All Christians, report in this thread! Come one and all! All

>>1578825

Ebionite master race reporting in.

File: 633.png (346KB, 625x941px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 625x941px

>>1578829

File: gf3Moxu.jpg (98KB, 800x844px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x844px

I would make a snark statement, but this is good. At least you christfags have a containment general thread

>>1578841

Yes, following the teachings of Jesus over Paul. Such heresy.

File: sage.png (7KB, 200x156px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x156px

Right click, hide

you posted this shit on /pol/ earlier

I fail to see how one could be a /pol/lack and a christian

>>1578852
But the Gospel of the Hebrews is gone, so you're stuck with Pauline Gospels. So what do you rely upon?

>>1578900
Why?

>>1578854
Thank you for your contribution.

File: 635944314207345266-AFP-550337268.jpg (45KB, 534x401px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 534x401px

SSPX laity master race

VatiIIcucks are eternally BTFO

File: One God.png (57KB, 1280x556px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1280x556px

>>1578900

>>1578980
Psalm 114:2
Psalm 78:68

>>1578919

Catholics aren't Christian

>>1578962
>we need to return to our old traditions (which includes papal infallibility)
>if the pope says something we don't like then it's wrong
Catholicism is just one big mess. Byzantines should have finished them off.

File: >chosen.jpg (121KB, 1097x552px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1097x552px

>>1579003

>>1578962
That's still your pope, faggot

>>1579020
"Judaism" is actually just Phariseeism, so of course it is anathema. Trying to make it about race is really stupid though.

>>1578962
>I reject the defining dogma of Catholicism
>but I'm a Catholic

>>1579018

>He doesn't understand Papal Infallibility

>>1579023

Doesn't mean I have to like him

File: The Christ.png (130KB, 881x703px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 881x703px

>>1579028
It is bigger than race no doubt about that.

>>1579034
Vatican II says Catholics are bound to follow the Pope even when he is not speaking ex cathedra

>>1579034
>He doesn't understand Papal Infallibility
Neither do Catholics, since they never actually defined what makes a statement from the chair.

>>1579028
When the Jews brought the blood of Christ upon their heads and the heads of their children, God cursed their bloodline with Psychopathic pathology

How can you say this isnt roleplaying with an OP like that? Especially that Cancer incarnate image?

>>1579055
No Jew who thinks crucifying Christ was wrong suffers any guilt of it. The only ones who suffer guilt are those who think it was the right thing to do (which a lot of Orthodox Jews do to this day).

Ezekiel 18:20

>>1578825
>>1578829
>>1578841
>>1578962
>>1579057

This really annoys me because most of you are even Christians who have have the Living Lord.

Have fun burning in Hellfire.

>>1579069
Easy there cowpoke, how are we less Christian than you?

>>1579067
Matthew 27:25
God honored their request. Every Jew is guilty of killing Christ.

>>1578845
wtf is that guy lifting?

>>1579072

Have you met the Risen Christ?

>>1579067
Also, that verse doesn't apply to curses. We are all guilty of Adam's sin

>>1579069
Rather quick to judge mens hearts, aren't you?

>>1579083

Adam's Sin is just a metaphor for sex outside marriage. We have known this since St Augustine.

>>1579086
Pelagius pls go

>>1579084

Your heart is black.

>>1579083
Not in Orthodoxy

>>1579090
Who pissed in your cereal?

File: Eve.jpg (83KB, 569x720px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 569x720px

>>1579086
Actually, Adam's sin was listening to Eve rather than God.

>>1579078
Every Sunday, in the flesh.

>>1579089

I haven't plagiarized anything in my life, heathen.

>>1579094
So the """"Orthodox"""" deny original sin now?

>>1579098

I don't listen to lying Demons.

File: 1469770015399.jpg (426KB, 1247x900px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1247x900px

Would the christianity practiced in ancient Roman Catholic Europe (crusaders n jerusalem n shit) be considered a branching church of its own?

They considered standing up for what you think is good mattered more than treating fellow mean equally and peacefully, gave the old testament way more reason than the new testament, and encouraged a God-follower relationship more than a priest-follower relationship.
These 3 bold differences already differentiate it quite a bit from the rest of christianity.

I am going to marry Constantine!

>>1579097

This is wrong.

