What does /pol/ think of Megan Fox and her critique of evolution? Does she make a valid point?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM
>>42693942
Was going to make a joke about her letting herself go after Transformers but I started watching the video and this bitch is fucking retarded. How does she fail to grasp such simple concepts?
>>42694147
lifetime of creationist indoctrination and self delusion
>>42694147
Well she is still relatively young, she's only 30, and has 60 to 70, or maybe even more years to learn... give her time.
>>42694147
Doesn't she make a good point about eurkaryotes?
>>42693942
I must be a sucker for punishment but I'd fuck this nutbar silly.
MFW I have to hear about her theories afterwards
>>42695561
Why on Earth?
Laugh
Then realize a majority of US christians agree with her
Then begin to cry
>>42693942
This cunt proves that all of the 6 thousssaaan years old Earthers are fucking stupid. Especially the muzzies.
>I don't know
>I never learned this
>I've never even seen this word
Oh, the degeneracy.
This could be a motivational video to kids why to stay in school.
>I thought Megan Fox was the Transformers whore, lol
>>42693942
wow, she's brain dead.
>>42694570
>Doesn't she make a good point about eurkaryotes?
no? no.
>>42694570
>I share a country with these people.
Please Putin, free me from this hell.
>>42693942
>Does she make a valid point?
The bitch can't even pronounce eukaryotes properly, its like one of the earliest concepts in biological sciences.
What the fuck do you think?
I would just like to take this small moment to remind you all that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has had no problem with evolution from the day Darwin published his book, and continues to pump cleric scientists out of her seminaries who actively argue against creationism and for chemical evolution, micro evolution and macro evolution. That is all Continue on
Christianity, everybody.
>>42694570
no
it reminds me of the copypasta where the navy seal says 'if this rock were five billion years old, and evolution was real, it would be an animal by now'
>>42695830
ehh lmao
>>42696036
This is a lie. The Catholic church took decades to accept evolution, and only did so grudgingly in Pop Pius IIX's "Humani Generis" where he said he hoped evolution was just a passing fad.
>>42695959
You've got to be fucking kidding me, Putin is an Orthodox Christian, if anything he's just as retarded.
I'm a Christian but I believe in evolution.
>>42696110
Please show me proof the Catholic Church has had a problem with evolution
>>42696128
then you're not a christian, you're some diluted form of it and somehow incapable of realizing it's bullshit and letting go
>>42693942
>Valid point
She's never said anything of any validity. Fuck this dumb cunt right in her dry fart box.
>>42696128
Why does the genealogy in Genesis trace directly back to Adam and Eve with no "and then millions of years passed" anywhere? And if they were not real people and no Garden of Eden ever existed, nobody ever ate the fruit, which means no original sin Christ had to die to atone for.
Genesis also specifies it means literal days within the first couple of verses. God separates light from darkness, calling the light day and darkness night. Various events are described as happening on the evenings or mornings of the days. Literal days have those. Indeterminate periods do not.
The order's also wrong. Earth before sun, sun before other stars, birds before land animals, plants before sun, etc.
You don't think evolution is compatible with the Norse or Egyptian creation stories. You just allow those to be ancient man's wrong ideas about origins. You only make such elaborate rationalizations in deffense of your own religion.
>>42696259
>this is what atheists actually believe we believe
>>42696234
Ok, here. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
>>42693942
>100 year old thinking is wrong
>But MUH 2000 year old bible is correct
>>42696314
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxOjJHB5-8
>>42696334
>Everybody who disagrees with me must be an atheist
>No other religions exist
>No conceptions of a supreme being independent from religion exist
>All my arguments and dank maymays are focused on atheists because atheism triggers my christian fee fees, so I have to assume he's an atheist or I got nothing
>>42693942
she's retarded
>>42696359
>Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another—even if that specie is man.
This was entirely my point
The Catholic Church has never had a problem with evolution
I don't see he problem here
>>42696234
Hey, I just proved that the Earth is not the centre of the universe.
I hope you won't have a problem with it
>>42696259
there's no contradiction between evolution and christianity
>>42693942
>40 seconds in
>She already proves she's a completely empty-headed whore
Yeah, nah.
