Has anyone managed to rebut Betrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian?"
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.
> If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.
>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
>I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one.
more in next post
>>76048794
>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching
>There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs.
> That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."
>The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.
Things made had a beginning. That which evinces design began and was made by an intelligence.
If you don't like this universe, you can always leave it.
God gives free will to all his intelligent creation. They can then do what they will with that freedom. They will be judged. You can't criticize God for not preventing people to be bad, and then criticize him for being judgemental. This is profoundly hypocritical and absurd.
Christ doesn't once speak about eternal judgement. He speaks about life and death.
Russell is all about Pigs Lives Matter
Eliminating the church has given rise to Social Justice Warfare, Feminazism, Cultural Marxism, and all the other related ills.
Guilt is an essential part of what separates the self-controlled, noble man from the savage.
Look at that bitter old fool, Russell. Nothing he ever wrote brought joy into anyone's life.
At least he wasn't a dribbling lunatic like Nietzsche
>(Psalm 14:1) The senseless one has said in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.”
>(Psalm 10:4) The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; All his ideas are: “There is no God.”
>1 Corinthians 1:27,28 - but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God.
>Luke 10:21 - In that very hour he became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you.
>(1 Corinthians 1:19) For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.”
>(1 Corinthians 2:6) Now we speak wisdom among those who are mature, but not the wisdom of this system of things nor that of the rulers of this system of things, who are to come to nothing.
>>76049449
NWT? :)
>>76049449
Actually so an I. However, I hope you aren't being too political
>>76049166
>create the KKKand Facists
Men created those. Generation after generation of though and differing philosophy's colliding, fusing and debuting, leading to the hatred fueling the KKK, and the radicalism of facism. Their existence is the culmination of actions of free will undertaken by those before, not created by God.
Don't see any actual arguments against him here
>>76050173
Of course and this is what I was implying.
>>76050181
Easily rebutted 3rd rate arguments from a mind more at home with mathematics than dialectics, a field he had no expertise in or talent for, probably like yourself
>>76049827
Why not?
>>76049873
Only incorrect ;)
>>76050616
are you counting the time ;)
i've read it OP, and there is no rebuttal.
>>76050887
Only if you think that theology=simple mindedness and 3rd rate homespun dialectics of a rather sophomoric character
>>76048794
>cucked people out of resentment
>is a cuck himself
>his dad is a cuck
>doesn't understand a single German philosopher about from Leibniz
>an emotional and irational manchild who decided to divorce on a whim
>>76048794
>>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
I guess free will is not included among your presuppositions.
Which would mean "you" are not really making an argument, but the chance arrangement of particles resulted in some illuminated dots across a few objects around the globe.
Cool story.
>All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince. (Plato)
> The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination
This is false. Not everything has a cause. Saying that there is not a first cause results in an infinite chain that has no end, and thus the present state can't be reached. It's like saying someone has counted from minus infinity to zero. You can't traverse an infinite set, you can't go through inifnite causes. It looks like this person didn't really know what he was saying.
> if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law
God is only subject to God. There is nothing above him by definition. It looks like this person is used to accepting "laws" without knowing what they are.
> you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists
Not only this shows a complete lack of theologcal maturity, but also tht the author is an emotional child, who wants to earn progressiveness and social action points. Anyway, from a theological point of view, the author expects the lack of sin, which is absurd the moment we have free will. The author also forgets that without God, there is no reason to consider anything to be bad. In order to criticise God trying to prove he doesn't exist, you need universal morality, but in order to have universal morality you need God.
>Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all
The author shows his completely lack of knowledge about history.
>and if He did we do not know anything about him
The author conveniently forgets about the written testimony by several writers.
>I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one.
It is for the author, since the obvious answer contradicts his childish rants.
>>76050616
What if I am?
>>76051356
I hope you get your hours in this month :)
maybe you're posting from bethel
>>76048800
>I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment
Again, the author is shown to be an emotional child who rejects just punishment of those who willingly reject God and are unrepentant.
>and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching
somehow the author expects God to love the fact that people reject the Truth in favor of being a wild animal.
>was not very kind to the pigs
How much is very kind? How much is it not? Where is this threshold the author talks about? Why worry about pigs that are soulless animals? It looks like the author considers himself to be at the same level as a pig, something that, even is partially correct, is false, since other animals have no soul.
> inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering
For the author, anything that means authority and limits to hedonism is undeserved suffering, so these claims are empty
> it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement
The author definitions of improvement are an insult to real improvement
>it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules
Morality does is a set of rules, in a certain way
> nothing to do with human happiness
What is good and bad isn't what makes people happy or not. Someone may be really happy brutally murdering another person. That doesn't make it good.
>The object of morals is not to make people happy
It is not. Morals aren't a tool of hedonism. Morals are what is itself right and good.
>The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms
The author just states his crazy theories he probably has read somewhere.
>It is a conception quite unworthy of free men
It looks like the goal of the author is to live without any authority, good or evil, a life of complete hedonism and lack of guilt
>>76048800
>it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.
the author, however, tries to limit the KKK and fascists. Isn't that exactly the same thing he complains about? He is limiting their freedom after all, labelling them as miserable sinners.
I can say with complete confidence, that Betrand Russell was a complete retard who tried to play in the big leagues by talking about theology, but just spat a childish rambling that anyone with minimum knowledge will laugh at. Ayone who considers it anything beyong garbage are probably the same kind of children who want a fuel a hedonist life.
>>76051857
Russell basically rejects free will, so he is thinking and statements are nondeterministic and essentially programmed. This replaces a belief in God for Fate. Why Fate is more believable than God I cannot fathom.
God's willingness to grant some of his creatures a large measure of free will allows the possibility of suffering. Sometimes the bad choices of humans (and angels) lead to suffering of others, even innocents. This is a necessary unfortunate consequence of the potential bad exercise of free will. If will is not free, then we are no better than robots.
Russell wanted a morality that allowed him to do whatever he wanted, so that he could be 'sexually free' and be a serial marrier and adulterer
>>76051613
>posting from Bethel
KEK. Man, everybody who goes to Bethel become self-righteous, insufferable faggots. I can't believe I was stupid enough to get baptized at 15.
>>76052131
Whilst he rejects the doctrine of free will, he wants to be a 'free man'. So like many atheist agitators, he is riddled with hypocrisies and and contradictions
>>76052198
I'm not anti at all, but there is some truth in what you say. In some ways it is good that a lot of Bethelites will have to go out and get real jobs in the real world. For some of them. Some I feel a bit of empathy for, those who haven't got any skills and who thought that Bethel would look after them for life
Reminder that Jesus never said he was god, the son of god, or even divine, ever. Inb4 bible quote, l2biblicalhistory
>>76052385
Hi Muhammed
>>76051613
Thanx for the reminder. Got to go turn in my time. Nope, not at Bethel, not that good. Where are you from?
>>76052408
No, it seems JWs out in force
If he's merely massaging her breasts in a non-sexual & therapeutic manner, then whats the issue?
>>76048800
it doesnt matter what you believe
God is there, hell is there, salvation is there
try your luck
>>76052385
Breddy sure it's in like the first paragraph of John lad.
>>76052458
Check flag :)
You should wait till the circuit overseer shows up, its easier to pioneer that way...
Is that pic you?
