Guys I'm scared. What if the Bible is actually true? The

If it worries you become a Christian, It can't hurt trying.

>>9997823

I know you're just forcing a shitty meme but I'm just going to pretend that you're sincere out of the minuscule hope that an actual discussion might ensue.

What spooked you in particular? The imagery?

You should be afraid, if you haven't made reconciliation with God.

There's still time.

File: 1438433651355.png (374KB, 562x390px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 562x390px

The Revelation of Jon was not written by John, Son of Zebedee, but by Cerinthus.

On an unironic note though, it is not like Revelation has any fixed understanding within the community of Christ.
It contradicts Pauline doctrine, and important commentators have little to no consensus on the Book's significance;
Augustine takes it as a symbolic struggle of virtue and vice, Justin Martyr/Papias/Irenaeus/Tertullian thought it to mean the establishment of a physical Kingdom of God,
Origen denouncing them for holding such materialistic understanding of scripture, Luther wanting to exclude it entirely and so on.
Regardless of the truth of content, there are a multitude of formal interpretations within Christendom.

Most likely (and this is just my opinion), Revelation is a poetic summation of the early Church's situation and a prescriptive document written in reaction to the destruction of the Temple in 70 B.C. ,
done in the tradition of Judaic and Mesopotamian Apocalyptism viz a viz the elements of divine symmetry/transcendental patterns present within the concepts of the promise and the fulfillment,
as well as divine judgement, divine disclosure, divine mediation and divine assembly being used to convey the symbolic ties between Heaven and Earth.
In more practical matters it served as a call for the early Church to fortify itself against the influence of Hellenistic and Romanized cities within Asia Minor,
and to not do as Romans do in Rome, contrary to what Ambrose later said;and it is (also in my opinion) the reason the early Christian church survived its infancy.

>>9998060
so what do you think is its significance for today's Christians? (assuming you're a believer too)

>>9997844
The fuck are you talking about you absolute retard?

>>9997823
>What if the Bible is actually true?
It is. Repent of your sins and trust in Jesus.

You don't need to worry about the Bible. What you really need to worry is if the stuff Kevin MacDonald says in his book, The Culture of Critique, is true. Protip: it is.

File: 1486160921100.jpg (111KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 803x688px

>>9997823

Christfags really are just the other side of the "atheist with a fedora" coin

>>9997823
Too many internal contradictions and nonsense for it to be true.

>>9998380
such as
>inb4 block of text

>>9997823
>Dude the universe was literally created by a magic sky daddy lmao
>dude people with thousand year lifespans lmao
>Dude sticks turning into snakes lmao
>Dude resurrecting people from the dead LMAO

Yeah no.

>>9998395
>magic sky daddy
Wow, that's a funny name. I guess there's no god.

File: Burgkmair_whore_babylon_color.jpg (614KB, 663x821px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 663x821px

>>9997823
Honestly ever since I was a kid, I wanted everything in this book to happen. It sounds cool as fuck. I know I would probably die and be damned, but still, I'd end my earthly existence witnessing the sickest shit that's ever happened in all of human history.

>Tfw agnostic
>reading addison's evidences of the christoan religion
Im spooked lads

>>9998362
This! We're not autistic virgins anymore! Le narwhal bacons!

>>9998447
stop being agnostic then

>>9997844

I'd be happy to clarify if you would perchance express the source of your confusion a little more transparently.

>>9998525
What confusion?

File: 1501525407033.png (798KB, 617x793px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 617x793px

>>9998456
>he hides behind five layers of irony to distract himself from his life

>>9997823
I am god and I say that you have nothing to worry about.

File: atheist.jpg (35KB, 480x679px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x679px

>>9998571

>>9998581
Just because the creation of our universe can't be explained as of now (and probably never will) that doesn't mean that a higher deity is the cause

>>9998604
a higher being is literally the best and only explanation

>>9998608
The masons know the creator is real. They also literally control the earth.

>>9998608
How many times in the course of history has the best explanation been disproved with time and discovery?

>>9998630
Are you admitting god is the best explanation?

>>9998636
No, I'm acknowledging you think it is. It is one plausible explanation but there's no evidence other than wishful thinking so I don't really put it above any other explanation for example a computer simulation

File: christian scientists.gif (820KB, 3558x3364px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 3558x3364px

>>9998571
Are these the same logic and facts that come from Christian thinkers?

