The "true" Christianity is Ebionitic Christianity.

Who cares anymore, we should be working more towards destroying the fedora meme and along with it Christianity, i just don't care anymore.

>>1830404
Reading history is a good way to cause one to realize Christianity is bullshit. The many denominations present this idea that Christianity was a monolith from its inception, but the history shows otherwise: different sects with different beliefs, all fighting each other for supremacy; some winning due to luck, others being phased out; beliefs being adopted, others discarded, some based on whims.

A religion that was built from the ground up by men, in contrast to the idea that Christcucks have, that one day, Christianity just appeared, all complete and laid out.

File: 1476324355734.gif (3KB, 36x26px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 36x26px

>Yeshua

Atheists won't even say the name they know the Lord by. Try it. Say Lord Jesus Christ.

Atheists hate God, yet still fear him. It's why they're always so afraid to say his name. It's always "magical sky wizard" or something they else read in a Douglas Adams book.

>>1830404

Atheists will never be able to destroy the fedora meme. Even if you all stopped wearing fedoras tomorrow, you'd still be a meme. Atheism attracts a particular type of person, and you know it. The best you can hope for is to own it.

>>1830427

>>1830447
>Lord Jesus Christ

No. It is highly unlikely the historical preacher Yeshua would have actually used the Greek 'Christos' on himself. Also, you're dumb:

Yeshua = the historical Jewish preacher who was the basis for the fictional Jesus Christ character.

Jesus Christ = the mythical figure of Christianity, only superficially based on the historical Yeshua.

>Atheism attracts a particular type of person...

So does Christianity, apparently: nutcases and submissive, imbalanced hicks.

>>1830447
>Atheists hate God, yet still fear him. It's why they're always so afraid to say his name. It's always "magical sky wizard" or something they else read in a Douglas Adams book.
This is what theists believe.

File: 1464734651758.jpg (260KB, 900x948px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 900x948px

>>1830427

>The many denominations present this idea that Christianity was a monolith from its inception

Who? I don't know of any churches that teach this. The Romans and Orthodox claim a direct lineage from the early church, and that's pretty inarguable. But neither teaches that there was never any disagreement among Christians.


Atheists will never be content with just "not believing". They're always angry. Really makes you think.

>>1830472

>It is highly unlikely the historical preacher Yeshua would have actually used the Greek 'Christos' on himself.

Pedantry

>Jesus Christ = the mythical figure of Christianity, only superficially based on the historical Yeshua

Assertions. I thought atheists cared about reason and evidence. Don't you all "fucking love science!"?

>>1830511
>I thought atheists cared about reason and evidence.
>>>/reddit/

>>1830427
Nobody does this. Catholics well recognize that throughout the ages multiple schismatic and heretic churches were separating from the true church.

>>1830527
>catholic
>christian
Pick one.

File: 1470551168562.png (158KB, 422x513px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 422x513px

>>1830511

Jokes on you! I'm a satanist!

>>1830398
I've only ever heard this argument from Ahmadiyya Muslims and JWs.

>>1830527
The way it's presented, there was "the church" (which was Catholic or Orthodox, depending on who you ask) and there were a bunch of minor heresies against "the church" or schismatics. But there was no "the church," there were many churches and sects, all mutually believing all the others were incorrect. It is only in retrospect after chance and circumstance lended political power to the Cathodox that the fiction of one "the church" and heresies could be constructed.

>>1830534

Satanists are just another group atheists who aren't content with just "not believing". They admit being "atheists" yet they name themselves to be intentionally hostile to Christians.

Atheists are obsessed with Christianity.

So how do Catholics compile with the time when Arianism had the lead?

>>1830571
>Atheists are obsessed with Christianity.
You mean atheists raised within a Christian context are more concerned with it than other religions. Ibn Warraq, for example, is generally more concerned with Islam because that was the context he was raised in.

>>1830582

Why are you concerned at all? How have Christians harmed you?

File: 13537802_827771047359217_403844742721823818_n.jpg (44KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x480px

>>1830571

Well to be be really fair... If I were to believe in an Abrahamic religion, I would go with Islam...

Because if the evidence for the religion is being true is the holy book, the Muslims have their book straight from God, whereas the Christians have their book from a council of men gathered by the emperor who were supposedly inspired by God.