>>76052385
>i was there
>>76048794
all religions created in the past are dumb, we need a new one that works for the modern age and encourages technology and human unity and development
>>76052541
Literally says, in the beginning the word was, the word was with the god, and the word was god.
Note the lack of definite article before the 2nd use of God. This implies that Jesus isn't 'the' God, but rather of divine nature. John 1;18 enlarges on this (NASB)
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jesus can't be with himself; no-one has seen God (that is, the God), but the divine being who was with the God has explained Him.
>>76052645
it will rise don't you worry, it's all written
>>76052645
>>76052458
Hola muchachos, buenos noches
>>76052776
It's perfect tense, a more accurate translation would require ebonics. "And the the word be with God, and the word be God."
>>76052645
This is probably exactly what all the prophets of the past thought at the time
>>76052927
I think you mean to say, they don't think it be like it is, but it do
I believe that the passage is in the aorist tense, anyway just read literally we can see a distinction in the described 'Godness' of the Word and the one whom the Word was with, namely 'The God'. Also, John really should have said 'with the Father' if he was making them one and the same entity. He cannot be himself and with himself, although he can be with the Father.
>>76052776
Literally a fantasy created by muslims using an incorrect translation
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.2.06.html
>>76053311
Just to clarify, the distinction in 'Godness' is that the one whom the Word was with from the beginning (that is likely, the beginning of Creation just as in Genesis 1:1, not from infinite time. In any case, infinite eternity never had a beginning) was The God, not just of God nature or as can be reasonably translated (since Greek has no imperfect article) 'a God'
>>76053379
No, original and undefiled Christianity, that was usurped by Constantine and promoted by a corrupt priesthood, with its inquisitions, persecutions, political harlotry and pedophilia has shown itself to be an apostasy from truth just as Jesus foretold
>>76053311
what if God has given to Jesus the God status?
>>76053567
Corrupt are those who try to force their fantasies about tradition and scripture. the same claims you make are made by muslims, JWs, mormons etc. and none of them have anything that shows any "Corruption".
It's funny how you are unable to address what I say, how you talk about "corrupt priesthood", when corruption is defined as rejecting the Truth of the church, about persecutions when it is protetants who are mindless drones, about "political harlotry" when it was protestants who attacked empires using religious propaganda", about pedophilia when you don't give numbers, I can say the same about any denomination and you can just find a correlation with homosexuals.
You don't know what Jesus said. You have created your own fanfic, and claim that anyone who doesn't gfollow your terrible fanfic is "corrupted".
By the way, the things that according to you are a result of corruption, are common with the orthodox, so anything you say mut also apply to them.
>>76053813
Please, don't take that retard seriously, as this link >>76053379 and many others explain, he just tries to use a known to be false translation to fuel his fanfic
>>76048794
>Ku Klux Klan
>bad
No rebuttal necessary, he made himself come across as retarded already.
>>76053813
Not exactly, but the Father did exalt Jesus to a higher status than what he had before his descent, to a loftier position than any other creature has had or will ever have- Philippians 2;5-11
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a [c]servant, [d]being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and [e]things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
>>76048794
>>76048800
>New Atheism
>worthy of being taken seriously
>>76053567
And by the way, you should take a look at this before you continue writing your fanfic:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/toc.html
>>76053933
>im smarter than bertrand russell
LMAO
>>76053958
Jesus was always special
through him, God made everything
now is just specialer
>>76053859
The scripture is clear, and it is uncorrupted. It makes a distinction between 'The God' and 'The Word'. Both existed apart from each other, they were 'with' each other. Only a person lost in a sea of confusion could conflate the 2 as being somehow the same being. These notions are stolen from paganism, via Platonism, as the Constantine rule church (Constantine himself being half pagan) tried to appeal to the educated masses.
It's a fact that wicked trinitarian clergy have persecuted the Arians, the Waldenses, the Socinians and the Hussites, Michael Servetus, anyone who didn't share inexplicable, irrational and unscriptural trinitarian theology. In this and in many other things, the clergy class have much blood on their hands. Also in leading the masses away from accurate knowledge, they call judgement on themselves.
The Catholic Church has been in bed with most of the murderous dictators over the last 1700 years, from the Borgias to the Spanish Hapsburgs to Hitler and Mussolini. It is a deviation from truth.
>>76054330
Albigensian Crusade, best day of my life
>>76052557
>>76052912
Yeah I noticed your flag from Upside-Down Land. Yes, that's me. Typical American white man in America.
>>76054276
This is irrelevant, what is at stake is not what Muslim apologists or their critics believe, it is what the Greek actually says. The point is not 'ton theon', but rather the non-occurence of 'ho'. Greek doesn't have a definite article, therefore it has to be inserted according to context. As the Word was with the God, he cannot have been the God, therefore as the text itself implies, he was a God or a divine being, just as verse 18 shows, he was explaining the God whom no man ever has seen.
Just as Jesus said at John 14:28, 'The Father is greater than I am"
>>76054326
Actually, you've summed it up well, although not particularly grammatically correctly :)
But at the same time these and other verses, whilst showing Jesus' uniqueness, never imply equality between the Father and the Son. In any case, father and son is the wrong familial relationship to denote equality. If equality was implied, then brothers would have been used.
Jesus never does his own will even in his exalted post-Earthly state; he always as an obedient Son does his Father's will, even if on Earth that will was different from his own. As Christ said, 'Not my will, but your will be done"
>>76054281
I don't believe in a totalitarian new world order, so yes, by default, I'm smarter than he is.
>>76053958
>>76053958
>(Hebrews 5:8, 9) Although he was a Son, HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE from the things he suffered; 9and after HE HAD BEEN MADE PERFECT, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him,
HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE
HAD BEEN MADE PERFECT
This is AFTER Jesus went to heaven. After going to heaven he learned obedience from the things he suffered.
questions:
What could God ever learn? Doesn't he know EVERYTHING already and always knew everything?
How could God learn OBEDIENCE? Who would God ever have to OBEY!?
How can God be perfected? How can God be perfected THROUGH obedience if he has to obey NOBODY!!
The person above in that verse is someone who had to:learn, obey, and be perfected. That's impossible for God.
ITT: Theists speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.
This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
And no, 'atheists wear funny hats xD' is not an argument.
>>76054377
The Albigenses were not Christian, but that was no reason to kill 'em. That is the nature of totalitarianism though, however it's not a viewpoint I share. The Waldenses though were practising a more pure form of Christianity than their corrupted Catholic neighbours
>>76054330
The ramblings of retarded heretics never fail to make me laugh. Please, study something and learn a bout the Trinity. For every single heretic, the scripture is "clear". I will remind you that what you consider to be scripture is the canon, a canon that was created by the Church.
I don't really care about heretics being crushed, since they are heretics who spread spiritual death. People like you have something much, much worse than blood in their hands. In your hands is the damnation of other people.
Again, you talk about "The Catholic Church", but all your petty heresies are also rejected by the orthodox. I couldn't care less about what you consider to be a murderous dictator. I don't see why I should care.
It looks like you are like Russell, an emotional child with no understanding of theology. The difference is while he talks about "muh KKK", you talk about "muh dictators".
Also, the fact that you include Hitler among the "murderous dictators" says a lot.
>>76054699
what if it exist and you cant prove it yet?
are you taking your chances anyway?