>>9998643
There's no evidence for anything beyond the begging of the universe though. Approaching it like that would get you nowhere.

>>9998651
>lol these people are religious so religion must be a good thing
>completely ignores the medieval age

>>9998608
Maybe you can argue that a universe without a God is illogical, but how does the existence of a God make sense either way?

Existence is just a mind fuck, and no religion or scientific observation so far can actually explain it. And I don't think it matters.

>>9998660
That's because there's nowhere to go. We can't know one way or another, so what benefits do we derive by attributing the creation of the universe to God if not to promote a particular religious agenda. How do we know which God created the universe? Every religion has their own creation myth.

File: darkages.png (92KB, 728x324px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 728x324px

>>9998661
>The church spends countless resources preserving ancient Latin and Greek texts from the civil wars raging throughout Europe in the anarchy left after the fall of Rome
>Some retarded fedora attributes the dark ages to Christianity

>>9998673
>so what benefits do we derive by attributing the creation of the universe to God if not to promote a particular religious agenda.
Well if there is a creator and that religious agenda is correct then there's not much to lose by signing up for it.
>How do we know which God created the universe?
There's nothing I can say that Aquinas hasn't already said.
>Every religion has their own creation myth.
This is true. Generally speaking many of the same themes run through them. When analysing history this is a good way of securing the authenticity of something, similar themes with slight differences of detail. For some reason the same principle is not carried over for religious history.

>>9998672
>Existence is just a mind fuck, and no religion or scientific observation so far can actually explain it. And I don't think it matters.
literally bro tier science

>>9998630
whats that have to do with anything?
might as well not believe anything then if you're going to be so cynical, especially historical events

>>9998690
Well yeah, that's the point.

these hurricanes and earthquakes are proof of revelation's authenticity.

>>9998813
you're crazy if you think that

>>9998820
you're crazy if you dont think that

heh, gottem.

>>9997823
>Old Testament in OP's pic
Gotta take with a grain of salt. In Leviticus Chapter 20 there's a bunch of stuff about when it's ok to put people to death, including 20:13 which says something like 'if a man lies with another man like he would a woman, then they should be put to death' or something like that. The thing is, what did Jesus say? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", meaning He went DIRECTLY against some parts of the Old Testament since it has points where it instructs COMMUNITIES to come out and stone someone to death for such-and-such a reason.

Why should you be scared though? All Jesus Christ wants us to do is live good lives, and to my knowledge He supports the 10 commandments from the Old Testament which I think are very reasonable rules to live by though even in the New Testament there's ONE passage that gives ONE situation where it's ok to kill. If a thief breaks into your home at night and is dealt with a fatal blow, it is not manslaughter. The next passage specifies night, though. If the Sun is risen, then it's murder. I don't agree with it, but still, I'm glad there's SOMETHING in the Bible (pretty sure it's New Testament) that supports self-defence.

Meanwhile in the Quran the only 'thou shalt not kill' I could find is "believers (Muslims) do not kill yourselves or one another". Meaning Muslims should not commit suicide or murder other Muslims. There's several passages however that instructs them to fight in the name of Allah, and even passages that say if they REFUSE to fight in the name of Allah then they will be punished.

I like being Christian, and would rather die than convert to Islam. Sadly, there are literally millions of Muslims out there who would be happy provide such an ultimatum.

>>10000187
>what did Jesus say? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", meaning He went DIRECTLY against some parts of the Old Testament since it has points where it instructs COMMUNITIES to come out and stone someone to death for such-and-such a reason.

Wrong. Jesus did not got against the Old testament. The pharisees were trying to trap him. The Romans forbade the Jews from executing anyone. That's why the Pharisees went to Pilate to execute Jesus.

Jesus is 100% FOR her death, but he cannot incite violence or he would be punished by the Romans for doing so. That's why he comes out with what he did. It's very clever from him really. What he said isn't against the Old Testament and it also isn't inciting violence. See you actually need to study the Bible to understand it friend :^)

>>9997823

What if the only truth in the Bible is that it's the dullest book in the history of literature? Seriously, each episode following the fickle God and his chosen people as they fight assorted unbelievers has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the book's only consistency is its lack of excitement and ineffective use of prophecies, all to make miracles unmiraculous, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when God vetoed the idea of Satan directing the book; He made sure the book would never be mistaken for a work that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross promotion for His ideology. The Bible might be pro-Gnostic (or not), but it's certainly the most anti-Greek pantheon in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the prose was good though

No!

