So why doesn't /x/ believe? What are some of the stand out

Also, if you believe, why so?
What about the bible is so credible?

>>19505738

I've never read it front to back. Just listened to everyone's arguments for and against it. I went to church. The push for salvation almost always included the threat of hell. Believe or die/burn forever. Some religions believe it's literal fire for eternity, some believe it's a metaphor for a second permanent death in which there is "nothingness". Either way, I am unable on any level to believe it's as simple as believe or die. It doesn't resonate with me at all.

File: GOD20EL20STONE.jpg (42KB, 515x640px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 515x640px

>>19505738
>So why doesn't /x/ believe?
I've read the thing.
>stand out facts
There's little archaeological evidence to support the Exodus, the Gospels contradict history and each other, not a lot of it works along science, gods are referenced often (more as rivals than demons), and a huge portion of the Old Testament can be explained by Babylonian influence, either through direct mythological adaptation or through cultural influence (wariness of other gods, likely the whole Exodus story as an example of how their faith can free them from their situation, and how lack of faith brought them to that situation in the first place). It all just smacks of propaganda. It's also not a very cohesive or engaging narrative.
>I'm more so interested in the fact of the bible being written by mans hands and manipulated to their ideals throughout history.
That's pretty much the long and short of it. There is no such thing as a "Word of God," because for gods, words are unnecessary.

>>19505749
What do you mean by archaeological evidence? As in what type of evidence would be satisfactory to disprove or prove the legitimacy of the bible?

Which Babylonian influences?

>more answers like these pls

>>19505776
si

I tried to believe in it partly out of fear of Hell. If I be honest with myself, I can't believe it's true.

There's contradictions in it. Eternal Hell is evil. I don't believe God is evil. I don't believe God would tell the jews to put their enemies infants to the sword. I don't believe God commanded the stoning of homosexuals or the stoning of people who did work on a Saturday. I don't think God ever condoned slavery. Don't believe God would burn the majority of his creations forever.

Yahwe seems cruel and evil to me. I don't think he's the highest God.

>>19505738
>What are some of the stand out facts that make you unable to accept the bible?

Personal experience and experimenting with religions, I'm a very spiritual person.

>>19505776
>What do you mean by archaeological evidence? As in what type of evidence would be satisfactory to disprove or prove the legitimacy of the bible?
Uh, sure. But basically, there are archaeologists who say there's no evidence that the Hebrews ever left Canaan. Also, there's not much to suggest a violent genocide of worshipers of other gods. Which I'd say is a good thing, because really, who wants to have a historical record of being total cunts to other people?

Besides Confederate fanboys.

>Which Babylonian influences?
The creation myth takes heavily from the Babylonian "Enuma Elish," and the Noah story is of course strongly reminiscent of the tale of Utnapishtim from "The Epic of Gilgamesh."

The Bible was only written down sometime around or after the exile in Babylon (see later books of the OT), and from the above listings, and their behavior in regards to staying true to the faith, it speaks heavily of their time in captivity far from home, in a strange land, with strange people and strange gods. They were desperate to hold onto their identity, and in spite of the influence on Genesis (and probably Exodus), it resonates throughout. Every time someone strays from their faith, something horrible happens to them. Including the Babylonian exile itself, according to some prophets in the narrative.

I'm honestly surprised I haven't seen it addressed more often. It's incredibly fascinating.

File: tracer.jpg (140KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1080x1350px

We don't have to read it to know its bunk. Its just the flavor of the day in the west and we wound up stuck with Christianity as the mind enslavement flavor of our geographic region. Other regions round the world have taoism, hinduism, islam and other religions.

So, I have to read every religious text humanity ever devised to confirm they arent true? The automatic default position for any religion is going to be false until proven true, not true until proven false like bibletards insist.

There's many Christians who accept the Bible under the concept of 'Logos'. You are right, OP, and they disregard the fact the text has been sorted, rewritten, and completely manipulated by man. There's different levels of belief attributed to the concept of the 'Logos'.

There are those who believe that the current version is the infallible word of God. There are also those who believe that merely the message is infallible no matter how much the text is edited.

I'll answer questions if I can, but it might be wise to disregard my statements. After all, I may be Christian, but hundreds of years ago I would have undoubtedly been burned at the stake for heresy.

>>19505999
You should strive to read every religious text humanity ever devised because it would be good. Knowledge is good.

File: 3f7.jpg_large.jpg (62KB, 680x656px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 680x656px

>>19505738
>Asking why would someone not blindly believe in what a bunch of Romans wrote, based on tradition that traces back to Sumerians who may or may not have seen some weird shit, to the letter, like some kind of absolute indeniable hard fact....

>>19505809
Consider that humanity is sort of like bread mold, and grew on God. I think it is sensible that most people would hold a singular concept of God to their standard of perfection. The idea of 'perfect' is a concept, of course. Consider the concept of an angry and jealous deity who, eventually, begins to see beauty in his creation. He's very angry, but eventually becomes attached to all creation including those who rebuke him. Humanity has the choice to decide what is right and wrong. You can certainly see it as wrong.

>>19505951
Maybe you should be the one to address these things?

I started this thread with the intentions of better educating myself on the origins of the Bible/ancient religions leading up to Christianity, but also in the hopes of compiling a list of bible "red pills."

