Thread replies: 25
Thread images: 9
Thread images: 9
File: shaking my head familia.jpg (278KB, 533x800px) Image search:
[Google]
278KB, 533x800px
By now the trolls who frequently try to bait this board with le relijun probably made you familiar with the following 5-star quotes:
>"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
>"The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the LORD your God."
The question is, why would some all-loving all-knowing all-benevolent all-whatever creator who transcends time, space and matter give a shit about who you rub naked bodies with? Or what clothes you wear? If I managed to craft the stars, the nuclei, the viruses, the cells, the life and shit I could hardly care about animalistic impulses of a humanoid subject 2,352,655,111 toward humanoid subject 2,352,655,112 on galaxy #9,776,139,221, alternate universe #42, to be honestly familiar.
To me these hardly sound like it was spoken by some God but more likely an angry despotic sandnigger with sand in his vagina trying to impose some sort of social control or perhaps a butthurt hon who was sad and jelly he couldn't look nearly as good and fem as those Mesopotamian eunuch femboys so he sat down in his sandnigger-y cave trying to play God's ghostwriter, rubbing his hands together and thinking "these dumb guys will surely not be able to tell the difference, he he."
Humans are undoubtedly lying cheating hominid scum always scheming for dominance and power so deep down you know no non-anthropomorphic God would say that. But a diabolical conniving human would.
What do you think?
>>
>>6865366
Fucking well-written, OP. Jesus.
>>
>>6865366
I agree entirely.
If there is a higher power in this universe, I doubt they are that concerned about what we on earth do.
>>
Great post especially:
>Or what clothes you wear? If I managed to craft the stars, the nuclei, the viruses, the cells, the life and shit I could hardly care about animalistic impulses of a humanoid subject 2,352,655,111 toward humanoid subject 2,352,655,112 on galaxy #9,776,139,221, alternate universe #42, to be honestly familiar.
This is how I feel.
>>
>>6865366
>To me these hardly sound like it was spoken by some god but more likely an angry despotic (...)
Afaik (raised catholic in germany, now gay, agnostic) christians don't claim that the bible was written by god but rather by people who where inspired by god to write it (like Mattheus, Lukas, Johannes and the thousand of letters). It's called "word of the lord" but that doesn't mean it came directly from him.
And although this kinda invalidates your argument, what I think you're trying to say is that no matter the existence of a christian god, our insignificance on a universal-scale makes it unlikely that that god would actually act/think on human issues as described in the bible. And that is true to some extend, but only under the assumption that the christian god really does care about all of the universe. What if there's a earth-centric god, like people assumed back when just because knowledge of anything beyond the atmosphere didn't exist yet?
My opinion: Why can't people (including all christians) just take the bible as a fucking book and live by it if they like it and don't if they don't. What counts isn't the book but rather the interpretation of it. And that is *your* interpretation, not the society-approved one of people who claim to have authority over wether x does mean that or that or not (i.e. religious authorities and their counter-culture).
>>
File: TheGodsMustBeCrazy.jpg (225KB, 760x596px) Image search:
[Google]
225KB, 760x596px
>>6865366
I heard that the 'you shall not lie with men it is an abomination' was based on the fact that some neighboring cities in the Levant used sex as part of the temple rituals of some of their gods, including homosex.
Because, if there's one thing Yaweh disliked more than any of the weird sexual prohibitions and stuff, it was competition from other gods or religions. 'You shall have no other gods but me' is literally the first commandment, placed above prohibitions on murder.
Anyway, if Yaweh does exist, I still think we'd be better off casting our lot in with Lucifer, because God sounds like a fucking maniacal tyrant and I don't want to bow down to tyrants, no matter how many infinities of torture they threaten me with.
>>
>>6865366
You are foolish. Do not doubt God's word.
>>
>>6865366
Because homosexuality is a punishment
>They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
>>
>>6865366
>inb4 fedora
>inb4 euphoric
>etc.
You nailed it OP.
The Abramic religions are so obviously written from the perspective of primitive sandniggers that they would be laughable if it weren't for the control they still hold over humanity.
There's a reason that as a person's education increases their religiosity decreases.
Unfortunately, the fear of death is powerful enough that people, even educated people, will believe anything so long as there is a promise of eternal bliss after they die.
Meanwhile anyone who doesn't fit their demographic gets thrown under the bus on their one-way trip to "heaven".
>>
File: fuck your bait.png (139KB, 800x800px) Image search:
[Google]
139KB, 800x800px
>>6865738
>>6865767
baby baiters spotted
>>
>>6865859
You dumb nigger. You IGNORE trolls - not respond to them with memes. That only encourages them.
JFC this site used to know the rules of the internet, but not anymore. It's nothing but newfags, and this board is the worst of it.
Fuck you and fuck off. You're just as bad, if not worse, that the trolls that permeate this board. You're the reason /lgbt/ is troll infested shit.
>>
>>6865896
>newfags
/b/ plz go. You're not cool and nobody wants you.
>>
>>6865366
>"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Well, a man lays with a woman by putting his sex organ inside of the woman's.
So by this logic, for a man to lay with a man he must put his sex organ inside of the other man's.
So all it's saying is "Don't stick your dick in another guy's urethra."
Checkmate Christfags.
