Let us begin with the Old Testament, before moving up to the New Testament. Post specifics, if able. This is hardly a thread to antagonize the Christcucks, but rather, is more of a side-project for myself, who likes to compile such information for convenience. :
>...by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.
>Archeologist Kathleen Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho to the middle of the 16th century, too early to match the usual dating of the Exodus to Pharaoh Ramses, on the basis of excavations.
>The various books of the Bible clearly show evidence of rewriting and considerable editing. Most accept the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the final editing of the Biblical text may have been as late as the reign of Artaxerxes II (405–404 BCE).
>According to Biblical scholar Thomas Thompson: "There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the Davidic legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. Stories are not enough."
>None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories. >Culturally, the Bronze Age collapse is otherwise a period of general cultural impoverishment of the whole Levantine region, making it difficult to consider the existence of any large territorial unit such as the Davidic kingdom
Picture completely unrelated.
>Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archaeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE, and Judah seems to be sparsely settled in that time period.
>There is a problem with the sources for this period of history (the United Monarchy). There are no contemporary independent documents: the Books of Samuel exhibits too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example, there is mention of later armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common) (2 Samuel 12:31), sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15). There is a gargantuan troop (2 Samuel 17:1), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and a reference to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE.
>The historicity of the Book of Samuel is dubious, and many scholars regard it as legendary in origin, particularly given the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanite peoples (most scholars believe that the Israelites actually emerged Canaan in a relatively peaceful manner, themselves an offshoot from the Canaanites)
>>1077831
>the bible is a history book
>the bible is one thing rather than a catalogue
>the ancients cared about historicities the way we do nowadays
>ancient history was meticulous about accuracy like modern history is
You are not a biblical scholar in the slightest.
>>1077873
>Christcucks think a book which can't even accurately record supposedly contemporary history can somehow be completely correct concerning the nature of divinity, cosmology and cosmogony, eschatology, transcendence, the future, and man's nature.
It's an allegory you retarded fedora
>>1077873
>>ancient history was meticulous about accuracy like modern history is
Read OP's posts. This isn't about the bible getting a couple of details wrong, this is about the central subject matter of half of the old testament missing from the historical record. Also, Jesus is supposed to be descended from David, so I'd say that the absence of evidence for David is a massive strike against Christianity.
>>1078486
>it's an allegory
And yet people believe in its message as literal truth. The problem with saying it is an allegory is that it creates the problem of the slippery slope: at what point does it cease to be allegorical?
>>1078486
>if we interpret this passage of the bible literally, it is false
>no part of the bible is false
>therefore, this passage is not meant to be taken literally
Fuck off with this meme.
>>1078486
It really wasn't terribly long ago that the old testament narrative was taken as being literally true, then it devolved into having an element of fact, until we've at last arrived at completely allegorical.
>>1078486
>>1078547
When you get to a different literary genre. Or do you call Genesis 3, Psalms 15, James 2, Sirach 38 and Leviticus 20 all the same literary genre?
>>1077831
It might not be historicly inspired at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
Dude is a bit of a prick, but his research seems detailed as fuck.
Download his book on TPB or something, its good to look up something specific if you ever want to.
Like, the "jesus hates figs" part makes sense as a made up alligory story, to explain to people that temples and sacrifices are "out of season".
>>1078486
Even Jesus's supposed ancestor David is an allegory? kek
>>1078561
you serious? we aren't talking about Psalms or Proverbs as though they're meant to be read as histories, this is Joshua and Samuel which are obviously intended to try to tell past historical events
>>1078560
I hope whoever keeps posting this is just one guy who's overly proud of his trite post.
>>1078486
>>1078561
Funny, how once it becomes inconvenient to espouse a certain passage as a literal truth, the Christcucks try to save face by rebranding whatever was at hand as 'allegory'. And the best part is, they continue to put stock in it.
>o-okay, so maybe Jericho didn't fall due to divine intervention after all, and King David never existed, but those parts were just allegories! My religion is just real, just not those parts!
>>1078600
i don't know how a Messiah even makes sense without a King David
>>1078573
Yes, and I'm saying that the allegorical stuff isn't the historical or legal stuff.
And for that matter, so what? Ancient historical records aren't perfect and there's always stuff lost to history along with the maxim "history is written by the winners" as an identifier of bias among ancients. Perhaps Sennacherib embellished any talents taken from Hezekiah and didn't personally record the smoting of his soldiers because he heard Israelites wanting Assyrian troops to be smoted and when they were, his pride and disbelief said "hey scribes make record of this and I will destroy your bloodlines."
Again, ancient records aren't perfect, accurate or even very good considering all the time passed and the little found.
Only recently has pic related become the more scientifically approved T Rex, prior to that they were all straight outta JP and before that they were lumbering tail draggers.
>>1077831
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
>>1078641
>And for that matter, so what?
It matters to Christcucks, who believe the Bible was written under direct divine inspiration. Christians consider God to be perfect and omniscient: therefore, one wrong detail is enough to prove that the Bible was not actually divinely inspired, and is merely a a chronicle of the ethnic myths of a certain group of Semites with an addendum of Greek fanfictions and sequels which tried to expound on these older myths.
>>1078641
I agree with you, but if there is going to be a claim that these documents are inspired by the one true God I think we should expect the historical events that are very key to the theology to actually be true and not made from whole cloth
>>1078685
What do think you divine inspiration is?
>>1078641
In your defense of the Christian Bible you concede that God - who, according to their own mythical narrative, dictated the books to the respective prophets/saints - purposefully allowed errors to be transcribed, which is anathema and heretical to Christian thought.
Idiot.
Isn't there a documentary that purports to show that the Exodus actually happened, just centuries before everyone assumed it did?
Also, didn't they find the ruins of Sodom?
>>1078708
I don't think you understand what divine inspiration means either.
>>1078717
>Also, didn't they find the ruins of Sodom?
Who are they and where did they allegedly find them?
>>1078702
not him but the Christian understanding is that the Holy Spirit essentially enters people and tells them what to write. a more direct translation is God breathed, stressing that the words in divinely inspired works are basically God's words
I choose to believe that most of the conquests and events in the early books of the Bible are deeply prehistoric. I think they did happen, but the dates are wrong because they happened much longer ago than the common dating assumes.
>>1078717
I remember hearing about it on /christian/ but I can't remember the name. I take it that it didn't make waves in archaeology though. Most of the 'evidence' I've seen has been afrocentrist tier.
>>1078739
I get that God is supposed to be all-wise, but I really question the wisdom of 'inspiring' people to write down events that read as history but aren't actually history to communicate a vague truth that would have been better explained specifically.
>>1078783
yeah I agree. I'm trying to show that the intended meaning of divinely inspired or God breathed shows that the scripture should be infallible and therefore the Christian God is wrong beyond any doubt
>>1078743
>conquests of cities
>pre-historic
>>1078819
>he doesn't know about the Ice Age civilizations
>>1078739
Citation? That sounds rather Protestant since Catholics, who actually ENCOURAGE this kind of questioning, believe Divine Inspiration pertains to the message the author wants to convey, and said message is on matters of faith and morals because God wanted that to get conveyed. Let's look at Exodus' plagues for example. Yes there is some historical whatzit that "oh it disproves it wholesale!" but what is the message about faith that, when taken with the entire context of Biblical history (that is, within the Bible itself) it asserts and affirms the power of YHWH as greater than all other gods, that He can single handedly crush an entire pantheon for the sake of the people He calls His. THAT is the inspiration. And later in other books, after God's power is well understood by His people, it goes on to the point of "I'm the only God that exists" when you get to... Elijah I think, having a contest with Baal priests to start setting precident that other Gods are not only weaker, but non-existent.
