>tfw roman catholic >many years ago in highschool >Atheist

>>608974
No

>>608974
>tfw Roman Catholic
Stopped reading there

How about you educate yourself on the Holy Trinity instead of posting here, Anon?

Why would it matter? Do the cells ask themselves wether they believe in an Organ, or in an Organism ?

>>608974
This isn't a low level arguement although your friend might have not articulated it well. Even at high level theological debates (for instance the centuaries of scholastics in the medievil period) the Jewish and Muslim philosophers argued that Christianity was polythestic.

Avverros came up with a proof for God and that proof specifically required the God to have no 'parts'. Aquinas took the proof and reworked it allow for the trinity to work.

It's really a language game. Gods can be defined however you want because you can always invent new logic and new metaphysic concepts.

Roman Catholicism is in truth not Christian, it merely uses Christian names and symbols to mask the pagan core.

File: 1340281445534.jpg (36KB, 436x436px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 436x436px

>>609021

>>609021
>LITERALLY in the tradition of St Peter
>not Christian
Yeah okay Martin.

>>609032
Rome has literally nothing to do with St Peter

>>608974
Monotheism so funny, monotheism is one ear, one nose, one leg and one crutch, and one dollar, and one tail, into one member of the monotheistic family.
>Muslims and jews are closer to actual monotheism
Oh, really?
Star of David is solar symbol, Menorah is symbol of few planets, Kotel wall is fetishism and gnome work ship, Kaaba is fetishism and gnome work ship and content inside hidden, stone vagina near to Kaaba is fetishism and female spirit work-shipping, and finally Torah and Quran are fetishes, even demon allah just serf of Quran book.

>>609052
and symbol of Moon above temple of allahers.

From the Jewish FAQ


Q1: Concerning the lack of portrayal of God as Triune in the Tanakh.

A1: Genesis 18 explicitly depicts YHWH (generally translated as “the Lord” ever since the Septuagint) as Triune.

Q1a: Concerning the three men not being God.

A1a: He refers to them as אֲדֹנָי, the emphatic form of Lord, a term used 448 times in the Tanakh--in every case it used to refer to YHWH. Would Abraham's use in Genesis 18 be the sole exception?

From the Muslims FAQ
Q1: Concerning the Trinity as polytheism, as doctrine of aspects, Sabellianism, is considered heretical.

A1: The Greek terms used here (οὐσία and ὑπόστασις) are generally translated as “being” and “person”, but can also be translated as “essence” and “existence”, so God is one essence with three distinct (though not separate) existences . According to Hebrews 1:3, the Son is not merely an εἰkών (generally translated as “image”) of God, as man is: He is a χαραkτήρ (which means perfect replication) of God’s ὑποστάσεως; so the Son, being a perfect replication of God’s existence, means HE IS (YHWH is archaic Hebrew for “HE IS”); so God the Father begets God the Son, but does not create him, because that would conflict with the Son being a perfect replica of God’s existence, as God’s existence doesn’t begin or end, and is uncreated; the Son also cannot be a distinct being from God, as God’s essence is predicated upon his existence (ὑπόστασις means the underlying support--I AM). So first of all, ask, “Could God furnish (not create, as God is uncreated) a perfect replica of himself?” Then ask what that would entail, and you get the Trinity. Now of course you might ask, “Why would God do that?”
cont

http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x

>>609073
Well, even putting aside the divinity of Christ, the Trinity is fundamental to the Christian conception of God as love, and this explains why: http://www.antiochian.org/node/17594 This is all beyond really putting into words except in the vaugest of senses, but it makes more sense when factor out spatial and temporal conceptions, though it nonetheless remains a divine mystery.

90% of Catholics are heretics without knowing but it can easily be checked by one simple test; explain the trinity.

>>608974
Don't forget that Catholics also praise mary as if she was a goddess

>>609093
From the Protestant FAQ: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x

Q2: Concerning the veneration of the Virgin Mary.

A2: Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Just as the Ark of the Old Covenant was bowed to (Joshua 7:6), so is the Ark of the New Covenant.

Q2a: Concerning Mary's perpetual virginity.

A2a: Besides Sacred Tradition, “touch” and “have intercourse with” are often used synonymously in Greek. No one could “touch” the Ark of the Old Covenant, and neither can anyone “touch” the Ark of the New Covenant.
cont

>>609100

Q2b: Concerning Christ's brothers.

A2b: The words for “brother” and ”cousin” are interchangeable or the same word in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Furthermore, Joseph, according to tradition, was married before, but his wife died (women died a lot in childbirth in ancient times, and that’s quite possibly what happened), so he might well have had many kids already. Tradition states he was much older than Mary when they were betrothed. If you want solid scriptural evidence of this, all you have to look at is Christ, at his death, entrusting John with his mother: if Mary had sons besides Jesus, it would be their duty to look after her, Jesus wouldn’t need to ask John to do it.

Q2c: Concerning Mary as Queen of Heaven.

A2c: First of all, Psalm 45 is seen as about Mary (compare Psalm 45:17 to Luke 1:48). Secondly, in ancient Israel, the queen was generally the mother of the king, since a king tended to have numerous wives, but only one mother. So the mother of the King of Heaven is rightfully called the Queen of Heaven.

Q2d: Concerning Mary as the vessel of God, not the mother.

A2d: Mary is described as having ἔτεkεν Christ, which is the maternal corollary to the paternal ἐγέννησεν (the only time the female relationship to the child is described in the second term, is in the case of children to a motherland); did God create Christ? no, but God ἐγέννησεν (generally translated as “begot”) Christ, yet we call God Christ’s Father, and refer to Christ as God the Son. Note that Mary is referred to as the Mother of the Lord in Luke 1:43. There’s no way to get around this unless you want to say that the Lord referred to here is Christ’s Body but not His Divinity, which would make you a Nestorian.
cont

>>609101

Q2e: Concerning Nestorianism.

A2e: Taken to its logical conclusion, it’s effectively Arianism, because the Gospels depict Christ in his humanity, so it would mean that the Christ who walked around, taught and died for our sins isn’t God.

>>609093
She only popular saintess. Also for Christianity need saint knights, because lack of men energy yang into it, and for allahism need more female energy yin because lack of it.

>>609004
this

>>608974
not only polytheistic but sincretist, assimilating various traits of local religions as the catholic world expanded

>>609125
See
>>609083

Classical theism, as envisioned by Aristotle and perfected by Thomas Aquinas, is so far removed from the categories of a antropomorphic God that applying monotheism/polytheism is basically meaningless.

"It is true that in the same being the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the Actus Purus. Thus the existence of movement (in scholastic terminology, motus, any change) points to the existence of a prime and immobile motor. Causality leads to the conception of God as the unproduced cause. Contingent beings require a necessary being. The limited perfection of creatures postulates the unlimited perfection of the Creator. The direction of various activities towards the realization of an order in the universe manifests a plan and a divine intelligence. When we endeavour to account ultimately for the series of phenomena in the world, it is necessary to place at the beginning of the series — if the series be conceived as finite in duration — or above the series — if it be conceived as eternal — a pure actuality without which no explanation is possible. Thus at one extreme of reality we find primary matter, a pure potentiality, without any specific perfection, and having, on this account, a certain infinity (of indetermination). It needs to be completed by a substantial form, but does not of itself, demand any one form rather than another. At the other extreme is God, pure actuality, wholly determined by the very fact that He is infinite in His perfection. Between these extremes are the realities of the world, with various degrees of potentiality and actuality."

- Catholic Encyclopedia

File: trinity-symbol.jpg (335KB, 2000x1800px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 2000x1800px

>>609132
I should have known /his/ was too good to be true. Protestants ruin everything.

File: 1430776894625.jpg (204KB, 585x883px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 585x883px

>>608974
OP here, I think people are taking this a bit towards the trinity but What about Mary and the saints?