Also Muslims say your not supposed to translate the Quran, but instead you take the time to learn Arabic (the language which it was written in) whereas Christians are too lazy to learn the languages the Bible was written in and instead just rely on shitty translations which may or may not change the meaning of the words.

>>1830596

Atheists almost never take the time to understand prayer.

Atheists have developed their own strange heresy and proceed to tilt at the windmills they've built.

>>1830613

Answer the question about the Quran versus Bible.

Read the text instead of looking at pretty pictures.

File: 1473201159262.jpg (41KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x800px

>>1830630

There wasn't a question. Would you like to ask one?

>>1830643

Ok. If the proof of the truth of Christianity relies in the Bible, wouldn't the Quran be more authoritative since its direct from God rather than a council of men who decided which books go in and out?

>>1830671

In what way does the truth of Christianity rely on the Bible?

Does the truth of Islam rely on the Quran? I don't know I'm not a Muslim.

Do you believe the Quran is direct from God? Are you asking me to accept that?

Do you think a council of men wrote the Bible?

File: 1465758226302.png (659KB, 666x999px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 666x999px

>>1830725

The Bible does not claim that it is direct from God.
The Quran does.

Is this important?

>>1830741

The question I was asked assumes a lot and is asking me to accept things I don't believe. So I'm trying to understand the question better.

>>1830751

So what is the evidence that Christianity is right and Islam is wrong?

If the evidence is the Bible, then the Quran has a better claim is what I am trying to point out.

I mean if you believe on gut feelings without evidence, then well we might as well stop talking.

File: Rubens_apostel_johannes_grt.jpg (64KB, 520x679px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 520x679px

>>1830785

Christians don't love Jesus Christ because of the Bible, they love the Bible because they love Jesus Christ.

Christianity existed and grew for 300 years before the Bible was compiled.

>I mean if you believe on gut feelings without evidence, then well we might as well stop talking.

You already knew I believe on faith. You've set yourself a barrier in your head that gives you an easy escape. That means one of three things.

You thought you were having a discussion in good faith (and so deceived yourself), were arguing in bad faith, or there is some evidence that you would accept as proof of Christianity.

If it's the third, what evidence would you need to love God?

>>1830571
Satanism is an umbrella term at this point. Satanism does not equal LaVeyan.

>>1830867

which version of satanism do you think should be taken seriously?

I wish the "Paul ruined Jesus' teachings" meme would stop. It's not funny when Nietzsche says it and it's sure not funny when some faggot Anon says it.

>>1830885
None of them really. Apart from small sects of insane/deluded people, most 'satanist' groups are actually just there to push their social agenda rather than 'praising satan'. Joy Of Satan is a prime example of good intention gone awry. They had some pretty good views on abrahamics and theosophy that connected in a way that made satan look enticing, only it was all for nought as it's full of neonazis and resentful christian teens.

Luciferians are chill though, if you count them that is. They keep the whole theology generally consistent without piling on the edge factor.

>>1830398
They probably fled East along with the Gnostics and adapted to Syriac Christianity. The ones who remained the most Judaically inclined became rabbinical Talmudists.

>>1830398
You also have the Ethiopian Orthodox who are a similar but separate development.

>>1830447
Why would I fear God when I know from eating at Milliways that Jesus is not the Messiah that appears at the end of the universe? I'm sure I'd do find in hell as long as I had my fire retardant towel anyways.

File: st-john-the-baptist-icon-726.jpg (57KB, 354x450px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 354x450px

>>1830919
>Syriac Christianity

>>1830924
>Ethiopian Orthodox


Both of these are in communion within the Oriental Orthodox Church.

The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox recognize each other as all being Christian, while remaining in disagreement on some points. The same is true for Romans.

>>1830427
this is one of the weakest criticism of Christianity I have ever seen. It's an empty straw man, the history of Christianity is widely known; why do you think congregations affirm what they believe every service?

>>1830853

So why not Islam? If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would believe regardless of your current belief?

If you did not start out with faith, then how do you arrive at it?

Was it because you were told to believe?

How can you have faith without reason?

Isn't that empty faith?

