God

>>9162378
>assigning human qualities to a supposedly perfect being

Nobody does that. Do you not understand how the Trinity works?

>>9162378
How is it possible that you think Christianity is assigning human qualities to God? You said that you've read so many shit, yet still can't differentiate between the common western conception of God and the God you're meant to believe in.

>>9162413
>>9162422

>tfw human
>tfw expected to understand something without using human ideas and conceptions

Life is suffering

A basic reading of the Bible clearly shows God cares about humans, as he explicitly says so, and Man was made in his image. Do you mean you have a problem with suffering, or the problem of evil?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07AWWJiyAU8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0

These are a couple good short video on the problem of evil, but there's plenty of literature on it as well if you still have trouble with it. Or you can clarify if you meant something else.

>>9162441
God is Love
God is

That's the most basic of interpretations of it. Love and existence trascend the human mind and understanding.

>>9162413
>>9162422
What? I'm not OP but the Bible very clearly humanizes God, even if its for the sake of making Him relatable. The OT literally assigns human emotions to God: angry, disappointed, pleased, etc. Am I missing something?

>>9162378
>The prose is obviously beautiful
And why is that? And I assumed that you never actually read much of the Bible. And this assumption wouldn't be too far fetched. And that you're just another one repeating what others have told you to say about the Bible in order to make your criticism look more superficially balanced and moderate. And I then left the thread. And people from every quarter began replying to me to complain.

>>9162546
Yeah. You've read a lot, but your understanding is poor. A lot of things on the Bible are allegories and form of speech.

Have you even read Job?

>>9162591
I haven't read the Bible since I was 10 or so.

Whether it's meant to be taken literally or not, it very much depicts God as a human being.

File: wth.jpg (7KB, 185x273px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 185x273px

>>9162546
>being perfect means being unable to react to anything

>mfw God is made out of hydrogen

>>9162626
depictions are made in order for less-educated people to understand them. God is depicted as a human being because people back then were unable to properly understand His Message, they worked all day long and didn't have the benefit of free time to shitpost in 4chan.

Read Job for a clear depiction of God.

>>9162641
>depictions are made in order for less-educated people to understand them. God is depicted as a human being because people back then were unable to properly understand His Message

?

Why did you get so anal about the statement "the Bible very clearly humanizes God, even if its for the sake of making Him relatable", only to rephrase the same point two posts later?

>>9162673
Why are you so anal about the fact that God was depicted (and still is depicted) with humanlike imperfection in order for people to accept His Message?

The reason was already explained, why do you keep digging?

>>9162591
just finished the historical books of the OT and will start Job tomorrow. I am pretty excited for the 'poetical books' that follow Job. What am I in for?

>>9162688
Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books because of the philosophy of life it depicts. Job may have been different for me (mostly because I was atheist/agnostic until a few weeks ago) but it's one of the most beautiful ways God could be described to you.

>>9162641
>muh allegorical interpretation
There are as many of those as there are fishes in the sea. Not to mention that even Biblical canon is not uniform. Theism is a meme. Read Bible for the cultural value, not the dogmatic moralfaggotry.

>>9162591
No his understanding is good, this humanness shows up even in the trinity, which is based on and sustained by love. It shows up in the Father's inflexible justice, who despite allowing mankind to bear Concupiscence and subjection to death (something that Christianity has always, literally, considered to be a unnatural phenomenon resulting from the first disobedience) saves mankind from just annihilation by destroying his own son instead. This of course, hinges on a "metaphorical" interpretation of the flood, when God did annihilate mankind; but would then invalidate any covenant God made with the Gentiles through Noah, which the catechism maintains that he did.

At the end of the day it's hard to have an accurate picture of or debate about the trinity, because of the limited capacities used by the writers of scripture and later church fathers' in embalming what is "orthodox".

When Jesus said painfully human things like "Why do you call me good? No one is good but the father alone", or "I came only for the lost sheep of Israel; don't take the children's food and throw it to the dogs"; was that all metaphor? Or when the apostles have the miracle of multiplying bread and fish performed to them twice without them understanding it; is that metaphor, were their hearts truly hardened, or was that a nice way for Peter to be the sole one to recognize Jesus as his "lord and god"?