This is what Divine Inspiration is, the message wanting to be conveyed since as far as the authors were concerned, accuracy about X historical thing wasn't as important as God's Love for His People or the like.
>>1078837
>it asserts and affirms the power of YHWH as greater than all other gods, that He can single handedly crush an entire pantheon for the sake of the people He calls His. THAT is the inspiration.
it only affirms that power if it actually happened
>>1078837
But pure fiction can convey messages better than records of actual events can, since the author can tailor the events of a fictional narrative to fit his message. If the Bible was written to convey a message rather than record events, why should we believe its message rather than the message of other texts?
>>1078806
Where do you get the idea that any of those words mean "free from error on ALL accounts" rather than "free from error on theological accounts but probably littered with historical and scientific innacuracies because that wasn't the point of the text to the people commiting it to writing?"
I'm not raging, I'm curious where you find that line of thinking.
>>1078734
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3270999/Has-Biblical-city-Sodom-Monstrous-site-Jordan-matches-descriptions-area-destroyed-God.html
Yes, I know it's the fucking Daily Mail.
>>1078837
what the fuck is the point of the message about Yahweh's power if the stories portraying them not only aren't true? What a weak god you have. He can inspire people to write fictional stories about his power but he can't actually put his power into action
>>1078856
>but probably littered with historical and scientific innacuracies because that wasn't the point of the text to the people commiting it to writing?
how is Joshua not intended to be historical? How is Samuel not intended to be historical?
>>1078856
> littered with historical and scientific inaccuracies
Fabricating empires and origin stories is a pretty big inaccuracy. Most would call it an outright lie.
>>1078864
This.
Christcuck apologetics are ridiculous in how low they can get.
I think it's all quite true, really.
The stories of the Bible, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus... I think it's all pretty real.
After all, as others have pointed out, what's the good of the stories of the Old Testament if they're not historical? Jesus treats Moses and Adam and Abraham as all being real figures. If we can't believe God himself, who can we believe?
So I'll believe that they're all real, that the events of the Old Testament did happen, and I'll wait patiently for archaeology to prove me right. Come get me.
>>1078946
>The stories of the Bible, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus... I think it's all pretty real.
Opinion discarded.
>>1078848
Because? If there are accounts of similar but smaller scale events like the plagues, could it not be the accounts spoken of but less embellished since accuracy was, as I said, less important than message? I've heard Exodus' plagues be attributed to volcanic activity causing:
>red tide in the Nile (water to blood)
>frogs to evacuate the water (frog infestation)
>dead frogs causing increased insect populations (infestations of flies and other small insectoid vermin)
>mass livestock death and human disease spread by the last last infestation (livestock death and boils)
>volcanic hail (the hail of burning ice
>grasshopper swarms migrating in search of food after the hail destroyed vegetation (locusts)
>heavy ash clouds or the hansim (darkness)
>Egyptian firstborn apparently had the privilege of low-lying beds while others slept higher up and volcanism-caused CO2 fogs killed everything close to the ground while Jews celebrating Passover were awake and standing/mass human sacrifice by the Egyptians who thought killing their first born would appease the gods/Cladosporium (the death of the first born of Egypt while Israel lived)
Now with how big the last one is, explanations are hard to make certain since lacks of records and existing ones focusing more on getting across the nature of God than the nature of the plagues, but as many same Christians believe, God can and does use ordinary means for extraordinary ends, and Volcanic Dominoes can be such an occurrence.
And if you say I'm just trying to justify my Bronze Age fairy tails, yeah and? Isn't that the point of discouse? Or is blind agreement only okay when it's against the Biblical narratives and traditions or something? Because as I've said, as a Catholic we WELCOME this kind of inquiry.
>>1078946
archeology has already proven most of that wrong though. normally these types of posts irritate me but this just made me sad
>>1078873
It is, but as records go, the ones penning them made more of a point about God's place in them than man's place in them, thus they were pretty crap about historical accuracy down to minute details.
>>1078853
Examples? Because once we get into messages on spiritual truths or the like we jump into philosophy rather than history.
>>1078960
I'm sorry to have upset you. I'll still be here waiting.
>>1078860
"Some dude finds abandoned place and says it might have been Sodom" is not the same thing as "Archaeologist finds Sodom"
>>1078961
but if God's place in them is in supposedly historical events that didn't happen then where's God's place in them? you're speaking nonsense. God took down Jericho's walls. Event didn't happen and somehow you hold onto this fabricated event because it speaks a theological truth about a God who can't perform the miracles He claims to do?
>>1078952
it's irrelevant if it can be explained by natural means. what matters is that it actually happned, which it probably didn't
>>1078864
And why are they not true? Because archeology is imperfect and certain data is relatively lost to history?
And what do you actually want from God? Why do you believe God should suit you and what you want?
>>1078961
>minute details
>the existence of entire empires is a minute detail
k
>>1078972
I'm sorry, I don't really understand. What do you want examples of? My point is that the author of a fictional story has more room to deliver a clear-cut spiritual message than someone who records history, since the writer of fiction doesn't have to include anything in his story that conflicts with his message.
>>1078981
One can interpret the Fall of Jericho as God being with his people in their seige and the walls coming down referring to standard victory. The point is "they won because God."
>>1078977
I know you will be. You consider blind faith a virtue. Yet blind faith can lead you to so many different religions. so what value does blind faith have? so if blind faith is worthless to finding the correct path shouldn't we follow the evidence and not presume that we are correct from the start?
>>1078991
Why can't God use natural means? Can God not, as the Creator of everything, use the nature He created to reach an end in the material world that Man can observe?
>>1079012
Yes one can interpret that. but you are stripping the actual story bare. it shows that because it is portraying God as actually doing that in reality. why can't your god produce actual miracles and have people write about them instead of having people fabricate miracles to show his glory?
>>1077831
What really redpilled me on the Bible was when I learned about the existence of the Mesha stele.
At that point I pretty much began to look at the Bible like romance of the three kingdoms: as basically a fictional romance of actual historical events (except the early origin stories which are more blatantly bullshit).
>>1079023
read again. I didn't say he couldn't. I said that comment on it possibly being explained by natural causes was irrelevant
>>1078994
I said down to minute details. This means everything from the lands controlled by an empire to the colors of the emperor's throne room.
>>1079039
or even the existence of said empire
>>1079016
It's not a blind faith. It's a faith I gained over careful thought and study. It only seems blind to you because I try my hardest to be consistent in my belief.
If Christianity is right, then Jesus is right. Jesus treats Moses as a real person, as the giver of the Law and the great patriarch of the Hebrew people. Therefore I need to treat Moses as a real person.
You could say it's a following of faith into reason. I believe what I believe through faith, and then I use my reason to decide the things I additionally need to believe, because my faith is contingent upon them. Christianity requires the existence of Adam, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of all the Kings and the Prophets. So I believe in them. I believe they were real and I believe their existence will be borne out, in time. I believe eventually science will catch up to Scripture. But because I am a Christian I believe in the truth of all the things that Christianity is contingent upon. I can't do anything less.