>>42696393
I have no doubt they have something to say in response. But just because something tumbles out of their mouths does not make it a rebuttal. Anybody who isn't hardcore retarded recognizes Christianity is a very old successful end of the world cult. Arguing about the fine details of how they try to take ownership of evolution is just re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic. Nothing can make Christianity true, because it isn't true and never was. Same reason no amount of argument in defense of Scientology can make it true.
>>42696393
>HURR DURR YOU ARE READING MUH BIBLE WRONG
kill yourself
>>42696435
Please replace atheists with any other word you want if you don't feel it's appropriate
>>42693942
Did not the pope just say he believed in evolution?
Why is American infidel christians so retarded?
>>42696485
You claimed they immediately accepted evolution. That is not the case.
>>42696514
>there's no contradiction between evolution and christianity
Bible claims all modern homo sapien populations derived from a single female
Evolutionary population genetics research demonstrates that the modern homo sapien population derives from a gene pool of no fewer than 6 females.
>No contradiction between evolution and christianity
I have just demonstrated at least one. Your move, theistfag.
>>42696514
Yes there is. What you really mean is that you have apologetics prepared which you believe reconcile the two.
>>42696579
genesis is not meant to be taken literally and it never was
>>42696621
>genesis is not meant to be taken literally and it never was
>le moving goal posts face
>>42696621
>the bible is not meant to be taken literally and it never was
You mean it was just a story all along?! WOWZERS
>>42696659
what goal posts did i move? the argument he made for a contradiction clearly requires that you interpret the story of adam and eve literally, i was simply stating that you can't do that
>>42696500
>I honestly can't see how saying you're the center of my universe is a metaphor
>>42696526
>we're talking about evolution
>b-b-b-but stop just talking about evolution stupid christfag your religion is a death cult
lol ok
>>42696534
>I am going to throw out 2000 something years of literary analysis because I have autism and can't handle metaphors so you have to take it 100% literal because of reasons
>>42696621
That is demonstrably incorrect on its face and you need to go research the history of the Old Testament literature more.
The Bible is to be taken 100% literally, as there is absolutely no standard by which we are to judge what parts are literal and which are metaphor and allegory, and since our eternal fucking souls are on the line, we better be taking the fucking words in it seriously.
>>42696393
Let me quote this money grabbing scam artist:
>"The Bible is not so much of a book of library"
but a collection of texts
This guy is full of shit.
If this is not SLIDE IT, GOY then nothing.
Arguing with religious extremists is pointless
>I prefer to read books I can prove and don't just have to believe in it...
>>42696563
Americans get told what to believe by their Jewish overlords bro
>>42696565
>You claimed they immediately accepted evolution.
Where did I say that?
I said they never denounced it
If they have show me
This should be very easy for you to prove
>>42693942
I couldn't watch past two minutes. It was physically painful it was so stupid.
>I don't understand it!
>Therefore nobody can understand it!
Was her argument.
>The bible isn't literal
So what you're saying is that it's fiction then
Glad we can finally agree
>>42696659
It's true tho.
It's just biblical literalists in America who thinks otherwise.
>>42696756
What?
>The Bible was never meant to be taken literally
Really?
You think sheepherders going to listen to Rabbi Schmeckel in 300 BCE didn't think that when the book says "In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void and the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the waters of the deep" and so forth and so on, that they weren't taking that shit literally?
Its one of the most dishonest, historically revisionist apologist positions to take that the "Bible isn't to be taken literally"
Its not? So you're saying that Adam didn't really eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge and there is no real original sin and Jesus' sacrifice is either wholly made up, or completely fucking meaningless?
Really?
Great. Why do we give a shit about your religion again then? We're not supposed to be taking it seriously, after all.
>>42696801
>metaphors don't exist guies
lol ok
>>42696924
>It was never real guys
>We've only been pretending to be retarded for 2000 years
>>42693942
Okay, I lasted 45 seconds. Do I get a prize? I should get a motherfucking prize for lasting that long.