>>1830561
Read Belloc's Europe and the Faith. He gives a better rebuttal than I could here

>>1830580
Ecumenical councils are infallible. Ecumenical councils condemned Arianism and established the Trinity as doctrine. No ecumenical councils approved Arianism and condemned Trinitarianism

File: 1443427668781.jpg (121KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 429x410px

>>1830427
>winning due to luck

>>1831062
I'm unsurprised an author of Catholic apologetics would uphold the Catholic founding narrative.

>>1830853

Also I wanted to add, that if you did not have reason and relied completly on faith that really means that you are saying you are a Christian only because you were born into a Christian family or came into contact with Christians later in life and converted, but at the same time had you been born in Saudi Arabia and raised Muslim that you would be a Muslim for the very same reason.

If you all you rely is on faith and not reason for your belief then all you are saying is that you are only a Christian because you were in an environment that made it so.

Which you are saying if you were born and raised a Muslim that there would be no chance that you would find a reason to believe in the Bible etc etc.

So tell me, how would a Muslim raised in a Muslim society ever convert on his own with faith?

File: johnicon2.jpg (117KB, 454x640px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 454x640px

>>1831019

>If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would believe regardless of your current belief?

I wasn't born in Saudi Arabia.

>If you did not start out with faith, then how do you arrive at it? Was it because you were told to believe?

I was raised in the Episcopalian church. While I had a significant religious experience around the age of 8, I never really liked it church. I started to dislike attending around that same age. Around the age of 13 I began to think of myself as an atheist.

As I got older my atheist convictions grew stronger. I liked Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris (I still like all three). I was a stereotypical fedora tipping atheist. In my late teens and early twenties I started reading philosophy and started getting my science from the source. I remained a convinced atheist.

I'm 25 now, and in the last year I've become a Christian. You'll be unhappy to know that I can't tell you why. I don't know why. I picked up an Oxford Annotated Bible at the start of the year, out of "academic" interest. I read Ecclesiastes and put it on the shelf and didn't think about it much. In July I got it back out and started reading the Gospel of John. I put it down a couple of chapters in. Something in my mind was nagging me. The conscious thought was that it would be good to understand Christianity, because it's been important to European culture. So I picked up a book of St. Maximus the Confessor's works.

That book arrived in the mail and I started reading it. I opened the Gospel of John again. I finished the Gospel of John when I was about 3/4 of the way through the Maximus book. Finishing John's Gospel I felt the same feeling (to a lesser degree) as I felt in my original religious experience. As near as I can tell, that's when I recognized that I had faith in me. I finished Maximus' book.

My faith is still very weak. Yet I believe.

File: St. Abo.jpg (100KB, 821x395px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 821x395px

>>1831106
There are many followers of Christ in the Islamic world but they have to hide themselves.

File: 14x.gif (740KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 200x200px

>>1831127
>My faith is still very weak. Yet I believe.

File: christnotofthisworld1.jpg (92KB, 329x771px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 329x771px

>>1831106

There are two answers to this.

The first is that there are Muslims who convert to Christianity.

The second is that God doesn't judge all people in the same way. We're told that God judges each according to the knowledge that he as been given.

If someone is born in Saudi Arabia and isn't taught the truth about Jesus Christ, yet he lives a life in accordance with Christ's commandments, he will be judged better than the man who was raised in the Christian church yet disobeys God's commandments.

>>1831149
>The first is that there are Muslims who convert to Christianity.
And there are Christians who convert to Islam. Point?

>>1831149
>raised in the Christian church yet disobeys God's commandments
This makes no sense though. What if they were raised in the Christian church and had an awful experience of it, biasing them against it for the rest of their life? They would be judged more harshly than someone who was never exposed to it?

Then why not just never allow the Church to come into existence at all? That way, every person would be judged by their morality, without the possibility of having a good or bad experience.

>>1830980
Yeah but Ethiopians for example preserve a lot of Jewish customs to the point of being called Judaizers by some just like the early Jewish Christians. I did say they were a similar but separate development and regarding Syrians that it was the Church they might have joined since after a few generations it probably made less sense to practice Judaism on the side at a time when the separate rabbinical Jewish identity was being defined against that of Christians and vice versa and also because they might have shared some intelligibility in their languages.