>>1079051
Problem is that you haven't arrived at these conclusions by starting with a tabula rasa. You began with a foundation of Christian indoctrination and the assumption that "Jesus is right."
>>1079051
>I believe what I believe through faith, and then I use my reason to decide the things I additionally need to believe, because my faith is contingent upon them.
uh... that's blind faith. you are saying you presuppose the truth of your religion and then use reason to decide additional things within that framework. you are ignoring the fundamental roots and assuming that they are a sound foundation. this is the same thing believers of other religions do
>>1079051
>If Christianity is right
It isn't. The historical record shows it's all invented and at most, greatly exaggerated.
>>1077831
>historical accuracy
>of a myth
Look, I'm Catholic but we might as well start debating the accuracy of the Iliad.
>>1079085
"I believe because it is impossible."
>>1079009
I was referring to
> If the Bible was written to convey a message rather than record events, why should we believe its message rather than the message of other texts?
As it sounded like you had examples.
And the message was a more important point, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also a record of events, just one that was more interested in the whole "Truths from/of the Holy God of the Universe" part rather than Iron Age Mesopotamian politics.
Scope, names, dates, all that was of moderate importance with pinpoint accuracy of low importance while the theological bits were of the greater importance. The Kingdom of Israel could've just been one or two dime-a-dozen cities of average size that tried picking on the bigger kids on the playground and won on occasion when the bigger kid didn't curbstomp them or just not care. Very Ancient Israel is probably still in Troy status of historically viable. And with ISIS blowing historical shit up every 10 minutes, relatively good records of it could be lost to history permanently by now of the near future.
>>1079051
I'm sorry, maybe I'm spiritually blind, maybe I'm literally autistic, but I can't help thinking that your way of thinking is completely ridiculous. You can't just take a proposition as ambiguous and open to criticism as "Christianity is true" as an axiom and derive what you believe from that. It's a well-known logical principle that if something, when assumed to be true, produces a proposition that is false, the original proposition must be also false. Please talk to your priest or pastor about the basis for your faith, I'm sure he'll be able to tell you about some Christian thinkers that are actually reasonable and have a sane foundation for their beliefs.
>>1079088
these myths are the very core of your belief though. How can Jesus be the Messiah if there is no King David? in the gospels Jesus refers to Abraham, Moses, David, and Noah as real people. this means that the man you believe to be an infallible God believed these myths to be true
>>1079095
>> If the Bible was written to convey a message rather than record events, why should we believe its message rather than the message of other texts?
>As it sounded like you had examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text#Sacred_texts_of_various_religions
Knock yourself out fampai.
>>1078819
Get redpilled on the ancient Finnish empire, anon.
>>1079088
>I'm Catholic
>I believe the bible is a myth
Wew lad opinions coming in hot
>>1079032
Why does God need to be grandiose? Providence doesn't need to be something absurdly impossible.
>>1079088
This is a recent interpretation. The events of the old testament were seen as generally accurate for most of your church's history. Now that they're revealed to be completely absent of fact it's completely metaphorical?
>>1079119
I didn't realize that a god that claims to have produced miracles actually doing said miracles was grandiose. and if God actually wants us to believe in him and knows that we could face eternal hellfire why would he NOT be grandiose to try to save as many people as he can?
>>1079033
What's your point here? I'm not sure if your in favor of it as a historical if embellished record or completley false nonsense that might as well discuss King Pisswhifle of the Sherbert Kingdom.
Also, Genesis is best read comparatively to other creation myths of the region of the Levant, North Africa, Greece and Mesopotamia.
>>1079121
This.
Saying the recorded events are merely "allegorical" or "metaphorical" is backpedaling.
>>1079121
How so? If ISIS blows up every non-Muslim thing they find, eventually there won't be any records at all one way or the other to study. If that's the case, then what?
>>1079157
Oddly enough muslims do believe that the first religions were Islam and that the original documents are lost to time.
Are they wrong? What if we live in that reality?
Hopefully you can see why this line of reasoning quickly becomes absurd.
>>1079140
A bit of column A and a bit of column B. It's clear that Moabites, Babylonians, Assyrians, various non-Jewish Canaanites and other groups in the Bible existed, along with Ba'al worship, etc.
But the Biblical record is greatly embellished. This is clear when comparing the account of the Mesha stele (which itself may be propagandistic in some ways admittedly) with what the Bible says of the Hebrews' wars with the Moabites. IIRC the Bible makes it sound like Mesha retreated in the face of fierce Israeli resistance while the Mesha stele seems to indicate that Mesha was wholly victorious in numerous wars with the Hebrews.
to put it differently, I don't think everything in the bible is completely fabricated but the parts that are not fabricated are still greatly embellished. The Bible is largely propagandistic. Parts of it are pure fiction while other parts are romanticized history.
As another point, I don't think that the ancient Jews came from an outside exodus to the Levant. I think many of them were originally Canaanites who worshiped other deities and later converted/adopted Judaism.
>>1079143
>believers doing mental gymnastics in order to keep their ego intact
Nothing new under the sun.
>>1079134
>He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
>Luke 16:31
>>1079121
That's not a recent interpretation. I'm fairly sure St. Augustine wrote something to the effect of "If these stories aren't true, it doesn't invalidate shit. They just happen to be true." All in doing is biting that bullet.
>>1079103
My faith is built on stronger stuff. I think it's pretty pathetic to depend on historical accuracy to guide belief regarding a transcendental realm. And besides, it's not some things Christ said that are the reason I worship him. It's the meaning of it all. The mystery of salvation, the writings that have come since then. Even if it were all false, I'd still believe. The ecstacy of St Theresa, and the apathia so prized in the east. Those things are worth believing in. Those things are worth striving for.
Some events in the Roman Empire, 2000 years ago? I can't be bothered when Christianity has so much more to offer than kids tales.
And EVEN THEN, I think the church is valuable as a social structure. There's a ton of reasons to follow Christ, beyond Jewish campfire stories.
>>1079157
See, the problem with that is that ISIS would need to conquer the world in order to achieve such a feat. One of the issues with the bible is that there are no historical records from other places that can back up most of it's claims.
If ISIS controlled all of the middle east and north Africa (destroying all non-muslim records in the process) then there would still be tons of records outside their sphere of influence that would be intact.
>>1079157
But ISIS is only a problem in Syria. they ain't blowing up shit in Israel which is central to this thread. plus they aren't destroying everything. most of the artifacts they get their hands on get sold on the black market so they aren't actually lost and could eventually make their way into the hands of archeologists. it's not ideal but it's better than losing everything
>>1079183
>Even if it were all false, I'd still believe
Confirmed for being a retard.
>Those things are worth believing in
It's not worth anything if it isn't actually real.
>I think the church is valuable as a social structure
It has literally never been valuable as a social structure, and I will tell you that many others believe the church establishment was the cause for the fall of kingdoms and empires. Imagine that: people being tortured to death, states descending into anarchy and being split apart, and all for something that wasn't 'real'.
Albigensian Crusade, the Bosnian Crusade, the Baltic Crusades, the Thirty-Years-War and the Wars of Religion... Sure, "useful".
>>1079183
>Even if it were all false, I'd still believe.
Except if you know that it's false, you don't believe, and you can't believe. If it is false and you ignore the evidence, you're not behaving virtuously.
>>1079183
>Even if it were all false, I'd still believe.
You know what, good for you. but I actually care whether it is right. I can separate the truth from stories that I happen to enjoy. The bible is actually one of my favorite things to read. you don't have to be a church member to be part of a community. even though I personally don't like the idea, there are even atheist churches that are intended to give the aesthetics and community of church life without the added baggage of belief.
>>1079171
Actually I'm just talking about records of civilization, not so much theology unto itself. A lot of this thread is saying the theology should be discarded because of lacking archeology. And all I'm saying is "if archeology is THAT important to you, then your standards are on the way to never being fulfilled as psychos blow shit up purposefully." It's not like a poetry scroll lost to fire in the seige of a castle while other stuff is plundered for the conquerors' advancement, it's people deliberately blowing up ancient monuments and burning records because they think they want to jumpstart the end of the world. Remember when ISIS blew up a tomb that was said to be the prophet Jonah's? Well, good luck verifying it now. And I'm not even talking about if Jonah really was a Prophet of God or was inside a whale, I'm ONLY reffering to a historical Jonah as a Jewish guy who went to a city called Ninevah to preach his religion.
>>1079215
Those are some hot epistemological claims, son. You're right that knowledge is inherently antithetical to belief, though. That's why I think suspension of all belief is the right way to go about it. As for ignoring evidence being non-virtuous, I fail to see how that works.
>>1079216
>You know what, good for you. but I actually care whether it is right.
That's fine. I wish you luck on your journey!
>>1079204
>Confirmed for being a retard.
Damn, I love being a gangster.
>It has literally never been valuable as a social structure
It saved the West from Islam. That alone, in my opinion, validates it's existence, although I'm sure you'll find fault with their role in Western culture's salvation as well.
>>1079239
So I'm not sure what your overall point is then. Are you saying it's possible that the evidence regarding the events in the old testament was possibly destroyed, therefore it's reasonable to believe that they are true?
Here we go. The Catholic position isn't backpedaling. It was the opinion of Augustine of Hippo, one of the foundational thinkers of the Church.
(quotation from St. Augustine of Hippo (354AD – 430AD) , one of the greatest Christian theologians, from his work De Genisi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis).)
>Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
>The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
>Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
>>1079260
Later on he says (to my personal amusement):
>One must surely not think that in this passage of Holy Scripture there has been an omission of any one of the four elements that are generally supposed to make up the world just because there seems to be no mention of air in the account of sky, water, and earth.
Again, from De Genisi ad Litteram
>>1079260
This thread is more concerning the events in the bible described post-genesis. That includes the exodus story and the kings of Israel and all that shit. Now I don't know if Augustine believed in that personally but the Catholic church for most of its history certainly did.
>>1079260
first of all that wasn't a consensus of the Church until recently. second of all he was talking about the creation account and Eden, not the fall of Jericho and the United Monarchy of King David
>>1079260
based Augustine
>>1079281
>And must modern Israel stand for an ancient state that shares its name for historical study purposes?
I don't think I understand your question. modern Israel does approximate the historical borders of Israel, Judah, Philistia and a bit more so if ISIS was going to destroy monuments of those countries they would have to control modern day Israel
>>1079275
That's fine, but this my point here is that Bible Literalism has never been official church doctrine, in any way, shape or form. I'm not backpedaling when I call the old testament "Jewish myths" (although I suppose the term "Jewish oral traditions" would have been more accurate, but shock value is a precious thing!) Even if later theologians went full literalist, that was deviation from Augustine's standard, Augustine being a Doctor of the Church and a source of doctrine.
If any such claims will be made, I'm gonna need to see official documentation from one of the Sees, preferably Rome or Constantinople. Bible Literalism is among the chiefest enemies of the Church!
>>1079260
1. He's not talking about what OP is talking aboiut
2. He said that hundreds of years after the new testament was written
3. That was not a popular notion in the church at the time, and wouldn't become one until much later
>>1079244
>That's why I think suspension of all belief is the right way to go about it.
http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=believeth
>>1079254
Actually I'm saying its in a sort of Schroedinger's Cat state and it's reasonable to believe they are true with what little we have (see >>1079174, who sees it as a heavily romanticized historical record with merit in the same vein as Romance of the 3 Kingdoms) and ALSO just as reasonable to beliEve it false for the same reasons. I'm of the opinion it's more true than false and any historical issues are negligible to the theological value of the Bible as scripture.
It's not one of the other, and even if you lack faith in God, you will still put faith in history. No matter what, you're approaching it with a level of faith.
.
>>1079282
>first of all that wasn't a consensus of the Church until recently
>Augustine
>not the definitive Latin theologian until Thomas Aquinas
>somehow, the ephemeral consensus of post-Vatican II leaders is needed
>in matters of doctrine
>>1079305
>I'm not backpedaling when I call the old testament "Jewish myths"
even if we assume that Augustine = official church doctrine calling the fall of Jericho, Moses and especially King David mere myths is indeed backpedaling. Jesus even has two genealogies connecting him to the man
>>1079244
>It saved the West from Islam
The emergence of Christianity is what allowed Islam to arise in the first place, considering Islam branded itself as a correction of Judaism and Christianity. It would not have arisen from Judaism alone.
The fall of the Roman Empire was arguably the result of Christianity, but Christianity is definitely a cause for the disintegration of the Byzantine Empire, which allowed the Ottomans to make headway as far as the Balkans. The strong emperors were forced to consolidate at home and deal with religious controversies rather than take the fight to the Muslims when they were weakened. Arianism, Paulicianism/Bogomilism, Iconoclasm, they all weakened the Empire extremely and caused much division.
Christianity killed the Roman Empire twice.
>>1079318
As much as you can say we're operating with a level of faith when we assume Ceasar was actually assassinated on the Ides of March.
That is to say, it could be false, but we have a lot of evidence that it actually happened.
We have the opposite situation with the old testament. Where we have no evidence to believe anything in that book happened as described, yet you choose to believe anyway. That requires a LOT more faith than the position that it likely isn't true, and certainly isn't a reasonable position to hold.
Whether or not it still holds theological value or if Christianity is still valid with everything in the book being false can be debated somewhere else. When it comes to historical validity the old testament has none.
>>1079275
The Church did that because as far as they were concerned, the Bible was, thus far, the best Historical record they had for that region. Once better records appeared, those became the go to. Didn't change theological value though.
>>1079310
You got me there!
What I certainly do mean to say, however, is that claiming to know that God exists is foolish and has no place in the church. It's just as foolish as believing God does not exist! Faith is inherently an agnostic phenomenon.
>>1079309
YES, but the claim was made that Bible Literalism had been doctrine and deviation from that was backpedaling. The Augustine passages were meant to demonstrate that wasn't the case, and no backpedaling is required to hold to a non-strict, non-literal interpretation of events in the OT.
Purely that.
