentations of the text, and a completely stubborn refusal to acknowledge what the original Hebrew intended.

Well I disagree with you, but you're entitled to believe what you wish. Thanks for being somewhat civil throughout this whole thing, or at least refraining from outright shit flinging.

>>1451073
>sin has absolutely no power over god, he can dip his balls in it and come out squeaky fucking clean. because he is god, you utter stupid fuck.

God is completely without sin. When God accepts sin, he corrupts himself. It simply cannot happen, a pure and final being can't be corrupted, and as such can't accept sin. You evidently don't know as much as you think.

>I've asked nothing a 4 year old couldn't solve.

Shit man, where are you finding four year olds that know the mind of God? That's a pretty impressive preschool.

>>1451074
>No, being a dick is an argument for why he pushes people away.

How's he a dick? For saying you can't do certain things if you want to get into heaven? You can still do them, but it's on you to deal with the consequences, if you turn away from God, you refuse salvation.

>No idea

So then you don't know more than God.

>But I do know it's wrong to ask someone to kill their child to prove their love for me, just to jump out a bush at the last second and yell surprise

Where did God order this? I don't recall it from the scripture, and a google didn't help.

>I just said. All the unbelievers will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. It is very specific and you rejected it because it is in Revelation.

But that's not true, and not in revelations at all. It's those that sin and refuse to repent that go to hell, not just those that aren't Christian. A virtuous pagan doesn't go to hell.

>Did you? He just said that if they were not given understsnding, and if they did he would have to heal them.

No? He says that he speaks in parables so that they must understand with their heart instead of it just being "Oh, Jesus said don't do this", you have to actually truly find the meaning and believe it to be healed and able to see clearly.

>What is the definition of a saint?

There are several. One is those acknowledged as being virtuous and in heaven. There is a large possibility that there are in fact no souls trapped under the altar though, as represented here
>https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Rev/Souls-Altar

>"Spreading mischief" is grounds for execution, similar to your corruption justification.

That's a completely different thing to what you said anon.

>>1451101
>God is completely without sin. When God accepts sin, he corrupts himself.
Here's a idea. The next time "can't/cannot" wisps through your mind in conjunction with "god", erase that thought, because you are wrong.

I am right beyond your ability to ever contradict. Do not other contesting this. Do not even bother responding to this post or quoting it.
You. Are. Wrong.

>Shit man, where are you finding four year olds that know the mind of God? That's a pretty impressive preschool.
All of them. They all do. Though I know you're only being facetious out of your own overwhelming mind numbing fear.

>>1451122
Also, I feel like it's worth mentioning that the voices are those of martyrs crying out for justice.

>>1451124
>Here's a idea. The next time "can't/cannot" wisps through your mind in conjunction with "god", erase that thought, because you are wrong.

Why don't you demonstrate that then anon? Instead of just going "No you're wrong", explain how a pure being can co-exist with and accept sin while remaining pure. Try to use more than "God can do anything because he's God", too.

>All of them. They all do. Though I know you're only being facetious out of your own overwhelming mind numbing fear.

Well shit, can you post some videos of these infant messiahs then? And I'm being facetious because this is a fucking stupid point. No-one knows the mind of God.

>>1450658
>And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matthew 25:46

>>1447409

I don't care if my Bible has contradictions. In fact, it gives me an excuse support Abortion and Gay Marriage.

If the bible was, in fact, completely infallible then we would have an justifiable excuse to actually act like ISIS

>>1450982
>>1448676
Traduire

You said "the bible is wrong" without evidence, so i aswered in the same fashion by saying 'the bible isn't wrong"

I will not argue endlessly with people who throw at me "muh kike on a stick" "muh cuck religion" "muh sky-daddy"

>>1451265
OP said the bible CAN be wrong, you asswipe, to which you say "It isn't." Fuck off.

>>1451295


How can a book originating from an all-knowing and all-mighty God, be wrong ?
The whole Bible is considered as the Word of God, there is no middle ground, either the Bible is right, or the Bible is wrong.

>>1451332
How can dogmatists have this much lack of self-assessment is a better question.