The writing is dreadful, the book was terrible.
As I read, I noticed that every time a character had a child, the author wrote instead that the character "begat". I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times.

I was incredulous. God's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that He has no other style of writing. Later, I read a loving, lavish review of the Bible by Joseph Smith. He wrote something to the effect of "if these kids are reading the Bible at 11 or 12, then when they got older they will go on to read golden plates". And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read the Bible, you are, in fact, trained to read Joseph Smith.

>>9998581
>>9998608
There is literature no reason to think the universe didn't come from nothing, prove me wrong

>>9998686
Except you could lose valuable parts of this only life in your own imagination, and also pascal's wager is shit

Many of the same themes run through them likely because they represent virtues some people think are good for the progress and social cohesion of a society. And for supernatural postulations, the same heuristics don't hold - you need a little more than vaguely similar themes.

>>10000199
If he was for her death, he could have just convinced the Romans to execute her, or the Jews at least banish her, rather than show kindness towards her. What terrible exegesis

>>9998651
Sperg-tastic post, anon! Totally not an ad-homonem! Praise kek and touch ____~!

>>9998581
>unironically posting facebook memes

Books before revelations: books to convince simpletons through simple advices and moral tips
Revelation: hail-mary attempt to convince those last few skeptics by fear and terror

You know that I'm right.

File: JUST.png (698KB, 600x640px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 600x640px

>yfw you're a Christian
>yfw the "greatest mind" of Christianity, Thomas Aquinas, thought that the universe was expressly designed for the pleasure of humanity
>yfw you now realize it's almost a certainty that aliens exist
>yfw you realize your religion is stupid as piss

File: reviewbrah shiggy.jpg (97KB, 415x454px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 415x454px

>>10001020
>>yfw you now realize it's almost a certainty that aliens exist

Gonna have to disagree with you there, bro.

>>10001023

>billions of potential earth-like planets in a galaxy
>billions of galaxies and more in the universe
>possibly not even a single universe but more
>conditions to start life can be found all across space

>dude I just don't think aliens exist, man, praise Christ

>>10001033
Don't you think God would have mentioned it in the Bible if he made other beings elsewhere?

>>9997823
Revelation isn't supposed to spook anyone at all, but it's done in the genre of Jewish apocryphal literature so it comes across as some kind of end-of-days spookfest. The purpose of the book is actually to uplift Christians going forward into times of persecution, with the ultimate message being that God won't ever forget their suffering and is always in control. The end times and judgment will certainly be rough for people who chose to go without God's salvation, but it's not like some huge event or craziness with happen on earth to signal it. The bible says that the end will come "like a thief in the night," so we're all probably just going to wake up one morning and be like "oh ok".

File: brain.jpg (55KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x450px

>>10001036

>>9998060
>It contradicts Pauline doctrine

An unsurprising comment from someone who lists heresiarchs like Origen and Luther amidst serious Biblical study.

>>10000353
>There is literature no reason to think the universe didn't come from nothing, prove me wrong

You cannot metaphysically justify this position, but unfortunately you haven't put in the time studying philosophy to understand why. How does ANYTHING exist at this very moment? Walk it back to the first cause and your life will change forever.

>>10001036
Good point, that's why he mentions all those peoples who didn't interact with Jews and the roman empire

>>10001331
Fuck off the first cause to prove God exists requires saying God is the exception to the rule, at which point you establish things can exist without a cause, making the universe existing without a cause just as likely, if not more likely, than God existing without a cause and making the universe

>>9997823
Revelation is a bunch of nonsense designed to spook the romans...... probably

I remember being a boy at church reading all the wacky stuff there

>>10001001
It wasn't an ad hominem you sperg.

>>9998651
Generally the developments of those thinkers were only possible because they freed themselves from the shackles of fundamentalist religion and stopbusing religion as a crutch to explain the world. When they returned to fundamentalism and the crutch, their thinking was hampered, like what happened to Newton with his gods hand keeping the planets in orbit

File: mystic_lamb.jpg (609KB, 2000x1268px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 2000x1268px

He that hurteth, let him hurt still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star. And the spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: and he that will, let him take the water of life, freely. For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

>>10000358
Are you actually that stupid?