>>1830511
>Who? I don't know of any churches that teach this

The Catholic and Orthodox both claim they are the mainline tradition of the apostles. All other groups were corruptions or heresies

>Assertions.

No its pretty much what every non-Christian historian of the period believes based on all the available evidence. Not just atheists.

>>1831149

Well if you say Muslims all get to go to heave too I guess that is ok, but what if they hear a Christian, how do you expect them to convert when all their life they'd been told Muhammad was right?

What logic does Christianity bring to the table?

If it isn't logical, how can you trust an illogical god?

File: 1453861844216.jpg (200KB, 928x960px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 928x960px

>>1831200
Grace isn't logical and you trust Him by His works.

File: 1453862450327.jpg (41KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x480px

>>1831164
Being raised in a church and being raised Christian are two very different things.

>21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’

>>1831205
Well well, its rare a Christian here admits their God's system is not logical. kudos.

Doesnt make it less absurd

File: No King But Christ.jpg (208KB, 469x750px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 469x750px

>>1831219
Is absurdity a fiction?

File: ThreeHolyYouths.jpg (147KB, 633x531px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 633x531px

>>1831164

No, God takes all of these things into account.

>why not just never allow the Church to come into existence at all

It's impossible to live a perfect life without knowing Jesus Christ. We fell from the very moment we were created, choosing created things over the uncreated.

That's why Jesus Christ's incarnation, death, and ressurection is so significant. He healed the division between us and made it possible for us to enter into communion with God.


Christianity enables us to become even closer to God than the would be able to in a state of ignorance. It's true that it also creates a larger risk for some. The easiest way to damn yourself is to take communion while living a life that's not in accordance with Christ's commandments. The fathers of the Church from the earliest days tell us that taking communion is dangerous. That's also why I try to point out that my faith is weak and I'm not a good spokesman for the Church and Jesus Christ.

>>1831174

fair enough

>>1831200

>Muslims all get to go to heaven

I didn't say that. The Orthodox belief is that we all go to the same place when we die. We'll all stand before God and be judged. Our experience of God is determined by our actions and beliefs in our earthly life. This experience won't be pleasant for many.

>>1831253
>Christianity enables us to become even closer to God than the would be able to in a state of ignorance.
So? If there's a choice between being slightlty further from God and a high chance of eternal torture, the lower chance of eternal torture seems much more optimal.

File: 1474766339355.png (145KB, 500x528px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 500x528px

>>1831253

Ok. If you were born Muslim, would you believe that you would somehow find Christ?

Or would you like most Muslims stay Muslim?

File: Simple gifts.png (19KB, 333x216px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 333x216px

>>1831276
It's a choice between life and death.

>>1831282
With God all things are possible.

>>1831291
>It's a choice between life and death.
Yes, but only because it has been set up that way. A few minor tweaks would make the experience much safer for everyone involved and probaby increase the success rate significantly.

It's like God refuses to install seatbelts in cars because you're not supposed to crash anyway.

>>1830398
I love how the question drifts from "do you believe this Jewish preacher is the only son of God, consubstantial to the father" to "do you want to burn for all eternity" or "why do you hate God?"

As if not believing something so outlanish is unreasonable, or means you hold some sort of resentment towards a supposed God.

I dont believe my local cult leader is God, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with me, it just means there is no reason why I should believe his absurd claims, yet I am sure his followers would also insist I am some how morally deficient.

And that is how you sound

File: Meister_von_Nerezi_001.jpg (3MB, 2024x1494px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2024x1494px

>>1831276

>So? If there's a choice between being slightlty further from God and a high chance of eternal torture, the lower chance of eternal torture seems much more optimal.

You're viewing it from an atheist's perspective. If what I'm saying is true, your experience of God after death will be awful--- if you don't come to accept Jesus Christ.

But you're mistaking the world for yourself. Christianity is the largest religion in the world. And most of those people will fair better than you.

Also, it's not clear from Scripture or Tradition whether or not our experience of God is able to change after death. We don't know if there's such a thing as "eternal torture" or not.

You're also underestimating what it is like becoming by grace of God that which God is by nature . That is infinitely valuable and only accessible through Jesus Christ.

