Realistically, how do we return to sanity?

>>34745099
We don't anon..We don't

File: 1466479271972.jpg (62KB, 500x627px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x627px

>>34745099
I agree with all of this but
>beauty

...Does whoever compiled that sign not understand that beauty is a lottery? You're either born with it or you're not. You can't just learn to be beautiful or acquire beauty like a skill or trait (unless using surgery or heavy makeup, but then that's not modest).

>>34745153
did you even read the words past 'beauty' or were you far too triggered and just had to immediately post?

Take everything minus motherhood and you have a tranny

Take motherhood and add
>manipulation
>victimhood
>financial drain
>cheating
and you have women

>>34745167
I did, but the words that came after had nothing to do with beauty as a virtue
it didn't say a woman that worships the lord = beautiful woman

>>34745249
Worship and fear of the Lord is the beauty part. You can't take everything too literal.

>>34745099
>godfag
Well we're not going back to sanity if religion is involved you skywizard worshiping moron.

>>34745398
Religion brought that sanity around in the first place you dingus.

The people who made up that sign have no idea what they're saying. They're deluded.

Firstly, no Christian has the right to tell anyone else what to do morally, and the very texts they quote SAY THIS, that they have no right to judge, let alone to command, outsiders to their faith to act a certain way.

These people are going to be utterly ashamed when judgement comes.

Also, things were never like this, OP. If you think women behaved at any time the way that placard reads, you know absolutely nothing about history.

>>34745174
what are you trying to get at?

>>34745450
Back in the day we used to be allowed to keep them in line, 'member?

>>34745426
> A look into middle east
Is that so?

>>34745099
> Quoting bible verses like it has any inherent value for a sane person
Disgusting. Take your abrahamic blood thirsty god and its worship where it belongs: not here.

>>34745470
If Islam didn't stipulate that all the non-muslims had to be stoned, they'd be okay over there

>>34745465

That's just a feminist myth. "Patriarchy" is literally an inversion of the reality that feminists use to gain more and more power, ontop of the overwhelming power they already had.

>>34745496
Keep telling yourself that, Ahmed.
Religion is the deed of a primitive man. Luckily we have passed that stage.

>>34745099
This is the same book where a man lives inside a fish for several days and god murders thousands of innocent babies because their parents arent Jewish. It shouldnt be taken seriously

>>34745099
Ephesians and Timothy aren't even authentic Pauline Epistles.

>>34745534

but like... that stuff happened in the first half, man.

>>34745569

Can anyone really claim to authoritatively be able to tell which are the authentic ones?

One time Jesus got mad at a fig tree because it wasn't in season. So basically Jesus was like, "Aight. If I can't have a fig right goddamned now, then nobody can," and punished the tree, cursing it so that it would never produce anything ever again.

He could've just fixed the tree, but nope.

>>34745426
>Something that relies on literally inducing mental illness and strain on the brain brought the sanity around in the first place
You sound fucking dumb

>Jewish zombie who was his own father says you should gimme ur moneyz now pls thx

>>34745582
Read Forged then Forgery and Counterforgery

>>34745569
>Someone writes in a different style in different when communicating different ideas to different people
>That means it isn't the same writer

Wow, tell me more.

>>34745613

I'll look into it, thanks for the recommendation, I already have some Ehrman lectures on my phone I'm planning on listening to.

Can you answer the question though - is there really any way to tell which of those letters can be shown to be written by "Paul", whoever he really was? It just seems impossible to me.

>>34745642
Much of textual criticism is baseless speculation.

>>34745099
fucking bible thumpers citing a book written 1 million years ago by some lads on hashish.
dont get me wrong, i believe in god, but i absolutely hate catholics who think themselves better than others, so much so as to go out and preach in public.

>>34745642
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Biblical+Forgeries+TMM

I didn't do this to be condescending, I did it because it's a way to shorten the link

>>34745674
>Baseless
What's baseless about it?

File: Uc1wv.jpg (318KB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 2272x1704px

> Robots feel a compulsive need to sperg out over religion even when it's on their side

Sad desu

>>34745744
I'll give you an example. If you have two readings, one which makes more sense, and one which makes less sense, then it is assumed that the one which makes less sense is correct. This is because textual critics hold the view that it is more likely that someone corrected a text at some point to make it more sensible, rather than someone purposefully corrupting it. Now, this may seem logical, but it is ultimately an attempt at mind-reading a scribe. Maybe the scribe was sick or tired or drunk when he copied that verse? How do you know? You can't know; it's an assumption that you can't demonstrate the validity of. Add in the fact that you are always working with an incomplete textual record -- we don't know how many copies there were and what percentage of them we actually possess -- and it becomes a bit ludicrous. Honest textual critics will tell you that they have given up attempting to determine the original text. Under their methodology it is assumed to be impossible. You're just getting the best guess, which they'll tinker with every few years to justify their salary.

>>34745737

Thanks, I'm looking into these now. I've already got a list of my own contradictions that I've found reading the NT.

Are you interested in this as an atheist? Or are you a Christian?

>>34745099
Stop watching Paul Joseph Watson and browsing /pol/. Should be a big help for you.

We are not in some downward socio-cultural spiral like you idiots seem to think.

>>34745778
Robots have integrity and principles, unlike inconsistent normie bakas.