My grandfather always preferred to dedicate his prayers to Jesus.
Me and my father always preferred to dedicate our prayers directly to God.
My mother always preferred to dedicate her prayers to the Virgin Mary (in fact a lot of catholic women in my country do so).
The grandmother of one of my friends always dedicated her prayers to some random saint that I forgot his name

When I was a child I didn't think much it, but nowadays it's becoming harder to ignore

Mahometans for example, praise Mohammad but never to same status as Allah as far as I know.

>>608974
Is it better to believe in 1 god or 3? What about an arbitrary n gods? What about 0 gods?

What would be the root cause of your discomfort?

>>609032
>>609021
>>609047
>The friends of a Jew who was executed in Judea write books in Greek and found a religion in Rome

Pull the other leg, it's got bells on it.

>>609231
You're praying to Mary and the saints to pray for you. You aren't actually calling them God, you know that they don't have the power to help you. They only have the power to plead your case before God.

Also, you shouldn't pray to any saint more than you pray to God/Jesus.

>>609004
But...
You can't.
That's the thing.
The dogma is essentially that you can never understand it, ever. Any metaphor or explanation is essentially heretical.ly.

>>609305
It's pretty clearly idolatory anon.

File: The Way.jpg (59KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 480x720px

>faithfags claiming that their faith is the correct one
>just so happen to share the religion of their parents

What, is Ahura Mazda or Hanuman just outside the realm of realism?

File: 1446670323068.jpg (182KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x682px

>>609315
>It's pretty clearly idolatory anon.
You may be right. I don't know. I wish I knew where the practice of praying to saints originated from.

>>609315
>It's pretty clearly idolatory anon.

What's bad about it, as long as it's done in the clear knowledge of the hierarchy of Christianity?

File: 1453599019821.jpg (221KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 640x1136px

>>609345

>>609345
It's not really known for sure. Some point to the belief held by some Jews that mortal men are capable of blessing and cursing in life mixed with the biblical notions of people standing at the right hand of god (And therefore within reach).

At this point it's up in the air, but I suspect it has origins within the middle east (As evidenced by its presence in Shia islam and Judaism)

>>609346
Idolatry is literally one of the biggest nonos the religion has set up.

>>609373
>Idolatry is literally one of the biggest nonos the religion has set up.

it's impossible to avoid idolatry, even in Islam. You can only compromise on the meaning and the specific things you have as idols. Why can't a "direction" be an idol as well? Why can't mecca?

>>609230
You're going to have to explain that picture.
So they're 4 separate entities? That's downright polytheism. Are they aspects of God? That's modalism.

>>609305
Clearly you're praying to them because they have some leverage on god, being saints and all.

>they can't help you
>they can plead your case before God

This seems contradictory. You wouldn't bother praying in the first place if their pleas weren't worth something.

>>609402
What I should've is said is that they can only help you by convincing God to help you.

>>609389
The trinity is not subject to temporal and spatial considerations, that's why I disagree with the picture too. It just is.

>>609379
>Why can't a ritual made in order to worship god, by directing worship directly at him, be idolatry?
>How is this different than praying to a literal idol?

>>609409
But that's wrong, they can't convince god of shit, god's plan is eternal and perfect and prayer only helps you accept it.

>Literally not understanding your own religion.

File: trinitarian nicholas striking arius (note who doesn't have a halo).jpg (108KB, 420x450px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 420x450px

>>608974
Here's what happened. The bible is pretty clearly strictly monotheistic. Take for example John 14:28

>You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.

But Jesus talked about some shit like 'the holy spirit' and 'the son of man' that nobody really understood, and this confused the shit out of early christfags.

Two camps eventually formed. In one camp was a priest called Arius who argued that there was only one god and Jesus was his son, and that the plain meaning of things was the actual meaning. In the other camp was a bunch of bishops who said that no Jesus was also god and god was also jesus and they were both also the holy spirit and the holy spirit was also god and jesus and they were all each other, a trinity, and we don't understand it because it's god and shit.

The reason trinitarians did this was probably because they needed to present Jesus as divine in order to get converts.

This controversy lasted decades. It was finally solved after Constantine converted to christianity and needed to codify what exactly christianity was. The new Roman political authorities sided with the anti-arians. So they set up a council at Nicea where there was a rigged vote in favor of the trinitarians, then Arius was excommunicated, his followers brutally oppressed and his teachings burned literally to the point where none of them have survived and we only know about Arius because a few writings that criticize him mention him.

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

About 300 years later in the middle of the desert some guy called Mohammed was in the middle of converting to christianity but he realized the idea of the trinity was so bullshit and he hated it so much that he decided to literally start his own religion based on chrisitianity but one that was strictly uncompromisingly monotheistic. It's called islam.

>>609419
It's part of his plan for saints to convince him.

You could use that same God's plan argument to show that prayer is futile.

>>609435
No, they don't convince him. He already had the plan.
If you could change god's mind he would not be all knowing and all seeing and eternally wise.

Which of course he is.

>You could use that same God's plan argument to show that prayer is futile.

...
That's pretty much what Catholic doctrine is anon.
It's futile in the sense that it's not going to change god's plan. What it does is help you accept your plan within it.

File: hold up a second nigga.jpg (30KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 555x555px

>>609435
>It's part of god's plan that people convince him to follow his own plan

>>609435
Petitionary prayer does indeed seem pointless. God already has perfect judgment, his decisions are by definition the best so your prayers can't sway him one way or the other.

>>609444
It's more of the gesture that's important.
In the Bible you're encouraged to have your friends pray for you, so there must be some reason to ask others (saints or not) to pray for you.

Also, Jesus said that he will give you what you need if you ask for it in prayer.

>>609446
It's getting pretty deep

>>609451
He won't give you what you need if you don't humble yourself by asking for it through prayer.

If you don't pray then you aren't worthy of God's gifts, but if you do, then you are worthy.

So... if you're the type of person to pray, there's no need to pray, but you won't care if there's no need to pray if you're that type of person.

>>609451
Then so is asking someone else to pray for you

>>608974
>Implying any of Aquinas' fives ways actually prove god


t. hume

>>609425
>Mohammed was in the middle of converting to christianity
Genuinely curious, source?

Somehow when i enter a thread about religion i still expect to find an interesting conversation instead of the retarded ramblings of lunatics.
I'm afraid i might be retarded.

>>609488
well the fact that the quran is literally christian fanfiction is pretty much all the proof you need

but mohammed was also influenced by a christian monk named bahira

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Bahira

>>609315
Q3: Concerning bowing to icons of saints being worship.

A3: If you mean the old use of worship (see Johnson’s Dictionary), then yes. If you mean worship as it is commonly used now, to mean latria, then no. Before modernism, bowing to someone or kissing their hand was a common way to show very deep respect to kings, priests, judges, parents, elders and spouses. If you want a good illustration of such a society, try reading Dostoevsky.

Q3a: Concerning the distinction between icons and idols being merely semantic.

A3a: The word “idol” comes from the Greek word εἶδος (eidos) (this is the word Plato uses, commonly translated as “form”). The word “icon” comes from the Greek word εἰkών (eikón). The Septuagint says God created man in his own icon, not his own idol. An icon is a reflection of something, like in a mirror or on a skype screen. Theologically, an icon can also be seen as a window. There is nothing wrong with kissing or bowing to these things, since they are not idols. This is why Orthodox icons are never statues, because a window or a reflection are flat, and kissing an icon is like that, it’s not like kissing the actual person.

>>609315
Q3: Concerning the prohibition of graven images in worship.

A3: The word in the commandments is פֶּ֫סֶל (pesel), whereas צֶ֫לֶם (tselem) is what man himself is (God did not create man in his own pesel, but in his own tselem). This distinction is translated as εἶδος and εἰkών, which are the sources of English words “idol” and “icon”. Before God came down in human form, pictorial representation of him would be impossible, so instead the icon of him was the tablets with the Ten Commandments on them (later on, the Torah). Muslims themselves have icons they venerate: they kiss the Quran and the Black Stone. If you would like further elaboration on this, see Q&A3a of the Protestant FAQ.