File: 1463273952665.jpg (559KB, 1285x1937px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1285x1937px

Continuing on this logic...

Is the Muslim faith in Mohamed and the Quran absurd or justified?

If its absurd, what makes Christianity different?

If its justified, what reason do they have to switch religions?

File: Kierk.jpg (30KB, 585x350px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 585x350px

>>1831303
It is endlessly fascinating to me how so many people honestly believe they are smarter than God.

>>1831332
how fallacious. it's only people believing they are smarter than those who claim to speak for a god

>>1831332

It is endlessly fascinating to me how so many people honestly believe they can speak on behalf of God.

>>1831332
Its fascinating to me how you equate criticizing your absurd belief system with criticism of an all knowing infallible Godhead.

Funny how he seems to agree with you on everything.

>>1831316
>You're also underestimating what it is like becoming by grace of God that which God is by nature . That is infinitely valuable and only accessible through Jesus Christ.
Sure, but between a small chance of an infinitely valuable thing and a huge chance of the exact opposite, doesn't seem like a good deal. Besides, I wouldn't be so sure they'll fair better than me given >>1831217.

File: transfiguration_icon.jpg (82KB, 790x800px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 790x800px

>>1831359

Without the incarnation of Jesus Christ there would be eternal separation from God for everyone. Without His incarnation there would be eternal suffering.

>>1831370
>Without the incarnation of Jesus Christ there would be eternal separation from God for everyone.
So before two thousand years ago everyone was being tortured eternally? Besides, even before that, why even create a condition where that was a possible outcome?

File: St_John_Ladder_008618__15404.1452718473.500.659.gif (167KB, 407x500px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 407x500px

>>1831381

No. the incarnation applies to them as well.

Are you asking why God didn't make it impossible for us to not love Him?

Our relationship with God is one of love. God has perfect love for us and our relationship is determined by the love we have for Him. Love by definition isn't coercive.

File: 13567060_964658346979687_5588617799238666948_n.jpg (180KB, 898x960px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 898x960px

>>1831403

You still haven't answered the following:

s the Muslim faith in Mohamed and the Quran absurd or justified?

If its absurd, what makes Christianity different?

If its justified, what reason do they have to switch religions?

>>1831403
>No. the incarnation applies to them as well.
Retroactively? So there wasn't hell on earth for the first few thousand years of mankind's existence exclusively because, eventually, Jesus would be born? And without that fact you'do just be born already on fire?

>Are you asking why God didn't make it impossible for us to not love Him?
Why is the penalty for disobedience (not sure where this love thing is coming from, that isn't anything we discussed) eternal torture and not, for example, a stern talking to or a strongly worded letter? Or, less sarcastically, why would God just not create those who he knew ahead of time would reject him? Only create humans who will choose to obey, that way you get around the whole fallen world thing from day one.

>>1831410

Mohammed rewrote the history of Christ 600 years after the fact, altering what was written of Christ by those who knew him. But I don't think you'll accept that or any other evidence. I think your picture shows that you're continuing this discussion in bad faith.

>>1831457

Ok. If Mohamed made shit up, how do we know the authors of the Bible didn't do the same thing?

File: 1394807857115.jpg (164KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 640x960px

>>1831338
Holy Scripture is the Word of God.

>>1831341
God speaks for God.

>>1831343
I do my best to agree with Him.

>>1831457

Also what evidence do you have that Mohamed altered the facts and not the reverse?

File: theotokoslivingspring1.jpg (77KB, 450x639px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 450x639px

>>1831434

>Retroactively?

Should we pretend to understand God's relationship with time when we don't even understand time ourselves?

>So there wasn't hell on earth for the first few thousand years of mankind's existence exclusively because, eventually, Jesus would be born?

Your view of the Christian afterlife is only held by a fraction of American protestants. It's a view of Christianity that is also very popular among American atheists.

No, there wasn't "hell on earth" for a few thousand years. As far as I understand it, no one has risen to be judged by God yet. That is in the future for us. Though in our direct experience, it will seem like we go directly to God when we die.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ was determined before humans were ever created. He would have become man whether we had fallen or not.