>>1079319
but it wasn't the consensus until recently. it was the Catholic Church who came up with the date that based on the bible the Earth was only 6000 years old. this is besides the point that this thread isn't even about Genesis. this is completely unrelated to the topic at hand
>>1079305
Augustine thought does not equal official Church Catechism. Augustine didn't even believe in the Immaculate Conception and argued against the concept, and yet this is something that the Church holds to be dogma. For most of history, the Church - both clergy and laymen - held that the Old Testament history was literal.
>>1079335
if they were aware the Bible had absolutely zero value for the historical record outside of parts of Kings and Chronicles then they wouldn't have bothered to use it in the first place. you are just rephrasing backpedaling in a way that sounds pleasing
>>1078864
I'm not aware of a strong god by your definition.
>>1079305
You know despite this the Church and even Augustine himself still believed most of genesis to be literally history? Augustine and all the rest of the church-fathers were still young earth creationists and defended the historcity of things like the flood and Noah's Ark.
>>1079326
>post proofs that Biblical Non-Literalism is an old idea with great authorities on board from the earliest history of the Church
>NOPE. STILL BACKPEDALING.
Again, as newer records become available, we should improve our understanding of the theology. Some weak genealogical records are no threat to the message of the Gospel.
>>1079332
>It would not have arisen from Judaism alone.
Shit like this is why we need a Counterfactual General. There's no way of knowing that, get real. Especially given the large Jewish community in Maccah. It's likely that Mohammed would have been very familiar with Judaism, even without Christianity, but again, that's mere conjecture and has no place in historical discussion, except as a game to be played over some fine whiskey.
>the reasons of the Fall of the Roman Empire
Please stop sucking Gibbon's cock. The fall of the Roman Empire had more to do with the period of migrations, and with the Fourth "Crusade" (don't start about that one, it was condemned by the Pope the moment the Crusaders got involved with succession dispute). Not religious controversies.
>people still take Gibbon seriously
Fuck Hitler, give me a time machine and I'll go end that meme.
>>1079302
Of the Kingdom of Israel perhaps, but considering that Cyrus of Persia makes an appearance along with Ararat, the landscape of the Bible is far more than just the small strip of modern Israel, which in and of itself isn't a pristinely preserved monumentfest.
Plus Israel is a harder target for ISIS to attack than villages scattered around barely governed arid scrubland.
>>1079370
>post proofs that Biblical Non-Literalism is an old idea with great authorities on board from the earliest history of the Church
except that was biblical nonliteralism in regards to Genesis. that is a completely different matter. How far is your biblical nonliteralism willing to go? how long before Jesus is just a story meant to convey God's greatness? Jesus met Abraham and Moses personally in the gospels and talked to them. are you saying that he met incarnations of fictional characters?
>>1079343
>>1079346
I'm not even gonna address these anymore. I've already stated why I've posted that. Bible Non-Literalism is an old idea, not backpedaling. Even if it was a fringe theory. That was purely my intent in posting that.
>>1079369
Again, as new documents and information come to light, fuck what everyone thinks. The truth of the Gospel has nothing to do with historical records. It's about salvation, and God's love. And THAT particular passage, Augustine certainly would say applies to the entire Bible. What he personally believed is of no consequence, and he says as much himself.
All I've done is demonstrated that this idea, of Jewish mythology being just that, is very old. I never intended to do more, and I agree that attempting to glean any larger meaning threatens to derail the thread. I only ever made a claim about Bible Non-Literalism, not Augustine and his beliefs on the matter.
>>1079385
>are you saying that he met incarnations of fictional characters
Even this... Is no threat to the message of Christ.
>>1079370
>Not religious controversies.
I didn't even mention the Fourth Crusade, idiot. I explicitly said Christian controversies such as Iconoclasm, Arianism, Paulicianism/Bogomilism within the Empire, all which caused massive unrest and division. Iconoclasm alone resulted in riots and popular uprisings and loss of support/emnity from the West. The Emperors were forced to deal with these issues - some which were literal semantics concerning Christ's "nature" - rather than take the fight to the Muslims. You tell me that isn't counter-productive, Christcuck.
>>1079356
But they didn't know that before finding better records. You act as though they always knew it was terrible as a historical record. But what I said is they started with the veiw of "best record that we have" and when other records were compiled they changed tune.
Is the stance and appearance of the T-Rex from Upright Kangaroo and Lizard Scales to Horizontal Landfowl and Bird Feathers science backpedaling? And no I'm not a creationist.
>>1079389
then I have no respect for you and there is no reason for me to continue discussing the matter with you if you are going to be this intellectually dishonest. you hold onto ideals for the sake of the ideals, ideals based upon a history that doesn't exist. what a disgusting religion you have. you have ripped christianity to.shreds until you have only the message itself, yet the message is meaningless without truths behind them. you might as well make God himself a metaphor
>>1079394
>I didn't even mention the Fourth Crusade, idiot
I know, I mentioned it. When I said there was bigger reasons than controversies. Are you feeling okay?
>You tell me that isn't counter-productive, Christcuck.
Sure it is! And Rome recovered plenty of times from such issues. No controversy was EVER a big a deal as Manzikert, or the Bulgars, or the rise of the Paeleologoi, in contributing to the fall of Rome. Blaming the controversies for the Fall is kind of like unironically blaming George W Bush for 9/11. I'm sure it contributed, but other reasons are so ridiculously more relevant, I have no choice but to think you're either memeing or have an axe to grind.
>>1079396
>But what I said is they started with the veiw of "best record that we have" and when other records were compiled they changed tune.
but it wasn't the best record they had. it was no better than any other fictional story. that isn't "the best record they had". and you are contradicting yourself. you believe biblical nonliteralism is correct yet you say that this example of taking the bible literally is okay until evidence came along that it was wrong. how can you not see this is backpedaling?
>>1079336
It is backpedaling. It was backpedaling when Augustine wrote what he wrote and it's still backpedaling today.
>>1079406
>you hold onto ideals for the sake of the ideals, ideals based upon a history that doesn't exist.
>what a disgusting religion you have. you have ripped christianity to shreds
>the message is meaningless without truths behind them
>"H-HOW DARE YOU DEFINE YOUR FAITH ON YOUR OWN TERMS?? W-WITH HISTORICAL BACKING FOR YOUR INTERPRETATIONS??? NO, YOU MUST USE MY TERMS TO DO IT!!! SO I CAN DISPROVE YOU!!! REEEEE! REEEEEEEE!!!"
Damn, I love being a gangster. This is a Christian thread now. Deus vult.
>>1079419
>it was no better than any other fictional story. that isn't "the best record they had".
And you know that how?
>>1079415
>No controversy was EVER a big a deal as Manzikert
Talk about 'memeing', the loss of Manzikert isn't considered as relevant as ancient chroniclers thought it was. The battle did not change the balance of power between the Byzantines and the Seljuks, the Doukid Emperor escaped with little to no casualties, and Manzikert itself was not recovered by the Seljuks.
The battle is mostly significant because it signaled the deepest extent of Seljuk entry into Byzantine territory and because the time away from Constantinople and news of his defeat caused the Emperor to be blinded and killed upon his return. Modern historians consider it to be over-rated, and medieval historians greatly exaggerated the "loss" at Manzikert.
That said, it's obvious you know very little concerning any of the Byzantine religious controversies. Just some advice: read a book. Because they were extremely relevant to its decline.
