>Jesus Christ descends from heaven. He tells you that the

>>39350437
I tell him to fuck off and let me suck dick in peace.

>>39350437
>Roman Catholic Church
tell him off because I realize he's actually the devil in disguise

>>39350437

Tell him he should probably find someone better suited to the job, but try to save as many as I can anyway. Also maybe jot down some notes on how to accomplish the task. Or maybe get like an instruction book or an info packet or something.

>>39350521
Where would one acquire an info packet on saving the world from eternal damnation?

Asking for a friend.

>>39350437
>tell him I'm not worthy of the job
>a black sheep makes not a shepard
>however, if it is his will then I will try

Go in the crazy house, because I am clearly insane.

There is an r9k christian discord that's not super active, people here might be interested in
/wBqdKjW

File: 1501495989617.jpg (39KB, 998x720px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 998x720px

Ask that faggot why the fuck can't he appear publicly proving his godlike capacities and solve the problem by himself instead of putting the survival of the human species in some khv hikkiNEET's hands.

>>39350437
I do it on the condition that I can make one or two minor perverted adjustments to the doctrine.

>>39350437
Call him an idolater and tell him to go suck off his fagpope

>>39350899
He did, his resurrection, and the historical evidence for it is pretty solid.
One of the pieces of modern evidence from it, the Shroud of Turin is also something scientists are able to look at but unable to explain.

Also in all the rational proofs and stuff really do make it pretty evident.

But one of they things as to why he doesn't make to so obvious no one can deny it, is that would effectively get rid of peoples free will. It already is extremely obvious once you look at the evidence but people generally aren't convinced by reason or anything anyway.

He gives sufficient grace to everyone to come to him, it's just a matter of them accepting it.

>>39350847
good response

File: 1443404217331.jpg (103KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 700x700px

>>39350437
Do it yourself fag, you are the omnipotent and omniscient one.

>>39350993
>It already is extremely obvious once you look at the evidence but people generally aren't convinced by reason or anything anyway
kek

>>39350437
Do I get any tools or abilities? People like Mormons and JWs have been doing this shit for decades and they're still not caught up with the Catholic Church.

File: this_is_fine.png (310KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 580x282px

>>39350437
Laugh in his face, then sit back and eat popcorn while watching the world burn.

Because I hate every single last one of you.

File: merkaba2.jpg (20KB, 339x350px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 339x350px

>>39350502
my man!

saw thumbnail and was gonna come say this. you the best, gimme kissu kissu is agape don't worry bro

>>39351023
You are correct he has no need of us and is incomparably superior to us.
However out of his love he gives us the opportunity to glorify him and be raised up nearer to him. This is obviously a more extreme example but he gives us all a path to be glorified through him. Compared to his infinite goodness we are all low.

>>39351061
Yeah I dont really think is a controversial statement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

There is no reason to think humans are absolutely rational in any way

>>39351075
The graces of God of course, in the early Church through charismatic graces they did perform many miracles, and some still do today though less frequently. However as you'd be on the side of the Truth you would be working together with God.

We can do nothing on our own but through working with God we can accomplish anything.

File: schizophrenia.jpg (12KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 224x225px

probably check myself back into the psych ward because i'm having another psychotic break

>>39350437
>Catholic church
Tell Jesus he is a impostor since the real Jesus won't be siding with (((the Catholic church)))

>>39350437
I would fucking do it, god chose Moses who was autistic he needed someone to speak for him so I don't see why he wouldn't choose me

>>39351104
It is not controversial it is ironic. You say people aren't rational while being extremely irrational.

>>39351333
I study quite a bit of philosophy in particular metaphysics so I'm happy to discuss this stuff at length.
In what way am I being irrational, there isn't a single aspect of my world view I don't have absolute rational certainty of.

Why do you accept reason at all though? This is a question I like to ask people attacking me in that way. Generally just blind faith in tons of things.

I'd stab him.

>>39351413
Okay, you should realize then that "historical knowledge" is based on a completely uncertain foundation. Which shuts your argument down completely.

File: 1503181003173.gif (2MB, 330x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x300px

>>39351413
>study philosophy
>in particular metaphysics

he knows the names of fancy things and now he's enlightened, ne?

>>39351452
Well that's just one aspect of proof there are many different types. However if you reject history it makes it pretty impossible for you to accept anything at all.

The basic historical evidence is way more sure and confident then many historical events people already accept. In terms of people who actually study it, including athiests, they still accept a couple events in Christ's life because the evidence is so strong.

It's just an aspect and I listed multiple things which could be used as proof, doesn't shut anything down just means you focus on one thing so you can ignore other things.

>>39351490
Well I at least have a basic understanding which reveals how incoherent most people are in their thinking, he accused me of being extremely irrational reason and coherence is something I think and study quite a bit about.