>>42696565
He Initially said that then he asked you to provide evidence that the Catholic Church has a problem with evolution.
>>42696750
>as there is absolutely no standard by which we are to judge what parts are literal and which are metaphor and allegory
besides our own judgment? the bible contains many contradictions in narrative, even in the story of creation there are contradictions. you can't read it 100% literally, it's impossible.
>we better be taking the fucking words in it seriously.
you can take the words seriously without believing that it's a literal description of events exactly as they happened.
>>42696924
>Everything's a metaphor
Well if the worst that can happen to me for raping and plundering is that I can metaphorically get banished to hell for eternity, then what the fuck is the point of your religion again?
Its a stupid facile argument. Which parts are metaphor and which aren't? How do you know? Do you get to judge? Someone else? Who? Why is that person more credible than Jesus, who spoke about the Creation narrative as if he himself believed it literally, at the very minimum?
Why are you trying to convince us to worship your god, while simultaneously admitting to us that you think your god is a liar?
>>42696976
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.[1]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
>implying 2000 years
LEL
Biblical literalism did not exist before the 19th century
>>42697010
>besides our own judgment?
Base idolatry. Who are you to pick and choose from God's word?
>you can take the words seriously without believing that it's a literal description of events exactly as they happened.
Either Adam literally ate that fucking apple, or the entire fucking religion is a goddamn sham.
You explain to me how the narrative of the religion works in any other way than the Creation narrative is 100% literally true.
>>42696924
you are just twisting what he says while you are acting like a retard
>I don't understand
>I can't see that
>lol,k nevermind
If the bibli is bullshit to begin with (as you say to "not to take seriously") then what the fuck are we talking about?
The whole shit of Adam and Eve is made up.
THE EARTH IS FUCKING ROUND. TAKE THAT LITERALLY!
(if you believe in creation so much why don't you use a computer that gawd created?)
>get off my non believer technology and ride horses
>>42696917
>You think sheepherders going to listen to Rabbi Schmeckel in 300 BCE didn't think that when the book says "In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void and the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the waters of the deep" and so forth and so on, that they weren't taking that shit literally?
sheepherders in the year 300 BC were fucking illiterate peasants, it doesn't really matter whether they took it literally or not, because they were uneducated they believed all sorts of stupid shit. what matters is what the rabbi believed.
>Its not? So you're saying that Adam didn't really eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge and there is no real original sin and Jesus' sacrifice is either wholly made up, or completely fucking meaningless?
do you know what metaphor and symbolism are?
>>42696036
Deus vult.
One Church, One God, One Pope.
>>42696924
Is god a metaphor also? Is the whole story about jesus a metaphor? Do you not realize, that if the bible is just metaphor, then none of it is true and it's just a story to get you to behave a certain way?
>>42696516
You can't just shut her off after 40 seconds, thats like watching the first 5 minutes of the movie and judging it on that alone, you have to watch the whole thing.
>>42697022
>>everything's a metaphor
>strawman the post
Please show me where I said that
>Well if the worst that can happen to me for raping and plundering is that I can metaphorically get banished to hell for eternity, then what the fuck is the point of your religion again?
do you honestly want me to respond to this misrepresentation of my argument or do you realize your a faggot?
>Which parts are metaphor and which aren't?
Literary analysis
>How do you know?
I go to bible studies and discuss with other believers
>Do you get to judge?
I can
>Someone else? Who?
I like to take the United States Council of Catholic Bishops opinion on things
>Why is that person more credible than Jesus, who spoke about the Creation narrative as if he himself believed it literally, at the very minimum?
He didn't
He used metaphors to teach
If you are interested in knowing off yourself I suggest you go to a bible study
I go to a small bible study with an atheist in attendance who wants to know more about your bible
You don't have to tell them you're an atheist they won't try to convert you
>>42697183
>what matters is what the rabbi believed.
Incorrect. Since the problem with religion in society is that it is used to establish unjust and unwarranted power structures, and generate authoritarian mindsets and individuals, what the religion teaches the common man is of the utmost, primary importance in determining its truth value and functional use in our society.
>do you know what metaphor and symbolism are?