>>76054699
>muh "God is an object hiding somewhere in the universe"
New Atheists, not even once
>>76048794
Why do they even write a whole books about this shit? I'm materialsit because it's all mumbo-jumbo, the end.
>>76054699
This nigga right here with the dubs.
I happen to disagree with his larger schema but he argues magnificently.
>>76054699
You seem to be very certain of yourself
>>76054666
Just because you dont believe in it doesnt mean its not real
The world is moving towards a new world order whether you like it or not
But go ahead and feel smart
>>76054699
At the beginning of creation, the laws of physics break down from our perspective. At that moment, things that are wondrous, or miraculous, can occur. Just because things are miraculous doesn't mean they cannot happen. One must choose which kind of miraculous events are most likely, that is the creation of a universe redolent with order, majesty and beauty from pure chance or as an ordered, divinely designed work of creative genius. I plump for the latter everyday.
If God was the same as a teapot or the flying spaghetti monster, then atheist apologists wouldn't need to disingenuously keep referring to these things since they would be self-evidently comparable. But this is only strawman ridicule, and shows the bankruptness of these kinds of simplistic arguments.
What we need is an honest examination of what is true, not 'who needs to prove what'. Actually, falsifiability is used as some sort of dogma. Once one rejects the pure doctrines of God, one seems to need to replace such with the impure dogmas of philosophy and these have reached their nadir in the present with cultural marxist pansexual triggering safe spacery. This is the natural development of rejecting truth; the rejector of truth is always receptive to the lie
How is there free will if you don't choose your genes and upbringing? Fate does not exist (only people who believe God is omniscient do, because God knows what will happen in advance). The natural order is chaos and what will happen next is dependent on a lot of things. Though we think and make our own decisions, we have a limited selection of decisions based on our innate characteristics and we are naturally more likely to choose certain decisions based on our character and situation. Much of this is influenced by our genes and upbringing. We are not individuals with a universally uniform moral code. What I mean is that if you were born into a rich, loving, Muslim family in Saudi Arabia, you will most likely view and do things differently if you had a poor, abusive, Christian single mom in Russia.
There might be some degree of free will, but it's definitely limited and it's foolish to believe that all humans are as capable as others to become Christian or do moral things.
Hell is a stupid concept because it punishes people for things that were mostly out of their control. If Allah sent a charitable and noble pastor to Hell, you would object and be outraged and rightfully so, but when the Christian God punishes a 19 year old Hindu who dies in a flood it's somehow okay.
Christian morality is messed up. There's a reason why we don't use this kind of punishment in the West. Eternal punishment on Earth is called torture and is often used by dictators to keep people from criticizing the leader and it's immoral to torture the masturbator for the same amount of time as a serial rapist (forever).
>>76054823
So it's an unfalsifiable concept? Why bother with it then?
>>76048794
Time certainly does have a beginning. So everything else that's set in time also does. Everything that's finite has a beginning.Russell was a proto-fedora.
>>76054735
The Catholic Church created nothing good, only misery and corruption and bloodshed.
The scriptures were created by God and written down by his servants, prophets and apostles. The Church has only obfuscated and sought to muddy these pure truths. Indeed, for centuries merely owning the scriptures in the vernacular was a capital offense. The clergy didn't want the people to know the truth of the Bible, otherwise their immorality, bloodshed and selling of indulgences would be seen for what they were
>>76055183
No, because we have characteristics beyond the material universe, and God can reveal Truth
>>76055183
No, atheists just never bother to actually read what Christians claim about God and resort to strawman arguments like the idea that God is like a teapot, just sitting in the universe somewhere waiting to be physically found.
Whenever someone mentions or defends Russell's teapot, you know they don't know their shit.
>>76055168
Free will is limited, and can be quite limited. But one can exercise free will more than others. One can choose to be more or less free acting.
And I don't believe in eternal hellfire, and the Bible doesn't teach such a thing. To punish someone eternally for acts during a finite lifetime is immoral and evil.
>>76055224
The Catholic Church offers the Truth, and heretics like you offer a fanfic.
Please, tell me how you know what books are part of the Bible canon.
You seem to be a muslim rather than a christian, considering you deny Jesus being God and talk about books written by God.
You definitely are not a Christian, that's for sure.
Just accept you create a fanfic as you go from whatever new stupidity crosses your mind.
Again, more or less all denominations reject your stupid heresies, you are a joke for everyone, emotional retard.
>>76053198
EXACTLY, and it worked
look at the roman empire and the Arabian Empire after christianity and islam
but its slowly getting fucked up, Cucks in chirstianity and radicals in islam are fucking both relgions up.
relgion is needed to create somthing that bands people together and a sort of dos and donts for not so obvious things
a relgion that promotes Unity in humanity and techonoogical progress makes me fucking hard as a rock.
i will sign up to that shit pronto or make it if i have enough money to do so.
there is so much to learn, so much to do for us, we can achieve so much but we squabble and fight to follow rules made 1400 years ago, it makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
we need this NOW
>>76055384
>determinism
I'm mocking this out of free will
>>76055384
>And I don't believe in eternal hellfire, and the Bible doesn't teach such a thing. To punish someone eternally for acts during a finite lifetime is immoral and evil.
that's bullshit tho, Jesus is pretty clear about hell
>>76055346
If God was a teapot, then he doesn't need to be likened to a teapot since this fact is self-evident. This also implies God's reality but I'll leave that for a moment.
Really they only get tetchy like this because Darwin looked like an ape
>>76055493
Don't you understand? Heretics don't care about that. They just create a fantasy in seconds, and then hijack Christianity to try to add legitimacy to their terrible stories
>>76055346
Then please explain what would falsify the concept of God, because that's what Russell's teapot is all about.
It's not abput the teapot itself, it's about the fact that having a discussion about something that is supposed be beyond reality is a complete waste of time, as such a concept cannot be tested. It cannot be properly verified or refuted and is therefore completely meaningless
>>76053999
Every probing of my faith is new atheism: the post
>>76055261
>No, because we have characteristics beyond the material universe
And what would those be?
>>76055406
The canon was accepted by the body of the Christian congregation long before the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, which saw the rise of Christendom, a political movement more than a religious one, used by the Roman Emperors as an instrument of state and something which Christ had not intended. Writers like Justin, Irenaeus, and Polycarp (all non-trinitarians) show that the canon was well established before the 4th century. Inspiration is revealed not by Popes, who have been traditionally corrupt immoral and worldly, but by inherent inspiration and those with God's spirit were able to recognize this fact with or without councils
>>76055406
The Bible is written by God, as 2 Timothy 3;16,17 shows clearly. Your adhoms are pathetic also, I hope you feel ashamed.
>>76054805
Yes, as much a chance as you take with all the other deities you cannot prove yet.
>>76055624
the problem is your eternal soul, that's not save if you dont accept Jesus Christ
you can say you are the best men alive, but that don't save you
>>76055670
Consciousness and morals, to begin with
>>76055672
The canon was accepted by the same Church you like to go against. The canon was given by the apostolic line, but you reject the apostolic line. All non trinitarians are heretics, have always been heretics and what they say is irrelevant.
the Pope is the head and authority. You are not a special snowflake that gets special revelations while you sleep.
wordly? I only see you try to go against the Church using wordly arguments. No mention of dogma, theology etc.