Most athiests just rejected religon because of parental issues (studies have shown people relate their relationship with their father to God the father) and did so at a young age and never really studied the material at all later. They don't even have a pretension of being rational yet just keep asserting the word, it's absurd.

>>39351591
>However if you reject history it makes it pretty impossible for you to accept anything at all.
That's complete nonsense. I can accept that 2+2=4, because it is an establised tautology. I can accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, based on the observable evidence. I can not accept that some Christian historian's interpretation of a written source, that could have been changed countless times before appearing in its current form, is a certainty.
I honestly do not think you are worth debating, because you seem to be full of yourself, while not being very intelligent.

>>39350437
Hasn't he already done this essentially? Isn't this what all Christians are supposed to be doing? If showed up and commanded me in person no doubt I would do what he asks, but this just makes me guilty as I'm not doing what he asks of me now.

>>39351672
You haven't established any basis why something being established, or observed (by other people) is at all valuable.

Why is good logic less misleading then bad logic?

> I can not accept that some Christian historian's interpretation of a written source

It's athiest historians as well, and the sources were anti-Christian Josephus and Tacitus in particular

You ignoring something, saying they are Christian so their reasoning is somehow wrong, or just asserting it must be somehow faked is just absurd.
You could use those arguments for any aspect of history to reject it, and you wouldn't apply it equally to other things as doing so would literally just mean you rejecting all history.

>>39351769
>You haven't established any basis why something being established, or observed (by other people) is at all valuable.
I don't understand what gibberish you are speaking.
>Why is good logic less misleading then bad logic?
Bad logic is not logic at all. That is why it is called fallacious.
>It's athiest historians as well, and the sources were anti-Christian Josephus and Tacitus in particular
Tacitus also said the Germans used to bind the heads of newborns, yet there has never been found any evidence of that. It is not hard to imagine that chroniclers can pass along hearsay or rumors.
>You ignoring something, saying they are Christian so their reasoning is somehow wrong, or just asserting it must be somehow faked is just absurd.
I am saying that a Christian has a conflict of interest as he already believes what is trying to 'prove'. A Christian has a motive to selectively pick the evidence that suits his claim.

>>39351859
>I don't understand what gibberish you are speaking.

My point there was essentially

> I can accept that 2+2=4, because it is an establised tautology. I can accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, based on the observable evidence.

You atleast now havent' really established any basis for actually accepting either of these, you just assert it.

>That is why it is called fallacious.

Why aren't fallacies more truthful then sound logic? Why should reason indicate whether something is more or less truthful at all?


> It is not hard to imagine that chroniclers can pass along hearsay or rumors.

Well yes but when you have multiple sources all in agreement it's generally accepted. Atleast for the existence of Christ there isn't any established historians who deny the person existed (athiest or otherwise) and even wikipidea just calls the Christ Myth theory fringe.
The actual resurrection stuff is more tentative however anything other then an actual resurrection acutally leads to more absurd conclusions
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B

This series goes over lots of stuff

>I am saying that a Christian has a conflict of interest as he already believes what is trying to 'prove'. A Christian has a motive to selectively pick the evidence that suits his claim.

Nothing I've said is just from Christians and I've mentioned athiests multiple times.

The thing is though one who are open to the evidence, if they are athiests, generally cease being atheists after looking at the evidence.

Supposing Christianity as true, for the sake of argument, if the evidence was extremely solid you would see very few non-Christians talking about it because anyone who understood it would convert.

>>39352019
>You atleast now havent' really established any basis for actually accepting either of these, you just assert it.
>Why aren't fallacies more truthful then sound logic? Why should reason indicate whether something is more or less truthful at all?
If I understand you correctly, you are attempting to undermine to validity of logic?
If you believe that nothing can make any sense, then you won't have any problem believing nonsense. Which explains a bit
The rest of your post is of such a low quality that I won't respond.

>>39352096
No I am asking for your basis from it, Logic is obvious and has to be accepted by everyone. However the basis people claim to have for it is the most interesting part to me. It being obvious isn't reason enough to accept it, that doesn't mean it corresponds to truth at all.

So i'm asking on what basis you accept it?

>>39352161
Once you understand the definition of numbers and the concept of addition, 2+2=4 is a given. In regards to the Earth orbiting the Sun, you have to accept the validity of the observations you are explaining. Which is not much to ask, since you can very easily make them yourself. The only leap of faith you have to make is that your eyes aren't deceiving you.

>>39352249
This is still just making tons of assumptions you don't have a basis for.
It requires faith in logic/reason being valid and able to determine truth, that the universe is understandable/consistent, that our experience has any relation to the universe at all, and tons of other little things people generally just ignore.

Again it being obvious doesn't mean you can actually know/trust it.