>>609315
Q3b: Concerning the intercession of saints as unnecessary

A3b: It’s not different from asking anyone else to pray for you, except they are now sinless.

Q3c: Concerning the prohibition of consulting with the dead.

A3c: The dead are those in Hades. The saints in heaven are dead to the world, but all Christians are, or at least supposed to be (Colossians 2:20). When you are baptized, you die to the world, and then are reborn in Christ. Christians who suffer bodily death are not dead in any substantial way, because they don’t go to Hades. They are in full communion with us, and a living part of the Church. To suggest that they aren’t is to say they left the Church and ceased to be a living part of Christ’s Body.

Q3d: Concerning those in heaven having died the first death, the second death being hell.

A3d: Those in heaven have not died the first death, that is why the Orthodox Church doesn't use the term "died" to referred to Christians, we use the term "reposed". The first death is Hades (Sheol). The second death is Gehenna. In Western Christianity, both are referred to as “hell”, but they are distinct in Orthodox Christianity.

Q3e: Concerning heaven being a separate realm from the material, and the the inability for those who dwell in it to hear prayers.

Q3e: Heaven (or hell, they are the same thing in Orthodox Christianity. See Ephesians 6:12 and A6 of the Atheist FAQ) is not a separate realm in Orthodox Christianity, but a dimension which intersects fully with the material. We are all already in heaven, but hamartia (loosely translated as “sin”) clouds our ability to detect it. There is no parallel hamartia which clouds the spirit from detecting the material. If there were, then angels, or at least demons, would be affected by it.

>>609488
Not him, and no source, but it's pretty clear that he had a lot of contact with Jews/Christianity and was at least interested in monotheism before he created Islam.

There is as far as I'm aware of little evidence of what he actually practiced as far as religion goes before the sources tell us of his fateful conversation with the angel.

>>609561
I recall in a /pol/ thread recently you recommended 3 books for someone just starting to learn about Orthodoxy, The Orthodox Way, The Way of the Pilgrim, what was the third?

>>609444
>>609419
Do you faggots not believe in free will or something?

>>609577
The Orthodox Church. They're all linked in the pastebin

>>608974
Practically, yes. If you're praying to literally anything other than one god, that's not strict monotheism. You can rationalize praying to saints or praying to aspects of one god however you like, but it's not really all that different when viewed out of context and I seriously doubt that the average peasant lighting a candle and praying to St. Mary is thinking of god and not just her. Latin America in particular, with its proliferation of cults and fringe practices despite being Catholic to the bone and proud, stands out here.

In the fine print, no. Catholics have explanations for how everything they do is supported by scripture and/or dogma and those explanations are generally excellent from an intellectual perspective.

Think your looking at it wrong OP.

The Trinity is One. Jews and Muslims are a different religion, and like every religion can get pantheistic.

But yeah, have fun letting go people of 4chan tell you that you worship idols.

If you wanna praise saints everyday and not God, that is your problem, but if you praise the Trinity and also Mary then it isn't polytheism.

>but Trinity and Mary is 4 people

If you know God, it is One.

>>609628
Pretty much every icon of Mary has baby Jesus in it, and all the prayers to Mary mention God and Mary's relation to him (the Hail Mary included, "Our Lord is with thee," "blessed is the Fruit of thy womb".

>>609646
Mary isn't one with the Trinity, what is wrong with you?

>>609648
Mary fits the the Jungian Goddess arch-type almost perfectly.

>>609657
The goddess archtype comes from the mystery of motherhood, so I'm not surprised there are similarities.

>>609656
I think people who can't discern the information for themselves are the ones being controlled by the exterior doctrines of religion.

Apparition of Mary is God revealing Himself in His feminine form to appeal to followers and share prophecy.

Virgin Mary is a reference to Christ having a mom.

Meditate in these qualities and you will find God. Mary has the Holy Spirit.

Maybe not "the trinity" but you have to actually focus spiritually

Water doesn't cease being water when it has three states as solid liquid or gas.

The expression is trite as fuck, but still relevant.

>>609665
The Virgin Mary is Christ's mom. The Virgin Mary is not God.

>>609100
>Mary is the Ark of the Covenant

No, she isn't. There's literally nothing supporting this notion.

>>609667
That's moralism, a heresy. Look it up.

>>609676
Modalism***

>>609667
That's basically Sabellianism, so no, it's not relevant.

>>609674
Mary was very literally the ark of Christ, and Christ is very literally the new covenant.

>>609691
Except there's literally nothing to support this theory in the Gospels.

>>609696
Which part, Mary being the ark of Christ, or Christ being the new covenant?

>>609673
Never said she was God. Read Rev 19:10 that is what an angel is supposed to do, and if they want you to worship them then they are not of God.

>>609707
The former of course.

>>609714
God does not appear as Mary. The only feminine expression for God is the Wisdom of God, and gender here is just figurative.

>>609717
An ark means an enclosing container, which Mary certainly was for Christ.

>>609735
Mary gave birth to Christ, the Ark didn't give birth to the covenant.

>>609742
How does that preclude her from being the ark of the new covenant, exactly?

>>609742
http://www.theorthodoxfaith.com/mary-as-the-new-ark-of-the-covenant/

>>609746
How does it preclude her from being Martian? That's not how an argument works, you actually have to present some evidence to support your theory.

>>609751
>flimsy retcon

Here's another theory:

David was a man from the middle east
Paul was a man from the middle east

Therefore David = Paul

>>609724
>God doesn't appear as Mary
>The only feminine expression for God is wisdom
God can appear as Mary and would have way more "feminine" qualities than just wisdom. To say He can't and only has certain qualities is not giving Him enough credit.

>>609765
For the first time God's presence has descended upon a person as the new ark of the Covenant. . . . Rene Laurentin speaks of the subtle use of ark imagery [early in Luke]. For instance, he shows how in II Samuel 6, there was a journey to the hill country of Judah that the ark of the covenant took. Likewise, the same phrase is used to describe Mary's journey to the hill country. . . . Both David and Mary "arose and made the journey." In II Samuel 6:2 and Luke 1:39. Laurent goes on to describe how when the Ark arrived and when Mary arrived, they were both greeted with "shouts of joy." And the word for shout or the word for Elizabeth's greeting, anafametezein, is very rare. It's only used in connection with the OT liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the Ark. It literally means to "cry aloud, to proclaim or intone."

Elizabeth greets Mary the same way the Ark of the Covenant was greeted. The entrance of the Ark and the entrance of Mary are seen then as blessing an entire household. Like Obededom's household was blessed, so Elizabeth sees her household as blessed. Laurentin goes on to talk about how both David and Elizabeth react with awe. "How shall the Ark of the Lord come to me?" David says in II Samuel 6:9. And likewise Elizabeth says, "Why should the mother of the Lord come to me?" The Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of our Lord are in a sense two ways of looking at the same reality which is becoming clearer and more personal with Our Lady. Then finally, the Ark of the Covenant and Mary both remain in the respective houses for three months, II Samuel 6:11 and Luke 1:56.
cont

>>609785
In Luke 1 and 2 we have the annunciation of Gabriel to Zachariah and six months later the annunciation by Gabriel to Mary, then nine months later Jesus is born, and thirty days later He is presented in the temple. You add up 180 days in the six months, 270 days in the nine months, and the 40 days in the presentation and it adds up to 490, which is a very rare number that is found in one of the most memorable prophecies in the OT, Daniel 9. . . . Luke is once again giving a surplus value, a surplus meaning to those who are really willing to dig deep into the text to see all of the inspired meanings behind what God has done to inaugurate the New Covenant salvation in Christ and in His Blessed Mother.
This is the Ark of the Covenant. Now let's go back and conclude our time in Revelation 11 and 12. We have Mary the Ark of the Covenant. We have Mary the true tabernacle. We have in Mary a figure for the New Jerusalem because at the end of Revelation, how is the New Jerusalem described? As being a bride that is pure and yet also being a mother of God's children Well, how is it that you could be at the same time virginally pure and maternally fruitful? It seems impossible in human nature, but not for Mary, not only in mothering Jesus, but in John 19 at the cross and also in Revelation 12 where we read at the very end of the chapter, verse 17, we discover that Mary becomes by grace the mother of all God's children.

