>Sam Shepard moved on? Who actually uses those words

(((chr*st))cucks

File: red.jpg (41KB, 500x671px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x671px

>>86346924
kys

File: maxresdefaultCAL9BI5Q.jpg (49KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1280x720px

>>86347065
Sub 90 IQ detected. There is nothing more than this. You'll be quite dissapointed if you expect to go to heaven and play tennis with a bearded crucified jew.

>>86347279
In case that's true you won't be disappointed at all, you will simply cease to exist, so please explain again what's the downside of believing in afterlife?

>>86346873
Gosh dammit.

File: IMG_1457.jpg (29KB, 445x549px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 445x549px

SAMMY GOT POPPED?

>>86347279
Can't stand when your materialist paradigm is questioned anon?

>>86347418
They iced that nigga?

>>86347378
Because that would only be true of pantheism. If Islam turns out to be true, all Christians will burn. There are too many conflicting religions.

The only reason this is a meme is because he made a memeable face.

>>86347378
How do you know you picked the right religion? Isn't it better to simply cease existing then ending up in some other religions Hell? Try again Pascal

>>86347439
He got glassed yo

>>86347378
It's inherently a stupid thing to do because of: >>86347443

>>86347418
GAT DANGIT

>>86347418
Gonna pour out a 40 for a homie today, we lost a real nigga

>>86347443
Not correct, stop making these claims if you have no knowledge of theology. If Islam turns out to be the right religion, Christians and Jews aren't going to hell. Quran says that every follower of Abrahamic religions follow the same god, however they are misguided in their beliefs. Hinduism, Buddhism etc. on the other hand are completely false belief systems, so they are going to hell, according to Islam.

OH MAAAAAAAAN

>>86347561
>Quran says that every follower of Abrahamic religions follow the same god
What verses? Who wrote these verses? When? What translation version?
>Hinduism, Buddhism etc. on the other hand are completely false belief systems, so they are going to hell, according to Islam.
So you disproved one thing but give him another example okay.

>>86347469
>>86347443
Not him but your argument doesn't make any sense. If Islam were true, for example, atheists and Christians alike would be damned. You're acting like atheism is the absence of religious belief, but it's as absolute a claim to religious truth as any religion.

Also
>There are too many conflicting religions.
If I give you two multiple choice answers to the question "2+2=?", and gave someone else 100 multiple choice answers, does that change the fact that one answer alone is true and correct? Christianity is true regardless of how many people believe otherwise.

Regardless, Islam makes claims which are untrue. For example, the Quran claims that no person named Jesus of Nazareth was executed c. 33 AD, which, whether you're a Christian or not, is a historical fact.

>>86347469
The question here wasn't about Religion, I was asking about afterlife in General. There is huge difference between Deism and single Religious doctrine. As I look at it these "Revelations" about true nature of god are just people trying to explain the nature of higher being in a way that it's accessible to the masses, so I necessarily follow them, so stop projecting your ideas on my beliefs.

>>86347672
>Christianity is true regardless of how many people believe otherwise.
Guess all the non-believers are fucked, huh?

>>86347378
it's not about there being an upside or downside. it's about striving for truth. i would love for there to be a heaven after i die but deep down i just dont believe in it and there is no evidence that what the bible says is true or any other religion for that matter. you cant force somebody to believe in something they dont believe in you have to convince them that it is true with good and proper evidence.

it's not about there being and upside or a downside but if you care about truth then you wont believe in something just because it sounds good or preferable to you

>>86347621
>So you disproved one thing but give him another example okay.
It's called being intellectually honest, something you might not be able to understand. The reason I wrote all that was because his main point and example was false, I didn't try to defend Islamic (or Christian) doctrine, which is completely different conversation.

>>86347946
I came off as crass, my bad. I was simply pointing out what you did. By the way,
>What verses? Who wrote these verses? When? What translation version?

>>86347904
>there is no evidence that what the Bible says is true
First of all, that's not true, but leaving that aside for a second, is that really where your "strive for the truth" ends? I mean, this is surely THE most important philosophical question, and it sounds like you're sitting there waiting to be convinced what to think.

Not to be accusatory, but how much of the thousands of years of metaphysical philosophy, religious epistemology and Christian apologetics have you read?

>>86347418
Shieeet.

>>86348057
>First of all, that's not true
Alright. Go on. Where's the evidence of Jesus' revival? The virgin birth? etc.