There's a reason why the trinity took 3 centuries to develop, and even then develop not even fully. It was a haphazard, human invention limited by the educations of its authors, needing to emphasize certain parts of it at certain times for political reasons.

>>9162725
Large varieties of interpretations do not invalidate the correct ones

>>9162378
>How does one read the Bible and feel inclined to be religious and believe in God?

But who actually does this? Most people believe before they have read the bible

>>9162738
And in what way is what you said contradicting what I said? You even admitted to it; the Trinity is a human invention made in order to understand God. Whether it was hijacked for political reasons or not is irrelevant; it doesn't even matter for purposes of this thread because OP talks about the Bible, not depictions of the Trinity.

>>9162447
>God cares about humans
God only cares about a very small group of chosen humans, and even then afflicts them with every malady and curse that exists for seemingly arbitrary reasons

>>9162754
>these are correct because I believe them to be correct

>>9162807
>>9162835
*tips fedora*

>>9162846
Great argument. Really made me think.

>>9162855
say something stupid, wait a stupid answer.

>>9162859
>I have no counterargument therefore yours is stupid
top meme

>>9162764
Well if your goal was to hide behind interpretations of all embarrassing parts of the Bible as being allegories, you've already failed. There are some parts where the entire religion depends on a (if not strictly literal) physical, historical reading of such events.

Job and Noah can be interpreted as metaphors, for the first one is an allegory, and the second only does minor damage to church claims.

The first disobedience can't be dismissed as pure metaphor, since the status of Jesus being the literal "new Adam" and liberator of mankind from origional sin and death are ruined by such an interpretation. Trying to reconcile the concepts of concupiscence and original sin with the historical record of say, evolution; undermines the very status of Jesus as God and savior. A literal interpretation of Genesis may be damaged by evolution, but a metaphorical interpretation of it ruins Jesus; since Jesus is no longer reversing an unnatural invasion of death brought upon humanity by itself. This is the long product of men who thought they were being clever when trying to omit the mistakes made of a God with very human attributes; and had the advantages of widespread illiteracy, obscurantism, and this weaseling game of multiple interpretations used at feeling that you're playing now. The Bible may have parts that are less literal than others, but it's not up to you to recklessly interpret which parts are which for argument.

No need to thank me, just stay in your lane next time.

>>9162865
what counterargument can I have to your maltheistic view of God if I don't know the reason you think so? Expect a counterargument when you have a well built argument to begin with.

>>9162892
My argument was your completely arbitrary selection of Bible interpretations which are 'correct'. This guy >>9162875 gets it.

>>9162908
no, it's not an argument because you somehow built a maltheistic view of God because you take the entire Bible literally.

>>9162875
so you expect the Bible (Word of God but product of human hands) to be scientifically exact at all times? Not only is the entire start of the Book of Genesis an allegory; Jesus as the second Adam is one too. It's laughable that you think that any respectable Church seriously thinks that humanity was condemned by the sins of one man and one woman.

>>9162963
>you somehow built a maltheistic
You replied to two different people in one brilliant fedoratipping post, you absolute twit.

>>9163005
I'm not even that guy but you didn't adress his point. That the fact that there are multiple interpretations doesn't change that there is a correct interpretation. You just greentexted him and implied that he thought he knew the truth.

>>9163021
There is virtually no way to tell which interpretation is correct. That was implied by the greentext.

>>9163041
>there is virtually no way to tell
yeah, there's not. But you can approach to a correct interpretation. Human understanding changes and so our interpretations change. That doesn't make their intended message less true.

>>9163064
>humanitard logic in action
>yeah, there's not. But you can approach to a correct interpretation.
If there's no way to tell which interpretation is correct, then there's no way to tell whether you're approaching it.
>Human understanding changes and so our interpretations change. That doesn't make their intended message less true.
If you don't know the exact meaning of the message, then there's no way to assess its veracity.

>>9162378
There is no way you read Descartes and Leibniz in any substantial amount if you're unable to see the bible for what it is.

>>9162461
>God is Love
Someone skipped the first half of the bible.

>>9162378
>assigning human qualities to a supposedly perfect being

In theology this is referred to as anthropopathy, similar to anthropomorphism. Assigning human characteristics to God does not render him human. It is an analogical condescension of God to fit human understanding. The knowledge that God possesses of himself, the perfect understanding of God, is referred to as the archetype. The condescended knowledge that humans possess of God is called the ectype. The ectype is true and reliable because it is revealed to us by God himself, that we might understand him in accord with our finite capability.

>>9162963
Scripture never treats Christ, Genesis, or Adam as allegorical. Genesis is describing a supernatural event (creation) and is thus not a scientific text, as science can only speak of natural phenomena.

>>9162378
>Plato helped improve my outlook on life and develop my own self
>I'm rereading the Bible now at age 23 and the portrayal of God just seems silly

???????????

>>9162378
You should apply to the concepts of Cbristianity directly to your life, especially the gospels. I was raised a Catholic but didn't understand the inner-peace and love of Christianity until I began to live it, though it comes and goes. When you truly forgive in your heart, and let go of anger, and love those around you, and stand up to evil with peace, it changes the way you live and feel. It truly alleviates the weight of the world to spread peace. I hope to never lose what I've learned from this religion.

>>9163423
Let me clarify
>I saw an 8-bit philosophy vid on Playo and now believe I understand his logic
>Been watching Zeitgeist and other YT vids about Christianity and God and now think the concept is a bit silly

>>9163311
baby's atheist first argument

OH NO YOU DIDN'T READ THE BIBLE GOD KILLS EVERYONE LOOOL XD

Try to actually read the first half. Our existence and consciousness is a love gift from God. No matter how hard you seem to think that God is bound to our notions of morality.

>>9163342
>Scripture never treats Christ, Genesis, or Adam as allegorical
An allegory will never treat itself as an allegory. That would be missing the point of being an allegory.

>>9163342
also I'm not the one expecting the Bible to be scientifically accurate; that was the anon I was discussing with. He wants to reconcile the concept of evolution with the Bible; the Bible was never meant to be taken as scientific (or anything of the sort) truth.

File: fearandtremb.jpg (23KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x375px

>>9162378
stop thinking about it like it's an issue you have to decide upon or find personal, immediate truth in

let yourself fall into the 2000 year old of gravity of the thing, the sum of the agony over it and the general agony of mankind

don't tell that visiting the golgotha wouldn't make you tremble just a little, if only for it being the host of the axis upon which western history turns

>>9163983
>>9163985
There is nothing in the text that would signal that it is allegorical. All of it is clearly literal. The New Testament treats it as literal as well. If you want an example of allegory, look at Song of Solomon. (from a Christian perspective) It plays directly to the Church as the bride of Christ typology and contains examples of marital behavior that only make sense in this allegorical context, such as allowing the wife to wander about and get beaten by city guards. You are trying to warp the text just as much as the other person is.

>>9162378
>but I feel no inclination to move past a basic, metaphysical "One" as my interpretation of God.

Stay there, that's the most reasonable definition of god. The monotheistic God is a sadistic monster and his cucked followers will find any excuse for his deliberate wickedness. Don't let the demiurge deceive you.

>>9162688
Nipples

Most of the western philosophers you are going to read or probably have read were believing Christians. This isn't an appeal to them, it's just making a point: there's more to the bible than you're going to get on uninformed reading.

Christianity is a theological religion. It's really the only theological religion. Even the other Judaeo-christian religions (Islam, Judaism) don't have as much focus on theology or a developed theology beyond jurisprudence and ritual.

If you're serious about actually understanding Christianity, you should read theologians and Christian philosophers.

The average believer that fills the pews isn't going to be a lay theologian, but even in those cases, they've been sitting in the pews listening to preachers/priests. That's the way in which they get their theology. People don't come to Christ that often by simply reading the bible. When it happens, it happens almost exclusively in reading the New Testament and being attracted to the figure of Jesus. But around them are evangelists and preachers and that's how people really learn.

>but I feel no inclination to move past a basic, metaphysical "One" as my interpretation of God. What exactly is the rational behind thinking God cares about us personally and behind assigning human qualities to a supposedly perfect being?

Even if you don't believe in a Scotist/theistic personalist God whose qualities are the same as humans but to the greatest degree, I don't see how you can't find the truth in the Christian God. The Thomists don't believe in the latter God you're describing.