>>609773
God is beyond masculine and feminine.

Wisdom is not a quality, she's the Second Person of the Trinity.

>>609790
Iesus is the second person of the Trinity.

Wisdom is a quality.

As for terms like masculine and feminine, I think it is possible for people to see Mary telling them to worship God for those would be the conditions in order for them to begin a pious life.

>>609785
This is exactly the same shit I'm talking about

>Mary remained for three months
>Ark remained for three months
>therefore Mary = Ark

It's not even circumstancial evidence, it's nothing.

>>609083
>90% of Catholics are heretics without knowing
>explain the trinity
>trinity
>heresy
Get the fuck out, Arius. Go make a /heresy/ general or something. Go convert to Islam. Islam is where the rest of your people went until the too-cool-for-creeds Unitarians came along.

>>609808
The Trinity is only heretical if you aren't a Christian.

>>609765
>David was a man from the middle east
>Paul was a man from the middle east
Not just that, but they were also both Jews descended from Jacob. They both built and presided over a large geographic area of those who belonged to the faith.

Saul came before David, and Saul came before Paul.

Oh shit, David = Paul.
We've done it. The greatest breakthrough in biblical history and theology to date.

This is how heresies get started to be honest family.

>>609799
The Word of God is the Second Person of the Trinity, who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. The Wisdom of God is synonymous with the Word of God.

>>609805
There's plenty of more evidence than that, and there is no way you can get around the use of ἀναφωνέω, which is used only that one time in the NT, and in the Septuagint is used exclusively in relation to the Ark.

>>609864
Also, the word ἐπισkιάζω is also only used once in the NT (Luke:1:35), and in the Septuagint it is used only in Exodus 40:34-25

>>609899
34-*35

>>608974
Catholics in tradition and practice are, yeah
Other Christians are not
Praying to saints is total bullshit

>>609346
What Hierarchy? There is nothing between you and Jesus

File: Luke.png (214KB, 958x673px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 958x673px

>>609864

>>609425
Then Arius got his shit slapped by based Santa Claus

>>609938
So...you don't think the cloud is the Holy Spirit? I'm a bit taken aback.

>>609840
Sola Scriptura is how you start heresies

>>608974
Catholicism is indeed crypto-paganism.

>>609864
>ἀναφωνέω, which is used only that one time in the NT, and in the Septuagint is used exclusively in relation to the Ark.
This is the word translated as "exclamation", by the way, though it is distinguished from all other descriptions of exclamations in the NT

>>609972
Yes. Holy Spirit is invisible.

Also, Jeremiah 3:16.

>>609991
Yet the Holy Spirit appears as a dove....

>>609938
>uses a source that misrepresents scholars aka Reformed Apologetics Ministries

Brilliant.

File: Shamrock.png (142KB, 1500x1505px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1500x1505px

>>608974
No anon the holy trinity is the one God in three different forms a good metaphor for this is the three leaf clover what Saint Patrick used to explain to the Irish pagans

>>609991
>Also, Jeremiah 3:16.
http://biblehub.com/text/jeremiah/3-16.htm
This isn't indicative about not having a new ark. I'm not sure why so many new protestant translations like to use "neither shall they have another one," I guess to snip at Catholics and Orthodox. The King James at least gives a proper translation.

>>610021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

>>610021
Uh, no, that's Sabelleianism. The Holy Trinity is three distinct persons.

>>610036
So which denomination of Lutheran are you?

>>610051
I'm not Christian m8. I just think that shooting down analogies is fun.

>>610056
The analogy of the Shamrock is actually fine, it's just his phrasing of it that isn't.

>>609425
>About 300 years later in the middle of the desert some guy called Mohammed was in the middle of converting to christianity but he realized the idea of the trinity was so bullshit and he hated it so much that he decided to literally start his own religion based on chrisitianity but one that was strictly uncompromisingly monotheistic. It's called islam.
Got me a laugh, bretty gud.

>>609938
The book, "Mary in the NT" is actually a fucking collaboration between Lutherans and Catholics.

Strange your shitty source fail to mention this and simply paint the book as "Catholic".

Simply dishonest

File: Dove.png (2MB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x900px

>>609991
>Holy Spirit is invisible.

m8...

>And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

>>609014
>proof needs specific requiernents
>proof needs to be worked
>Gods can be defined however you want because you can always invent new logic and new metaphysic concepts.

So the whole concept of a god or gods is just make believe. Literally children playing with their imaginary friends.
Dawkins was right.

File: Pepe.png (59KB, 230x244px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 230x244px

>>610224

File: Jeebus.jpg (51KB, 331x448px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 331x448px

I am not remotely interested in the labels "monotheistic" or "pantheistic".

If you are asking whether "Muh Trinity" makes any sense then the answer is, obviously, no.

Not even the most brilliant Christian philosphers over two thousand years have made sense of it and just claim it is a "holy mystery".

All you have is absolutely terrible analogies.

File: Knight of Faith.jpg (134KB, 653x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 653x1024px

>>610239
>Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

The trinity is fucked up. We live in a world where the wrong Christianity won during the first millennium.

File: SophiafromIcon.jpg (152KB, 590x515px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 590x515px

Holy Spirit = Hokmah = Hagia Sophia

File: Heretic.png (227KB, 318x295px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 318x295px

>>610247

>>610245
>Bitches don't even know How I telelogical suspend the ethical

Kekd

File: 1443646147465.jpg (41KB, 700x350px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 700x350px

>>610259
Capt. Kierk is based af.

File: bcyonzXqi.jpg (62KB, 800x1001px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x1001px

>The Father
One Supreme God, original before the first and the first.

>The Son
Belief in Christ as incarnate and by following Him we can connect to God

>The Holy Spirit
In yoga, the jiva-atman (individual soul) is supposed to connect to God's Paramatman (Highest soul)

If you are religious or whatever label or non-label, it is about Devotion to the Holy Spirit.

File: Turn.jpg (30KB, 181x357px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 181x357px

>>610269
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all original before the first and the first.

Also,

>In yoga

What if God wants people to communicate with angels and Saints because he figured that running his celestial monarchy worked better with advisors and parliaments?
Saints would be like the House of Commons, God ain't got time to deal with every minor problem. Also he would make a possibility to ammend his laws if the whole Church agreed, for example Councils that include new doctrines.

>>609101
Q2b: Concerning Christ's brothers.

A2b: The words for “brother” and ”cousin” are interchangeable or the same word in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Furthermore, Joseph, according to tradition, was married before, but his wife died (women died a lot in childbirth in ancient times, and that’s quite possibly what happened), so he might well have had many kids already. Tradition states he was much older than Mary when they were betrothed. If you want solid scriptural evidence of this, all you have to look at is Christ, at his death, entrusting John with his mother: if Mary had sons besides Jesus, it would be their duty to look after her, Jesus wouldn’t need to ask John to do it.


Very few historians take this explanation seriously. its considered possible but highly unlikely

>>610741
Of all the Ante Nicene fathers, Tertullian is the only one who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. He also defected to the Montanist movement

Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Clement of Alexandria in contrast accepted it.

The fact that Jesus asks John and not his "brothers" to take care of Mary at the moment of His death would be indicative that the "brothers" are not biological brothers since it would be the custom of the culture of the time for one of the biological children to take care of the mother rather than someone non blood related.

>>609231
When I was little, I always thought of it like a giant call center. Yeah, you can talk to the head hancho right out, but you could also ask someone else who deals with the subject as well. Ask the saint of lost things to intercede on your behalf to find what you're missing, or ask for the patron saint of families to help you through your troubles with your significant other.

I guess it's more like God working through others to preform mighty deeds in his name rather than directly intervening for you. No one questions if God is with them when they pray for aid and miraculously a friend or stranger appears to help you shortly afterwards.

>>609014
> Gods can be defined however you want because you can always invent new logic and new metaphysic concepts.
This bothers me to no end when someone pulls bullshit like this:
>the universe exists
>therefore there must be a creator
>>ok what if the big bang created the universe
>then the big bang is god
>therefore christianity

>>610786
note I said historians and not church fathers

Catholicism states that Son, Father and Holy Spirit are all God but are not the same being.

So I guess?

Catholicism also borrows a lot of its iconography and traditions from Paganism but you probably knew that already.

>>610825
>Catholicism states that Son, Father and Holy Spirit are all God but are not the same being.

No it doesn't.

>>610825
>Catholicism states that Son, Father and Holy Spirit are all God but are not the same being.
Almost all Christian sects today agree on this.

>>610811
This is why I also noted the peculiar thing that Jesus did that is to entrust John to take care of Mary instead of one of his brothers.

>>608974
>proofs=/=evidence

>all the christfags trying so hard to justify their disgrusting sandnigger religion and its faceless hypocrite god

>>610874
>hypocrite God meme
Read the new testament dumbass

>>610892
You're concept of god still a shit, anon.

>>610896
I bet you can't even explain it without getting 5th grade Sunday school stuff wrong

>>610852
welcome back

>>610984
Uhh..Haro Haro

File: 8x3ft-Jesus-is-a-myth-banner_proof2.jpg (135KB, 1000x375px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x375px

Since moses has been debunked as a made up character (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity), and now jesus has been shown to be myth in peer-reviewed literature by Dr. Carrier, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory
when do you expect christianity will finally face up to being a fake religion?

>>610224
exactly. isn't it clearly bullshit if people are here just squibbling? There's literally no point in all of it.
t. not a nihilist
>>610229
screw off. There is no argument in your post.
>>610245
hahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
>>610801
Yeah, this is where it's at now, or the blind dogs claiming "god is all and shouldn't be questioned (see >>610245 )
>>610874
>>610892
I hate this argument. Why even bother with the old testament then if Jeebus is here to save us all from... God himself? What the fuck? That makes no sense. It's so blatantly human it's not even funny.
>>611011
Not soon enough. But, as long as people are people, there will be religion in some sense which is a bummer. The last 50 years have been hopeful though, the decline of religion has been exponential (oh, hmm... I wonder why?)

>>610963
Not my job to be a theologian on the subject. I know enough to see it as a perversion of love and decency.

That's why I can't accept Christianity.

God is one. God does not beget nor begotten.

If you wanna describe his attributes fine.

But dividing his nature is for Hindus.

File: tfw.png (136KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 250x250px

>>611096
The Trinity is not divided; that's the whole point.

>>611083
Jesus is the only good example of love and humility in the entire collective memory of human civilization
>>611047
You literally have no concept of who Jesus is. How can you get mad and dismiss Christianity based entirely on ignorance?

>>608974
No. Catholicism's philosophical conception of god is very monotheistic.


Irenaeus in against heresies basically argues that multiple gods is illogical, because how could and infinite being have any co-equals who are also infinite.

And aquinas' proofs only work for a monotheistic system too. His 5 proofs would fail to prove hard-polytheistic gods like Thor and Odin.

>trinity

Trinity is hard to explain without accidentally pronouncing heresy.

Mind/body/spirit distinction in humans when you don't make the mind-body error comes close.

Are you mind and body seperate things? Are they yet distinct in some ineffible way?

>saints
I'm a protestant, so I can't apologize for this rightly, however, the way I hear you catholics justify it is typically that you guys make intercessory prayers to saints in the same way one would ask a relative to pray for you.

I know no catholic tradition of making propitiatory sacrifices to saints, so I can definitely get the adoration/veneration distinction.

Consider that vis a vis with something like asatru, where every metaphysical being under the sun gets his or her own personal sacrificial ceremony.

>>610037
you're obviously not Catholic if you were familiar with Catholic theology then you would know that The Father, Son ,and Holy Spirit were the same One God

>>611189
>Jesus is the only good example of love and humility in the entire collective memory of human civilization
Well if you're a christian, why would you consider anyone else?

>>611213
Yes, the same One God... in three distinct Persons. Three *hypostases* sharing one *ousia.*

>>611011
He is one guy going against the consensus. you can still find a few physics professors who deny the big bang, but that does not make it an accepted viewpoint in academia.

File: 1453563541058.jpg (56KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 450x450px

>>611189
then enlighten me, bub. Jesus was a guy who said nice things and come to redeem us of our sins and whatnot. God in human form. God this shit is so dumb why am I even talking to a person who believes any of this

>>611236
You're comparing loons with nothing published who refuse to accept mountains of evidence mostly because of religious reasons, with someone arguing against religious loons unsing mountains of evidence.
Whats your point there?

>>611011
Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disconfirmed_expectancy

Christians have never based their belief on historicity. If moses not being historical didnt even cause a riple why would anything else?

Ask any christian here, tripfag or otherwise and they will tell you that *no* historical evidence would ever shake their faith. Or something like "if thats correct then I dont want to be correct"

>>609808
> Can't respond
> Doesn't even have to since the question isn't directly directed towards you.
> Still getting so butthurt you tell me to fuck off and join Islam
What does it feel like knowing your brain is mere porridge?

>>611396
Among historians, the Christ myth theory is the fringe. You can disagree with the consensus, but don't sit here and tell us that it is not the consensus, and on an history board. the academic consensus should mean something

>>612150
The problem is that history has been shaped by Christians. The more Christianity is being abandoned, the more the shoddily justified assertion that Jesus was real is being abandoned.

>>612173
Its funny that on this same board a few weeks ago, Christians were telling me the historical Jesus was the product of non-Christian bias by professional historians.

I still don't understand why your so desperate to say Jesus did not exist. Are you going to suddenly become a Christian if they find archaeological evidence?

>>608974
Yes.

File: images.jpg (27KB, 414x356px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 414x356px

>All this idol worshippers ITT

>>612185
Nope. Personally, I don't care. It's just that the evidence for his existence deals overtly in the supernatural, and where it doesn't, there's too many kind of pathetic ahistoric claims for his existence to be a sure.

I guess I do care a little, because if he didn't even exist, then Christianity would be dismantled completely and I'd love the christfag tears.

>>612185
>Its funny that on this same board a few weeks ago, Christians were telling me the historical Jesus was the product of non-Christian bias by professional historians.
Did they have any evidence for this? Because in the western world, where culture and history was entirely defined by Christians for the better part of two millennia, this claim is dubious.

File: kaaba is haram.jpg (715KB, 1770x525px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1770x525px

>>613306

File: luther.png (424KB, 498x735px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 498x735px

>He's not a protestant

File: 1453611231615.png (37KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 225x225px

>>613587
>doesn't know difference between an idol and first house of worship

>>608974
yes.
yes you are.
>inb4 theologian coming up with some tortuous explanation

Catholicism is pretty much age old pagan rituals with a christian coating and a centralized and hierarchized priesthood caste.

File: Scarabaeus sacer.jpg (89KB, 620x507px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 620x507px

>>613697
>be implied sort of excrements are have meaning

>>613702
Allahism is pretty much age old pagan rituals with a islam coating and a centralized and hierarchized priesthood caste.

>>613526
Question: If Christianity is the only factor holding up Christ's historicity, you'd think Jesus-Mythers would be mainstream Near Eastern history in say, Japan and India, right?

>>613752
I didn't say it's the only factor as there is actual evidence for his existence. The evidence is just not very good.

File: 95.jpg (87KB, 291x299px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 291x299px

>>613678
I know right?

>>609093
Or maybe the Mother of God?

File: St._Spyridon_1__84512.1403278932.1000.1200[1].jpg (99KB, 400x543px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 400x543px

>>608974

One of the simplest ways of explaining the mystery of the Trinity is that reportedly given by St Spyridon of Trimithund at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). According to tradition, when asked how it is that Three can simultaneously be One, St Spyridon responded by taking up a brick and squeezing it. From the soft clay in his hands a flame showed up while simultaneously water flowed downwards. 'As there is fire and water in this brick', said St Spyridon, 'in the same way there are three Persons in the one Godhead'.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Spyridon_of_Trimythous
http://www.sourozh.org/orthodox-faith-texts/how-to-explain-the-mystery-of-the-holy-trinity.html

When you pray to God you pray to the Holy Trinity.

File: image.jpg (264KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 640x1136px

>>613702

>>609231
Out of interest, which country are you from and are you still a practicing catholic?

File: 5524a2b4af66b.jpg (82KB, 579x386px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 579x386px

>>614296
By what I mentioned in that post it should be pretty obvious. those kinds of practices (excessive praying to the saints and the Virgin etc) are quite common in hispano-american thrid world shitholes, one of which is my homeland.

And yes, I'm still a practicing catholic (go to church every sunday etc) whether or not I might be an exemplary catholic is another story though.

>>614380
Catholicism is practiced in many many countries. I'm Irish, for example.

Am i dumb or is the king james bible difficult to read? Its pacing and sentence structure is odd. Is there a version that takes into account modern readers?

>>614380
This should explain the importance and reason for the veneration of Saints>>609372

>Jesus was a nice guy
>Follow me or you will suffer eternal torment after this life

>>614406
Yes im afraid you are dumb

>>614424

>implying damnation isn't the natural consequence of the life lived apart from God.

The threat of damnation is there regardless of whether Jesus spoke true. Jesus just provides the way out.

File: fedora-btfo.jpg (113KB, 640x820px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 640x820px

>>614424

>>614715

>nothingness after death

Indeed, what a great thing to look forward to

>>614715
>lel without my sky system of justice we're all gonna rape and murder
Tell that to most western European countries.

Or just keeping repeating the same memes you have for centuries.

>>614742
>Tell that to most western European countries
rape and murder in west europe has been steadily rising for decades, pretty much since a lot of people started abandoning Christian values and bringing decay to society as a result
t. west euro

>>614733
so atheist are basically self-hating nihilists? At least you admit it

>>614424
Dependent on the teachings of each denomination.

>>614869
>so atheist are basically self-hating nihilists? At least you admit it

>You're capable of being at peace with non-existence? Confirmed for fedora edgelord.

>>614892
>being at peace with non-existence
Assuming you agree with the materialist view, you won't stop existing, you will simply decay into simpler forms of matter that lack awareness.
You are simply showing how insecure you are about your own humanity and making pshycological projections. Since you reject to find truth within yourself, you hope for the destruction of both truth and falsehood. You wish to reject to everything that makes you a human, and therefore everything that God gave to you. The problem is that the soul does not die and will live on away from God: this state of rejections is hell, something you put yourself into and only have yourself to blame for it.
>fedora edgelord.
you are, but I love you all the same anon, and so does God

>>614869
>rape and murder in west europe has been steadily rising for decades
[citation needed]

>pretty much since a lot of people started abandoning Christian values and bringing decay to society as a result
>correlation=/=causation
>muh society is dependent on christian values

>>614927

>mindless assumptions: the post

No surprise there

File: jesus.jpg (57KB, 500x665px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x665px

>>614953
>damage control: the post
where are you from anon?

>muh society is dependent on christian values
in fact it is, no matter how many times you keep repeating yourself that it isn't. Even Dawkins has realised this sofar as to claim he is a cultural christian and praises the values it instills into society
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/01/richard-dawkins-noted-atheist-praises-christianity/

>>614963
I replied to your post, by pointing out that non-existence is at best lack of awareness, but according to your own view of the world you would keep existing. The funny thing is that by saying that you would stop existing you unconsciously admit that you are more than a collection of atoms.
I invite you to pander accurately about who you are and the world around you anon. Do it truthfully and without prejudices, and hopefully you will find God. He is there waiting for you

>>614976

>damage control

Not really, just me telling you that just about everything you said in the post is entirely based on your assumptions of people who happen to disagree with your extremely simplistic worldview, and that most of those assumptions are hilariously misguided and completely wrong

>>615000 (checked)
>everyone who doesn't disagree is a walking logical fallacy
>it is so because I say so
>and no, this isn't a fallacy, I am the supreme source of reliability and truth
ayyy

You have not answered me anon. Where are you from?

>>615019
*who doesn't agree with me

>>614976

>Do it truthfully and without prejudices

But you don't do this. From the way you structure your posts, I can tell that you already concluded that your specific flavor of abrahamic religion is 100% accurate before you've considered even a single fact about reality. You tell others not to be biased, despite that it's pretty clear that you yourself have a massive confirmation bias towards your own religion.

In my opinion, having wisdom is mostly about having the courage to admit that you could be wrobg about the ideas that are dearest to you. Based on this, your pseudo-intellectual rants leave me unimpressed to say the least

>>615019

I literally don't have a single clue what in the hell you wrote here

>>614927
>Assuming you agree with the materialist view, you won't stop existing, you will simply decay into simpler forms of matter that lack awareness.
Stop being pedantic; you knew exactly what I meant when I said non-existence. I'm not going to be diverted into a discussion about the theory of forms and if you're going to keep being petty I'm not going to bother responding.

>You are simply showing how insecure you are about your own humanity and making pshycological projections.
What exactly is insecure about accepting that your existence as a conscious human being ends with the termination of your biological functions? Death follows life as surely as one moment follows the next for every living thing.

>Since you reject to find truth within yourself, you hope for the destruction of both truth and falsehood. You wish to reject to everything that makes you a human, and therefore everything that God gave to you.
This is honestly absurd. Because I don't subscribe to Christian doctrine, you immediately paint me as some sort of edgy pod person.

>The problem is that the soul does not die and will live on away from God: this state of rejections is hell, something you put yourself into and only have yourself to blame for it.
I'm afraid I have to disagree on this point. I believe that the nearest thing to an afterlife is the impact one has on those around them.

>>614976
>damage control: the post
Who said it was the same anon?

>in fact it is, no matter how many times you keep repeating yourself that it isn't
Treating other people well isn't exclusive to or dictated by Christianity no matter how many times you keep repeating yourself that it is.

>http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/01/richard-dawkins-noted-atheist-praises-christianity/

>There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,
I guess he's forgotten all the abortion clinics that have been blown up, or the doctors who have to life in fear of their lives day by day.

>I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers
Got me there. Their fanaticism takes other forms.

>I am not aware of any majority Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death
No, but there is common banishment of your children, friends, and loved ones who disagree with it. My friend's dad beat him to an inch of his life for questioning the Bible.

>>614976
> Even Dawkins has realised this sofar as to claim he is a cultural christian and praises the values it instills into society

How can you get this from that quote? He rates Christianity as less bad than Islam (if it's even a real quote), and now suddenly this means you disregard every other thing he's ever said on the topic and is now a cultural christian cuz reasons?

>>611011
>Rationalwiki
This board is becoming more and more shit.

>>611047
Why is the decline of religion a good thing?

>>615035
He wasn't telling you that Christianity is the inescapable conclusion, only that God is.

>>615062
*only that the Christian God is

FTFY.

>>615038
so, where are you from anon?

>>615035
>says I write "mindless assumption: the post"
>proceeds to write an entire post made of assumptions about me
So you are only capable of speaking through projections?