>>34745857
I'm interested as an Atheist.
>>34745832
So the whole authentic letters of Paul having Egalitarian context in it then them changing it as it went along is bullshit, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txdUXCY0clU

File: unnamed-file.gif (521KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 500x280px

>>34745960
> Robots have integrity and principles

>>34746039
>So the whole authentic letters of Paul having Egalitarian context in it then them changing it as it went along is bullshit, right?

Yes. The issue of which letters are "really Paul" is based around computer analysis of the writing styles contained in those letters. Would you write in a different style if you were addressing a different audience with a different purpose? That is the goal of effective communication. But the critic will tell you that this analysis actually means something about what Paul actually wrote. Once you throw out the traditional textual stream you're left with very little to make reliable conclusions. This applies to all ancient literature and not just Scripture, though with other ancient texts there is very little outside of the traditional stream. Only one "complete" copy of Catullus's poems survived into the middle ages, for example.

Those who created religion wanted only good for humanity.

>>34746039

Were you a Christian earlier in your life, anon? It's just interesting to have such a specific high-level interest as an atheist.

>>34746139
Riiight, buddy, you Christians have excuses for everything.
>>34746156
No, strangely, I wasn't but I actually believed Jesus was a person. Not so much anymore, especially after reading On the Historicity of Jesus.

>>34746189
>Riiight, buddy, you Christians have excuses for everything.

Care to point out something I said that is incorrect?

>>34746189

>No, strangely, I wasn't but I actually believed Jesus was a person. Not so much anymore, especially after reading On the Historicity of Jesus.

As far as I'm aware there's basically no historical evidence of Jesus (outside of the claims of Christians and the Bible), but does that refute the possibility that he existed?

>>34746189
You are aware both the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion on the cross are largely undisputed historical facts, right? Even the Roman general Tactius, who was pretty far away and had no interest in Christianity wrote about how the people in the Levant were upset over the very specific crucifixion of Christ. You can't just read one book on a subject and decide that one book represents all truths of a matter.

>>34746231
The writing style does matter, for someone's ideals to change drastically like that there would have to be some semblance of it leaking into the original letters.

For example, before I became an Atheist, I used to believe in a god. I used to watch Atheist videos though to see what their arguments were. Strangely it wasn't the Atheist videos that turned me Atheist, it was the realization that a religious experience I had was unreliable.

>>34746281

Not that guy, but as I understand it, what's written in Tacitus refers to people who may be "Christians", but this isn't evidence that Jesus lived and performed miracles and was crucified, it only suggests that there were these people - 'Christians'.

>>34746316
>The writing style does matter, for someone's ideals to change drastically like that there would have to be some semblance of it leaking into the original letters.

So are we talking about the style (vocabulary, syntax, etc.) or are we talking about the meaning of the text? If it's the latter, then this is a matter of interpretation. That's another thing that is popular in this area, if you see something which on its face may seem contradictory, instead of reconciling it in a reasonable way, you assume that it must mean the author was different or the text is corrupted. More baseless nonsense. Christians have never had difficulty reconciling everything that Paul says about the relations of men and women, but textual critics do. I guess that means it wasn't Paul.

>>34746281
First off, he never names his source but it's likely that Tacitus got what he wrote from Pliny the Younger who was interrogating Christians and got the information from them. You wouldn't have to interrogate and torture a Christian for what they believed UNLESS they were not permitted to tell anyone what they believed, sort of like a Mystery cult which is purported by the Mythicist hypothesis. Secondly it might not even be authentic because the passage might have originally said Chrestians which were a sect of Jews starting trouble in Rome. Either way you;re fugged, bro.

>>34746319
It's an easy enough bit of writing to look up. I just looked it up again myself to make sure I remember it right. The passage is in Annals and should be easy enough to locate online. Tacitus refers to Christians, Christ, and the death of Christ due to the decision of Pontius Pilatus.

There are also the writings of Josephus and Pliny the Younger which match each others accounts. We have multiple independent sources, not related to scripture, that all affirm the existence of Jesus and his death. That's pretty convincing, considering the distance the story of Jesus would have had to travel from the Levant to Rome and still remain accurate.

>>34746365
Style and syntax matters as well, like the fact that Paul's use of adversative conjuctions in his authentic Epistles differs from at least one of the question inauthentic Epistles

>>34746430

If you read carefully, though, it doesn't appear that he's reporting facts known to himself when he refers to Pontius Pilatus, etc. He's referring to those facts as part of the story that those 'Christians' believed.

Isn't there also something against you in that there's no evidence of a Pontius Pilate ever administering the region there?

>>34746493
Wouldn't one think Tacitus would have a rough idea who Pontius Pilatus was? Even though Rome was vast one would think two such high ranking men would know of one another.

File: 1472026482274.jpg (56KB, 237x330px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 237x330px

>>34745174
>implying trannies are beautiful or modest

>>34746493
But apparently Tacitus doesn't find hearsay reliable, he says so himself. This doesn't take away from the fact that he never said he doesn't report it
>>34746538
Tacitus probably thought it was ridiculous that Pontius Pilate killed a god and reported that he was a man instead because that is the most likely insinuation, this has no bearing on what the Early Christians may have believed though.

Read On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt