Really makes you think...
Nice
>>1423639
There are retards who think Jesus was nice?
>>1423721
Nop OP but surely there are, most liberal Christians treat Jesus like he was a hippy.
>>1423721
Yeah, they also tend to claim they are very knowledgable on Christianity and are more equipped to discuss it that anyone else because they went to a Christian school for 5 years helped organize Church Bingo once.
Once met a guy like that who also believed he had the Crow as a spirit animal, and when I said Christians can't have those he snapped back "judge not."
>>1423639
all these strawmans
he was making solid points up til the end though when he not so subtly lumped 'destruction of """"family values"""" in with "the deepest pit of sin and depravity"
>>1424902
You do realize that, to name an example, the Pope has called gay marriage a Satanic attack on the family and that trans rights are akin to the nuclear arms race?
>>1424922
>the pope said a thing
what's your point champ
>>1424933
The destruction of family values getting lumped in with the deepest pit of sin and depravity is a common concern with modern "we shouldn't be passive pussies about evil" Christianity.
It's not really a strawman.
>>1424958
>its a common concern
still not really drawing a connection between gay people getting married and the deepest pit of sin and depravity
oh and while we're at it here's the pope on gay people:
"If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge… it is not right to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.”
>>1424978
They stick their cocks or cock shaped objects in each others shit holes and eat each other's semen and menstration parading in the streets in all lewdness.
>>1425013
i hate to break it to you but lots of straight couples put cocks and cock shaped objects into shit holes and eat semen.
oh heres some more of the pope on gay people:
"both in your language and in your heart you show no signs of aggression or violence against any of our brothers”, to remember that as Christians “we are servants of the truth and not its masters"
>>1424978
>>1425011
>"If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge… it is not right to interfere spiritually in the life of a person
You do realize that includes "not doing sexual stuff with people of the same sex," right? "Good Will" means in this context "Obesience to Church Teachings."
You can't get rimjobs in gay bars and be in good standing with the Church.
>>1425081
so is a woman giving a man a rimjob a-ok?
>>1425096
Getting a rimjob at all is wrong.
>Christianity, the doctrine of someone who did not fight back in any way when he was violently put to death based on false grounds
>a doctrine that possesses any fighting spirit whatsoever
I love it when Christcucks get all uppity and use no existent elements of their cuckold doctrine when they discover that that same doctrine is horribly incomplete when it comes to being abused and oppressed
Anyway, keep up the christposting. That'll impress the tyrants
I'm not sure what point he's trying to make.
Like, no shit, Jesus was willing to criticize people.
But along with that criticism, he was willing to engage with people who were different than him, and try to help them.
I see a lot of modern Christians who do the first part, but not many who do the second part.
>>1425081
I'm not capable of reading the original text of the bible (and neither can most Christians), so I'm willing to allow scholars do the hard work. Looking at what they have to say, it seems very likely that there were faggots in the bible and it was more of a nuisance than an 'abomination to god and nature.'
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm
Specifically in 1 Samuel 20:41 this dude shows different translators toning down David crying and getting a boner while making out with another man. "The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became large."The living bible translates this as "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more."
TL;DR fags r probably in the bible and it's cool. future translators thought that was gay so they changed the wording.
pic unrelated
>>1425187
and I'm not even convinced they were a nuisance other than it made the whole 'produce offspring to continue the line thing' a chore.
>>1425187
>The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became large. The word which means "became large" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings.
First of all, the word is הִגְדִּֽיל׃ , hiḡ-dîl.
Gadal, גָּדַל , is the root. So we're dealing with a "scholar" that can't tell the word from its root, it is clear we're dealing with a fraud who doesn't have the Masoretic Text in front of him, and who the hell is this B.A. Robison guy anyway?.
"David wept the longer." is the translation used by the Jewish Publication Society, just so we are clear that similar translation aren't due to a Christian Evangelical conspiracy. Or an Orthodox Jewish one either.
Yes, I do find the KJV the most literal here, saying that David "exceeded" with no further interpretation. As for older translations, the Vulgate went with "David autem amplius."
I couldn't find, for the life of me, a single Hebrew dictionary saying that either הִגְדִּֽיל׃ or גָּדַל have anything to do with erections even in a figurative sense, in either ancient or contemporary uses of the word. And all they say about the word that is actually in the verse is that it deals with increasing, or with surpassing oneself. And no, I didn't just look in Strong's.