>>86347980
Didn't remember the verses verbatim (Because I'm not a Muslim) but quick search turned up this:
"The Qur'an teaches that Islam is the continued faithful religion in the same line as the Prophets who were before Muhammad: The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah ... and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (42:13 AYA). The result of this view is that the scriptures given by these Prophets are considered to be genuine scriptures from God: But say, "We (Muslims) believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you (Jews & Christians); our Allah and your Allah is One" (29:46 AYA).

In the Qur'an there are many references to the Jewish and Christian Holy Books. In fact the Qur'an addresses Christians and Jews in terms of the Book: O People of the Book! (5:68 AYA)."

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm

Also good read on the subject:

http://www.alhewar.com/Saliba_Christians_and_Jews_Under_Islam.htm

>>86348184
That's one, now how about:
>Who wrote these verses? When? What translation version?

>>86347716
Not him but most non-believers and believers will go to purgatory. In the Christian doctrine it is rare for someone to go straight to heaven, and you won't go to hell as long as you're not an absolute evil person.

>>86348241
>42:13 AYA
>29:46 AYA
>5:68 AYA
You'll have to google those verses yourself, all of them are from the Quran, I don't know about the translation but the original scriptures were done in Arabic. I would link all of it myself, but I'm under heavy load at work right now.

>>86348254
>What verses? Who wrote these verses? When? What translation version?
I should elaborate. My issue isn't in what the bible says specifically. Though that comes into account when comparing one religion to the next. It is about who wrote it, and when, and who translated it. Cutting through the bullshit, the person who wrote it was man. The person who translated it was man. These people wrote these verses x amount of years ago. There is no reason to trust the word of a man from however many years ago these were written because you'll find, on the other side of the world, a different man came up with a different set of rules and doctrine for people to follow. It all boils down to some dudes trying to make sense of the world around them, along with a fuckton of corruption in the name of god. There is no reason to trust in the word of whatever written text of your choosing because there is no way to know if that is what god had intended.

>>86348179
Well, I knew that was going to be the line you'd focus on, but, for example, most of the events in the Gospels are historically attested, i.e. the proselytism and good works of Christ and the apostles, Christ's confinement, His trials and His Crucifixion. There are also eye-witness sources from the period that attest having seen Christ after He had been crucified.

In any case, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the theological debate regarding faith and reason. Take Aquinas, for example. He said that the majority of Christianity was accessible through reason, particularly the existence of God. But some aspects of Christianity are beyond reason, for example, miracles, the Trinity, etc. But the point of a miracle is that it's beyond reason.

I mean, I don't know how you expect there to be evidence of any birth, really, if you're going to be so skeptical. How do you know you were born other than that you have faith in the people who told you and your experience of birth generally? Ultimately, I exercise my careful reason to realise there must be a Creator, and to determine the verifiable truths in the Bible. Beyond that, I exercise faith in Christ's word and in His miracles. I'm personally somewhat in line with Thomist or Lockean epistemology in that regard.

File: 1414313456680.jpg (84KB, 850x565px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 850x565px

wtf is this thread

>>86348349
It's absolutely true, however the fact that scriptures are created by human beings doesn't necessarily mean that they should be discarded right away. I can only talk for myself, but the correct interpretation of those documents should be as if reading a philosopher's hypothesis, only the subject matter is exclusively metaphysics. All the metaphors and moral teaching doesn't automatically become false because it's written down by a person.

>>86348561
I specifically asked you for Jesus' revival, and the virgin birth. Which you failed to provide. My work here is pretty much done. I did not ask if Christ actually existed, I am not interested in that aspect.
>But the point of a miracle is that it's beyond reason.
And blind faith without truth is stupidity and weakness. Picking and choosing which aspects of a religion to believe in, but not all of it, makes you a good Christian in one's eyes but not in another's.What is the point if you are not going to go all the way? Believe in the miracles or don't, there is no picking and choosing because then you're trying to comfort yourself. Hence, weakness.
> How do you know you were born
Photographs, birth certificate, facial features resembling my parents. Otherwise this is not what I was asking.
> to determine the verifiable truths in the Bible
See: >>86348349

>>86348664
>It's absolutely true
It was written by a man thousands of years before you. You cannot say this with absolute certainty. You can only say it with absolute faith, which is simply lying to yourself under the guise of truth via faith.
> however the fact that scriptures are created by human beings doesn't necessarily mean that they should be discarded right away
I did not say that. Our entire sense morality stems from religion, along with a few universal ethics that would exist without religion ala murder is bad.
>All the metaphors and moral teaching doesn't automatically become false because it's written down by a person.
I did not say that either, but I can see I wasn't clear. The miracles and shit are where it gets stupid. There is no reason to believe in a creator when:
>There is no reason to trust the word of a man from however many years ago these were written because you'll find, on the other side of the world, a different man came up with a different set of rules and doctrine for people to follow. It all boils down to some dudes trying to make sense of the world around them, along with a fuckton of corruption in the name of god
>but the correct interpretation of those documents should be as if reading a philosopher's hypothesis
Now that is interesting.

>>86348684
>I specifically asked you for Jesus' revival, and the virgin birth. Which you failed to provide.
>My work here is pretty much done.
C'mon, now, you're picking up your ball and going home. That's pretty childish.

I actually answered both of your questions, if you had read my reply. Christ was witnessed after He had been crucified, as had the fact that the stone had been rolled away from where His corpse was kept. I also answered your question regarding His birth, which you simultaneously denied and acknowledged.

>And blind faith without truth is stupidity and weakness.
Not that you'll acknowledge it, but this sentence doesn't make sense. Faith and truth aren't opposites. Faith and reason possibly, according to some theologians at least, are, but faith and truth are in two separate categories.

>Picking and choosing which aspects of a religion to believe in, but not all of it, makes you a good Christian in one's eyes but not in another's
>Believe in the miracles or don't
I know you're not going to accept this, but you're making literally no sense. I never said I didn't believe in the entirety of Christianity. I believe wholeheartedly in the miracles.

The way you've constructed your answer makes it seem like you think faith means either not believing in something or knowingly believing in something demonstrably untrue. Neither of these are the case.

>Photographs, birth certificate, facial features resembling my parents.
Unless that photo is of the second you were half in and half out, none of those prove you were physically born of your mother.

>Otherwise this is not what I was asking.
It was directly related to what you were asking.

Look, I don't say this on here often, but you genuinely are making no sense. You don't seem to understand the meaning of words like "faith" and "truth".

>>86349002
>Christ was witnessed after He had been crucified
By who? When? Who witnessed him and who did this person tell it to?
>but faith and truth are in two separate categories.
Then blind faith without reason is stupidity and weakness. There is no reason to believe in the miracles of the bible.
>I believe wholeheartedly in the miracles.
You're one in a million, buster. Too often I find people will believe in the christian god, but ignorant or outright ignoring certain aspects they do not like. I apologize for projecting these people onto you.
>Unless that photo is of the second you were half in and half out, none of those prove you were physically born of your mother.
Yes I know there's that one philosopher who said something to the effect of "we can never truly know everything because what we observe may only be a single instance of x occurring." But I don't concern myself with that crap because I know I was born and I know I exist and I know you exist. Please refrain from bringing this up because it's fucking stupid outside of the period it was written.
>It was directly related to what you were asking.
I asked for evidence of the virgin birth. Then you came at me with that Kant bullshit.

>>86349187
If you'll start picking apart every argument like that you will end up with solipsism. Only way to actually have any information apart of the products of your own consciousness is by making a leap of faith that some historical documents and stories are true.

In the same way I could make claims that existence of Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander of Macedon etc. are not provable, and henceforth shouldn't be regarded as historical facts.

>>86349187
>By who? When? Who witnessed him and who did this person tell it to?
Well, obviously there are the accounts of the Apostles, which is the most obvious. I know you're going to be skeptical about Christian accounts, though. That obviously limits the numbers because someone who has seen Christ rise from the dead is likely to become a Christian, however, I can direct you to Flavius Josephus, or Tacitus, for example.

>Then blind faith without reason is stupidity and weakness.
First of all, the faith isn't blind. As I've said, it's reasoned, and only applies to particular aspects of Christianity. Nonetheless, why is faith a bad thing? I'm genuinely asking that as a neutral question. I mean it's pretty easy for you to keep asking questions and have me answer them. Can you tell me why you epistemologically value reason over faith other than by just saying that you do?
>But I don't concern myself with that crap
How can I debate with you, then? You keep asking questions and then dispense with the answer by saying "But I don't concern myself with that crap."
>because I know I was born and I know I exist and I know you exist.
That's starting to sound like a faith-based claim.
>Please refrain from bringing this up because it's fucking stupid outside of the period it was written.
I don't consider philosophy stupid. How can I seriously debate with you when you do?
>I asked for evidence of the virgin birth. Then you came at me with that Kant bullshit.
Again, you're summarily dismissing any argument you don't like because you can't refute it.

>>86349544
>every argument like that you will end up with solipsism
But I'm not solipsistic so there's that. But then again maybe I'm like you with that 1 in a million thing.
> is by making a leap of faith that some historical documents and stories are true.
I can't do that without reason, and you have not given me much in the way of believing the miracles.
>I could make claims that existence of Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander of Macedon etc. are not provable, and henceforth shouldn't be regarded as historical facts.
I did not dispute the existence of Jesus. I am disputing the miracles told in the bible.