>Either Adam literally ate that fucking apple, or the entire fucking religion is a goddamn sham.
Period. End of story.
Further, as I've already said:
>The Bible is to be taken 100% literally, as there is absolutely no standard by which we are to judge what parts are literal and which are metaphor and allegory, and since our eternal fucking souls are on the line, we better be taking the fucking words in it seriously.
There is no standard by which to judge what is metaphor and what is not. Claiming your "wisdom" or "good sense" as a metric is pure IDOLATRY, you are claiming you are smarter than God, who wrote the fucking Bible.
>>42697071
>Who are you to pick and choose from God's word?
it's called not being an autistic moron
>Either Adam literally ate that fucking apple, or the entire fucking religion is a goddamn sham.
3000 years worth of religious scholars disagree with you
done arguing this, there's no point
>>42697122
I don't understand you
>>42697319
Didn't strawman you, and you crying I did is an excuse to fail to address the actual point I was making.
Rest of your post is just...failing to address my central point.
Coward theist detected.
>I like to take the United States Council of Catholic Bishops opinion on things
That's nice that that's what you like to do.
I'd like you to show me where in the Bible Jesus says that, instead of listening to him, you should listen to the United States Council of Catholic Bishops who, by the way, were among the many groups responsible for covering up the child abuse scandals in this country.
Why do you think I care about the faux authority of a group of child rape apologists thinks about what is real and what isn't real in the Bible, exactly?
>>42697245
Please see
>>42696393
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxOjJHB5-8
The notion that it is either 100% literal or it is just nonsense and completely unfounded
>>42697245
>Thou shalt not kill
metaphor
>The Bible is truth
metaphor
>Eve was created from the rib of the man
metaphor
>There is a god that created everything in 6 days
metaphor
>Do not mix fabrics
metaphor
>Don't eat during the Sabbath
metaphor
>There is a god in the first place
metaphor
>>42693942
>can't pronounce eukaryotes
> talks about eukaryotes
Kek, I learned this in grade 7
>>42697385
>it's called not being an autistic moron
When the best rebuttal you got is "I can judge what is and isn't metaphor because I'm not an autist" all you've done is called further into question your capacity to judge the Bible in any way.
Why should I care about your opinion of God's word, over God, exactly?
>3000 years worth of religious scholars disagree with you
Citation required
>done arguing
Yes, I realize you're going to cop out since you can't answer this very simple question that demolishes your pathetic apologist cherry picked horseshit Big Book of Multiple Choice gameplaying with your so called Holy Text.
That's why I tend to ask it when people like you engage in this sort of intellectual dishonesty: It proves you wrong.
>>42697385
No use arguing with dumb protestants.
>Who are you to pick and choose God's word?
>except the early church picked and chose which scriptures to include into canon from the beginning.
>>42697493
No one gives a shit about your apologist youtuber non authority
>>42697548
>>except the early church picked and chose which scriptures to include into canon from the beginning.
Great argument for throwing the entire Bible in the trash as the book of fairy tales for goatherders that is it and always has been.
Nothing more.
>I have a book here that has all the answers to all the questions about life the universe and everything
>Well this part right here's wrong
>Oh no, see, you have to ignore that part, because its stupid
Christian theists actually think this argument works.
>>42693942
I don't think I've ever seen a dislike bar that long.
>>42697461
I literally never said everything was a metaphor
You said i did
You are misrepresenting my to make it easier to attack
>I'd like you to show me where in the Bible Jesus says that,
can you show me where he said take it literally?
>instead of listening to him, you should listen to the United States Council of Catholic Bishops
I listen to him
They listen to him
I believe Jesus told me to seriously take their opinion into consideration
>who, by the way, were among the many groups responsible for covering up the child abuse scandals in this country.
Red herring
This is not relevant to the discussion on evolution
>>42697565
>a man who has dedicated his life and gotten a doctorate in theology is not a authority in the bible and biblical interpretation
lol ok
>>42697665
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM
Not even to a Justin Bieber video?
>>42696735
I think he's referring to Galileo
>>42697667
>I can't address the point so I"m going to cry about rhetoric
>can you show me where he said take it literally?