>>19505743
The flood and many other large events are recorded in other sources too. The Bible has a lot of historical credibility.

>>19506016
But they are corrupted as fuck. Just like the bible. I used to believe out of fear of hell but then I started studying the concept of hell in the bible and its not actually even true (you just get annihilated, which honestly sounds more just than eternal torment, according to the bible).

That gave me some peace of mind although I'm still looking for a God.

>>19505738
You know a good number of /x/'s posters are Christcucks, right?

read something good instead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

>>19506226
not him
>they are corrupted as fuck
Irrelevant. You will grow a great deal by learning to discern what in them is true and what isn't. Just believe whatever suits you. I call myself a christian but I don't believe even half of what's in the bible. I still reread the parts I don't even believe because I want to see if I'm just failing to understand them. A ton of the stories in the bible are nearly 100% symbolism. It's like watching the matrix. It's completely nonsensical in a lot of ways if you take it literally and analyze it, but there's a ton of meaning that can be picked up from it if you know what to look for. It's the same for almost every religious text from back in the day. You should read up on native american religion. There's a lot of stuff there that sounds like some backwards dream sequence or the kind of messed up hallucinations you get when you go for days without sleeping when taken literally, but it makes just as much sense as anything in the bible when you start to consider what its symbolic meaning could be.

>>19506207
>The Bible has a lot of historical credibility.
Adopting other myths does not equate to "historical credibility."

>>19507426
>Adopting other myths does not equate to "historical credibility."
If they're accurate and verified by others it certainly does.

File: hqdefault.jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

>>19505738

Someone please tell me hard facts where this woman magically comes from and why she was never mentioned beforehand (King James Version) :

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Personallly, I don't believe in the bible because I think the idea of forgiveness for everything is just plain stupid. You can pretty much do whatever you want during life, and as long as you repent, god will still accept you.

>>19505738
Because like every major religion has their own bible, what makes one more truthful than the other?

>>19508901
Okay... this is going to sound really crazy, but consider that the 7 day creation story is a highly condensed myth originating from 300 books detailing the creation. Certainly, you didn't think there was simply Adam and Eve.

>>19509603
What you say is true, but it doesn't mean they will not be punished for their actions. Everybody faces punishment. The only punishment salvation frees one from is the final judgement.

Also, you may be guaranteed the new Earth, but it can completely knock you out of Heaven if you break one of the 10 commandments. It's just easier for a religion to condense things to Heaven/Hell and salvation/condemnation while glossing over the other bits.

File: 1503385444989.jpg (76KB, 1686x1242px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1686x1242px

>>19505738
bible dosent talk about dino therefore i will never believe

File: pyramidkek2.png (996KB, 1110x851px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 1110x851px

>>19505738
>>19505809
>>19505776

>So why doesn't /x/ believe?
>What are some of the stand out facts that make you unable to accept the bible?

Evolution and no worldwide flood are some top of my list reasons not to become a serial killing rapist for Moses - other than the serial killing rapist part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6wmDBz8H_Q

>>19508901
genesis 2 gap theory, also the bible is regional not a global text

>>19509627
Behemoth and leviathan in the book of: Job 40-41

>>19505738
Too big and vague of a question. Outside of obvious stuff like "Jacob ate some bread" I don't believe any of it. Or any other religious book. But it has way more to it than just not buying the silly stories (most of that is tied to the people, not events. I can appreciate allegory). There's the function of religion and what it does to people and society. I'm tired or I'd go into it more.

Basically people don't try beyond not pissing off god because that's enough to get a good deal. It removes the full extent of our ambition and capabilities. And yes, every religion does it or contributes. I don't just mean active opposition to stem cells or whatever. I mean total social retardation.

I'm not a fan of organised religion in general, much less being told "this is sin, that is sin, everything is sin". Morality is subjective to me and to the bible it is very much the opposite.

It's just not a good fit for what I consider true and right, but neither is any other organised religious group, and even if they were, being an organised group would put me off, even if we shared the same beliefs and values.

>>19509885
Gimpel the fool. I read that entire book in jail a few months back.

i believe.

i believe that the OT should not be taken literally, and all the OT stories are myths. including the story of creation.

i believe the NT contains the teachings of jesus, but still subject to exegises.

t. devout catholic

PS, please don't lump all christian denominations together. especially catholics with bible thumping born-again christians.

>>19509897
And here's a contradiction. Fundamentalist christians say the flood was global, yet many civilizations persevered right through as though it never happened.

>>19510205
Your view is probably the most reasonable.
The inspiration from other sources in genesis and exodus is readily apparent. Using that as a backdrop the origin of israel was written. The new testament and Jesus is an entirely different can of worms.

File: gaia.png (493KB, 705x690px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 705x690px

>>19510205
>>19510245

>i believe that the OT should not be taken literally, and all the OT stories are myths. including the story of creation.

The problem with these myths is they're supposed to be taken literally - completely - and they're supposed to inspire you to murder for them. Furthermore they grievously slander real people - such as when the book of Daniel says Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon converted to to Judaism after he realized you can't burn Jews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLCTzLzf6to

What if Christianity isn't the true religion? What if the bible isn't the word of God? What if the word of God was the Geeta? Or something else?

We will never know.