File: fug.png (80KB, 275x217px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 275x217px

>tfw to intelligent for this thread

>>86349678
>1 in a million thing
Yeah that wasn't me, this is why /tv/ need poster IDs.

>>86347378
>i believe just in case
holy shit, christians are pathetic.

>>86349653
>Flavius Josephus
Skimming his wikipedia article, the only references to the word "resurrection" are when they were omitted from his works by other men. Which fucking goes back to my point here: >>86348349
If you had not known other men had omitted the resurrection from Josephus' work, you would not have the entire picture. Faith and reason based on incomplete shit.
>Tacitus
I'll look into that in a bit.
>First of all, the faith isn't blind
It has to be. Virgin birth and shit isn't possible.
>why is faith a bad thing?
Because you cannot give me solid answers to my questions, which only tells me you believe in it because you're desperate or stupid.
>How can I debate with you, then? You keep asking questions and then dispense with the answer by saying "But I don't concern myself with that crap."
No. You don't get to keep avoiding the question. I asked you for evidence of the virgin birth, and you continually bring in Kant. Either pony up, or drop this argument. I did not ask you how it is possible to know anything at all. I asked you for evidence of the virgin birth. Evidence of Jesus' resurrection. You provided two witnesses, one of which is now in question. Pony the fuck up or we're done.
>That's starting to sound like a faith-based claim.
Lol fuck off. I can touch my chest and feel my heartbeat and know they exist.
>I don't consider philosophy stupid. How can I seriously debate with you when you do?
Read: "outside of the period it was written." I do not waste my time thinking about whether or not I truly know I exist because tomorrow morning I gotta get up and tend to my family or something or other. I know it all exists.
>Again, you're summarily dismissing any argument you don't like because you can't refute it.
>No. You don't get to keep avoiding the question[...]

>>86350096
>It has to be. Virgin birth and shit isn't possible.
Not by materialist standards. That's the point of a miracle.
>Because you cannot give me solid answers to my questions, which only tells me you believe in it because you're desperate or stupid.
So, when I asked you to tell me why you don't epistemologically value faith, your answer is that I'm dodging some question I answered long ago, but which you found unsatisfactory? Great answer.
>You don't get to keep avoiding the question. I asked you for evidence of the virgin birth, and you continually bring in Kant.
I've answered every question you've asked, and you just keep deciding philosophical arguments aren't relevant because you don't like them, and that "Immanuel Kant", whom you alone have brought up, is an epithet.
>I did not ask you how it is possible to know anything at all. I asked you for evidence of the virgin birth.
I told you how I know, which is my faith in Christ's word. You said you don't agree with faith as an epistemological principle, so then we had to discuss epistemology, which you refused to do in favour of repeating a question that was answered long ago.
>Evidence of Jesus' resurrection.
>You provided two witnesses, one of which is now in question.
I provided many, but you just don't want to countenance Christian sources out of hand, which would be like asking me to cite you attendees at the last Super Bowl who don't believe the Patriots won the last Super Bowl.
>Pony the fuck up or we're done.
I hope the ball isn't too heavy and the walk home isn't too long.
>Lol fuck off. I can touch my chest and feel my heartbeat and know they exist.
Have you heard of phantom limbs? Does an amputee know he still has the amputated leg he can feel? Your definition of "knowledge" is very reductive.
>Read: "outside of the period it was written."
Truth is timeless.
>I do not waste my time thinking...
You seem very sure of your views for someone who admittedly spends no time thinking about them.

File: Ghandi.jpg (68KB, 780x533px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 780x533px

>>86350495
I read your entire post, and we have reached an impasse. Good day. For what it is worth, I do entirely deny the existence of god. The moment I decided to have children is the moment I understood him.

>>86350603
>For what it is worth, I do entirely deny the existence of God.
Well, then, I'm sorry for you and hope that some day you can open yourself to the truth.

Good bye.

Gosh dammit.

ITT autist vs autist

>>86347418
Sammy got smoked?

>>86350719
Oh shit my bad, I thought I made a mistake and came back. It actually meant to say:
>For what it is worth, I do not* entirely deny the existence of god. The moment I decided to have children is the moment I understood him.
Anyway gotta go.

File: 10.gif (2MB, 426x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 426x224px

>>86347418
DIS ONE GO OUT TO YOU HOMIE, BIG SHIZZLE