Every single time Jesus said that he was the Way the Truth and the Light, he was asserting that the narrative of the Bible was about Him, and that it is Literally true.
The fact that he LITERALLY DIED ON THE CROSS for OUR SINS says pretty goddamn clearly that you should be taking this book seriously.
But see, you just shifted the burden of proof. The Bible has traditionally been claimed to be both historically accurate, and entirely truthful concerning God's revelation to Man on this Earth. Whether you like it or not,, you're the one that has to support the claim that the text is metaphorical.
The Jews sure thought it was literally true enough to justify a claim on the Holy Land.
>I believe Jesus told me to seriously take their opinion into consideration
You can believe leprecauns come into your bedroom at night and fondle your genitalia softly and coo love songs to it for all I care.
I don't give a shit what you believe. I give a shit what you can demonstrate is true.
>Don't bring up the fact that the group I cited as a moral authority covers up for child rape! That's a red herring
Oh no, its not.
>>42697645
>mfw we have always taken this position
Please see Saint Augustine, a man who lived in the year 200 (I think), saying don't take it literally
See
>>42697053
>>42697716
Yeah pretty much.
Seminary is not a valid university level education. Theology is not a valid subject of study. In fact the person you are citing is a doctorate holder in mythology, which means he wasted his life studying fucking bullshit.
Thanks for playing. Theologians are not credible sources of information, especially when it comes to the Bible, because they are what we call institutionally biased.
>>42693942
>lets tell children it's ok not to know
my jimmies are so fucking rustled right now.
>>42697822
Why would I care what "Saint" Augustine says?
I don't care what apologists say about the Bible. You got that?
They are not credible authorities. They are excuse makers.
>>42697538
>Why should I care about your opinion of God's word, over God, exactly?
why do you think god is incapable of using metaphor? is it a condition of god's existence that he must be completely literal, all of the time?
>>42693942
Never heard of this cunt but was scared when I saw the name Megan Fox.
>>42697882
God may or may not be capable of using metaphor.
Since God didn't give us any sort of guiding principle to discern when he's using metaphor and when he's not, and since he's an angry jealous mother fucker that flooded a planet, sentenced an entire species to eternal damnation for eating fruit, and nuked at least two ancient cities from orbit with his magic powers, I tend to not want to make any unnecessary presumptions when it comes to interpreting His holy fucking word, is all.
How can you tell what parts are metaphor and what aren't?
Was Exodus 21 metaphor, or serious law, for instance?
>>42697857
Turn that rage into laughter, it gets better.
>She keeps talking about how THERE WAS NO VIDEOCAMERAS BACK THEN
>Just like the weatherman can see perfectly into the future, scientists can see perfectly into the past ammirite?
>>42697786
>Every single time Jesus said that he was the Way the Truth and the Light, he was asserting that the narrative of the Bible was about Him, and that it is Literally true.
Non sequitur
>The fact that he LITERALLY DIED ON THE CROSS for OUR SINS says pretty goddamn clearly that you should be taking this book seriously.
No it doesn't
Why does that mean that?
>But see, you just shifted the burden of proof. The Bible has traditionally been claimed to be both historically accurate, and entirely truthful concerning God's revelation to Man on this Earth. Whether you like it or not,, you're the one that has to support the claim that the text is metaphorical.
See
>>42697822
No it hasn't
Augustine
Was one of the first theologians
He said it was a metaphor
>The Jews sure thought it was literally true enough to justify a claim on the Holy Land.
>>I believe Jesus told me to seriously take their opinion into consideration
>You can believe leprecauns come into your bedroom at night and fondle your genitalia softly and coo love songs to it for all I care.
>I don't give a shit what you believe. I give a shit what you can demonstrate is true.
lol ok
Would you like a theological debate on apostolic succession?
>Don't bring up the fact that the group I cited as a moral authority covers up for child rape! That's a red herring
>Oh no, its not.