>>1831464

They existed in a community of Christians. The earlier authors of Books in the Bible were even disciples of Jesus or knew His Apostles. They couldn't just make up stories when there were people around who witnessed those events or knew people who did.

Even if you say they lied anyway and got away with it, you must admit that Mohammad's method of dictating what was revealed to him alone in private is much more suspect.

>>1831500

Even if the authors were telling the truth, how do we know the books were not edited?

Which if we go back to the people who wrote the book, how is is possible to fact check them? Especially if they weren't in the areas where these events happened. And what if these communities got the stories wrong?

How can you prove the resurrection other than taking these authors word for it?

I mean if you can take their word, you have to give as much credence to Muhammad and his story.

Which is why I ask what is the difference in faith in the Bible and faith in the Quran?

If the Bible is true, how can you disprove Muhammad's account?

>>1831483
All I'm saying is, if you claim the only reason we don't suffer a hellish existence is because of the incarnation, and people lived before the incarnation, there either had to be some time travel going on here or the incarnation is not the sole reason we aren't constantly on fire.

>Your view of the Christian afterlife is only held by a fraction of American protestants. It's a view of Christianity that is also very popular among American atheists.
I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty that it is by no means limited to the USA, or Protestants. Besides, you've explained the orthodox view of hell plenty of times and it isn't significantly different. At the end of the day, God deliberately decided to create a system where the only two choices were lockstep obedience or unending agony. Calling it something else is like trying to use the term "enhanced interrogation" and fools nobody.

>As far as I understand it, no one has risen to be judged by God yet
So why do that? Why decide that a thing you have to do is judge people? Why not, for example, offer the same ability to be forgiven after death as is given before death? Why not decide to make a new covenant where all the things that used to merit eternal torture no longer did? It'a been done berfore, since by Old Testament rules Jesus violated the Sabbath (recall the man divinely executed for gathering sticks) and yet we're supposed to believe he was sinless.

>He would have become man whether we had fallen or not
Doesn't answer my question. Why not exclusively create humans who you know will obey you? If you come up with an idea for a human that you know ahead of time you're going to lock in Hell for eternity (or, to use your terminology, "reveal yourself in full to a soul in a state of sin fully aware such a thing will cause unending agony"), either make them differently or not at all. It would be an extremely simple solution that wouldn't violate free will, if we accept the Christian view of it.

>>1831537

Nothing I say will convince you and you won't give me better arguments for atheism than I've heard before. I was a committed atheist for 12 years. Do you really think I havent heard this "how can you say those other religions arent true if yours is based on faith" shtick before? I've made the same arguments myself.

>>1831538

I'll try to put it simply.

God is by nature a communion of love between three Persons---- the Holy Trinity.

Love is by definition shared. The Trinity had an eternal plan to create something to share it with.

God created the material world, including humans.

Humans are capable of both material and spiritual existence. Our purpose was to connect the created world to the uncreated God.

Humans valued the created world more than God. This created a separation between us and God. Separation from god is suffering. This is how sin and death entered the world. God created death so that we wouldn't suffer eternally.

Jesus, one Person of God, became man and defeated sin and death to restore our connection with God.

Because of this, we all go to God after we die in the created world. We all live eternally. Suffering after death comes from a separation from God. If you don't hate God, you will suffer because you are separated from Him.

If you love God, you will draw ever closer to God and become by grace what God is by nature. You will be divinized.

File: christ-sower1.jpg (88KB, 336x450px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 336x450px

>>1831585

*if you hate god

also forgot an icon. i like this one

>>1831585
>Do you really think I havent heard this "how can you say those other religions arent true if yours is based on faith" shtick before? I've made the same arguments myself.
that is in no way a counter argument.

>>1831585

Is there nothing you can say because you simply lack anything at all to comment on why one religion is right and the other is not?

I'm willing to listen seriously if you are willing to speak your mind if you have reasons, but it doesn't mean I will ask for logic and reason.

Because I want you to take an inner look at yourself and ask whether or not your religion is the right one? If you simply have faith, why isn't the other persons faith just as valid?

I mean if you were born in Saudi Arabia you'd be a Muslim today most likely. Why is accident of birth a reason to have faith?