Eve was an evil bitch that led mankind astray but men as the stronger sex always have to take responsibility for their actions.

>>1579101
We don't deny the sin occurred, we just deny that we bear any juridical culpability for it.

>>1579110
The Crusaders, except for those who reported directly to the Pope, were mongs.

File: apple-and-snake_1280x1024_2988.jpg (145KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1280x1024px

>>1579116
Adam is responsible.

He is responsible for choosing to act on Eve's suggestion to eat the fruit.

However unlike Eve, Adam was not deceived by the serpent but he ate anyway.

>>1579116
Adam didn't take responsibility, he immediately blamed Eve

>>1579126
Semi-Pelagianism

>>1579143
Synergism

>>1579145
The RCC teach inheritance of the guilt as well as consequences of original sin, as well as Synergism

>>1579160
We reject the satisfaction theory of atonement

>ywn read the Bible holding Constantine's hand at home on a summer afternoon
>ywn smell her sandalwood perfume as her face nearly touches your face
>ywn hear her whispering verses from the Song of Songs into you ear
>ywn caress her pale-white breasts like two little doves
Why even live?

>>1579168
What is your view of atonement?

>>1578962
You know your Vatican got you dumbasses back in line, right? You'll be a personal ordinate by the end of the year.

>>1579173
Christus Victor

Anybody who believes in the book of genesis should be executed by the church.

>>1579176
If you want an illustration of this theory, by the way, C.S. Lewis portrays it pretty accurately in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

>COME

>ONE

>COME

>ALL

50 posts later

>MURDER

>THE

>HERETICS

Typical. What happens when you ignore the law that is nature to believe in some human-shaped spirit buggaboo

A cuck is a cuck in three things: He idolizes women. He fosters a dole economy, not self-reliance. He believes in a God.

>>1579200
'sup cuck

File: il_570xN.882445561_1gzf.jpg (75KB, 570x570px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 570x570px

>>1579200
Yeah, most cucks are God-fearing Christians. That's why they supported the mainstream candidates instead of the Bern. Bernie was the only one who would have restored America back to the hands of the people, but now we're hopelessly cucked by politicians.

>>1579200
"Aha cucks! They're god-fearing socialists!"

>>1579209
"Muh socialist afeism"

Don't talk down to me, ape. It's not my problem the NT subspecies is incapable of holding all the eternal truths in their head simultaneously.

>>1578913

>But the Gospel of the Hebrews is gone, so you're stuck with Pauline Gospels. So what do you rely upon?

The Pauline canon which is obviously flawed, as can be seen in Paul's own nonsensical "autobiographical" sections, and the nonsensical claim that the High Priest could send agents to arrest people in Damascus, or that a devout Pharisee would be working for said Sadducee High Priestin something illegal both under the extant religious law as well as the Roman law.

>>1579069
>>1579078
I have met Jesus. That's how I know about the Pauline fraud.

>>1579267
(You)
>>1579277
>I have met Jesus.
No friend you met Satan, repent and believe the gospel

>>1579277
The Pharisees in conjunction with the High Priest put James the Just to death illegally, according to Josephus anyway

>>1579171
Hey, at least

>ywn feel her "girl"-cock pounding your asshole.

>>1579291

>(You)

Speaking in clichés. I'm not impressed

>>1579304
What are you gay?

>>1579291

Nah dude, it's easy to tell when you're meeting the adversary. He lies, a lot. You know you have God when you have perfect truth.

When you see the Pauline "gospels" you see a lot of lying going on.

>>1579292

Not according to my copy (which is in English, so I freely admit the possibility of translation error). It says he assembled a gathering of judges, but at the very least the high sanhedrin (which wasn't itself needed to pronounce a death sentence) shouldn't have been called by the High Priest (as the office of Av Beit Din had split off around the time of the Maccabean revolt), and yet Annus is definitely convening this court.

>>1579333
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRI8nLuwn-A&list=PLGX4mNJduw9qaFXUhByyOy8k99F0NN2i4&index=7
For you, heretic

>>1579348
Run out of original idiocy to spew? You used to be able to go on for a lot longer than this.

>>1579333
>>1579291

And now you're demonizing each other because of mistranslations! It's like the dispues apes have before splitting to form new bands.

You both must be aware of this, even if only conceptually

>>1579362
I accept your concession.