>>1450817

>Genesis echoes ideas found in neighboring Ugaritic and Babylonian myths, as well as wider cross cultural beliefs, such as the sky being a solid metallic or stone dome, even the English word 'heaven' ultimately goes back to a Proto-Indo-European word for stone. It's exactly what you'd expect people living the Iron Age Near East to believe

>>1451244
Being destroyed forever is an eternal punishment, senpai.

see >>1450787

>>1451332
Oh, they know this. They're not stupid, just dishonest.

>>1453579
Fuck off, cultist.

>>1453583
>christard
>calling anyone a cultist

File: 1453854370039.jpg (5KB, 251x205px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 251x205px

>>1453596
How the fuck did you interpret that I'm a Christfag?

>>1453602
How the fuck did you interpret that I was a cultist? I called christards dishonest for knowing their book is bs and still playing pretend.

>>1447409
bible is a collection of c. 45 different books from genres spanning as wide as Poetry/Rhyme, Prophecies, Histories, Wisdow literature and (early) prose. It cannot be interpret as a single work.

>>1447409
>Can Christians ever admit that the bible can be wrong instead of being le metaphors?


Yes, that's literally the point of Protestantism, specifically Reformed (Lutheran, Calvinism)

>>1453643
Sure. But there's this thing called cuckfagtardianity that insists on doing so. And insists on interfering in politics and other peoples' lives, as well as being just plain obnoxious. So we will have to call them in their bs for as long as they insist on doing so.

>>1453692
Are you simple? Protestantism is the opposite of that. They take the bible literally and as the sole authority.

>>1453708
I think you are confusing modern Evangelicalism with classical Protestantism.

>>1453716
No. Sola scriptura.

>>1453735
A necessity in Protestantism, which teaches that the Bible is the teacher, so the reader must base his views on what the Bible says. Sola Scripture doesn't mean to take 100% at truth.


>Reformed theologians affirm that the Bible is true, but differences emerge among them over the meaning and extent of its truthfulness.[29] Conservative followers of the Princeton theologians take the view that the Bible is true and inerrant, or incapable of error or falsehood, in every place.[30] This view is very similar to that of Catholic orthodoxy as well as modern Evangelicalism... Another view, believe the Bible to be the primary source of our knowledge of God, but also that some parts of the Bible may be false, not witnesses to Christ, and not normative for today's church.

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

>>1453775
Yeah, too bad you specifically cited Lutheranism and Calvinism and neither maintained that the bible is a
>primary source of our knowledge of God, but also that some parts of the Bible may be false
That's liberal Protestantism.

>>1453804 (Me)
Neither Luther nor Calvin that is.

>>1449006
Agreed

Can someone recommend some books about Christian theology?

(Mark 4:10-12)
10Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?”

11He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:

‘Though seeing, they do not see;

though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’

14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled:

‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15For this people’s heart has grown callous;

they hardly hear with their ears,

and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

hear with their ears,

understand with their hearts,

and turn,

and I would heal them.’

16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

>>1453775
I have the Institutions of John Calvin, and he never claimed some parts of the Bible were false.

>>1453964
>Six day creation
>Light before light source
>Sun orbits the earth
>6000 year old earth
>Talking donkeys
Hurr it was all j-just a m-meta... Metador, m-metaphor! U-ur the fool for not getting it! Jack m-mate adenists xD

>>1454109
>six day creation
>6000 year old earth
I personally don't have a problem with picking those specific topics to lose your composure over, they're the more vague and least detailed topics mentioned in the Bible. As for the sun orbiting the earth, is there anything that states this specifically aside from the perception of the the writer who was witnessing the sun from his specific position?

It's like, you'll come across the phrase "to the ends of the earth" frequently and so many people read that as if they were a child, assuming it means the earth is flat, taking it quite literally. When its phrase is just meant to emphasis that nothing on earth will go uncovered.

But my initial point about the purpose of Jesus using parables, was not necessarily about the specific topics found in Genesis, but in relation to those topics found in Genesis. Basically there will be a plethora of things many won't understand. I mean you personally can't tell me if evil truly goes unpunished and if I should or shouldn't use the art of exploitation in my life to gain wealth or even a mild note of prestige. You have no idea. It's probably a topic you don't even care about and assume it doesn't matter because no harm would ever come to you.