>>1831585
>Humans valued the created world more than God
This is a design flaw, then. Why not just create humans with a different value system? Why punish the people you created for functioning the way you created them? If the eternal plan was to create a connection, why did it fail? Is God not omniscient?

>We all live eternally.
So clearly, the creation of any individual human is a huge responsibility not to be taken lightly. Knowing that every human created will either be separate or near from God, eternally, why not only create those who will "choose" to be near? You keep dodging this point and I want you to address it.

File: bf6418ee7a366a18458bdafea871cc54.jpg (58KB, 350x609px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 350x609px

>>1831615

>This is a design flaw, then.

Love requires a freedom to choose. God didn't make us to be His slaves.


>Why punish the people you created for functioning the way you created them?

We're not robots. We can make choices. Then we are judged.


>If the eternal plan was to create a connection, why did it fail?

We were able to choose whether or not to fulfill his plan. We chose not to.

>Is God not omniscient?

of course. and He created us anyway. We don't know why. The simplest answer based on Scripture is that God's love is pure and beyond what we can imagine. Otherwise we can't know His motives.

>eternally

I've said multiple times that we don't know what the relationship between the unrepentant and God will be like. We don't know if they will be able to grow closer to Him or not.

>why not only create those who will "choose" to be near?

because if I say my wife """"chooses"""" to love me, she doesn't really love me and I don't really love her.

>>1831658
>Love requires a freedom to choose.
Yes, and one of the components of a choice is the characteristics of the chooser, correct? So when creating humans, why not create them with a value system more aligned to the uncreated than the created? Simple. Instead of creating them like X and having them "freely choose" the wrong outcome, create them like Y who will "freely choose" the right one.

Was God unaware of the choice humanity would make when he made them? If so, he's not omniscient. If not, then either he did he not have the power to create humans in a different way and is not omin potent, or he did knowing full well the consequences of his actions and is not omnibenevolent. You can't square up "mysterious love" and eternal torture, and no amount of tradition can erase what is actually written in the bible.

>because if I say my wife """"chooses"""" to love me, she doesn't really love me and I don't really love her.
And if you only love your wife when she's obedient, and she only obeys you because otherwise you'll beat her (after all, there must be consequences for her freely choosing to reject your love), there's no real love there either.

Now that I think about it, getting a dedicated religion board would not only rid us of these annoying threads shitting up the frontpage all day, every day,
it would also force the most dedicated believers of various religions to be on the same board, which would end up being hilarious to watch.

>>>/ree/

>>1831688

there's a reason you keep putting freely choose in quotation marks. We had two choices. If we were incapable of making one, it wouldn't have been a free choice.


>Was God unaware of the choice humanity would make when he made them? If so, he's not omniscient.

No, he knew. To quote my last post "he created us anyway. We don't know why. The simplest answer based on Scripture is that God's love is pure and beyond what we can imagine. Otherwise we can't know His motives."


you keep talking about eternal torture when I've explained that at least 3 times in this thread. I hope you're not the same person. Tell me the parts of the bible where eternal torture is talked about. I challenge you to read the verses preceding them. Do you really know what's being talked about? Just pick one, like the one in Revelation about their torment ascending forever. Read the 2 or 3 verses ahead of that line and see if you can make sense of it.

>And if you only love your wife when she's obedient, and she only obeys you because otherwise you'll beat her

God loves us perfectly no matter what. You haven't read what I've typed. Our relationship with God is dependent on us.You're set on arguing against on a conception of Christianity that only american atheists and fringe American protestants believe in.

>>1830447
>Lord Jesus Christ

Theists won't even say the name they know Yeshua by. Try it. Say Yeshua of Nazareth.

Theists love Yahweh, yet still fear him. It's why they're always so afraid to say his name. It's always "God" or something they read in a William Lane Craig book.

>>1831757
>there's a reason you keep putting freely choose in quotation marks.
Let's say God could have created us with three arms instead of two. With this third arm, we were ordered to never pet some species of bird, let's say the fjdjfido. We can do anything else, eat all the fruit of any tree, we just can't pet the fjdjfido with our third arm. Third arm fjdjfido petting will cause a separation from God that could last for eternity, but everything else is fair game.
Now, we go back to the regular world, where humans have only two arms and the fjdjfido does not exist. Has our "free choice" been affected by this? It is now impossible to actually disobey God's one command, of not third-arm petting this bird, due to the lack of third arms and the lack of the bird. It is simply not in the realm of possibility, because even if someone were to be born with a third arm and a new species of bird were to emerge that was called a "fjdjfido", it would not be the originals specified in the rule. Has your "free choice" been limited, any more than your "free choice" is limited by you being unable to stick your arm through a brick wall?