ITT:

WEAK MINDED PEOPLE FIND COMFORT IN COSMIC FAIRY DADDY NONSENSE

Let's make something more creative and start our own christian fanfiction. Kek maybe christfags in 2000 years will believe it has true.

>>1579365

Beg pardon? I'm not following what you're saying.

He says that the Pharisees and Sadducees got together to do in James the Just. I don't see that in Josephus.

>>1579368

Yeah, because you can watch an hour and a half documentary in defense of Paul and keep up with a 4chan thread.

You're an imbecile. If you had a point to make, you can type it out and I can trash it.

Otherwise, here's my rebuttal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jVBoPCnQ7c

How do we kill the cancer that is the current churches?

>>1579405
The believers?
From the videos i have seen from africa, fire seems to be pretty efective against them.

kind of ironic right? kek

The first entire, ecclesial, apostolic canon, yet rejected by Cathodoxes.

"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament."

" But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." -St.Athanasius.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

Are former Christians welcome?

>>1579430
Sure
Why did you CHOOSE to burn in hell?

>>1579402
You aren't Christian filthy kike

>>1579402

You guys are demonizing each other because of differences in your belief system that come from imperfect translation of history.

There are so many things wrong with this entire situation. And it;s not an isolated incident.

You people have schismed in to a thousand pieces, making bloody war on each other over this human tendency to accidentally screw up or misinterpret your dogma.

What you believe cannot be true if it is so broken.

>>1579442
Because if God gave me a mind to think rationally then it would be a sin to not use it. I was caught between a rock and a hard place.

>>1579449

I follow the teachings of Jesus.

You follow the teachings of the imposter Paul. You're not a Christian, you're a Paulian.

>>1579452

>You guys are demonizing each other because of differences in your belief system that come from imperfect translation of history.

Not at all. The fundamental divide is whether or not you believe Paul, and that is not based on translation error; at best, the more sane anon I was replying to and I disagree over a statement of Josephus's that the Pharisees and Sadducees co-operated on occasion; that's as far as you can get from translation issues.

And I don't demonize him over it, lots of people have fallen for Paul's glibness. I feel a bit sad, but that's it.

Unless you're referring to the protestant lunatic, a la >>1579449
>>1579348
>>1579291

but that's again a seperate issue, his rather vile spewing of idiocy and bringing down the threats of hellfire.

>What you believe cannot be true if it is so broken.

Which is a statement I very much agree with. The Pauline "canon" is so fragmentary, so self-contradictory, so full of nonsense that I would prefer to make a blind leap into a set of teachings which have mostly been lost rather than try to sort out the nonsense that's involved in it.

>Because if God gave me a mind to think rationally then it would be a sin to not use it.

God already told you what to do in the holy scriptures and the consecuences for not doing it.

You're being irracional for following your own mortal and imperfect logic over the perfect and limitless wisdom of God our lord.

The only rational way in life is faith and obedience in the path our lord has shown us.

I hope it's not to late for you former brother. Repent.

>>1579509
If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

>>1579560

Nah dude, he's coming back.

But seriously, stop and think for a minute. Do you really think God would come about and teach this supposedly perfect awesome Law, and then LIE to millions of people for about a thousand years about little things like the possibility to live by it and the ultimate fate of your soul and what its effect on you and the world is, you know, unimportant stuff like that.

Not to mention that Paul repeatedly confuses the concepts of sin and ritual purity/cleanliness, which is an awfully odd thing for someone who is essentially a new prophet.

>>1579509
>All the Early Church Fathers are wrong for accepting Paul as an Apostle
>I +2000 years later know more about true Christianity than those who died for it

Pride is a sin. As is heresy.

>>1579577
You have an extraordinarally poor understanding of Christian theology, Chaim.

>>1579587

No, you've had plenty of people who saw as I do. It's just that Paulians like yourselves, after losing the arguments, went the "Kill them all" route. As Christianity became less violent, the flaws start to sprout its new "heretics".

>>1579603

And Paul had an extraordinarily poor understanding of extant Jewish theology that he was supposedly an expert in, and couches his own teachings with! There's a fun kind of symmetry to this, don't you think?

>>1579623
You do realize that to be justified by the law, you must be perfect in the law? Yet even David, the man after God's own heart sinned wickedly.