>The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/
Which are metaphor and which aren't:
Creation
Adam and Eve
Cain and Able
Noah and the Ark
Ham seeing daddies privates
Abraham's journey to Canaan and all subsequent events
Sodom and Gomorrah
Lots wife
Lots rapey incestuous daughters
Moses and the Exodus
The 40 years in the desert
The Invasion of Canaan
The conquering of Israel by Babylon
Jesus' life death and resurrection
etc?
How can we tell?
>>42697850
Who is a credible source?
>Thanks for playing. Theologians are not credible sources of information, especially when it comes to the Bible, because they are what we call institutionally biased.
Ad hominem
You can criticize his arguments but to dismiss his arguments because of who he is is a fallacy
>>42693942
Within the first minute, I already got mad.
If evolution is real, and all Eukaryotes were single celled, then if many are today, its because the genetic code needed very, very little change to survive and thrive.
Evolution does not have to coincide a linear and upward progression of change. A genetic code can remain the same if other mutations can't compete with the original slugs. Maybe the Genetic structure is very resistant to genetic change, who knows.
>>42693942
3 seconds in and already shows a complete lack of understanding of eukaryotes.
>>42698046
Sometime after Exodus, also anything inaccurate like bird blood curing leprosy or demons being the cause of epilepsy.
>>42697880
>no one is a credible authority on the bible because of reasons
>HAHA CHRISTDAGS HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN THE BIBLE 100% LITTERALLY
>DURR WHUT THE FIRST FAMOUS THEOLOGAN SAID THAT IT WASNT LITTERAL IN THE YEAR 200
>DOEANT MATTER CHROSTFAGS CANT ONTO SCOENCE
>>42698015
>Non sequitur
Assertion fallacy
>No it doesn't
>Why does that mean that?
Because if you don't, you risk your soul burning in hellfire....for eternity.
You're failing pretty hard here bro.
>Augustine
>Was one of the first theologians
>He said it was a metaphor
1. Appeal to authority fallacy
2. You mean mythologist
3. Why should I care what he says when the Bible directly contradicts him?
John 3:16 sums up the entire narrative arc of the Bible, and it claims that God so loved the World He sent His only son to literally die, for our sins, so that we can live forever.
>Would you like a theological debate on apostolic succession?
Why would I care? Theology is just an apologist's word for mythology. Why should I care to debate your mythology with you?
Your mythology is not real. You yourself are here admitting it as a means of trying to deflect criticism of it. Your dishonesty does a disservice to Jesus, but since he never existed, he really doesn't care.
And you still are getting your red herring fallacy wrong. You cited a group as a moral authority. Calling into question their moral authority is not a red herring at that point. You need to go back to syllogistic reasoning 101 down at the community college and try again.
>>42697953
>I am going to apply an unreasonably strict standard on the bible because of reasons
>>42697953
>flooded a planet, sentenced an entire species to eternal damnation for eating fruit, and nuked at least two ancient cities from orbit with his magic powers
how do you know that this wasn't metaphor?
if you read the thing and pay attention, it's obvious that the bible is not meant to be read as the literal word of god, at least not in the way you're thinking of it. people have always interpreted it to mean different things, and found truth in it through different ways. if that's a dealbreaker for you then oh well, you don't sound like you'll be converting soon even if it is meant to be read as the literal word of god.
>>42698046
>How can we tell?
Literary analysis
Like every other book ever written
>>42698077
>Who is a credible source?
God and Jesus mostly. I mean if we're asking for Biblical interpretation. Then the Bible as well.
>Ad hominem
So you don't know what an ad hominem is, then?
Pointing out that the entire field of "research" (using the word extremely lightly here) is institutionally biased by accepting the Biblical narrative as functionally true on some level, isn't an ad hominem.
An ad hominem is saying something like "You're wrong, because you are a stupid"
You are stupid. And you are wrong.
These are merely correlative, not causative, relationships, however.
>>42698143
>sometime after Exodus
How convenient.
So you're saying the entire Job narrative is true, as well as Esther, Ruth, David, and Solomon, etc?
Dumb dumb dumb argument.
>>42698155
You seem angsty bro.
Sound logic tends to make theistfags angsty.