The heretic's favorite excuse: "G-god has revealed this knowledge to me!", he says, while a million more heretics say the same. Really sad
>>76048794
Wittgenstein did when he called all of Russell's non mathematical writings utter garbage which no one should ever read.
>>76054805
>you just cant take the chance
>brb molesting your children who trust me while you donate significant sums to the church which I turn around and use to cripple sex education, birth control, and inject muh religion into everything from medical care to international politics
Rerigion
>>76055493
Jesus uses several words or terms that are generically translated 'hell' in most Bibles. The word 'hades' doesn't imply any sort of punishment at all. Jesus even went there. David knew he was going there, but didn't want to be 'left' there. Gehenna is the term that Jesus uses for the final place of unrepentant sinners; this was a rubbish dump outside Jerusalem where rubbish, including the corpses of criminals, was placed. Most of the time stuff was burning here. The bodies that were placed here were not burning in pain, they were dead and were burnt to dispose of them. This is what the lake of fire is, a place to dispose of the wicked.
Those that promote hellfire are really doing the Devil's work
It truly is embarrassing.
>The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.
Except for the tons of proofs down the ages to assert it as true. Instead of looking at the academic discourse, he just classifies them all as not bright enough without addressing their arguments at all.
>If you say, as more orthodox theologians...
That's not necessarily the case whatsoever.
And could I not then say that this result only stems from a poverty of imagination?
>Do you think that, if you were...
This addresses zero arguments for Philosophical Optimism.
And could I not then say that this result only stems from a poverty of imagination?
>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching
Because he understands the punishment in a penal sense would be my issue, but still this is just a throwaway comment by him.
>Gadarene pigs
And has he looked into any of the church's explanation of the situation there?
>church as destructive
Bullshit. Even pic related would show this to be bullshit, or at least not as clear cut as he describes.
>happiness
The church isn't wrong. He's just criticizing the church for not being utilitarian like he is without going into a discourse on either case. It's a sign of being intellectually juvenile to ridicule someone simply based on the fact they disagree with you. While the church promotes an inner joy that comes from seeking the good, the good doesn't always bring happiness immediately and is sometimes the harder thing to do.
>The whole conception of God is
Random assertions.
>>76055771
Jesus said
> You will know them by their fruit.
what other gods do you know?
all the world knows about Jesus Christ, we even celebrate his birthday the 24 of dic
>>76055796
The idea of eternal punishment through fire and torment is the most immoral proposition you can make and your great deity has that in store for anyone who doesn't fulfill his vain ego by acknowledging him as the one true god among thousands of others vying for the same position.
>>76055624
>what would falsify the concept of God
What do you expect, some kind of an MRI scan that will detect God? God is simply necessary, logic demands it. The unmoved mover is simply necessary since finite things can't have brought themselves into existence, eternal chain of causation of finite things is not possible, the unmoved mover is necessary.
>>76055796
>more dogmatic bullshit
And this is why no one takes you seriously. Most christians don't take you seriously too.
>>76055914
I feel pretty bad seeing nothing of Russel's work as any good and yet he's praised back and forth.
>>76055718
You haven't answered my questions, little heretic, you just repeat the same you said before like a broken record. It looks like your brain shuts down when you face anything that threatens your fanfic. Like a self defense mechanism to avoid mental thrauma
>>76055941
Luke 16:19
>>76055908
Popes have acted more or less wickedly for 1800 years. The apostles were appointed by God, the popes my man.
Check out this:
http://www.livescience.com/8606-7-unholy-pope-scandals.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marozia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia#Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
to go on with
>>76055718
>according to the Bible, the Bible is written by the creator of the universe
>>76055950
Not being able to write in English does not do any favors for your case just so you know.
There are thousands of world religions; don't pretend you do not know what I am talking about.
Thursday is named after Thor; does that mean we celebrate a European god every week? REligious artifacts in our culture do not bolster religious claims.
>>76048794
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.
What is the Big Bang.
>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
The problem of evil has been addressed already, and widely considered a non-issue for at least 40 years.
>Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all
Balderdash, no scholar that I have ever heard of doubts the existence of Jesus.
>>76056002
that's your problem, not mine, i'm just telling you how to save your soul through Jesus, maybe it's not your time, but i hope you see it, one eternity in hell isn't good
>>76055718
Just write it down and it's just so? It's a wonder then why you don't read the Koran or Book of Mormon as holy gospel.
>>76056035
>Luke 16:19
The rich man and Lazarus is a parable, or allegory. The hellfire allegedly in this is not so bad. Apparently one drop of water from Lazarus finger could have quenched it. The point of it is revealed at the end, when Jesus says 'The first will be last and the last first'. It was to show that the prominent religious leaders would be 'last' as far as the kingdom goes, and the 'poor men' as far as the Pharisees were concerned, the religiously 'unorthodox' or 'illiterate', would be first.
>>76056102
*by man :)
>>76055796
Again, you're talking about concepts that are completely meaningless. Guilttripping me doesn't suddenly make them testable
>>76055908
>Consciousness and morals, to begin with
Consciousness is a concept that at the moment we know practically nothing about. At the moment, it refers to something that is completely unknown, even by the very people who study the brain for a living. Something tells me you don't know much more than they do.
And morals are hardly objective. They vary from culture to culture, even within a culture, evidenced by the fact that your tribe doesn't burn witches anymore.
So no, neither of those are part of some meta reality. They're both just highly complex phenomenon that we don't have an explanation for yet
>>76048800
>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.
Hell hurts my feefees. Too bad if it is real, it doesn't matter how bad you want it Russell.
>because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness
That is because it doesn't have a direct tie to human happiness. It is about rightness.
Shamefully weak overall.
>>76056113
ofc you dont celebrate anything about thor, he never did anything
not like Christ
>>76056135
>The problem of evil has been addressed already, and widely considered a non-issue for at least 40 years.
Widely considered by *whom*? Evil and reasonless suffering are still quite alive and well throughout the world. God still goes on his way, answering prayers for winning basketball games while millions suffer.
>>76055081
>At the beginning of creation, the laws of physics break down from our perspective. At that moment, things that are wondrous, or miraculous, can occur. Just because things are miraculous doesn't mean they cannot happen. One must choose which kind of miraculous events are most likely, that is the creation of a universe redolent with order, majesty and beauty from pure chance or as an ordered, divinely designed work of creative genius. I plump for the latter everyday.
I understand, but just don't pretend that you have any reason whatsoever to believe that.
>If God was the same as a teapot or the flying spaghetti monster, then atheist apologists wouldn't need to disingenuously keep referring to these things since they would be self-evidently comparable.
Belief in the God of traditional theism is so ubiquitous that we hardly stop to think about just how ridiculous it is. Russell's teapot reminds us.
>>76055346
>No, atheists just never bother to actually read what Christians claim about God and resort to strawman arguments like the idea that God is like a teapot, just sitting in the universe somewhere waiting to be physically found.
No, the argument doesn't depend on God supposedly existing physically in the universe. The point is there is no reason to believe either.
Still waiting for a rebuttal to >>76054699
>>76055718
>>76056018
Could we please clarify what "real" christian beliefs are?
>>76056141
So Christianity is just believe or suffer for eternity then?