>>1579640
>You do realize that to be justified by the law, you must be perfect in the law?

No you don't. You think those repentance aspects weren't intended to be used? You think all those legions of prophets telling people that they need to repent to re-gain their righteousness were lying or mistaken?

> Yet even David, the man after God's own heart sinned wickedly.

So? I don't think anyone's ever claimed that David kept the Law perfectly.

>>1579623
Ebionites were never persecuted by Christians, you simply lost relevance after losing both the debate and your gospel

>>1579647
If you are not perfect in the law then you have not kept it at all. Either you are wholly righteous, or you are not righteous at all. Only perfection can be worthy of God.

Christcucks go lick refugee feet!

>>1579650

What debate? There are no recorded debates, just a bunch of denunciations of "Judaizing heretics". How do you think a gospel disappears? People don't just forget where they left them, they get burned by people who don't like the message.

>>1579722

>If you are not perfect in the law then you have not kept it at all.

Which God says in what verse again?..... Oh wait Paul made it up.

Meanwhile, in the parts of the Bible that actually come from God, you have long bits about repentance,you have a cycle described of wavering and returning, and you have quite a few laws devoted to atonement, both for the personal and the communal. Again, according to you (and Paul) they were just included for no good reason, God just yanking people's chains or something.

>>1579042 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html?_sm_au_=i7V5jR7L7D47L5tH

>>1579781
Do not be surprised when you make your boasts to him and he tells you "I never knew you. Depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

>>1579426
This is ridiculous

Athanasius cites the deuterocanon as Scripture

The Evangelical Scholar, FF Bruce even explicitly mentions this

Why are Protestants so dishonest about this?

>>1579916
Example,

And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362)

How did you guys figure out Christianity was the true religion and all the others were false?

>>1579979
They were raised in it. It they had been brought up in a Muslim country the same retards would be saying I found Allah, he speaks to me, no, fo realz guize he rly duz!

Christians please help me. Is nudism wrong? I need help. I'm not kidding. I'm addicted to porn and I'm having such a bad day today. I'm trying to quit. I stopped fapping but I have trouble with glancing back at porn.

Somebody please answer.

>>1580014

Lust is wrong.

Nudism per se isn't necessarily wrong, but it is almost inextricably tied to lust, which is.

I would recommend that you get away from the internet as a whole, if you're facing trouble.

>>1580021
> it is almost inextricably tied to lust
How? Nude body isn't really that stimulation if you already bored from it by being nudist.

>>1580037

Hence "almost".

>>1580037
Stop being a degenerate, retard. You don't need religion to tell you that. Just look around you and see if everybod is walking naked. Do you live in a fucking island in the Pacific? No? Then put some clothes on, you flaming faggot!

File: image.jpg (41KB, 236x275px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 236x275px

>>1578825
>All traditions welcome!
What about Cultural Christians?
You know.
Those of us that get the joke but still don't mind singing praises to Little Baby Jesus 'round Christmas time.

>>1581114
Yeh, I fucking love Christmas.

At my house my mum alway did some religious thing like during Easter, with the pancakes and that Friday were you eat fish.
But Christmas is the best, always something good to celebrate during the darkest time of the year for many.

>>1579509
>Not at all. The fundamental divide is whether or not you believe Paul, and that is not based on translation error; at best, the more sane anon I was replying to and I disagree over a statement of Josephus's that the Pharisees and Sadducees co-operated on occasion; that's as far as you can get from translation issues.

So it's an imperfect translation of history because the proper theological signpost is ambiguous. I don't have time for your rhetorical quibbles.

This is not acceptable.

As a deist with heavy Christian sympathies, I don't know how you guys do it.

I get that the Christian lifestyle can be appealing in many ways, but I just don't see how one can find it any more likely to be true than any other religion.

I have never been able to resolve this problem, or believe that a supposedly all good and loving god would ever punish someone for eternity for finite sins during life.

The Trinity is also very difficult to see the merit of. Unitarians like the Arians seemed to make a lot more sense.

But yeah, I'm going on a tangent by now I guess.

>>1582325
>The Trinity is also very difficult to see the merit of. Unitarians like the Arians seemed to make a lot more sense.

God transcends being. He is one, yes, that is indisputable, but the nature of oneness, of singularity, will always be transcendent with a being who, in and of himself, was not created.