Holy fucking shit what a literal mongoloid.

>>10001261
>Revelation isn't supposed to spook anyone at all

Well it did, and it does.

File: 1500374325674.png (365KB, 478x498px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 478x498px

>>10002129
>not a single argument

>>10002218
You didn't provide an argument either

>WHY DIDN'T JESUS DO THIS?

umm because he didn't I guess?

>>10000353
nothing has ever been observed to come from nothing

>>9998344
Uh pretty sure both books are true.

>>9998571
Imaging the physical appearance of the person who added the text to this gif made me sad.

>>9997823
it has unicorns and wizards I would not be concerned if you want more proof the bible said no one with foreskin will enter jerusalem

>>10002266
Your reading comprehension is terrible, as are your critical thinking skills. I didn't say "why didn't jesus do this", I showed the existence of alternatives which would be predicted is he really was for her death yet did not want to incite the Jews to kill her immediately. The fact jesus didn't choose those options implies the claims of the anon I was first replying to are bullshit

>>10002810
And nothing has ever been observed to come from God, so we have two hypotheses which are both equally unsupported by the evidence. Yet, by Occam's razor it's clear which one should be chosen

>>10004672
>I showed the existence of alternatives which would be predicted is he really was for her death yet did not want to incite the Jews to kill her immediately. The fact jesus didn't choose those options implies the claims of the anon I was first replying to are bullshit

I don't actually understand what you're saying here. Grammatically this makes no sense at all.

>>9998608
no explanation is the best and only explanation
the only entity who could ever end this planet is the homo sapien

>>10004672
>which are both equally unsupported by the evidence
thats where you're wrong
everything with any degree of complexity is observed to come from a creator, as far as we know
so the universe, considering how complex it is, as well as DNA and life in general, should also be assumed to have a creator... by Occam's razor of course :^) something being created by something else is the norm, something created by nothing would be QUITE the singularity

>>10004720
Phoneposting, my mistake
*predicted if he

>>10004722
No, we don't know that at all, gimme citations pls. I really hope you're not going by the creations of humans, because that would then be undergrad-tier extrapolation given the tiny sample size in relation to the entirety of the universe and your lack of defining what complexity is in the natural world

>>10004738
citation of what? I said AS FAR AS WE KNOW, everything that we see has a creator. Unless you can name one thing that you KNOW doesn't have a creator? no I don't think so

Yes the creation of life implies a creator as well. Biogenesis, biological law, states that life can only come from life, which implies life could only have stemmed from an infinite living GOD... Otherwise it would be turtles all the way down. and abiogenesis is a hypothesis that hasn't progressed passed paper

>>10004745
Kek nice understanding of the burden of proof, you can't just, when asked for evidence, demand evidence of the opposing viewpoint instead
I just want you to state which things you know were made by creators, ideally outside of human creations to avoid shit-tier extra

Biogenesis isn't a law, as such, simply a useful principle for complex life. Statistically, it's possible though improbable for even complex life to occur from non-life. There is no reason life in the simplest sense can't come from non-life, and there are many promising hypotheses, which you'd know if you were even remotely familiar with the literature

>>10004764
>I just want you to state which things you know were made by creators
>ideally outside of creators
okay then, all the shit made by other living things. animals and bugs create shit all the time. although theres absolutely no reason why humans should be exempted. "shit tier extra" is literally nothing

>There is no reason life in the simplest sense can't come from non-life
except its never been observed, and the only thing that HAS been observed is life coming from life.
name a "promising" hypothesis, just one, that actually has promising evidence behind it. since you've read the literature, it should be easy for you. and summarize it since you understand it so well, so I don't have to waste my time reading an essay by some euphoric stranger on a chinese image board

>>10004738
Alright, even still it makes no sense. I don't understand the point that you're making.

>>10004777
Shit-tier *extrapolation is why humans should be exempted, and if you're going by all animals on earth that point still stands. Unless you believe in ayylmaos which many christcucks don't want to do, the number of your creations are still dwarfed by the mass of objects that aren't creations in the universe, so still an absolute shit extrapolation. Also, wouldnt saying creation requires intent and consciousness be more in line with your worldview?

The hypotheses don't exist in isolation and aren't mutually exclusive, it's likely through the combination of most hypotheses that simple self-replicating genetic information enclosed in a membrane came to be, micelle formation with montmorillonite clay is how that membrane likely formed, and the formation of the genetic information itself is just chemistry

>>10004783
It's pretty clear desu
Jesus allegedly want thing (kill woman but not make Jews kill woman) . Jesus not do thing that would be expected if he want kill woman. This mean jesus not want kill woman.

>>10004802
>Jesus allegedly want thing (kill woman but not make Jews kill woman) . Jesus not do thing that would be expected if he want kill woman. This mean jesus not want kill woman.

Wait what? Jesus absolutely did not want to kill the woman. Where did you get that idea from? Also you haven't read the post which disproves the very thing you're saying here.

Complete brainlet this guy.

>>10004802
>the number of your creations are still dwarfed by the mass of objects that aren't creations in the universe, so still an absolute shit extrapolation.
well, I named things that are creations, so I think its fair to ask you to name some things which aren't creations... since you claim there are more non-creations than creations.. don't forget to provide evidence that said object isn't a creation

>>10004806
You seem to have forgotten what
>>10000199 said, and that's the point I'm refuting.
Which post disproves the very thing I said there?

Ironic how you call me a brainlet but cannot mentally keep track of a single thread. Motes, eyes, etc.

>>10004809
I don't think you did name things that were creations since you didn't address the concept of intent and consciousness being required to actually make creations as would be predicted by your worldview, because to not believe those traits required is very much in the vein of deterministic materialism

>>10004832
>Which post disproves the very thing I said there?

I'll walk you through this since you are quite clearly mentally retarded. The Pharisees do their best to entrap Jesus. Quick question: why was Jesus killed? Answer: the Sanhedrin entrapped him by getting him to claim to be God. Jesus did not specifically say that he was God.
And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself."
Matthew 26:64
This is the same Technique that Jesus uses when confronted with the adulterous woman. There is no way for him to win, they have him trapped. So what does he do? He comes out with a clever retort. He doesn't directly say the thing which they want him to say, but he still comes out upholding the Biblical law.

That is what my post said, but since your IQ is clearly very low I had to explain the same thing twice over.

>>10004847
And now you're ignoring the fact that you said "jesus was 100% FOR her death "

There is a way for him to win because he's a prophet and privy to the infinite knowledge of God, maybe? So if he truly wanted to kill the woman he could have convinced the Jews to get the Romans to do it, as they did for him.

>>10004855
>And now you're ignoring the fact that you said "jesus was 100% FOR her death "

Well yes he clearly is.
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matthew 5:17
>If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10

>There is a way for him to win because he's a prophet and privy to the infinite knowledge of God, maybe? So if he truly wanted to kill the woman he could have convinced the Jews to get the Romans to do it, as they did for him.
And now you're question why Jesus did or didn't do a thing again. You literally argue in a circle and can't read.

Why didn't he fly to the moon if he's God xD dude BLAZE IT

Epic my boy.

>>10004832
>I don't think you did name things that were creations since you didn't address the concept of intent and consciousness being required to actually make creations as would be predicted by your worldview

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT YOUR WORLDVIEW IS

>>10004864
I'm not questioning it you pleb, I'm showing you that if he can do something,s and he wants to do something (I.e kill the woman) and there is a way he can do something, he should logically be expected to do that thing in that way, and that way would be to get the Jews to get the Romans to kill the woman, because that's what he want. You're completely avoiding this argument by creating strawman like fly to the moon lmao.
And you could very much say your understanding of the translation of the word fulfil is off, as many Christians do. Some think he came to complete them and his own law, to live your neighbour as thyself, supercedes the other laws. Don't act like this vague teaching (vague in part due to translation) necessarily means what you think it means or supports what you think it supports.

>>10004872
I'm pretty sure you're not a materialist, I'm fairly sure you're not a determinist, and I'm quite sure that's not an argument

>>10004885
>I'm not questioning it you pleb

Not questioning what?

I'm showing you that if he can do something,s and he wants to do something (I.e kill the woman) and there is a way he can do something, he should logically be expected to do that thing in that way, and that way would be to get the Jews to get the Romans to kill the woman, because that's what he want. You're completely avoiding this argument by creating strawman like fly to the moon lmao.

Why would he waste his time getting this woman killed? Why are you questioning the motives of the Son of God? I have completely annihilated you and yet you still cling to this irrelevant "argument" that in your mind has any point.

>And you could very much say your understanding of the translation of the word fulfil is off, as many Christians do. Some think he came to complete them and his own law, to live your neighbour as thyself, supercedes the other laws. Don't act like this vague teaching (vague in part due to translation) necessarily means what you think it means or supports what you think it supports.

What?

>>10001366
>requires saying God is the exception to the rule
maybe that's because the *rule* only applies to contingent facts
damn how can theism even recover after ur argument

>>10001366
>Fuck off the first cause to prove God exists requires saying God is the exception to the rule, at which point you establish things can exist without a cause, making the universe existing without a cause just as likely, if not more likely, than God existing without a cause and making the universe
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the difference is that one side is claiming, "God exists without a cause," and the other side is claiming, "The universe came into existence without a cause." Those aren't the same thing. Unless you are positing that the universe has an eternal existence. Is that scientifically credible?

>>10004894
He would waste time getting this woman killed because by your own argument you said he wants the woman to be killed based on your assumption he follows the outdated Jewish law in leviticus . This is getting infuriating

That's a perfectly clear paragraph, I'm not here to be the reading comprehension teacher you so sorely need

>>10004896
And the uncaused existence of the universe is just as contingent a fact as the uncaused existence of God

>>10004903
Yes, but the key part is they make the exception and beg the question.
An eternal existence isn't necessarily for an uncaused universe, but an eternal existent may be possible, but it depends on how the expansion of the universe goes

>>10001020
From the series "weird atheist arguments":
1 - Aliens exist
2 - Therefore God ain't real
3 - Therefore I'm allowed to be anally fucked by chad

>>10004938
>He would waste time getting this woman killed because by your own argument you said he wants the woman to be killed based on your assumption he follows the outdated Jewish law in leviticus . This is getting infuriating

So he doesn't have better things to do? I mean we can assume that he didn't bother with that one single woman. He was there to save all of us, not to punish one sinnier.

And once again you use circular logic thinking that you know why Jesus did or didn't do things. I refer you to the Book of Job.

>>10004938
>And the uncaused existence of the universe is just as contingent a fact as the uncaused existence of God
"the moon is clouds"

>>10004938
>An eternal existence isn't necessarily for an uncaused universe
So are you claiming that it may have come into existence without cause?

>>10004948
>3 - Therefore I'm allowed to be anally fucked by chad
God is the only thing stopping you from going out and getting buttfucked

>>10004959
yeah that's why I deny him otherwise I'd feel guilty

>>10004952
If he did get that woman killed, it would fully show, unequivocally, his stance on the laws of the ot, so I'd say it's a pretty fucking important thing for him to do if he truly did fully espouse all the laws including that of leviticus. And in not doing so he made his stance questionable, meaning he may have failed to save all the people who read the bible and reasonably came to the conclusion that leviticus should be ignored because jesus' teachings outrank it

How am I using circular thinking?

>>10004958
That is what is an "uncaused universe" means

>>10004966
>If he did get that woman killed, it would fully show, unequivocally, his stance on the laws of the ot, so I'd say it's a pretty fucking important thing for him to do if he truly did fully espouse all the laws including that of leviticus. And in not doing so he made his stance questionable, meaning he may have failed to save all the people who read the bible and reasonably came to the conclusion that leviticus should be ignored because jesus' teachings outrank it

But he did do that as I have already shown you.

>How am I using circular thinking?

You have used the "why didn't Jesus kill this woman?" argument at least 5 times now.

>>10004971
He did do what?

That's not what circular thinking is, jfc. And I keep making it because you haven't refuted it, the closest you've come to even addressing it is a strawman with fly to the moon

>>10004980
>He did do what?

see >>10004864

>That's not what circular thinking is, jfc. And I keep making it because you haven't refuted it, the closest you've come to even addressing it is a strawman with fly to the moon

Job 38:4-7

>>10004966
>That is what is an "uncaused universe" means
I think this may be the same as saying it was created by God, as something being caused by nothing and something being caused by an undetectable cause are indistinguishable from each other.

>>10004985
And I addressed how that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means in the paragraph you somehow couldn't parse and replied to with "What?"