>you keep talking about eternal torture
You and a particular YEC protestant poster love leaving veiled threats about the afterlife when you don't know how else to convince someone, about the "unpleasant" experience awaiting everyone who doesn't roll over and accept your argument. Explain that unpleasantness, in detail.
>Do you really know what's being talked about?
The book itself mentions the everlasting nature of it, yes, and particular church traditions go into more detail without fundamentally changing the fact that God chooses to put people in agony when he could easily not.
>God loves us perfectly no matter what
So does the abusive Husband. The wife just doesn't understand the perfection of her Husband's love, it's a mystery, which is why she just needs to trust Him and never question Him (or else face the unpleasant consequences.)

>>1830398
fuck off omegafag, yeshua buttfucked many whores.

>tfw everyone on earth follows truly what yeshua taught.
>tfw none of them can agree.

>>1830671
>If the proof of the truth of Christianity relies in the Bible

it doesn't

Actually when we label something as "Pauline" we already misunderstood what Paul teaches about Jesus Christ.

The direct message in the Bible is important, not the doctrines after Paul. Paul teaches something very similar, extremely similar, to "Early True Christianity" because Paul is actually a True Early Christian.

It is what comes after Paul and Neronian Persecution that cause a great deal of confusion for us.

>>1831228

fedora btfo

Hellenic and Neo-Platonic philosophy is what made Christianity great, and why Gnostics had the right idea (although it was too hard-core for normies). Ebionitics are just cucks who worship Jews, while mainstream Christianity only bothered to have Jesus' origins among Jews, instead of Romans or Greeks, so that it wouldn't be called out on accuracy

File: heil.jpg (118KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 480x640px

>>1833758
what are the messages after paul?
does the old testament reflect early christianity as well?
how do we know which bits to listen to in the bible?
is it all equally good?

>>1833955
It's like read what Paul says instead of what other people write about Paul, at least when it comes to faith, listen to what Paul says about Jesus and what Jesus says about God, more important than "this branch of Pauline says" or etc

It's not so much "these books good these books bad" because what is someone else's consensus mean for you? Plenty say "these books are heresy" but like, dude, people need to learn to think for themself sometimes instead

Judaism is very close to Christianity, Moses is delivered the 10 commandments by God and Jesus repeats them, as for deeper practices you must look.

>>1834013
christianities not about thinking for youself though. theres laws set out by god and you have to follow them.

>>1834086
Christianity is about thinking for yourself. Everyone who is a believer or not all follows laws, whether they are spiritual or secular, all follow law.

If you think Christianity isn't thinking for yourself and finding the truth for yourself, it's because you have been lied to by so called Christians for so long.

>>1830398
True Christianity is the Pauline tradition where he believes in a Celestial/Heavenly Jesus that was a revelatory being that was known as the Firstborn of god.

>>1830427
>>1830427
you're stupid right?
or just joking?

>>1834648
Everything he said was correct

I'm laughing at all the agnostics, Christians and atheists in this thread, am I really the only atheist here that believes in God? I don't believe in God, because I know that everything is God.

>>1835344

To be a satanist or a hedonist means to believe that only you are God, but I believe that everything is God. But I think to be a Christian you have to believe God as an individual entity that's not fully yourself, but I believe that god is everything including myself, but that also makes me an atheist since I can only rely on myself and that I am alone.

>>1835367

So basically, I believe in God, but not as an individual entity as Christians do, that's a mental illness and deluded.

>>1835367
>>1835374
This is what Jesus teaches about human godliness;

>Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

He does not make God separate from us and advocates worship of God, and respect for other people for their godliness.

>He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"


Also, in Genesis, our beginning is the image of God, we are not separate to Him

>26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

>>1833773
>Is absurdity a fiction?
>btfo

That statement doesn't even make any sense

>>1830398
Yes.