Must be great waking up full of righteousness each morning though. ;^)
>>76056102
Everybody sins, nobody is good. You are wicked too, everyone is
Go on if you want, but I don't care. It looks like you are too wordly
>>76056107
Our wires are getting crossed. My reply was to a Catholic who's contention is that the Bible wasn't written by God. This isn't an unusual Catholic POV, the Bible was not popular amongst Catholic clergy for centuries
>>76056327
The teachings and traditions of the Church created by Christ. Which is, to begin with, the Church that compiles the Bible around 500AD.
Christian beliefs aren't whatever you want to create a saturday while you are bored.
>>76056327
saving your soul is just the beginning, but if you can't even believe it the easy part how can you believe the next step
Anyone else find their faith in Christianity after researching and learning about the values of Christianity? I'd be happy that Christianity would endorse some sort of militia to enforce their morals, however, the fundamental lesson of Christ is to give mercy whenever possible, always forgive, never condemn. It is great for upgrading your barbaric Jew tribe into more civilized values by banning stoning, but when you're a decadent Western civilization that has a "do whatever you want" belief combined with "tolerate everything leftist" and "self-censor yourself" you arrive to our current problem where we cannot enforce the values of our culture.
How does Christianity enforce justice, enforce values? As far as I know, this is the primal weakness of Christianity.
>>76056342
You haven't answered my questions. You just try to answer them by repeating the things about popes you have memorised.
You don't even know what the Bible is, and you are an insult to everything in it.
>>76056102
Post the entire list.
>>76056321
Confirmed for knowing nothing of Norse religion I guess. Which is not surprising. You keep yourself ignorant of all other religions but yet claim Christ is unique among them.
>>76056291
Relative morals is absurd, as shown by the Greeks looong ago:
>"If the way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me, and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you, then it appears to me that your whole doctrine is false." Since anything that appears to me is true, then it must be true that Protagoras is wrong.
Like everything in this world, morals exist for a reason.
>>76056197
See>>76056342
The Bible though does have a lot going for it. It speaks of the Earth 'hanging upon nothing' (Job 26:7) a remarkable improvement over Near Eastern cosmological views of the time. It outlines quarantine procedures which were not matched until the 20th century; it is accurate in all historical details that can be verified by modern archaeology. The prophetic portions describe in advance the fall of cities like Babylon and Nineveh, the breakdown of society in our own times and even pinpointed the exact year of Jesus' baptism centuries in advance.
It presents the highest ethic of human behaviour which is what humanity needs at this very confused time.
>>76056484
Christianity is not your personal tool to protect anything you aribitrarily value
>>76048794
>2016
>we are STILL ACTUALLY having to discuss if ~2000 yr old barbaric story about a sky daddy is true
wew lads
>>76052131
Prove it you fucking retard. You're making broad, sweeping statements about the thought processes of hypothetical extradimensional entities.
How do you know what god thinks?
>>76048794
>only read one holy book of over 50
Into the trash it goes.
>>76056428
>>76056512
Your posts are a fact free morass of empty nothing, not a single fact, not a single logical rebuttal. You cannot address the points I've made, since you haven't the resources to do so. Maybe you should ask the bishop for help. Let's hope he isn't a predator
>>76056548
you are ignoring your only salvation that is Jesus Christ tho, God have mercy on us all
>>76056635
Now you are using the fedora defense mechanism. You still haven't answered any of my questions. I'm still waiting.
>>76056548
Paganism is extremely barbaric, it advocates evil behaviour because that is what its deities practised.
>>76048794
>The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.
his own poor atheist imagination maybe.
>>76056615
Prove it isn't so you jumped up mouth-frothing nonentity
>>76056325
Widely considered by philosophers. Freedom, the ability of individual humans to do good, is a higher good than enforced eudamonia.
>>76056462
>if you can't even believe it the easy part
>Hey, believe in this god for which unfortunately is no proof at all or else
It takes a certain mindset to find this easy.
>>76056710
You haven't asked any questions. I have rebutted the statements you have made. Feel free to repeat any of those statements you have made which you feel I haven't addressed.
>>76048794
I present my counter argument:
>Russell argued for a "scientific society", where war would be abolished, population growth would be limited, and prosperity would be shared.[154]
>He suggested the establishment of a "single supreme world government" able to enforce peace,[155] claiming that "the only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation".[156]
>He suggested the establishment of a "single supreme world government" able to enforce peace,[155]
>>76056847
rebuted statements?
You just say "th Bible is written by God". then I asked how do you know what books are part of the Bible canon, to which you answer "the bible is written by God" and talk about councils, but since you reject the Church, you reject those councils.
so answer: how do you know the Bible is written by God? How do you know what books are part of the Bible? Why do you accept those books being part of the Bible?
>>76048794
>I can't imagine a God that would make an environment where bad things could happen.
>Everything has a beginning BUT THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T JUST USE UR IMAGINATION
>>76056967
What has this to do with to topic on hand?
>>76056342
But, the Bible was written by a collection of men over the course of the years.
Rarely do even the most fundamental of protestants assert that God /wrote/ the Bible. Almost all of the NT after the Gospel is a collection of letters written by the Apostles/Paul.
>>76056484
>How does Christianity enforce justice, enforce values? As far as I know, this is the primal weakness of Christianity.
It's not supposed to. In fact, was NEVER supposed to. Jesus Christ was never into politics nor social reform. Now don't get me wrong he wasn't an anarchist. He believed in government and policy but not human government and policy. When Jesus was met by an actual politician, Pilote, he was asked about his role among all the other politicians of the earth with "Are you a King?" Jesus answered:
>(John 18:36) ...“My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”
This is Jesus and God's attitude towards his followers living in the world back then and today.
>(John 17:16) They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.
>(John 15:19) If YOU were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because YOU are no part of the world, but I have chosen YOU out of the world, on this account the world hates YOU.
>(James 4:4) Adulteresses, do YOU not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.
>(1 John 2:15) Do not be loving either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him;
>(Romans 12:2) And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
So you are not supposed to be involved with this world's affair at all. Here's why:
CONTINUED
>>76056571
So I cannot use Christianity as a tool to preserve marriage, wholesome values, honor, chastity and other think considered to be the bulwark of civilization? Instead I need to pander to the feminists and atheists and listen to their bullshit as the spread their "values"?
>>76056291
You will never, EVER know anything about consciousness. Of course it is completely unknown for anyone who studies the brain. The brain is a collection of cells, which are just particles, which are just atoms, which are electrons and quarks etc etc. And consciousness is nowhere. You can try to say "this collection of cells and electrical impulses is consciousness", to which I will answer "those are just a collection of cells and electrical impulses, nothing else".
Morals are objective, there is nothing subjectice. Culture is a human creation, and morals precede it. Also, there are constantly people who go against their "culture". If morals were a human creation, then why not create morals that state that our current situation is the only desirable thing? We would be literally perfectly happy.
So yes, both are things you are too limited to understand, and you just give a petty excuse "we don't know.. y-y-yet!"
>>76057291
No, because without Christianity being the source of those values, they are empty, like everything else.
You just need to accept the Truth, instead of trying to use it.
>>76057077
I did answer this. Those books accepted must give evidence of being inspired. Writers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Polycarp wrote well before 500 and they quote from the scriptures.
The body of scripture was well established amongst the Christian community long before the councils much later merely affirmed this fact of Christian practise. The gnostic gospels were rejected by Irenaeus and most Christians well before the synods also rejected them.