>>42698219
>I'm going to apply extraordinary standards for extraordinary claims
Yes, I am going to do that. Maybe your book shouldn't claim to be the absolute answer to all life's truths and all you have to do is believing in magic resurrecting sky avatars to make it happen if it doesn't want to be held to standards commensurate with those claims.
>>42698227
Metaphor argument is now argumentum ad naseum.
I'm literally jacking off at the desperate straw manning.
Pretty soon Jesus is going to be a metaphor too.
>>42698277
>Literary analysis
By what right do Men get to "analyze" God's words, and by what standards is the analysis conducted with?
If God didn't hand it down, guess what?
You're just putting up a golden cow and telling us to worship it.
Literally engaging in idolatry with these arguments, Christianfags. That's how far you have to fall to defend your pathetic sky daddy.
>>42698219
>apply an unreasonably strict standard on the bible
Sure, it claims that we were created to worship a naked guy floating around who can't get women BUT TO BE EXACT IS JUST TOO MUCH TO ASK.
>that's why the priests can't handle money, right?
It's just too much to ask not to blow it on child prostitutes.
If I was going to Hell for something, at least be specific!
>It all comes down to the Bible is being your personal hugbox...
>>42698209
>1. Appeal to authority fallacy
He is a authority on the bible
He is not true because of who he is
He gives well reasoned arguments which you can read in his publicly available book
>2. You mean mythologist
lol ok
>3. Why should I care what he says when the Bible directly contradicts him?
It doesn't
If it does please show me where
>John 3:16 sums up the entire narrative arc of the Bible, and it claims that God so loved the World He sent His only son to literally die, for our sins, so that we can live forever.
what does this have to do with anything?
I don't have a problem with this
>You cited a group as a moral authority
I didn't
I cited them as a theological authority
No one has mentioned morals
>>42698436
>I'm going to apply extraordinary standards for extraordinary claims
Yes, I am going to do that. Maybe your book shouldn't claim to be the absolute answer to all life's truths and all you have to do is believing in magic resurrecting sky avatars to make it happen if it doesn't want to be held to standards commensurate with those claims.
Motherfucking yes.
>/thread
No
I can't grasp how people still think things that don't look like at evolving. Humans are some pinnacle of complexity, we are just another modern day species that evolved. Every other creature you see is just as advanced in the evolutionary timeline as you; we all have had the same amount of time to evolve. Only a few marine species are considered 'ancient' because for one reason or another they have retained themselves within their particular niche; generallly species diverge to better optimize their use of the environment inevitably out doing their parent species. In rare cases those parent speices manage to still scrap by or simply their divergent species never directly competes with them (most common example being relocation). Or their are cases that all divergent species actually suck in comparison to their parent (reduant mutants) so evolution actually selects for preservation of old traits, not the creation of new ones. So long as model of animal can survive and reproduce, it will persist. Not to mention the single celled eukaryotes are anything but simply. They have evolved over the same period as we have, just in a different clade, and have accumulated genetic paralogs that are so robust we have yet to dicpher their mechanism of action. I mean a some of those tiny fucks can wage war so well that a single invading cell can overcome and literally kill and digest a whole organism trillions of times it's own cell count all in a matter of days.
>>42698321
>An ad hominem is saying something like "You're wrong, because you are a stupid"
>you're wrong, because you are a priest
lol ok
If you have a problem with there argument please say why
Don't just say lol there're a priest
>I don't understand this stuff
>Nobody knows where all dese animals came from
>how dey know what happened a millium years ago?
>I'm angry
>NOBODY
>Let me tell you where life came from
>>42698468
>He is a authority on the bible
No, he's really not. He's an apologist.
Authorities on the Bible would have to be non Christian to be credible. Its called Bias, and in real research fields, aka NOT theology, such institutional bias as we find in "theologians" would be justification for throwing out every single piece of research they ever engaged in on its face.
>Buy his book
No thanks. I don't want to give money to people who are members of, and actively and openly support, child rape organizations.