>>
File: theProphecyOfKek.jpg (49KB, 500x343px) Image search:
[Google]
49KB, 500x343px
>>6865366
The Abrahamic god always seemed like an up-jumped lesser being on an ego trip, like Sauron in LotR.
>>
The Old Testament is basically just a code of laws and collection of stories pertaining to the ancient Jews.
The New Testament has just about nothing to do with it except that many of it's early adopters were said Jews.
Jesus made a number of points to disregard all of the retarded shit said in the Old Testament. So anyone who actually derives homophobia from Christianity is a retard, and should be ignored.
>>
File: 1445740877297.jpg (32KB, 343x291px) Image search:
[Google]
32KB, 343x291px
>yfw where the majority of this planet's population have essentially been subdued by long gone diabolicals
>yfw you're agnostic
>>
>>6865896
Whoa settle down there big guy.
>>
>>6866025
>So all it's saying is "Don't stick your dick in another guy's urethra."
Heh, I like the way you think, kid. You would make an outstanding Reform Judaism rabbi.
>>
I don't believe in Christianity because of two reasons: firstly and mainly, because knowledge of history shows the Bible to be mostly false. Things like anachronisms and interpolation and pseudipigraphia in the OT/NT reveal a very human origin.
Secondly, because it's pathetic to support or identify with the belief-system that has - both historically and also currently - stepped on you and called you an abomination.
>>
>>6866832
>both historically and also currently - stepped on you and called you an abomination.
muh feelings.
>>
>>6866842
It's the very definition of cuckoldry to side with a faction that - at most - wants you dead, and, at the very least, wants you to be denied free expression.
Besides, that wasn't even my main reason for rejecting Christianity. The majority of it comes from historical arguments.
>>
>>6866950
>The majority of it comes from historical arguments.
It's a religion, not a history book. The purpose is to guide you towards god, not to teach you how things were.
>It's the very definition of cuckoldry to side with a faction that - at most - wants you dead, and, at the very least, wants you to be denied free expression.
True, but have you asked yourself why it says that homosexuality is an abomination? In earlier times healthy young men were the most valuable asset of a society, why put them to death for sodomy, why not just public shaming?
But instead you just reject it because you don't like it.
>>
File: jose_carioca.png (265KB, 480x640px) Image search:
[Google]
265KB, 480x640px
>>6867028
>It's a religion, not a history book. The purpose is to guide you towards god, not to teach you how things were.
The Biblical books are supposed to be infallible, since the men writing them were supposedly divinely inspired. But for being inspired by a transcendent and omniscient being, they sure got very many details wrong. Little things, here and there... The Bible says Solomon's kingdom stretched to the Euphrates, for example. But there is no historical/archeological evidence to support this, and the evidence actually shows Jerusalem was a petty chiefdom at the corresponding time. The Book of Samuel, for another example, exhibits way too many anachronisms, such as mentions of cavalry (rather than chariots), complex siege techniques, the use of iron weapons and iron armor... All implausible at the actual time it was written, pointing to an origin as a later fabrication.
There are many similar inconsistencies in the NT.
Having failed to provide an accurate account of very worldly and supposedly then-contemporary matters, why would anyone trust the Bible to be an accurate guide to such things as eschatology, the afterlife, cosmology, and the nature of Man's existence? It can't even get the small details right to begin with!
>>
File: asian-bear.jpg (65KB, 599x599px) Image search:
[Google]
65KB, 599x599px
>>6866842
>>6867028
How can Christians be so ignorant as to actually believe that their Christian religion is actually a fulfillment of Judaism?
The New Testament's theology is completely different from the Old Testament of the Hebrews. By reading the NT, one sees the introduction of certain themes that simply aren't found in Judaism, but that are very obviously influenced from Greek mystery rites.
The entire concept of a suffering deity, of a deity whose suffering and death 'redeems' the world; the idea of followers mystically sharing in this deity's suffering, the strong emphasis on forgiveness of sins and salvation through belief, and of reaching a pleasant/'good' afterlife by performing proper rites and/or subscribing to a certain deity - these are all undeniably elements borrowed from Greek mystery religions and neo-Platonism! The Orphic rites, the Eleusinian rites, the Attic rites, the cults of Serapis and Dyonisus and Isis. These thematic elements are completely alien to Jewish theology, hence why the Jews themselves rejected (and still do) Christianity; there is no 'continuity' between the New or Old, save whatever convoluted excuses Christians use to attempt to reconcile the two.
Does Yahweh the war god ever give the impression of being a 'suffering deity'? Isn't it odd that the New Testament places undue emphasis on an afterlife, yet the Old Testament made no mention of it, such that the concept of an afterlife did not even develop until well into the Second Temple period? Isn't it strange that Jesus bore none of the attributes or signs that Yahweh himself promised the Jews the Messiah would have?
In essence, to put it in simplest terms - the New Testament is a Greek fanfiction to the Old Testament: it is not 'canon', and attempts to reconcile the two are just too problematic and self-defeating.
>>
>>6867028
>earlier times
Thing is, we don't live in those "earlier times" anymore. Back then, something like 80% of the population was expected to work on farms. That's not the case anymore.
Thread posts: 25
Thread images: 9
Thread images: 9