I would question any religious tradition that made God seem comprehensible or easy to understand.

>>1582325
>find it any more likely to be true
>make a lot more sense
It's called "faith" for a reason numbnuts

>>1582492

Yes, yes, "it's not supposed to make "sense"". I've heard it before.

It still seems off, even when you suspend disbelief and logic.

>>1582508

No, I get that. I just have to question what makes one have faith in Christ as opposed to, I don't know, any of the other countless religions.

Arbitrary choice? Born into it?

Christianity should change into something that is agreeable to most people. Of course this is the real true standard in the relationship between God and man.

Some thing that stands out. No free sex in whatever area. I am not thinking of anything specific.

>Go out of the world:
This does not mean too little space for things that have to do with functioning well and normal things of life. There are no people left to be the world. No one opposes a spiritual house that is correct. Or real right principles of what to do with lust.

>All is sin all is useless:
This is useless in the meaning of sin. Not as Ecclesiastes says.

>Lust is sin:
This is unfundable. There has to be a clear reason why.

>The whole christianity is seeing this wrong:
This is probably true. (...)
Or say or show something why not. That the whole of christianity is seeing this wrong is no reason why it would be right.

>This is how Christ fulfilled the law, and based it on understanding. Not time or locally based circumstances.
Matthew 22:37
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

>As becomes clear throughout the Old testament and New testament:
Romans 14 : 14B
nothing is unclean in itself

>There are dangers, yes. 1 Corinthians 6 is about sexual immorality. It can be something to be careful about.
1 Corinthians 6 : 12
“I have the right to do anything,”

How would it be untrue what it says here?

Sorry in advance for the blog post.

An Uncle of mine was killed a week ago, the service was held in his Church. A so-called Generations Church. Is it a nondenominational? I checked the site and they never really specific about it.

Anyways, right in the middle of the service, some Filipino guy spoke about his memories of my Uncle then right in the middle, he turned to our family told us we had better accept Jesus into our lives or else we'd never see him again. He didn't dance around it either. He told us accepting Jesus was the only means of a reunification with him. Now

The whole family is Christian in nature, not practicing anything in particular, but believing in one way or another, except for my Fedora atheist little brother who fucking needs Jesus no doubt. There was just something off about this.

The worst part was the Filipino looking my 80 year old grandmother in the eye (a devout Anglican woman who has already had to bury two of her children and has a husband suffering from dementia, and herself to early Parkinsons, all of this. She was proper stiff upper lip about until that moment.

Thankfully the Priest was a total bro and gently ushered the man away from the mic and apologized after the service.

Anyways, it felt like Baptist moment, or born again movement or something. Perhaps it's just a foreigner being really into Jesus. I really hope that my uncle wasn't that sort of Christian if he belonged to that Church.

>it's 2016 and he still isn't a gnostic

>>1582645

It's a reasonable position to hold if you haven't been exposed the arguments for gods existence. They not exactly easy to digest so it makes sense for there to be a lot of agnostics.

>>1582661
Gnostic, not agnostic.

>>1582665

Oh. Capitalize yo shit nigga.

>>1582661
>It's a reasonable position to hold if you haven't been exposed the arguments for gods existence.

It's even more reasonable when you have been exposed to those "arguments"

>>1582682

Do you have a better explanation for the universes existence, the apparent fine tuning, and objective morality?

>>1582708
>universes existence

No, and 'God dun did it' isn't one either

>the apparent fine tuning

Billions of years of biological trial and error

>objective morality

The fact that you probably won't turn the other cheek when ISIS stands on your doorstep tells me that this is probably bullshit as well

>>1582720

So the answer is no, and that you don't understand the classical arguments for god. I got it.

Et cum spiritu tuo

>>1581114
Cultural Christian master race reporting. It's shameful and retarded for adults to believe in Jewish fairytales, but I go to church for my mom and it's still better than dominated by Islam.

>>1580014
This is interesting I think. But mostly if you reply too and after some time post in another thread how it went.
You don't have to be annoyed by pornography or any other thing that is related.((>>1582559))

It might feel a bit bad, because it is unknown. Still, I don't think anyone can refute these arguments. And it is like eating-->life//sex-->reproduction/ life also. There is space to do what is liked.