But anyways, to OP's question, do things not understood warrant dismissing the topics in the Bible that are explained in detail to be understood? That depends on who you ask. To a Christian who understands the more thorough aspect of the teachings in it's broader context- no, it doesn't. It's specifically written, some will understand. But many won't.

>>1448949
Protestants.

>>1450787
>>1453308
>"and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
Revelation 20:10

>>1454672
Are you either a demon or the devil?

No? Ok then.

>>1451129
>. Try to use more than "God can do anything because he's God", too.

Why does he need more than that? He's literally all-powerful.

>>1454949
Because all powerful doesn't necessarily mean that you can do things that are outright impossible and against your nature. The same as when people argue "Why can't god make free will but stop sin" by saying he can because he's all powerful, while ignoring that it's outright impossible by our definition. Same for a being to be pure and without sin, it cannot accept sin as being an okay thing or it loses it's purity. As such, God cannot accept sin.

He should use better logic than "because he's god" here because it's just a copout answer that contributes nothing to the conversation.

>>1454965
So let's see if we understood this. God can forgive sins as long as someone is still alive, but a split second later once they are dead he is unable to forgive sin because it's against his nature?

Omnipotence sure is weak.

>>1454965
>Because all powerful doesn't necessarily mean that you can do things that are outright impossible and against your nature.

So, what you're saying is that God has limitatons? Implying that there are rules greater than him. Gotcha, God's not actually god. Good enough for me.

>>1453699
Holy shit mate, it's pretty hypocritical going around calling others obnoxious and saying they're bad for interfering (somehow) when you act like that.

>>1454969
Well yeah, because you're able to repent while you're alive. When you die and find out you're fucked, you're not repenting, you're just trying to get out of a bad situation.

The whole say sorry on the deathbed and you'll be fine thing is bullshit, too.

>>1454972
What the fuck are you talking about mate? Not being able to do things that are completely impossible to do within our definitions doesn't mean you're not all powerful. Something can't be both fast and slow at the same time because they're completely opposing concepts. As is somehow being pure yet also saying corruption's okay. God is controlled by his own nature here.

>>1454985
>When you die and find out you're fucked, you're not repenting, you're just trying to get out of a bad situation.
So why not just not tell people they're fucked? Then they could genuinely repent. Is that also against his nature?

>>1454988
>So why not just not tell people they're fucked?

How do you mean? It's pretty clear what sin is, and what's going to happen if you sin.

>Then they could genuinely repent.

You can't repent out of fear, because you don't actually feel bad about the action, merely the consequences.

File: 1407902088232.png (121KB, 500x323px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x323px

>>1447409
I have scrupulosity (religious OCD). Is hell real? Why would people go to hell for not being Christians? Is most of Japan, India, and China going to hell? This is all very scary and unfalsifiable. This is making my life a nightmare.

>>1454990
>How do you mean? It's pretty clear what sin is, and what's going to happen if you sin.
Just never introduce the concept of hell to anyone. Just say "hey, surprise, I exist" after death, and let them come to their own repentance then and there. Besides, if people fail to sin out of a fear of hell while alive, is their repentance invalid?

>>1455000
You can't repent after death because you're just going to do whatever you think God wants, not based on your own beliefs and faith.

And sort of. If you don't sin because of fear, well, you didn't sin, so you're fine. But if you sin and freak out that you're going to hell, your repentance isn't likely to be worth much, unless you somehow prove you mean it. Just going "shit, sorry, don't send me to hell" doesn't work.

>>1455027
>going to do whatever you think God wants,
But isn't that exactly what repentance in life is? Doing whatever you think God wants? Why the distinction in the afterlife?

>Just going "shit, sorry, don't send me to hell" doesn't work
Why not? Is it utside the realm of God's omnipotence?

>>1455035
>But isn't that exactly what repentance in life is? Doing whatever you think God wants? Why the distinction in the afterlife?

There's a difference because one's based on faith, and your belief in living a Christian way, whereas you're just going to repent everything you possibly can if you know it's real. There's no authenticity to repentance if you're faced with a guaranteed after life.

>Why not? Is it utside the realm of God's omnipotence?