Get this. God created man to worship Him of mans own free will. Angels already existed (obviously The Fall happened before Adam and Eve). That would mean angels don't have free will. Satan was an angel named Lucifer. Without freewill, how did Lucifer say, "Screw you, bruh. Ima do me."?
>>1079440
This desu, is actually a better arguement than this historical records crap
>>1079426
>Damn, I love being a gangster
Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.
>This is a Christian thread now
Hardly, considering how every post has been a "get the fuck out" directed at you, and rightly.
>Deus vult.
Your "metaphor" God, right? Good luck with that.
Nice dubs tho
>>1079051
Doublethink
Dubs x2!
>>1079463
The defining feature of God's new creation (Man) was that this new creature had something new: free will.
Ergo, the angels were created without free will. Yet a number of them were able to reject and rebel, despite Man's distinctive trait that separated it from the angels being his freewill.
whats not to get?
>>1079456
Fucking checked.
>>1079463
Philosophical inconsistencies within Christianity are a bigger threat to the fundamental message than things going differently in history, because the central tenets of Christianity are not historical claims, but metaphysical ones.
Literally ANY argument that operates on a metaphysical level is better than history or science being different from the Bible.
>>1079473
Actually man's distinctive trait was physicality, having God's Image and Likeness and overall being God's favorite creation.
Why would god fill the bible with lies?
Isn't it supposed to be divinely inspired at the least? I don't know how you guys can say it's irrelevant
>>1079440
>angels rebel against the LORD God, the Creator of the Universe
>get rewarded with their own special domain in Hell, retain their power and abilities as immortal spirits and can even interact in the world by possessing people and arguably having as much power as God himself
>two humans eat a fruit
>banished from Paradise, doomed to die, progeny forever cursed to inherit the blame
>>1079494
Christcucks will go through a impossible mental loops to reconcile their continued belief in clearly deluded notions.
>>1079485
>physicality, having God's Image and Likeness
You're gonna have to back that shit up with some A1 sources. Theologians have generally agreed that it's actually REASON, going back to Tertullian.
>>1079426
Anon this is literally Mormonism tier right here.
>Yeah all pre-columbian archeological evidence contradicts the BoM
>Yeah Joseph Smith lied about some things
>okay the Book of Abraham doesn't bare any relationship to papyrus it was translated from
>But when I pray I get a warm feeling in my chest and I know the church and the testimony is true
You are dragging yourself down that low.
>>1079494
Not lies, any more than a fairy tale is a lie. A "lie" is meant to deceive. The Word of God isn't meant to deceive, even when it errs from historical accuracy. It's meant to reveal deeper truths.
People lie all the time, though. This makes biblical interpretation difficult. Luckily, very smart people have been working on it continously for thousands of years, and though they often disagree, it's that conversation that makes theology such a rich study.
It's only becomes a "lie" if you think your metaphysical truths depend on historical data. A dangerous position, intellectually and philosophically.
>>1079502
That's not true, the Church of Mormon sticks to its guns and actually believes it's a literal account. Nice try, but Brigham Young University has sunk millions into bogus archeology. They ABSOLUTELY depend on historical backing for their metaphysical truths. The Catholic Church has always made room for those without such limits.
>>1079495
>implying hell is a reward
>implying hell isnt death even for spiritual beings
>implying demons can do anything that God doesn't permit them to do because He can spin their malice into His providence
>implying the angelic can hold a candle to divine powers
>implying humanity didn't actually get off better since we have multiple chances to seek redemption since we exist within time and also have a special relationship with God through Jesus that the Angels can only dream about that totally makes up for it
>>1079502
Why must belief be grounded in truth?
Do you honestly believe everyone is obligated to shun all fiction, and that existence is better that way?
>>1079527
>"We don't have to believe in something just because it's true!"
This is a new low for 4chan.
>>1079495
That's not even the stupidest part of the bibile thought.
Think about it, according to christians god had to die to allow himself to save us from himself. The entire fucking religion is based on schizophrenia for fuck's sake.
>>1079527
>Why must belief be grounded in truth?
Literally the most morally offensive thing I have ever encountered on 4chan
>>1079500
>physicality
Self-evident, the Angels don't have physical bodies.
>image and likeness
Genesis 1:26
>>1079530
That's not an argument. In fact, it's not even an answer.
That was my first post in the thread, I'm genuinely curious why people seem to attach a value judgement to "truth" and "fiction" where it concerns what one chooses to believe.
>>1079530
>>1079527
You're looking at it wrong. There's transcendental truths, and mere historical truths. The key error of this thread was believing that if the historical was untrue, that was somehow commentary on the transcendental. It's like if I claim that 2+2=4 because I have two apples, and you have two more, so together we have four. However, you point out that I actually have three apples.
It would be wrong for me to say that I don't, and that I have only two because then 2+2 wouldn't be 4. Instead, a true seeker of truth would admit, "Okay, I was wrong about the apples. But there are still powerful reasons to believe in 2+2=4!"
Truth is paramount here. But it's wrong to think that some anecdotes being wrong must mean that transcendental truths are also wrong.
>>1079514
>The Word of God isn't meant to deceive, even when it errs from historical accuracy. It's meant to reveal deeper truths
and so does every other holy book
>>1079536
The image wasn't physical, it was the nature of Reason as a guiding principle.
>>1079527
why believe something that isn't true? is it even possible to believe something and simultaneously know it is wrong? that takes too much doublethink for me
>>1079538
If truth is not needed for belief, then why not start worshiping creatures from books of fiction? Say, I'll start worshiping the Valar from Lord of the Rings. Fuck your kike blood god, I'm going to worship the Valar, and I don't need any 'proof' to support my worship.
Hint: you're similar to the SJWs on Tumblr.
>>1079542
>The key error of this thread was believing that if the historical was untrue, that was somehow commentary on the transcendental
the transcendental claims are grounded in historical claims. what do you have that proves that your transcendental claims are any better than Hinduism's?
>>1079543
There's good reason people have often claimed that "all roads lead to God". I'm personally unconvinced by such arguments, but I'm ready to admit that, yes, near every holy book is meant to reveal a divine truth of some sort. Whether or not those books accomplish such goals are another matter entirely.
>>1079495
>hurr Hell is Satan's kingdom, Miltons fanfic said so!
>>1079549
>Say, I'll start worshiping the Valar from Lord of the Rings
Why not just worship Christian Angels then? They're literally Christian Angels that Tolkein put through a fantasy lens.
Eru Illuvitar is the God of that world.
>>1079550
I usually rely on the rich tradition of Christian theology and philosophy to justify that claim, with a bit of support from Greek classical philosophy. But honestly, I can only ever claim it's convincing, and I have faith.
>>1079538
>That's not an argument. In fact, it's not even an answer.
Well, excuse me, but your statement about "truth not being needed for belief/one can believe in something even if it's (objectively) wrong" makes no sense to begin with. I know you're trying to be edgy, but it simply makes you look like a stupid fuck.
>>1079549
Why not though?
This is entirely my question, why is constructing or maintaining personal mythology a thing which people consider "negative" if it is in fact false?
Ultimately, it is to serve one's own ends, be it even simply an artistic thing in it's making the world more interesting it certain regards. I could be wrong, but I believe even Nietzsche expressed that the elimination of all fiction is not in fact good for one's experience in living.