I can show some really effective church. Still they speak against pornography, that sorts of things. It is a terrible problem. It is some sort of popular lie that it is wrong. That exists for a long time.

>>1582814
>That exists for a long time.
Looking at history, so far there was no opportunity to really look at this sort of things. Or the specific attention it has as now.

Who /baptizedinRiverJordan/ here?

>>1582720

The cosmological argument is meant to demonstrate that an eternal, and immaterial being is what caused the universe to begin to exist. The eternal and immaterial properties of that being is all the argument is concerned with so there is no "god dun it". The argument from fine tuning demonstrates that the universe developing conditions that allow the development of life is so statistically impossible that an outside force must have acted on it, something that many secular physicists agree with. I don't know what you think objective morality means but that is not it. Objective morality is simply what "ought" to be or how we "ought" to be treated and the argument shows that it mist have a source. It doesn't mean we need to agree on anything.

If you really want to learn about these and understand the arguments I strongly suggest "Answering Atheism" by Trent Horn. It covers all these arguments and more. At the very least it will make you a stronger atheist because then you would understand why we believe. I could send you a copy of the ebook if you can't find it, just direct me to a place to upload it.

>>1578900
I frequent /pol/ and I'm far right yet I don't have any irrational hatred for anybody, so I can see how some /pol/acks can be Christian, but those that claim to be a Christian but then goes on about how much they hate people are lost, but in time they'll find their way back to the Church, like I did

capitalism is incompatible with Christianity

>>1582873
>irrational hatred
See, that's where you fucked up. You've simply rationalized your hate so that you can tell yourself you're not irrational.

>>1582919
I don't hate anybody, I just simply see Jews and Muslims as people who follow the wrong faith and I pray for their conversions into Christianity

>>1582852
>The cosmological argument is meant to demonstrate that an eternal, and immaterial being is what caused the universe to begin to exist

And how would we independently test it? What would falsify it?

>>1583059

>Here's the entire argument boiled down. If time and space had a beginning, the thing that caused it to begin cannot be bound by time and space so it would have to eternal and immaterial. To show it to be wrong you would have to argue that the universe is eternal, this isn't so easy when you consider the nature of infinity and that we know the universe had a beginning with the big bang and that we actually know the universe will end with heat death or entropy.

>>1583074
>>1582992

Hell I can't get anything right. I'm not going to try and fix that post again

>>1578845
Yea you gotta respect them on that, they realized they have some mental disorder and contained themselves.

>>1583074
>If time and space had a beginning

We don't know this

>the thing that caused it to begin cannot be bound by time and space so it would have to eternal and immaterial.

We don't know this either.

>this isn't so easy when you consider the nature of infinity

Indeed. Infinity is another thing we don't properly comprehend.

>we know the universe had a beginning with the big bang

The big bang theory doesn't describe the beginning of the universe

>we actually know the universe will end with heat death or entropy

Same thing with heat death, heat death is a possible ultimate fate of the universe, not some infallible truism that can't be argued with

So, all I see is arguments from ignorance, baseless speculation (in fact, your assumption that, in case of both the big bang and heat death, "we know" is the height of scientism) and no actual ways to test any of this

>>1583133

I wish you would type proper paragraphs so I can respond properly without copying and pasting individual lines. It just makes a mess that's hard to follow.

What reasons do you have to believe that time and space didn't have a beginning?

Assuming that time and space had a beginning, it would be logically impossible for the cause of time and space to be bound by it. I don't know how to explain it but how could something create something that already exists? It just doesn't make any sense to say we don't know this truth.

What do you call the beginning of space and time if not the big bang?

>>1582708
Holy fuck, craigcucks infested /his/ as well? You amateurs are annoying as fuck.

>>1578825
Reformed christian reporting in.

>>1578829
Do you use read the bible in hebrew ?
What is your canon ?

>>1583207
>What reasons do you have to believe that time and space didn't have a beginning?

We can't check this in the first place. Trying to figure out whether space-time had a beginning is like trying to figure out what lies north of the North Pole. You need space-time for there to be a beginning in the first place. What you're looking for is knowledge we don't have any access to.

>Assuming that time and space had a beginning, it would be logically impossible for the cause of time and space to be bound by it.

Again, there is zero ways to check this. Like you said, this is based on your assumption, not on something we can check

>What do you call the beginning of space and time if not the big bang?