>In my opinion, having wisdom is mostly about having the courage to admit that you could be wrobg about the ideas that are dearest to you.
That's what I am asking you to do. You seem to suffer from a severe form of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, anon

>>615043
>Stop being pedantic
since when are truth and logic pedantic?
>you knew exactly what I meant when I said non-existence.
Are you unironically defending the misuse of a word? s hake my head
>hat exactly is insecure about accepting that your existence as a conscious human being ends with the termination of your biological functions?
It ignores your humanity and the unshakable fact that you are not simply a body.
>Death follows life as surely as one moment follows the next for every living thing.
That's not true though. You are comparing life for a myriad of life forms as if they are comparable in every aspect of their existence (which is absurd), you are also implying that you have any idea what it means to be a jellyfish or other forms of life. Btw, I am pretty sure relativity dumped the conception of time you just expressed in your post pretty clearly
>I believe that the nearest thing to an afterlife is the impact one has on those around them.
That's not an afterlife. Those actions are still actions you do in your life, the fact that they affect other people once you are dead is simply due to them being still alive, and not in the afterlife. So your statement is simply wrong

>>615054
I am not doing any of that. I am using his quote in relation to Christianity being a positive force in regards to society and it's upholding. Something which even Dawkins, in his biased view, is ready to admit.

>and is now a cultural christian cuz reasons?
He is a cultural christian because he literally said so
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html

>>615062

So what? It's still a human idea that is characterized as an 'inescapable conclusion'. There have been almost an infinite amount of human ideas that were assumed to be flawless and infallible, and despite the usual outcome of those infallible ideas getting completely demolished by reality, this hasn't stopped people from assuming that they're completely correct.

>>615079

>That's what I am asking you to do.

Very well. I accept that the problem of induction and the is-ought gap make all epistemology and ethics in potential completely wrong.

Your turn

>>615105
my turn? Admitting you are wrong is something you have to do for yourself, not advertise on 4chin. You are missing the point. It's not the debate with other people that will change you, it is the debate within yourself.

>>615085
>Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and scientist, has admitted that he is a “secular Christian” because he hankers after the nostalgia and traditions of the church.
Speaking at the Hay Festival, where he was presenting the first volume of his memoirs An Appetite For Wonder, the evolutionary biologist claimed that although he does not believe in the supernatural elements of the Christian church, he still values the ceremonial side of religion.
The author made the comments after being questioned by an American minister in the audience who claimed that he no longer believed in miracles or that Jesus was resurrected, but still considered himself a Christian and preached the teachings of Christ.
“I would describe myself as a secular Christian in the same sense as secular Jews have a feeling for nostalgia and ceremonies,” said Dawkins.
“But if you don’t have the supernatural, it’s not clear to me why you would call yourself a minister.

He finds the ceremonies cute, therefore Christianity is good for society, fucks sake mate, it's dawkins that your trying to frame as a christian/religious supporter?

>>615123

>You are missing the point.

I don't think you have one. I think you're just unable to imagine that you could be wrong about anything, which just makes me feel sorry for you. You try to cover this up with a lot of namecalling, but this just highlights your inability to deal with ideas that conflict with your own, which makes your insistence that everyone but you is completely biased all the more ironic

>>615079
>It ignores your humanity and the unshakable fact that you are not simply a body.
No it doesn't. I even explained exactly my views on the afterlife in the last part of my post.

>That's not true though. You are comparing life for a myriad of life forms as if they are comparable in every aspect of their existence (which is absurd), you are also implying that you have any idea what it means to be a jellyfish or other forms of life.
Are you implying that there are forms of life that are incapable of experiencing death, or that don't die naturally as they age and their physical bodies break down? Because if so then you should probably be talking to Smithsonian or National Geographic or something instead of shitposting on a Tajikistani quipu mailing list.

>Btw, I am pretty sure relativity dumped the conception of time you just expressed in your post pretty clearly
Why don't you just post an image of le magic negro science man to REALLY convince me that you're right?

>That's not an afterlife. Those actions are still actions you do in your life, the fact that they affect other people once you are dead is simply due to them being still alive, and not in the afterlife. So your statement is simply wrong
It's an afterlife from my perspective, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

>>615148
being a cultural christian does not mean being spiritually a christian. I never implied that. We are still discussing how healthy christianity is for society as a whole.
Other quotes by him put together give the idea that he thinks christianity is good for society, I posted another link related to that. Your damage control is quite pathetic at this point.
Btw I am still waiting for an answer. Where are you from anon?

>>615153
>another post full of baseless assumptions
>still so butthurt that I called him out here >>614927 that he continues to project his own internal state of mind on to me as if that will shut up the voice of his conscience
I am afraid it won't anon. I already told you what might help you. Now it's up to you to hear that voice or to keep projecting your insecurities on others.

>christians debating for centuries whether 1=3
>come up with nothing useful for anybody at all
>still are anxious about it

when did you realize that christianity is pathological?

>>615170
Different anon, only these are me >>615054
>>615148

>Other quotes by him put together give the idea that he thinks christianity is good for society

Cherry-picking quotes this hard.

>>615165
>Are you implying that there are forms of life that are incapable of experiencing death
I am implying that you have no empirical data to accurately pretend you know about it on a level deep enough to judge it on a wider scale as you did
>or that don't die naturally as they age and their physical bodies break down?
Never have I said that pysical bodies don't break down, in fact I have been repeating it way more than you in my posts.

>Why don't you just post an image of le magic negro science man to REALLY convince me that you're right?
Is this supposed to be an argument? From a scale of 1 to 10, you appear to be about 8 mad.
Btw you might not aware of this but negro is still a racial slur, so it would be less hypocritical and pretentious if you actually made up your mind and either called him black or a nigger

>It's an afterlife from my perspective
So you are basically saying that you choose to define it as afterlife, even though you know it isn't and it objectively isn't in any sense, just because "muh feelings"? Thank you for showing me how hypocrite fedoras are

>>615184
>lying on the internet
ok, let's say I believe you.
then state what your aim is? I have brought up Dawkins as a mention in one of my points about christianity as a force for good in society, and how abandoning it in west euro is actually harming the place.
Either you address that topic or it is literally useless to discuss with you. And btw, if you want to discuss the topic with me, you will have to tell me where you are from either way

>>614927

Your assumption was mindless.. retarded anon.. what the fuck.

Non-existence is sad because.. you don't exist.

There is no reason for humans that become altruistic in their nature to be eternal, but that shit just won't happen... cells that copy themselves too many times just turn cancerous.

File: 1452017507941.png (362KB, 2230x500px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 2230x500px

>>615203
I'm Australian, most people aren't sincerely devout Christians and the country is doing fine.

File: 1450388957959.jpg (6KB, 205x205px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 205x205px

>>615234

>australia
>doing fine

>>615219
did you sperg so hard you found it impossible to write a coherent sentence? ffs anon

>>615170

>Now it's up to you to hear that voice or to keep projecting your insecurities on others.

Again, sentences like these prove my point for me. They demonstrate that you don't possess any ability to be critical of yourself or your own ideas. The fact that you desperately try to frame this in terms of emotions just underlines everything I've posted so far. You're incapable of considering any conclusion other thsn your own, and when this is pointed out to you, you try to dodge it in every way imaginable, mostly in an emotional manner, by presenting yourself as 'openminded'. You demand that people be extremely critical of themselves, whileat the same time never applyibg your own high standards of skepticism to yourself.

Like I said, I have nothing but pity for you

File: 1452487467942.png (246KB, 1100x620px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1100x620px

>>615247
Mexico and Turkey confirmed for best countries.

>>615193
>I am implying that you have no empirical data to accurately pretend you know about it on a level deep enough to judge it on a wider scale as you did
I don't even know where to start with this. Are you seriously saying that death isn't a universal constant?