What does omnipotence have to do with it? Can you stop trying to force the stupid "God isn't really god because he can't make things that are completely opposed exist together" thing?

And it doesn't work because it's dishonest and not actually based on you wanting to repent, just you wanting to get out of a bad thing.

>>1455046
>What does omnipotence have to do with it?
Because your justification is that God's omnipotence doesn't allow him to not condemn people to eternal suffering. But it seems like there are a great many ways to avid it very easily given what we already know, which suggests that God is either not as innocent as your justification suggests or is not actually omnipotent.

>And it doesn't work because it's dishonest and not actually based on you wanting to repent, just you wanting to get out of a bad thing.
1. Dishonesty is grounds for eternal suffering?
2. Again, how is this any different from not aiming in order to avoid hell in real life? If the only difference is knowing hell is real, why not simply never mention it until a person repents in the afterlife?

>>1455065
>Because your justification is that God's omnipotence doesn't allow him to not condemn people to eternal suffering. But it seems like there are a great many ways to avid it very easily given what we already know, which suggests that God is either not as innocent as your justification suggests or is not actually omnipotent.

I already explained that acceptance of sin is contrary to gods nature. If you accept sin, you are no longer pure, and God is a pure being, by nature. All powerful doesn't mean you can necessarily just do whatever the fuck you want to do, simply that you theoretically have the ability to.

Your issue is that you're acting like God is a person just sitting up in heaven making divine decisions every once in a while, or that his mind is at all similar to ours.

>1. Dishonesty is grounds for eternal suffering?

I never said this. Sin is, and you can't repent in a dishonest way.

>2. Again, how is this any different from not aiming in order to avoid hell in real life? If the only difference is knowing hell is real, why not simply never mention it until a person repents in the afterlife?

Because if you don't sin, you don't have to repent, there's nothing dishonest about it or to make up for. If you sin, refuse to repent your whole life, and then repent when you find out it was all real, you're obviously just doing it because you feel like you're fucked if you don't.

It's the difference between someone turning themselves into police after they commit a crime, and someone pleading out of the death penalty after you're already caught. One shows remorse, while the others just trying to maneuver away from something you don't like.

>>1448963
It's not impossible to find wisdom in the Bible, in the same way it's not impossible to find it anywhere. But why would I submit myself to all the bullshit when I can just find wisdom in places that have it in abundance?

>>1449104
>read Job for wisdom
>the whole point is "God does whatever it wants and that's right because he's God"
Fuck off. It's worse than the Caste system apologetics in the Bhagabad Gita.

>>1454985
>God is controlled by his own nature here.

No, God is limited by his own capabilities. He has to follow an external set of rules that are greater than him. A truly all powerful being would not have such limitations. If the words "he cannot" can ever be used to describe him, he is not all powerful, deal with it.

File: le hat.png (26KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x480px

>>1450862
>>1450865
At this point, I just read any allusions to fedoras as "you're completely right, I can't handle this"

>>1450186
>en someone takes your virginity, that's a big deal to a lot of women. By disregarding this simple truth of nature ni the name of personal self-gratification, you risk the chance of ruining that person's ability to love forever.
It's a cultural thing.

>>1447409
>christianity carries over themes from other traditions
>therefore it is wrong????

If you weren't a positivist cuck you'd understand this simply cements Christianity as reflecting long-held truths.

Perennialists are right here.

>>1448654
>>1448669
It's not even wrong.

>>1450660
Not him, but artificial super-intelligence and immortality are the only claims you made that aren't complete bonkers.

Also, if you combine all of those, it would make God and Jesus time travelers from far out in the future. Do you really want to go that way? Do you really want to worship a Jonfrum?

>>1455169
>No, God is limited by his own capabilities. He has to follow an external set of rules that are greater than him. A truly all powerful being would not have such limitations. If the words "he cannot" can ever be used to describe him, he is not all powerful, deal with it.

I already explained how he's limited by his own nature and not outside rules or powers. If you want to just go "Nuh-uh" without explain how, feel free, but I'd prefer you just didn't reply at all.