>>1079550
What do you have to prove Hinduism's transcendental claims are better than Christianity's?
>>1079559
>be it even simply an artistic thing in it's making the world more interesting it certain regards
That's called delusion. The psych ward is your best bet.
>>1079542
>You're looking at it wrong. There's transcendental truths, and mere historical truths.
“For if the Lord were in the body in appearance only, and were crucified in appearance only, then am I also bound in appearance only. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact,] I endure all things for Christ, not in appearance only, but in reality, that I may suffer together with Him, while He Himself inwardly strengthens me; for of myself I have no such ability. [1001]”
― Ignatius of Antioch
>>1079560
That's also a bad argument. His was a valid question, and I don't think it can be answered with "I know you are but what am I!"
>>1079560
I didn't claim that. If you want to divorce historical claims from the transcendental than you have to prove that your transcendental claims are superior to the competitors
>I'm here for pursuit of knowledge
>Christcuck, Christcuck, dead kike on stick XD XD
Leave it to atheists to be the bastion of maturity.
>>1079563
It isn't equivalent. One is the result of inability to recognize truth due to neurological dysfunction, the other is a conscious decision to maintain a vision you are amenable to.
I see no value in striving for truth in every aspect of existence, it can never be as interesting as the fiction one can construct.
I think people place too much emphasis on the Old Testament when it comes to historical inaccuracies. The New Testament is rife with them, too, but people seem to gloss over that.
>>1078477
Proddies should keep their opinions to themselves and stop pretending they are Christians
>>1079562
My post was just pointing out that the Valar aren't gods in LOTR and the God of that universe is called Eru Illuvitar, thus if you worship a fictional God (as in, a God from a High Fantasy novel series made by a devout Catholic scholar), make sure you actually get the fictional mythos right. Because in LOTR, worshipping the Valar will piss them off.
>>1079580
>I'm here for pursuit of knowledge
>"I can continue to believe in something even if it's proven to be completely wrong because it makes me feel good!"
Leave it to Christians to be bastions of sanity in this crazy world.
Atheism is a Protestant sect
see ITT for proof
>>1079573
That wasn't me, senpai. He's some Jew, quick with retorts but slow with thought.
>>1079564
Honestly, I know what he means here. By appearance/reality, he means that Christ did suffer, and redeemed him of his sins, rather than just escaping that pain because "lol I'm Jesus!". That was why Ignatius didn't do anything to prevent his own martyrdom.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense or needs further explanation, I'm really tired.
the free will argument has this covered still. Can anyone argue with this?
>>1079582
By all means get the ball rolling you faggot animal fucker
>>1079594
>but slow with thought.
Says the Christcuck who is backpedaling so hard he is trying to argue that truth is not required for belief and that belief in Christianity is justified even if it's all false.
>>1079600
Why so mad, dead kike worshiper?
>>1079597
Tertullian, hahahahaha
Man's image means Reason, not free will. But I'm tired as fuck and also this isn't my area of expertise. None of this is, desu. I just like fighting atheists.
CAN YOU PROVE THE TROJAN WAR WAS 100% REAL?????
ANSWER ME HELLENIKEKS
Zoose = disprove
>>1077831
>We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. Stories are not enough."
That's because they're looking for semites rather than for African-Americans.
>>1079612
>conflating historical facts with metaphysical truths
>believing one has any commentary on the other
Bad philosophy, everyone.
>>1078486
>Joshua committed allegorical genocide
>David, Saul and Solomon existed allegorically
>the walls of Jericho fell allegorically
>its just an allegory bro
and jesus rising from the dead? also an allegory?
>>1079623
>>CAN YOU PROVE THE TROJAN WAR WAS 100% REAL?????
Not sure what you think you're claiming here as much of the supernatural events surrounding the trojan war are flatly rejected by modern scholars. Troy itself was assumed to be a fictional place until archaeological evidence to the contrary was discovered in Anatolia.
>>1079594
>he means that Christ did suffer, and redeemed him of his sins
exactly. Ignatius died for nothing if Jesus didn't actually die in the flesh.Can we agree on this? then your transcendental claims are grounded in historical claims after all. Christianity's transcendental claims are worthless without not only a historical Jesus but a historical Jesus that died and came back to life
>>1079628
Backpedaling, everybody.
Eventually, it'll get to the point even the resurrection will have been an allegory. But luckily, that will mean Cucktianity's at its death throes.
>>1079623
it doesnt matter if the Iliad is 100% false since i am not claiming it is some sort of holy text from which one can derive moral truths
the bible is a history book + science textbook written by Jesus himself while he was on vacation in Missouri
I know this because Reverend Ben said so during Sunday school when I was still an unenlightened Baptist
now I am a superior Atheist uberman and know the best way to create new ideals is to copy what is popular while still holding on to everything I was told as a kid, just inverting it.
>>1079634
I guess that means we should stop printing the Odyssey/Iliad then
>>1079641
The issue is hardly the deriving of moral truths: it's the fact that - if possible - Christians would love to force all others to live strictly according to their book. That's where the problem kicks in.
>>1079630
>allegorical genocide
The genocide served allegorical purposes on dealing with vice, fight it all the way, don't pussyfoot around. Want to quit smoking? Quit all the way, don't just smoke 4 packs once every 3 weeks, quit the whole thing.
>>1079646
so what Secularists do on a regular basis?
>>1079645
nah, both of them and the bible are good reads
>>1079649
>The genocide served allegorical purposes on dealing with vice, fight it all the way, don't pussyfoot around.
oh my YHVH my sides
>>1079650
What exactly do secularists regularly "force" you to do? Trample on Bibles and spit on icons of Jesus, surely?
>>1079650
No not really. Secularists largely act in the defense of their own rights to not be forcibly converted or discriminated against for not being religious.
If the Christcuck god is real, hes fucked. I love you, but im gonna let you get raped little girl, even though im all powerful, and, ya know, like i said, i love you
>>1079638
I'm willing to bite that bullet, sure. But at that point, we'll enter the stage of faith, and I know atheists want none of that.
>>1079639
You don't know what backpedaling even is, because they way you use it is like a buzzword.
>>1079649
tell me the allegorical truth of not allowing Moabites into the assembly of the Lord
>>1079098
This is the foundation of all faith, really.
How is my position any more ridiculous than anyone else's in this thread? Near as I can see, there are many Christians in this thread trying to apologize for what they see as the failure of archaeology to prove their faith. They seem to be conceding many points to secular science, even willing to give up Abraham and the other patriarchs in the name of secular historical accuracy. This makes me wonder if they have any conviction at all in their belief.
If it's all allegorical, if none of it happened, why is any of it worth believing? If the Old Testament is allegorical, why not the New Testament also? Why is it not more sensible to say that Christ didn't exist, that he was cobbled together from various myth figures and mystery cults? That seems the logical conclusion to the positions of several Christians in this thread.
I won't have that. I believe in the historical Christ, who was divine. So therefore I have to have the historical Moses, and the historical Abraham, and all the rest. You talk about a sane foundation, but it seems to me that assuming the Old Testament is purely allegorical is very insane. If none of it actually happened, why should I put any more stock in the New Testament? Couldn't the same arguments leveled against the Old Testament be leveled against the New? So where do we stop in our assignment of allegory? We can't go too far. A line of literalism has to be drawn.