Book of job is pants on head retarded, it's basically an entire book devoted to "muh mysterious ways lmao" and if you're going to go that route it's ultimately you who thinks you can understand the workings of God and jesus because you're not taking what jesus does at face value and instead trying to apply your own logic and saying "even though he was outwardly espousing tolerance and a lack of hypocrisy, he really wanted to kill that woman secretly, I know and understand this despite not being God, you don't and you need to check yourself and read job" so fuck off

>>10005003
>And I addressed how that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means in the paragraph you somehow couldn't parse and replied to with "What?"

Explain it again in a more readable way.

>Book of job is pants on head retarded
ok I guess
it's basically an entire book devoted to "muh mysterious ways lmao"
No it isn't
and if you're going to go that route it's ultimately you who thinks you can understand the workings of God and jesus
literally the opposite you fucking retard
because you're not taking what jesus does at face value
But I am doing that very thing
and instead trying to apply your own logic and saying "even though he was outwardly espousing tolerance and a lack of hypocrisy, he really wanted to kill that woman secretly
But he was doing it openly
I know and understand this despite not being God, you don't and you need to check yourself and read job" so fuck off
So I can't understand anything in the Bible although God has given us this book to be understood?

Quick question. Do you think we right now are not allowed to eat shellfish?

>>10005011
>Quick question. Do you think we right now are not allowed to eat shellfish?
yes, that's because I'm a brainlet who only thinks that all christians accept sola scriptura

>>10005017
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

You actually don't know a thing about the Bible do you?

>>10005019
SHUT UP
my reading of the bible is correct, every prior christian interpretation was incorrect because they are evil

>>10005024
Post pussy

>>10005027
stop opressing me I am only poor atheist girl who needs no man

>>10005019
>>10005019
>>10005024
>>10005027
>>10005029
Schizophrenic samefag, stop posting

>>10005011
Translation of the word which corresponds to fulfil doesn't necessarily mean fulfil in the sense you mean. Some Christians think Jesus' teaching to love youe neighbour as thyself supercedes the old laws

It is though, job goes through suffering caused by God for a bet and then God tells him "bro haha you cant understand my mysterious ways, I'm just too random for you *rawr*, get over it"

He was doing what openly?

And now you're being a hypocrite saying you can understand what God is saying and what jesus *really* meant, but only you can do that.

If you're following the old Testament fully then, yes. I don't know why you would because it doesn't necessarily mean jesus wanted that, but eh

>inb4 muh ceremonial/dietary/moral laws

>>10005037
>Schizophrenic samefag, stop posting
you seem angry :3

File: 1504963637325.jpg (153KB, 722x525px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 722x525px

@10005057
>:3

>>10005037
>Translation of the word which corresponds to fulfil doesn't necessarily mean fulfil in the sense you mean. Some Christians think Jesus' teaching to love youe neighbour as thyself supercedes the old laws

You think I'll listen to a retard who thought that Jesus was contradicting himself on Biblical translations?

>It is though, job goes through suffering caused by God for a bet and then God tells him "bro haha you cant understand my mysterious ways, I'm just too random for you *rawr*, get over it"

And you were mocking me for posting stuff like "Why didn't he fly to the moon if he's God xD dude BLAZE IT"?

>He was doing what openly?

see >>10004864
once again

>And now you're being a hypocrite saying you can understand what God is saying and what jesus *really* meant, but only you can do that.

You misunderstand Job. You cannot know why things happen, but God gives us commandments to follow. I can know that murder is bad because God has told me so. I cannot know why evil things happen to moral men because I am but a man.

>If you're following the old Testament fully then, yes. I don't know why you would because it doesn't necessarily mean jesus wanted that, but eh

And do I as a Christian need to follow these laws?

>>10005069
Straight off the bat, not even remotely an argument, great

That's an accurate summary of the book of job though , you created a strawman to try and address a point

Your earlier post doesn't address what he you think he was doing openly when he told them not to stone that woman

You cannot know why things happen is synonymous with that section of greentext, the only misunderstanding is yours, of simple sentences. And you have a commandment to follow from jesus directly, and you're saying it was just a clever retort on jesus part and he didn't mean what he said and even wanted the opposite of what he did - yet you're not following that commandment.