>>1447409
God you're retarded. You don't understand. If there are concepts which are similar between "true Christianity" and paganism, it is to be explained by saying that paganism is a perversion of the truth and that even a broken clock is right twice a day. The question isn't to ask whether a person could to Christianity working from nothing because Christianity already admits that to be impossible. The question is whether it's internally consistent.

If Christianity is true, then it is the most important thing that matters, if it is false then you are dead in your sins and/or you will die forever. It doesn't matter how you arrive at the truth. Truth isn't a matter of discovery, it's a matter of believing.

>>1455238
>commonly believed stuff is obviously true if ancient people did it
>btw the sky is solid guys

>>1450017
His declaration of faith is a reflection of Buddhism. Buddhists believe all life is suffering, that not even death will bring peace but only reincarnation into more suffering, thus they try to achieve nonexistent through enlightenment. To do this they must realize that they are actually a god and killing yourself by means of fire is to show the ephemera nature of earthly fears and thus transcend them. All in all it's a very depressing religion. It reminds me of ragnarok, where the gods fight against giants and they all lose.

>>1455282
But you didn't really explain that. You just asserted that those limitations are not external to him. I contend the only way they could be considered his nature is in the same way my inability to fly under my own power is part of my nature.

You're just refusing to accept that your god has limitation, that there is something greater than him, because this would undermine your belief fundamentally.

>but I'd prefer you just didn't reply at all.

What we want and what we get are two very different things.

>>1455307
>this stale meme

Transcendence is not non-existence.

>>1455309
>I contend the only way they could be considered his nature is in the same way my inability to fly under my own power is part of my nature.

That's a physical ability, not the same thing at all. I explained that God, by his nature is pure. Something cannot be pure and accept corruption (in this case sin), or else it is no longer pure. There is no larger power making this the case, it's not a rule of nature, it's simply a logical conclusion that two completely contradictory things can't exist in the same place at the same time.

>You're just refusing to accept that your god has limitation, that there is something greater than him, because this would undermine your belief fundamentally.

And you're just going "But this is because of a higher power" without explaining why, while ignoring my reasoning of why those limitations aren't because of anything external, but purely internal. As I said, you going "Nuh-uh" without explaining why it's the case isn't an argument. It's simply re-asserting your claim, with no actual reason why it's true.

To add, for you to imply that it actually is possible, you need to explain how it can be so, not just go "It's God so he should be able to do it".

>What we want and what we get are two very different things.

Well I'll ask you nicely then. Can you please reply with some actual logic supporting why your claim is true, instead of just asserting that it is. Preferably explain it in a way that outright refutes mine.

Christians will never admit that the bible is a lie. There's to much at stake.

On the one hand:
Loyal spouse
United family
Holidays
Social club (church)
Friends
Supportive community

In the other:
The "truth"

Gee I wonder which the average person will chose.

>>1455872
Have you considered that maybe several billion people aren't all sitting around and making a calculated decision to deny that the bible's false for personal gain, and that maybe they just don't think it is?

>>1455294
>>1455238
I'm not saying the Bible is wrong because it has things in common with paganism, just that it reflects common views of its time, if taken at face value.

So when someone like Augustine a thousand years divorced from the original context of the Bible says it was really meant to be a metaphor, I cant help but think these new readings are just inventions and not at all what the original authors intended, especially when before it was taken at face value. And from Augustines time until modern times pretty much everything besides the days of creation was still taken literally, 90% of the metaphorical readings are even newer inventions much further divoced from the original context of the bible.

>>1447409
You gotta admit the whole story of the whole Garden of Eden story is pretty awesome as a metaphor

>Mankind is given perfect world
>lust for more power despite being perfectly comfortable
>After gaining new power feels fear and shame
>cast out into the world to live in an imperfect world

Its a good story for showing how lusting for more can lead you to ruin.

>>1455145
Nigga the bible and the Greeks basically provided the entire foundation of our modern concepts of rights, morality and ethics. Believe in the God or not the book has huge wisdom

>>1455947
lel

The whole thing about religion just has mistakes. How to start solving them?

>>1448987
Eating shellfish or pork in the Levant without refrigeration is a horrible idea

>>1456008
What do you mean by this anon?

>>1456020
How to start with the Bible?>>1447409

There is a God. This can be perfectly proven. God Himself too establishes this in a way no one can go around.