Nothing, because we don't know anything about the beginning of the universe. The big bang has so far managed to get very close to the point of singularity, but has not managed to describe the actual beginning or 'before' the beginning, if we can ever manage to make sense of that, which we currently don't. The big bang is also the current prevailing theoretical model, not some infallible revelation. There's no guarantee that it will never change, and considering how much our knowledge has changed over just a few decades, assuming such a guarantee would not be a very good idea

>>1583094
If you really start double chrossing mattress you are going to hell. You do know that don't you? :^)

I'm not joking

>>1583286
>I'm not joking
I posted this>>1582559
So I can know

>>1583269

If the universe and time were eternal, than there would be an infinite number of days.

Imagine there's a woman and she says "after I finish counting all of my roses I'm going to open a flower shop." If she only had 100 roses she could open that shop up very quickly. If she had a billion roses it would take a long time but she would eventually get to the point of opening the shop. If she had an infinite number of roses the shop would never open. If you consider roses to be "days" and the act of opening the shop to be "today" or the present than it would means that if the universe were eternal we never could have reached the present day. There would have always been another day in the past before today.

>Again, there is zero ways to check this. Like you said, this is based on your assumption, not on something we can check

There is a way to check this. Assume for the sake of argument that you agree 100% that time and space had a beginning. That would mean that something had to cause it to begin, and whatever caused it begin can't be bound by time and space because its the thing that caused it to begin. That 'cause' existed before time and space did. I don't know how you can disagree with this logic.

You have to ask what caused this singularity to stop being a singularity, what caused it to expand? If time and space or that singularity were eternal than some outside force would have had to act on it to cause it to begin expanding, otherwise it would have just stayed a singularity.

>>1583351

Again, all of this is based on baseless speculation. For all we know, there may very well be an infinite number of days. Besides, the word 'day' is deceptive, since it refers to a frame of reference we have with a sun and an earth that revolves around it in a relatively orderly fashion, something we don't have in the case of space-time. Same thing with the woman in the flower shop, you set parameters and a frame of reference, and then say it doesn't add up when you add the strange properties of space-time, which they naturally don't, because, in the case of both infinity and space-time, we have no parameters or any frame of reference. You're not just comparing apples with oranges, you're comparing apples with objects no one has any knowledge of and might never possess.

>Assume for the sake of argument that you agree 100% that time and space had a beginning.

And again, you assume knowledge that simply isn't there. It makes any line of reasoning after this completely void, because I, and the whole human race along with me, including you, have nothing to work with. This is completely baseless speculation. It certainly isn't the 'logic' you declare it to be, because any logic is based on set parameters, which we don't have in this case

>>1583351
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

>>1583410

You can changes days to any other measurement of time and it wouldn't make a difference. I just use days because they're easier to digest. The point still stands that if time were infinite we never could have reached the present time. You seem to be under the impression that we can't know truths outside of material science, is this a fair assumption?

What do you say to guys like Stephen Hawkin's who say that the universe had a beginning? I don't like just linking lectures but it seems like everyone outside of this forum just accepts it as fact even if they are secular. It's weird to have to actually argue this.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

>>1583418

I'm generally aware of these theories and from what I understand they still require a "driver" in a sense.

>>1583456

>You can changes days to any other measurement of time and it wouldn't make a difference.

Indeed not. We're still talking about a measurement of time in relation to 'before' time, so whether you use days or minutes doesn't change the fact that it's still completely meaningless and still doesn't get us any closer to any frame of reference, from which we can derive any knowledge.

>You seem to be under the impression that we can't know truths outside of material science, is this a fair assumption?

No, but that's mostly because there is no such thing as 'material science', unless you mean the field related to engineering.

>What do you say to guys like Stephen Hawkin's who say that the universe had a beginning?

I would say that that's another good example of scientism

>>1583467
"From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."

-William Lane Craig

>>1583484

You haven't countered any of my points or provided any reasons for me to change my beliefs so I don't know where to go from here.

By material science I mean the material world. We can know truths outside of the domain of science. When I propose a logically sound premise and conclusion and you dismiss it by saying that "we can't test this" that sounds an awful lot like scientism, which is ironic since you're accusing me of it.

If citing an expert in the field that we're discussing is scientism than I'm guilty as charged.