>>76057173
Indirectly. The Bible uses the term 'inspired'. We can assert divine authorship of the Bible. Of course God didn't personally write it, except the 10 commandments. A lot of it was directly revealed also, to prophets like Jeremiah and Isaiah
>>76056484
Christianity doesn't enforce anything, the state does.
>>76057492
>We can assert divine authorship of the Bible
We can actually not.
>>76057398
What is evidence of being inspired? Who determines what has evidence from being inspired?
The councils, to begin with, determine who are part of the christian community.
Stop trying to avoid the question. Answer them ONE BY ONE. And don't worry, once you "answer them" I will keep asking about the qnswers you give.
>>76056554
Then why do Christians disregard half of their own New Testament? Why do I never hear about a single Christian giving all his belongings to the poor, like his Bible says he should? Why is the number of seperate versions of Christianity in the tens of thousands? Why do Christians nowadays have absolutely no problem with loans and debt, despite that it was outright banned in the early days of Christianity? Whatever happened to the recommendations of St. Ambrose and St. Basil?
If morality is supposed to be objective and unchanging, I sure don't see any of it in reality
>>76057257
CONTINUED...
So you are not supposed to be involved with this world's affair at all. Here's why:
>1 John 5:19 - 19 We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.
>Ephesians 2:2 - , , 2 in which YOU at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience.
>John 16:10,11 - 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and YOU will behold me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
>John 14:29, 30 - 29 So now I have told YOU before it occurs, in order that, when it does occur, YOU may believe. 30 I shall not speak much with YOU anymore, for the ruler of the world is coming. And he has no hold on me,
>John 12:30, 31 - ” 30 In answer Jesus said: “This voice has occurred, not for my sake, but for YOUR sakes. 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
>Luke 4:5-7 - 5 So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time; 6 and the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it. 7 You, therefore, if you do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.”
>(2 Corinthians 4:4) among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
The devil is the true ruler of the entire world. Not God and not Jesus. All politicians, parties, regimes, corporations, and religions answer to him. You are not supposed to try to change the world. That would make you enemies with God and allies with Satan.
>>76057538
Just because you were forced to read the Quran doesn't mean it is actually truth
>>76057293
mmmm, can't consciousness be a phenomenon, not a 'thing?' Consciousness is just self-referential behavior observed in some organisms. That's easily verifiable. So why try to push this argument that "we can't know anything about consciousness???"
>>76057492
>We can assert divine authorship of the Bible.
That is a claim that none of the authors ever make. It is a leap based neither in the text nor any of the earliest understandings of the text.
>>76057616
Nice meme :^)
Same goes for the Quran btw.
>>76057293
>You will never, EVER know anything about consciousness.
Which directly contradicts your earlier statement, which said that it was part of some higher Platonic realm. Unknown =! Part of some higher order. Also, no one knows the future, so your statement may very well be refuted in a century or so
>morals are objective
See>>76057604
>>76057604
Why do you ignore that was said to someone who wanted to follow Jesus and asked what he lacked?
Why do you ignore the constant creation of heresies?
Etc etc
I don't see how morality changes in any moment. What is right is right, and what is wrong, is wrong, no matter what you think or do.
>>76057627
No. You observe the consequences of consciousness in humans. But you have consciousness, you aren't a biological computer. Otherwise, you would have no thoughts. There would be no "you" to begin with.
You wont be able to verify anything. Stop time, inspect the brain at every instant, all its matter and particles. At no moment you will be able to say "this is consciousness", unless you redefine consciousness.
>>76057767
From a materialistic point of view that is based on merely the obervational universe, obviously.
See>>76057293
>>76057604
you need to know we are fighting against this world, you need to be 100% connected with God to live in perfection, but who can do it? only Jesus
also how many people sold everything they had and gave it to the poor and followed Jesus? only the aposthles, and they are going to have their price in heaven
>>76057569
They have to be in harmony with the rest of the inspired word. They have to be from a creditable source. For example, the letters of Paul were accepted as being from him within decades of his death and one presumes there was a continuous tradition of attribution. The early Christians knew which scriptures were true, because they knew some or all of the authors, because Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude were real people who interacted with other Christians. Any writing by one of the apostles or disciples who interacted with Christ could have been inspired, but in the 1st century the process of reduction whereby some writings were excised from canon was already taking place. Nowhere do we find for example Paul's letter to the Laodiceans. The 1st century Christians, who were receiving visions and spiritual gifts from God, didn't accept this as part of the canon. It didn't require 400 years to determine canon, canon was already known at the time of writing.
As 2 Peter 3:16 saysHe writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Already when Peter was writing, a body of Christian scripture was accepted, to go along with the body of Hebrew Scriptures which were accepted.
>>76057684
I have addressed this a little in this post>>76056563
>>76057921
>From a materialistic point of view that is based on merely the obervational universe, obviously
Which as of now is the only point of view we have
>>76057966
Who determines what is the rest of the inspired world?
Who defines what is a creditable source?
Who determines who are 1st centuries Christians and not heretics?
How many 1st century Christians are needed?
Who determines what is accepted as a body of Christian scripture?
I can do this all day,because you fail to see that your answers have no basis as long as you reject the Church
>>76058039
Nothing of this proves any divine involvement though.
>>76058092
No, that is your assumption, which is false. See >>76055261
>>76057604
>Then why do Christians disregard half of their own New Testament?
(2 Timothy 3:1) But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here....(2 Timothy 3:13) But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.
(1 Timothy 4:1) However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons,
>Why do I never hear about a single Christian giving all his belongings to the poor, like his Bible says he should?
(Matthew 6:1) “Take good care not to practice YOUR righteousness in front of men in order to be observed by them; otherwise YOU will have no reward with YOUR Father who is in the heavens.
>Why is the number of seperate versions of Christianity in the tens of thousands?
(2 Peter 2:1) However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.
>Why do Christians nowadays have absolutely no problem with loans and debt, despite that it was outright banned in the early days of Christianity?
It would therefore be improper to withhold assistance from a person who because of continued adversity and through no fault of his own might be unable to repay a debt. But when the loan is not needed to relieve poverty, there would be no objection to a person’s charging interest on a loan. Jesus himself, by having the wicked slave in one of his illustrations censured for failing to deposit his master’s money with the bankers so as to draw interest, implied that receiving interest from invested capital is proper.—Mt 25:26,27; Lu 19:22,23.
>>76057779
>I don't see how morality changes in any moment. What is right is right, and what is wrong, is wrong, no matter what you think or do.
Then tell me, is debt wrong? Is ownership wrong?
St. Basil believed so. He was born an aristocrat, but gave all his belongings to the poor. Have you? Do you oppose our current system of capitalism and credit, like probably would have?
>>76056784
I just did. I said you were saying things that can't be proved. They can't. I never said there isn't a god. There could totally be a god. Usually I don't worry about it too much, because I'm here, in this world where god isn't.
If there is a god, he has me here for a reason, and that reason is probably something entirely physical right here on earth. It's all I can interact with. And if there isn't, than the physical is all there is. Anything we might consider metaphysical is just an extension of the physical world we haven't discovered.
So either way, I conclude that it's best to concern myself with the physical, detectable world and how it affects me and others. How the physical world affects me is easy to understand if I understand cause and effect. Eating pork will not kill me if I cook it thoroughly. Sex is harmless if I use protection. Drinking alcohol is harmless if not done in excess. Prayer is talking to nothing, or at best, yourself. Ignore ancient texts written by people who had no knowledge of how anything beyond farming and killing worked and you'll find these statements all prove true.