It is religion that has flaws that are typically unrealistic. Its not in the yes or no existence of God.
So this is a raging disgrace. This bad quality. That God Himself does not solve this 1-2-3 is something that probably has to do with His spiritual being.

I mean looking at the whole of religion. Do you see the chaos, typical primitive faults. How it just can't work at points, how it is an insult to even be part of it. This clumsy organised and carried out kind of thing. The divisions or more important the Kind of divisions and arguments?

While it is an interesting thing to have a well oiled and well working spiritual house.

>>1456051
And I had a look at some cases in which God was personally involved. I'm totally shocked at the awkwardness that soon pops up. I start thinking '''help'''. Still it looks like it that if better surroundings are offered, according to this it would be better. ........So His spiritual being that functions differently from humans' has something to do with it.

>>1456051
I'm guessing english isn't your first language, because I'm having difficulty getting what you mean.

But do you sort of mean that the issue is with humans being in charge of religion and getting shit wrong rather than with religion itself?

I'm Catholic, and I agree with that if that's what you mean, it has been misused a lot, and people have a tendency of fucking up even when they don't misuse it.

>>1456051
>There is a God. This can be perfectly proven.
I'm fucking waiting.

>>1456066
Some important practical, daily life thing is everything that has to do with sex. Everyone is free to do whatever liked. the Bible points to a boundary on which all things on itself will lose quality, will work less well, all that. That is all. There is no commandment to anything on itself.
At the moment this is an important blockage. Maybe central for a whole group of things.

>>1456094
The concept of the unmoved mover proves it pretty conclusively. Look it up.

>>1456080
>do you sort of mean that the issue is with humans being in charge of religion and getting shit wrong rather than with religion itself?
Yes. But it is so big, that faults are taken for daily truth.

>>1456102
Which faults do you mean in particular?

>>1456094
Ok. But I want to take this a little slow. Or I feel it is like some sort of bombardment. So please some peaceful talking about it with this. While it is not going to be just this talking.

So to start: you don't think that a spiritual world exists at all?

>>1456100
The unmoved mover apparently never heard of Newton's laws.

>>1456117
I always see people bring up newtons laws, yet never explain how they disprove it. Can you enlighten me?

>>1456122
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so far as the laws of the universe we have in our heads are true. If you want to posit an unmoved mover, you better explain how that's even possible.

>>1456126
Easy, God is outside the universe

>>1456108
Religion can vary by locality or continent. That is not the problem. But it must be an acceptable common spiritual house without elements of this extreme chaos and bad quality. The Jihad is a good example in Islam.

It must be a well oiled commonly welcome and basically not criticizable organisation. That just delivers the spirituality that serves us and God. And this is not what it is now.
I mean look at how churches look? In outward appearance, could be clothing. The different denominations and how they work together. And in christianity one of the worst things is sex.>>1456096. Maybe to be named as a sort of central thing for a whole group of things.

>>1456134
That's not a mechanism for action involving the laws of the universe.

>>1456100
Nope. Volition is assumed out of nowhere.
>>1456111
I'm not sure how you'd define such a thing.

>>1456117
>Getting metaphysics and physics mixed-up
Pleb-tier mistake

>>1456144
>mixed up
I'm not mixing anything up. You can invent any metaphysics involved. Just try to make a valid syllogism out of the word soup of unmoved mover.

>>1456126
>Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

How does this disprove it?

And as to explaining how it's possible, >>1456134 put it pretty simply. The idea of an unmoved mover is something that exists outside the laws of the universe, it's a necessary exception. There's a picture out there that explains it really well, but I can't find it. I'll post it if I do.

>>1456136
Okay, I think I get what you mean. You're saying that the issue with religion is that it's so divided, and that it causes chaos and an inability to understand and be connected to God? That they're separate organisations instead of a community dedicated to living in a spiritual way?

I agree there too.

Also, I have to add, but there's something really endearing about the way you type.

>>1456143
>Nope. Volition is assumed out of nowhere.

How so? Can you explain this please?

>>1456150
>How so? Can you explain this please?
Things move, therefore something initially set everything in motion. Therefore, it intentionally set it in motion.