Also I couldn't find a pastor using The Living Bible translation at church either. It's all about the formal equivalence translations, or the NIV.
I'd really, really like to know who exactly are these "some theologians" who invented a pornographic meaning that never existed, for a word that isn't even in a verse about two men crying their eyes out, that this B.A. Robinson dude speaks of, conveniently enough he forgets to mention them either there or in a bibliography. How very scholarly indeed.
>TL;DR fags r probably in the bible
Not "probably", they are. As in fags of the "getting killed" kind.
>>1423639
/christian/ is a papist hugbox
>>1425323
/rekt
>>1425328
>I think Chick Tracts are accurate
>>1425323
Lol, nice rebuttal. Is this your area of study or more of a hobby? Any reading recommendations?
>>1425791
>Is this your area of study or more of a hobby
Might as well take a third option, and speak of a religion.
>Any reading recommendations?
Bibles in English:
Jewish Study Bible
Jewish Annotated New Testament
(I would say New Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha for the Deuterocanonical books and their commentaries, but if you buy the above two books it's kind of a waste...)
A New English Translation of the Septuagint (always compare it to a translation of the Masoretic Text like in the Jewish Study Bible, the reading of the LXX should always be exegetical)
Original languages:
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
Septuaginta
Novum Testamentum Graece
Histories:
A History of God by Armstrong
When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible by Law
Jesus - Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman
For the Qur'an, there really isn't a single volume like the New Oxford Annotated Bible with everything, so you have:
The Koran Interpreted by Arthur John Arberry (for the translation, scholarly, poetic and without sectarian biases)
The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary by Yusuf Alì (for the massive commentary, which is consistent with traditional Islamic scholarship, tafsirs, and using the occasional hadith to explain verses that reference stories that the Qur'an doesn't actually tell)
The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'ān (for a modern, Western approach to history, scholarship and interpretation of the text)
>>1425935
Another book I forgot to mention is
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith, the authority on the pagan religions before and during biblical times (Ba'al, etc.), comparing Hebrew Bible with the Ugaritic texts to deliver the latest scholarship on West Semitic (he doesn't like "Canaanite") religion.
Also, you should read the Qur'an only after you've read the Bible, and you shouldn't read it in its order cover-to-cover, but in its chronological order.
Here's the traditional order, consistent with Islamic scholarship:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Qur'an
>>1426070
Die Mohametan scum
>>1426079
Butthurt much Byzantine?
>>1426079
No, I'm not a Muslim.
I thought writing a few words on the Qur'an could be useful because many people want to read it, but can't make sense of it.
>>1423639
To an extent, the OP is right.
However, he seems to forget that a righteous anger can easily shoot past the righteous and run into something entirely sinful.
The devils prey on those who care more about the sins of others than their own. Read any number of saintly treatises to know that simple truth.
Yes, Christians need to take a stand. A stand against the destruction of all forms of life. A stand against weakening morals. But we shouldn't be so outraged as to forget the simple fact that the saints and martyrs consistently demonstrate an ethos compatible with nonviolent resistance and pacifism. I am reminded of Holy Martyr St. Maximilian of Tebessa, would OP have choice words for him?
> "In 295, the proconsul Dion Cassius proceeded to Theveste Enlistment. Fabius Victor's father was in charge Maximilianus the lifting of recruits he brought his son 7 reached the age required by law to serve in the Roman army, the young conscript récusa proclaiming "I can not serve I can not do evil, I am a Christian. " 8 Maximilianus wants soldier of Christ and refuses to wear the neck medallion bearing the likeness of the emperor Diocletian, mandatory for all conscripts. Arrested and comparing as refractory, he was summoned to trial in the forum. Questions from the proconsul who wanted to know the reasons opposed to military service Maximilianus replied with great simplicity and firmness, conscious that he did not think that the Gospel is compatible with the exercise of any form of violence it would be. The proconsul replied, "Serve the army if you do not want to die." And Maximilianus persisted: "I do not serve, slice off my head, I do not militate in the army of the world, but in my God." Fearing that such an attitude could spread among Christians, many now in the Empire, the proconsul, condemned to death and beheaded on March 12, 295 AD. AD."
>>1428169
Well, I'm not the OP of the pic itself, I'm just the OP of this particular thread.
>>1428192
>Well, I'm not the OP of the pic itself, I'm just the OP of this particular thread.
I know, referring to the OP of the pic. Which is why I said 'the OP' as opposed to 'OP'.