Why are you so concerned with what a bunch of dead goatfuckers who thought every eclipse was a wolf eating the sun think about how you live your life in a modern world that has never been easier to understand?
>inb4 edgy fedora meme
>>76058128
God determines this through his faithful followers, the 1st century Christians clearly had
1. Manifestations of God's power
2. Christian fruitage
Unlike the men in funny hats and women's clothing who diddle boys. The apostles are not responsible for the Popes who did evil things. The scriptures were known in the 1st century because God made it known.
>>76058249
>is debt wrong? Is ownership wrong?
Whether or not they are wrong will depend on whether or not they adjust to the morals and basic principles. If someone says they are wrong because they harm others, the moral isn't "debt is wrong", but "harming others is wrong".
This is what simple people who try to see moral is relative fail to see. They are unable to differentiate between morals and the acts that adjust or not to morals.
But even then, I would perfectly able to say someone is wrong.
>>76058159
There is plenty of evidence for the Bible being divinely inspired, and nothing for any other book, although one might rightly conjecture that the Quran was inspired by devils because of all the evil it has wrought
>>76058422
>citation needed
>>76058203
Also, Christ didn't tell his followers that they had to give away all of their belongings 'all of the time'. This was specific counsel for specific individuals. But we should be generous and look after people.
Also Paul said 'anyone who does not want to work, let him not eat'
>>76058364
Who determines who is a faithful follower?
Who detemines what is a manifestation of God's power?
Who determines what is evil?
Who determines what has been made known by God?
Who determines what is Christian fruitage?
How much Christian fruitage is needed?
Who determines what people "clearly" have or not?
> diddle boys
Please, stop projecting
>>76058268
Because the modern world is deeply unfulfilling for most people. If all you want is to live your life as an animal, then why bother about existential questions at all? Why bother posting in this thread at all? Don't concern yourself with cosmological questions. If your life is unfulfilled and you find a yawning chasm at the core of your existence, the question 'WHY?' totally unanswered, then you should consider the basic beliefs that civilized men have pondered for millenia in order to address those feelings.
>>76058633
Easy answers are not necessarily right answers.
Religious people seem to have problems with the answer: We don't know (yet).
>>76058473
I mentioned some of the prophecies. The fact that the overthrow of Babylon and Nineveh was prophesied centuries in advance. The fact that the Earth was spoken of as 'hanging upon nothing' when contemporary Near Eastern ideas had it on the back of a turtle supported by two elephants; the fact that its quarantine regulations were millenia ahead of its time. The fact that it reveals a superior human ethic and a vision of human brotherhood unique for all time; the fact that it prophesied the exact year (29 CE) that Jesus was baptized centuries in advance.
The fact that it created a movement which has encompassed the world although its founder was put to death at 33 as a criminal and it was viciously persecuted for 300 years and more afterwards, and the leading ones of the movement were willing to die in affirmation of the veracity of its truths. The fact that Christianity has inspired all of the great bits of western culture; the fact that in rejecting it western society has become degenerate, immoral, unhappy and prey to the lowest form of intellectual snake oil pandering.
Christianity, even somewhat muddled forms thereof, is what has made western man great.
>>76054699
so was he a wise man with doubts of faith,
or a certain fool?
>>76058874
Non religious people seem to have a problem with realising that "yet" is just the fantasy that they will ever know something.
Every time I read "yet" I laugh inside.
>>76058994
I can live with the fact that there might be things we will never know. Can you? Easy answers again..
>>76058572
>Who determines who is a faithful follower?
God does
>Who detemines what is a manifestation of God's power?
Those 'rightly disposed', with the 'right heart condition', and in the 1st century, spirit appointed apostles and disciples some of whom interacted with and were appointed by Christ
>Who determines what is evil?
See above. Also the scriptures
>Who determines what has been made known by God?
God does, and did. Also those who conform to the scriptures
>Who determines what is Christian fruitage?
Galatians 5:16-26
>How much Christian fruitage is needed?
God, but also those who truly follow Christ will know in their hearts.
Matthew 7:16
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
If you have open eyes and heart, you will be able to know
>Who determines what people "clearly" have or not?
Those with clear eyes undiluted with human traditions
As Mark 7:8 says
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions."
Luke 11:34
Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness.
>>76058994
No its the recognition that we might know something but currently don't
Meanwhile you still don't know but you delude yourself into thinking you do
>>76058633
It's foolish to want what you can't have.
The modern world is deeply unfulfilling for a very small number of people. More often than not, it's great. I like cell phones, restaurants, medical marijuana, sex with more than one woman and not dying of dysentery or being in constant pain from half a dozen untreated root canals.
I have considered the cosmological questions and concluded that they haven't been answered correctly by any human ever. So I moved on to the questions I could answer, like what I want to do with my life, what makes me happy and how I can make that happen. To questions of government, race and ethics that apply to the physical world. To questions as simple as what I want for dinner.
And here you are. Criticizing me for making the best of an impossible situation. What would you have me do? Deny reality and retreat into your safe space with you, happy believing whatever doctrine you shove down my throat ties up all of reality in a neat little bow?
Or would you rather that my entire life be one long existential crisis?
Go fuck yourself.
>>76058874
The Christian answer is not necessarily easier. It actually involves a lot more work. The Bible calls it 'the narrow road that few men find'. You know then you are responsible for your actions to a higher power.
But faith cannot be founded upon reason and logic alone, but should be, must be consistent with those. But it also requires what Kierkegaard described as 'the leap of faith'. It must be found experientially, one needs to be aware of God in one's life to really believe, and that must be found not imposed.
>>76059450
>Having a 2000 year old framework of beliefs and customs answering all important questions for you
>not easy
pick one
>>76059392
Pretty much this. Well said.
>>76059392
The modern world is unfulfilling for those with real taste. This culture is cheap gimmickry and blinking lights with cheap makeup, a sow with a pink bow as it were. All the great things of western culture are now dead. But I digress a little.
I don't criticize you for your uncertainty, but rather your certainty at what is unknowable, in that you contradict yourself. At least maintain an intellectually consistent position
>>76059226
Actually, you will never really know anything.
>>76059283
>God does
So, you think you are God, since you try to identify what is a manifetation of God's power.
Who determines who are rightly disposed and with the right heart condition?
>Who determines who were apostles and who werent?
>See above. Also the scriptures
The same applies. Also, remember this answer is the result of questions about what is scripture and what isn't, so you have created a circle, since you don't know what is scrupture.
>God does, and did. Also those who conform to the scriptures
The same applies. When you have no answer, you say "God does". I'm talking about people, retard, about the knowledge we have.
>Galatians 5:16-26
Not only Galatians 5:16-26 is a really short list. But who determines that I should give any importance to Galatians 5:16-26. Please, don't say God, because then you will be saying you are God. Don't say because it's scripture because then I will ask you who determines it is scripture.
>Matthew 7:16
Same as Galatians
>Mark 7:8
Same as Galatians
>Luke 11:34
Same as Galatians
Observe how your head is so rotten, when you are asked about who determines what is or not scripture, you end up using scripture, while you still haven't defended why that should be considered scripture and not other things.
Also, saying "God does" means nothing. You talk about who is or not a faithful follower, for example. But tehn you say God knows who is a faithful follower.