>>1079657
Muh gun bans
>>1079665
This is what it comes down to, ultimately. Atheists find the Christian God morally repulsive to their tastes.
>>1079657
Fund through taxes, condone and support abortion. Celebrate sodomy and other sexual vice as either sacramental love or liberation.
>>1078564
Stop posting that stupid link dipshit, all credible historians don't deny His existence.
>>1079657
enforce their ideals on religious spaces through their control of the state, since "secularism" is really just an excuse for the state to dominate all aspects of life, including religion.
beyond that they spread anti-christian propaganda and actively try to fight any religious movements to further bolster the State.
Atheism is the slow rot of society, its not a re-evaluation, or some grand re-inventing of social values. it just inverts social situations and promotes apathetic nihilism
>>1079667
there are some good arguments for Jesus not being historical though
>>1079673
>So therefore I have to have the historical Moses, and the historical Abraham, and all the rest
They didn't exist. They're amalgamations of ancestor-figures and heroes. You're just fucked in the head.
>>1079676
because they believe they are special, and when the truth tells them that what they do is incorrect, then they would rather destroy truth than accept their faults.
its secular slave mentality at its finest.
now everyone be a good goy and go buy some new clothes and techy devices.
>>1079688
no one believed King Arthur existed for centuries until they discovered the Round Table
>>1079673
I draw the line at the Mystery of the Resurrection. It's something that absolutely does make commentary on the metaphysical reality of Christ. I commend your devotion, but I'm relying more on the philosophy and transcendence of Christ as a damn good reason for believing in it.
If be willing to consider a similar line being drawn around the 40 year trek through the desert, in Exodus. Though not without serious thought. For now, the Resurrection and the Immaculate Conception are my lines.
>>1079688
No more fucked than any other Christian in this thread.
/b/ would have a field day with all these dubz
>>1079667
Jesus comes with baggage though. you take Jesus you have to accept that he fulfills OT prophecies. if you look through the prophecies he fulfilled in the gospels a lot of them are bunk.
>>1079670
It wasn't time yet for Gentiles to do that.
Once Jesus showed up, it was time. There was other prep work God had to do to get man ready.
>>1079680
> promotes apathetic nihilism
Except it isn't. Most atheists say that your live truly matters because there is powerful divine force that make everything absurd by comparison. There is no hell and heaven so what you do truly relevant for you and everyone else.
>>1079678
>Fund through taxes, condone and support abortion
What? Since when is it 'supported'? It's merely a discreet service that is offered at sexual health clinics that also offer treatment and preventive services for other things such as family planning and STD/HIV care. Nowhere is "get an abortion!" being condoned or even touted as a recommended alternative.
>celebrate sodomy
It's not celebrated, that's just your paranoid delusions of the typical /pol/ack kind.
>>1079680
>beyond that they spread anti-christian propaganda
Such as?
>and actively try to fight any religious movements to further bolster the State
How is that bad? The last thing we need is more shit like Scientology or Mormonism spreading around.
>>1079701
so he forcefully excluded them and therefore forced them into hell?
>>1079684
And there's good ones for him existing. I've not been convinced he hasn't, and desu I don't go around knocking on people's doors. My faith is a rather private thing, and it's really just up to my conviction.
>>1079691
I do believe that, but I'm also a philosopher and that smacks of ad hominem. If they really are retards, I should be able to drive them into a rage through mere discourse. As I've done in this thread.
>>1079711
>but I'm also a philosopher
No, you just try to be and fail.
>>1079711
well I've been convinced he hasn't, so it doesn't even come down to faith, in my mind at least your religion has been proven to most likely be false
>>1079700
That's true that he didn't fulfill many of them to the exact letter, but this was an arguement while he was still around, according to the Bible.
This will be my last post in the thread. This was a lot of fun, but now I have to watch Game of Thrones. For work.
I wish I was kidding.
>>1079709
Who says they went to Hell? You cant know how God judges man at their death.
>>1079701
>morality is not eternal but is subjective
>>1079717
*didn't exist
>>1079717
>well I've been convinced he hasn't, so it doesn't even come down to faith, in my mind at least your religion has been proven to most likely be false
That's fine. I'm only defending my reasons, not trying to convince you.
>>1079716
You're cute, I like you. Please get a tripcode, so I can follow your truly crippling retorts throughout the entire board.
>>1079719
What's your job?
>>1079720
so says the bible and christian theology. the wages of sin is death. the only way to the Father is me says Jesus
>>1079676
> Atheists find the Christian God morally repulsive to their tastes.
I believe most Christians imagine their God to be a morally acceptable for them. It is wishful thinking from both sides in the end.
If you want to be objective, if God exist then our world exist according to his will and we know that our world is shitty place. Gnostics seems to be more honest in it dogma.
>>1079724
Where did I ever say anything like that?
>>1079731
But of course, our world is not the end. This is the great point, the one that Christians don't bring up enough and that atheists always forget. This current life is only the beginning.
>>1079731
>Gnostics seems to be more honest in it dogma.
As a Catholic, I absolutely agree. I really admire their willingness to bite the bullet on theodicy, and the problem of evil is something I personally struggled with for a long time. It's absolutely the case that Christians want their God to be morally acceptable to them, but luckily protestants are the biggest offenders of that mentality (making God fit into how THEY want him to be).
>>1079729
Journalist. Boss wants 400 words on Jon Snow for some shitty clickbait, and by fucking golly, he's gonna fucking get 'em.
>>1079730
Yeah, but you still can't know God's judgement. You can infer, but not conclude.
>>1079738
>>and that atheists always forget. This current life is only the beginning.
Actually it's more that we don't believe this claim. For all we can tell, this current life is all that we have.
>>1079738
> our world is not the end
Well, it doesn't matter. God created whatever kind of next world there can be and going but what was already shown it hardly would be better.
>>1079743
but will you agree that having the weight of sin lifted by Jesus is preferable to facing judgement for those sins?
>>1079753
We'll face judgement nonetheless anon.
>>1079749
But the whole foundation of Christianity is that that claim is false. Jesus came into the world to bring humanity an eternal life after death. It's the bedrock of the Christian religion. Why else would Easter be their most important holiday? It's not Jesus' ministry that's his greatest feat, it's his Resurrection.
>>1079734
You claim that it was not immoral because it was a different time and that time was not subject to certain conditions, in this case Jesus. However if morality is truly objective it must be eternal.
I mean if you rape a bunch of women, we would consider it poor form if you defended it by simply saying "well it was bitch raping time"
>>1078946
>the Fall
Yes.
>the Flood
Pic related, yes and it originaly said ''land'', not ''entire earth''.
>Exodus
Yes.
www.covenantkeepers.co.uk/sinai.htm
>>1079754
even so Jesus said the only way to the Father is through Him. if you don't have Jesus you can't be with the Father. will you agree that being in communion with God is preferable to not?
>>1079760
So Muslims have Jesus
also
>implying you know what jesus said
t. the gospels i like
>>1079532
>god had to die to allow himself to save us from himself
Idiot.
>>1079588
>proven to be completely wrong
This is what atheists actually believe? hahahahaha oh wow
>>1079760
Preferable to what? If you're asking me whether being with Christ is preferably to not being so, I'm just gonna look at you funny and say "Well what do you think, chief?"