Depends on your interpretation of what jesus meant when he said he came to fulfil the law. If you're ignoring Job and saying you know what Jesus really meant, then no, pick and choose. If you think he meant complete rather than replace and that all the OT laws should be held in high regard, then you shouldn't est shellfish . If you're an antinomianist, which seems to follow what jesus said, then it doesn't matter

>>10005093
>what he you think

oh wow

>>10005102
Phoneposting with predictive text, should just be what you think

>>10005093
Because I won't listen to a retard such as yourself when it comes to the deeper meanings of the bible.

>bro haha you cant understand my mysterious ways, I'm just too random for you *rawr*, get over it
>That's an accurate summary of the book of job

I don't think this part is in English actually.

You cannot know why things happen is synonymous with that section of greentext, the only misunderstanding is yours, of simple sentences.

I don't think this is English either.
And you have a commandment to follow from jesus directly
What commandment is that?
>and you're saying it was just a clever retort on jesus part and he didn't mean what he said and even wanted the opposite of what he did - yet you're not following that commandment.
What commandment is that?

>Depends on your interpretation of what jesus meant when he said he came to fulfil the law. If you're ignoring Job and saying you know what Jesus really meant, then no, pick and choose. If you think he meant complete rather than replace and that all the OT laws should be held in high regard, then you shouldn't est shellfish . If you're an antinomianist, which seems to follow what jesus said, then it doesn't matter
>then you shouldn't est shellfish

I rest my case. You are actually braindead.

>>10005110
Another complete non-argument that's just a repetition of what you said the first time yet you somehow think it's novel, amazing

That is what God says to job, it's called satire but the summary is actually accurate

You must be esl, how can you not understand that. How old are you? How many pieces of lite have you read? Genuine questions, I think the answers will be illuminating

"let he who is without sin throw the first stone", and since the fundamental rule of humanity on Christianity is generally nobody can be without sin because reasons, don't throw stones

And another non-argument to finish it off, you're a master of debate and it's an honour to be schooled by you, sir

>>10005116
> The thing is, what did Jesus say? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", meaning He went DIRECTLY against some parts of the Old Testament

:^)

>>10005130
Yup, he can still replace parts of the old law because he has something better, and not abolish the old law in its totality

Also, nice non-response

>>10005116
It's called Satire ok?

>ploop ploop ploop
That's War and Peace

I've read about 600 books in my life

"let he who is without sin throw the first stone" Is not a commandment you fucking mongoloid

Why do you think that I as a Christian shouldn't eat shellfish?

>>10005142
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

You should be afraid. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

>>10005147
>another strawman that isn't even in the same style
Stop

Not just books, pieces of literature. I've read about 900 but at least 2/3 of those were worthless genre fiction, so I wouldn't count them. And, how old are you, since that's the key question and I think it may be relevant to your inability to understand English.

It is a commandment, a commandment is just a divine rule, maybe don't resort to insults when you have no idea what words mean

I explained how it depends on your interpretation in the paragraph you completely failed to respond to

>>10005152
And everlasting life is only gained through the grace of God, and only through following what God wants you to do. So the teachings that give grace of God are in themselves a law, though the focus is not on condemnation and punishment, but instead Redemption and being saved.

File: shrek tipping.jpg (52KB, 702x663px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 702x663px

>>9998571
>>9998380
>>9998395
>>10001010
>>10001020

>>9998356
*tips fedora*

>>10005240

>>>10001010 seems right desu

>>10005283
Improper use of the tipping meme, tipping doesn't apply to egoism. Reported

>>10005308
I can smell your asshurt from my pc

>>9997823
Dude just stop. You've become isolated and disconnected and you are searching for meaning and belonging so hard it's jumping out at you. Revelations is probably having such an effect because of your tendency towards neurosis.

>>10000353
>literature

>>9997823
Don't worry because most of the events in that book already happened. It's mainly about the judgment that befell the Jews in Jerusalem during 70 AD for killing their Messiah. This view is called partial preterism within the field of biblical studies. It's a real thing, and it's true.

Here are some resources you can read through:
https://www.fisheaters.com/endtimes.html
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretsum.php
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.php

File: 1504964999612.jpg (213KB, 500x675px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 500x675px

>>10005240
Not an argument. Lick my feet.

>>10005772
Phoneposting is hard leave me alone

>>10004721
>le we wuz homo zapiens n shiet
Get outta here nigger

>>10000348
Underrated

>>10005819
>Western comic artist makes progress towards emulating japanese style blush highlights.
>He still can't draw hands and feet correctly.