>>76059316
>Currently
Yes, just like children who think say they can't shoot lasers out of their eyes... yet
You delude yourself into thinking you will ever know something. There is no currently.
When you limit yourself to fallible, arbitrary knowledge, then you limit yourself to nothingness
>>76059649
The only questions it answers are basic principles of dealings with humanity, which are lets' face it extremely mysterious to most people. For 99.9% of people, a manual which gave them all the answers of how to deal with people that was failsafe would be absolutely a bestseller.
But the Bible only gives general principles, e.g. love one another. Don't be bitterly angry with your wives. Respect your husbands. Children be obedient to their fathers. These things are not proscriptive, but require thought to apply to real world situations. As far as the rest of human experience and knowledge, this is wide open to discover and not in any meaningful way restricted by Christianity.
>>76059744
You don't anything either
You just believe in make believe answers with no basis
>>76059825
I don't delude myself into thinking I will know the answers
Maybe it will happen maybe not
You are the one who is pretending to know when you really have no clue
>>76059744
I discussed with you how the Christian canon developed. I, as a Christian, believe the Christian canon and endeavour to follow it, not because I am God, but I recognize using my divinely made faculties as a human what is true to my understanding. Understandings differ, but I am confident that I made the correct choice. Are you, or are you hiding in sophistries because you cannot affirm the truthfulness of your own beliefs?
God knows who are and what is his own. Ultimately he will make this manifest. I have presented logical reasons for my beliefs, yours seem to be merely 'I believe whatever the guy in a silly hat says'
Language is a human invention, an ability and capability evolved from and abiding by the parameters of this reality (aka laws of physics). This is evidenced by the fact that humans from different regions have developed differently in every single way possible.
Most of the terms that we've created to discuss theology and philosophy are merely attempts to label "phenomena" that we ourselves cannot understand. The word "phenomena" itself literally means a situation that requires further explanation/understanding.
Consciousness is a meme. Fate is a meme. Faith is a meme. Miracles are a meme. Reality is a meme. Right/Wrong is a meme. Good/Bad is a meme. And ultimately, God is a meme, just like GOOOOD OLL'''''''''' LORD KEK.
I'd rather discuss the phenomena that is memetics. Our own fanaticism with this Kek meme has had a tangible effect on reality, on a board the size of my tightly-clenched asshole.
So then you all have the audacity to underestimate the memes that are Abrahamic religions. Ideas and concepts that are embraced and spread like a disease by BILLIONS of humans. How it could it not have an observable and seemingly "miraculous" effect on our observable universe.
For fucks sake, at least acknowledge the fact that, as a species, we've achieved something far greater than recording memes preached by hallucinating (not a bad thing) prophets.
As humans, we bring our faiths and beliefs into reality, all the while controlling the fragile and spontaneous, ever-changing direction in which the Fate of this universe flows.
>>76059744
>Actually, you will never really know anything.
Don't go philosophical on me. That's just splitting hairs.
We both won't know if we are right until we die.
>>76059654
Wow that ego.
You don't like the "modern world", so people who disagree with you have poor taste. Way to justify your feelings about something that is objectively better for everyone in it by any metric.
You're a defeatist. Most of the great things about western culture are far from dead. Some of the belief systems and ideas that comfort you are in danger and that scares you. The west is under attack, this is very true, but it's not dead. It's far from it.
I am not uncertain about anything. It's also possible that nothing is unknowable to the human race, and in time, maybe even in my lifetime, humanity may find the answers you seek. Until them you might as well be looking for a time machine. Not inventing, mind you, simply searching for one that already exists on earth.
I know that I can't answer these questions, and that they haven't been answered yet. I'm ok with that. I can't multiply eighteen digit numbers in my head, I can't fly, I can't take on all of ISIS with nothing but my fists and I can't figure out where the universe came from. My body has its limits. So does yours.
Accept it and find the questions you can answer, or keep looking for your time machine, or find a group of like-minded people and apply existing science and the scientific method and formulate new ideas and bring us closer to knowing.
But please, for all our sakes, abandon these ancient ways of thinking, quit bashing your head against a wall and do something with yourself other than wonder.
>>76060197
Your wrong, out of ignorance. Faith is not limiting, it is ennobling, it is like a burden of impotence is shed allowing you to see life like a vision. It sharpens every interaction and gives every little thing meaning. It doesn't limit one's mode of thinking but enlarges and focuses it.
I don't blame your ignorance because it is an inevitable tautology. You don't know because you don't know. But you are ignorant of how wonderfully faith can charge a life with wonder.
>>76060505
Give me one example of how faith made your life better.
Not faith in a person, not faith in a natural process, but believing something to be true that not only can't be true, it flies in the face of any sane assumption about reality.
I've heard the same thing many times, all from people who's faith had earned them nothing but more faith.
>>76048794
I managed right here:
You ass better be a zealous Christian and keep others Christian, otherwise the Muslim hordes will pour in and fill the vacuum.
>>76060505
Oh, and what you said about faith giving every little thing meaning? That's called confirmation bias. Every little thing you do whatever mental gymnastics it takes to make it fit with your worldview, and it all ends up "having meaning".'
Because you don't see the world for what it is. You decided at some point, long ago, what you will always believe it is, and now everything you encounter is viewed through that lense.
I've tried faith, and what I found is that faith is a useful tool for a certain kind of unremarkable person, the kind of person who needs to believe there's something in another world waiting for them because they have nothing here.
>>76061252
Faith doesn't require believing something illogical. In fact it must be consistent with reason and logic. True faith requires the Kierkegaardian 'leap', but it isn't inconsistent with rationality.
My interest in the natural world has been massively hightened by faith, as has my interest in expressing my faith through the arts. If that is interesting to you
>>76061481
It doesn't involve mental gymnastics. Let me clarify, I'm not into attributing the minutiae of life to divine forces. But when I see small beautiful things, I know not just a little bit of how but also a little about why.
It's not just beautiful things, the worldview of faith helps you to cope with apparently malign things.
I fail to see how people like Michelangelo, Beethoven, Bach, Newton, Schroedinger, Faraday, Gorecki, Pascal and Kierkegaard fit into your rather stunted outlook
>>76061897
You will never know how it feels to know that the combined works of the people you've listed are solely a product of human achievement.
We did it ourselves. How could anything be more beautiful? Have you never experienced the satisfaction of being a part of a group that accomplished something incredible, looked at it and thought "we did that"?
Goodnight. Remember, faith is a crutch. I'm not criticizing crutches, they're great if you're leg is broken, but you need to get back on your own two feet sooner or later.
>>76062157
Humanity achieved these things, but on the whole it was humanity looking upwards. Looking upwards doesn't hurt, then you can't see the filth that you are stepping on. To use a metaphor.
Faith doesn't limit human capacity, I believe it enlarges and enriches it. When you feel it, it is an overwhelming rush. Try to keep an open mind towards the possibility of it.
Good night to you.
And good night to the others in the thread, even those with whom I have spoken seemingly at cross purposes. I wish all could attain to the faith I have and benefit the same way.
>>76048794
Premise falls apart in the first sentence. The universe began.
>>76048794
God isn't subject to Law
God IS the law.
>>76062520
So God is Judge Dread?
>>76048794
Typical libtard atheist
>can't argue about something
>therefore I throw it out.