>Never have I said that pysical bodies don't break down, in fact I have been repeating it way more than you in my posts.
That's one thing we can agree on, then. Though I don't see how it plays nice with your response right above.

>Btw you might not aware of this but negro is still a racial slur, so it would be less hypocritical and pretentious if you actually made up your mind and either called him black or a nigger
Ah, so you're new here. Well let me be the first to welcome you, with a traditional 4chan greeting: fuck off, retard.

>So you are basically saying that you choose to define it as afterlife, even though you know it isn't and it objectively isn't in any sense, just because "muh feelings"? Thank you for showing me how hypocrite fedoras are
Please, show me the "objective evidence" for your perception of the afterlife. Surely you hold your own beliefs to such a standard, as you're invoking my lack of concrete proof as a reason why I'm wrong and you're right.

File: 1452622200689.jpg (56KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 850x400px

>>615259
>keeps projecting like a broken record
>ignores everything I wrote, and by doing so keeps proving my point
I guess your mental abilities became fogged when you felt hit right home and you realised I was right.
I don't pity you, but I love you as my neighbour and I hope you will find the right way.


>>615264
I have always talked about christianity, not Islam.
Yours isn't a fair mean of measuring, otherwise North Korea would be the best country in the world. Or the URSS. Or communist China.
>inb4 "those don't count because damage control is totally acceptable when it favours my preconceived view of the world, that btw is objective truth because I say so, and that's totally not a fallacy".

>>615265
>Are you seriously saying that death isn't a universal constant?
Nope I am not
>Though I don't see how it plays nice with your response right above.
It play perfectly with it
>Ah, so you're new here
Telling others they are new is pretty much prerogative of newfags, as you quite obviously confirm. I have been here since 2008. I know very well about the meme, which does not address the pretentious albeit infinitely wrong way you expressed yourself.
>fuck off, retard
Seems like I struck a nerve there
>you're invoking my lack of concrete proof as a reason why I'm wrong and you're right.
Nope, you yourself are invoking such a lack of proof. I am simply pointing out the hypocricy in advocating for evidence as the absolute moral value of the human mind, whereas you reject it consciously whenever you want because muh feelings. My beliefs had nothing to do with my statement, but only with yours. If you can't come to terms with what you believe in it's not my fault.

Gotta go to sleep now. Goodnight fedoras. I will pray for you

>>615264
Wasn't expecting Finland and Quebec to be as high as they are.

>>615300
>I have always talked about christianity, not Islam.
>Yours isn't a fair mean of measuring, otherwise North Korea would be the best country in the world. Or the URSS. Or communist China.

The first picture I posted was protestant america, turkey is islamic sure, but mexico is catholic, I'm just saying that it seems like religion (Christianity included) is no were near the main factor in regards to a country being 'good/best', and that the suggestion that a lack of Christianity is inherently harmful to society is simplistic at best, and more likely largely irrelevant.

>>615300

Honestly, the most pitiful part about your bad attempts at proselytizing isn't even the failed attempts at trying to frame this in terms of emotions isn't even the framing itself, it's the fact that you don't even have the decency to hide your attempts at framing.

I mean, when you're trying to fish, at least have the decency to hide the hook

>>615304
It's only one graph and i'm not sure on the source, generally it's probably reasonably accurate, but you'd be better off finding multiple surveys with comparable questions and identifying the patterns which consistently arise.

>>608974
There is not god, now go back to bed.

>>609411
What a theist way of ignoring a legit argument.

>>611196
>intercessory prayers to saints in the same way one would ask a relative to pray for you.
Very much this. Nobody "prays" to saints, that would just be silly. But one can ask them to lay in a nice word for you.

>>609389
>>609411

They are one Ousia, three hypostses; one essence, one inseparable substance, while being three persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_%28philosophy_and_religion%29#Trinitarian_definitions

File: 1442963372816.png (113KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 300x300px

>>615264
THE OCEAN IS FULL OF HERETICS!!!!!!

>>615410
I do not need a saint to pray through, I have Christ Jesus.

True Christians read the Bible to determine true and false doctrine!

>>608974
>Roman Catholic

May the Lord Jesus protect me and all devout souls from your contagion and your company!

Whoever tolerates and listens to you should know that they are listening to the devil himself, incarnate and abominable, as he speaks out of the mouth of a possessed person.

You are more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom ever was, and, as far as I can see, are characterized by a completely depraved, hopeless, and notorious godlessness.

All Christians should be on guard against your antichristian poison.

>>615549
Do you believe you are blaspheming Jesus when you pray on someone else's behalf or when you ask someone to pray on your behalf?

>>615565
Prayer is an act of worship. When we pray to God, we are admitting that we need His help. Directing our prayers to anyone other than God is robbing God of the glory that is His alone.

>>615549

I guess all of those who lived prior to Martin Luther were dirty untrue Christians.

File: image.jpg (305KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 640x1136px

>>615549
Nope

>>615624
Because God is an arrogant prick.

File: image.jpg (321KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 640x1136px

>>615565

>>609100
And just like the Ark of the Old Covenant, the Ark of the New Convenant never existed.

>>615872
I know we only have the biblical account, but is it that hard to believe the Temple had a sacred box stored away?

>>615913
Moses put imaginary commandments in a real box because he existed too. You sound stupid.

>>615913
I'm sure they had a box.

Like many hidden Christian relics that Churches claim to have, but refuse to show to the public, I am skeptical if the box contained anything.

>>608974
yes you are, and jews believe God can have his hands tied

>>608974
I thought this board was "history and humanities".

Namely, /his/... not /rel/.

I thought people wanted to discuss actual things.

>>615937
The box contained the oldest copies of the laws, which were probably on tablets. This is pretty reasonable even from a secular perspective, since we've found plenty of ancient laws on tablets.

File: ilya_repin_vsevolod_mikhailovich_garshin_1884_1350333843_b.jpg (52KB, 600x762px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x762px

>>614742
>implying that Christian morality doesn't still permeate through Western European culture.

It's like you've never read Nietzsche.

File: 1354437249088.jpg (38KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 184x184px

>>615438
Underrated post

>>611196
>Are you mind and body seperate things
Yes.

>>618789
>"Christian" morality isn't more Hellenistic and heathen than Semetic and Levantine

File: 1449202890473.jpg (14KB, 234x216px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 234x216px

>Taking christianity seriously
This is why the humanities board will never have the quality of the science board.

>>617066
Fine, that they held the actual tablets that god gave to Moses, considering YHWH and Moses are both mythical and have no basis in historical fact. Just like there as fake relics held by churches, such as numerous purported fragments of the true cross.

>>608974
How can you honestly believe in something as grand as the god of the bible that supposedly dictates not only the entire universe but the fate of your immortal soul as well, yet fail to educate yourself fully on the subject? If I actually believed in god I think I'd take pretty extreme measures in educating myself on him

>>611236
There is evidence of the big bang,there is no evidence of Jesus.
>Trying to compare pseudo sciences with science

>>612150
>the academic consensus should mean something
The academic consensus of a humanities field means NOTHING

>>612150
It does, it means you need to have very good reasons to defy the consensus. It doesn't mean that the consensus can't be wrong. After all every new discovery in history was at one point opposed to consensus. Look no further then 50 years ago or so when Moses' historicity was being called into doubt.

>>619850
>[tipping intensifies]

>>619877
Can you give me any substantial reason why the account of Papias of Hierapolis should be rejected?

>>619977

Born in 69

>>615264
>Quebec
>that high

Was this pre or post Duplessis? I'd be interested in a source.

>>609009
underrated post

File: 1443132234536.jpg (17KB, 240x264px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 240x264px

>>619850
>implying people go on /sci/
>implying math is fun
I'd rather go on /biz/ or /news/ than that place

>>609411
>The trinity is not subject to temporal and spatial considerations, that's why I disagree with the picture too. It just is.

>it just defies the laws of logic because God can do anything :^):^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^)

when will this meme die