File: 1409922551233.png (1MB, 699x699px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 699x699px

>>1578825
>Claims to be christian
>Does nothing but post a false idol mascot which appeals to baser lusts

You guys are just worn out redpillers embracing your parents religion as a last resort aren't you?

>>1583537

>You haven't countered any of my points

Nor can I, because what you're talking about is something no one can make any point about.

>We can know truths outside of the domain of science.

Really? How? Can you give me a practical application of these "truths"? Can you tell me how one would test whether these truths are actually true?

>When I propose a logically sound premise and conclusion and you dismiss it by saying that "we can't test this" that sounds an awful lot like scientism

I'm not the one who raised the word of Stephen Hawking to that of an infallible prophet, like you do here >>1583456

I'm also not the one who raise the theories of the big bang and the heat death to infallible revelations, like you do here >>1583074

>If citing an expert in the field that we're discussing is scientism than I'm guilty as charged.

But you're not citing them, you mention the big bang theory and then claim that we can conclude from it that "we know that the universe had a beginning", which is the exact opposite of what science is all about. Science is all about taking ideas and then trying to debunk them. A scientist will almost never say that a working model means that "we know" something about reality, since theories are simply human-made models, where we must always assume fallibility. Science isn't about finding 'the truth', as you probably think it is, it's about finding a model of reality that has the smallest number of errors in it. There's a massive difference between the two, since one version of science assumes some kind of platonic realm of knowledge that scientists have access to, whereas the other version of science assumes it as a never ending search for knowledge, where you'll never be able to guarantee that whatever answer you find for a question is the 100% eternally right one, if that even exists in the first place

Hello christfriends! Is it possible to believe that nothing in the bible is true and still be a Christian in good standing?

>>1578825
Who /Episcopalian/ here?

>>1583603
>>We can know truths outside of the domain of science.
>Really? How? Can you give me a practical application of these "truths"? Can you tell me how one would test whether these truths are actually true?

This idea that science is the only way to know truth is textbook scientism. I'll let the video do the talking if you're interested in know why because I'm bored of this conversation.

https://youtu.be/3vnjNbe5lyE?t=46s

>>1583667

You didn't answer my question. How do you define a 'truth outside of the domain of science'? What specific parameters do you use to establish such a 'truth'? What methodology do you use to separate the veracity of such 'truths' from their falsity?

>>1583684
Good question. I've read my share of postmodern texts (not primary sources though) that argued along the same lines. Science is not the only way of looking at reality, there's literature, art, philosophy religion... But in any of those, how do you know you're not just deceiving yourself? Please answer us, Anon.

File: 111.png (463KB, 1349x1449px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1349x1449px

>>1583708

This is philosophy 101.

Lutheran reporting in

>>1583730
I would argue that logic is scientific. What about religion? How do you tell a false religious proposition from a true one?

>>1583755

How would you scientifically test logic?

>What about religion? How do you tell a false religious proposition from a true one?

By examining the premises of the arguments and showing one or more to be false.

>>1583755

>First, logic and math cannot be proven by science. Science must presuppose both of these things. Without logic science cannot even make basic inferences. Even the law of gravity would never be inferred without logic. Yet if logic is divorced from science and science attempted to prove logic, it would either be completely unsuccessful or reason in a circle.

>>1582325
Trinity (and the Incarnation) is the result of divine will, so it can't be proven from pure reason, though what is known from faith can't contradict what is known from reason.

The God of classical theism (which is NOT a deistic demiurge) can be proven from reason alone. Nothing prevents the CT God from being three persons, or becoming man, or performing miracles, etc., because CT God is the transcendental ground of all being, not simply the guy who knocks down the first domino (I'd suggest Ed Feser and David Bentley Hart for better explanations of this point)

>>1582645
Would it be more fitting to be a Gnostic in 106?

>>1583214
>Be WL Craig
>Accept the analytical philosophy meme
>Deny divine simplicity
>Become a monopolytheist
>Fair poorly in debates for this reason, except when the atheist is really dumb
>Still smarter than the person writing this on 4chan

>>1583820

The God of classical theism (which is NOT a deistic demiurge) can be proven from reason alone

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "classical theism", but I don't see how one can prove the Christian God with reason alone.

>>1582970
>rational
>is a serious Christian