Rest of your post is
1. Demonstrating you don't understand Christianity if you don't grasp what John 3:16 means
2. If he claims that the Creation narrative is not literally true, then he is in direct contradiction with the Bible, because the Creation narrative MUST be true, for Adam and Eve's experience to be true, and that MUST BE TRUE, for Jesus' life, death and resurrection to have any meaning or value whatsoever as anything but a nutcase batshit insane failed apocalyptic prophet of the early 1st century CE.
3. You most certainly did cite these catholic bishops as a moral authority, you in fact stated that they were your GO TO AUTHORITY for biblical interpretation, which is BY DEFINITION citing them as a moral authority
>I cited them as a theological authority
Pathetic goal post shifting and again, theology is just mythology and in this context, a theological authority is a moral authority.
You are fucking dumb, would be the tl;dr of this post.
>>42693942
Got 30 seconds in. Bitch didn't understand fucking middle school biology.
>>42693942
I stopped watching at 45 seconds in.
Yes we know the Catholic Church as been tinkering its belief to reflect social truth as any other social institution yet continues to assert its knowledge of an absolute truth
Not the mention evolution is inherently against the concept of a soul, hence the stir it caused. Everything from conscious and it's individual components such as memory, perception, even the illusion of self have all been created, engendered by physical forces without an innate essence outside the realm of atoms and energy
>>42698436
>get BTFO
>lol you're angsty
>Yes, I am going to do that. Maybe your book shouldn't claim to be the absolute answer to all life's truths and all you have to do is believing in magic resurrecting sky avatars to make it happen if it doesn't want to be held to standards commensurate with those claims.
That literally has nothing to do with you applying unreasonably high standards to this book
Why does the book claiming to have all the answers make it need to be 100% literal and there is no reason why you should take things metaphorical?
>By what right do Men get to "analyze" God's words, and by what standards is the analysis conducted with?
What right do we have to read the book he gave us?
Lol wut?
>If God didn't hand it down, guess what?
>You're just putting up a golden cow and telling us to worship it.
What does that have to do with anything
God didn't write the bibleI didn't claim he did
>>42698571
>you're wrong, because you are a priest
Yeah not an ad hominem.
It might be a genetic fallacy, cept its not, because priests and theologians and people who go to seminary are INSTITUTIONALLY BIASED by accepting the Biblical narrative.
Its really that simple, and unavoidable.
>If you have a problem with there argument please say why
I have done so, particularly if their argument is that the Creation narrative and Adam and Eve are metaphorical, rather than literal, then Jesus' entire story becomes completely irrelevant and meaningless, and the entire religion loses its context and becomes utterly devoid of purpose.
I've said this multiple times. If Adam didn't eat that fucking fruit, the whole story is just Aesop's Fables and NO ONE should give a fuck about it. You're literally arguing for the death of your belief system, and you're too stupid to realize it.
>>42693942
That's Megan Fox?
wtf
>>42698730
I just wanted to say that posting that gay as fuck anime gif lets everyone know you're a faggot. Don't take offense I'm just trying to help.
>>42698765
>That literally has nothing to do with you applying unreasonably high standards to this book
I mean you can say it over and over again, but you're demonstrably wrong.
Book claims to be the answer to everything
Book believers get mad when we hold it to the standard it sets for itself
>What right do we have to read the book he gave us?
By what right do you have to interpret it in a non literal fashion, yes. God gave you that Holy Book, and now you want to say He got it wrong when he wrote it plain as the nose on your face, because when we read it now, with the knowledge we have, we realize what it says is FUCKING STUPID and COULDN"T HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY A GOD, and that MAKES THEIST'S BUTTS HURT, so they SHIFT THE GOAL POSTS and go LOL ITS JUST METAPHOR or LOL YOU JUST DON"T GET IT ITS 2 DEEP4U LOL
No. We get it. You're retarded.
>God didn't write the bibleI didn't claim he did
New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1
Fuck off tard, you don't even know your own Bible as well as I do.
Cafeteria Christians are so pathetic. You're doing more to kill your religion than Atheism can in 10,000 life times.
>>42693942
>The mass government cover up and denial of Dragons and Egyptian hieroglyphics which depict dinosaurs.
HOLY SHIT, I've heard some dumb shit in my time but this is beyond the pale. Truly /x/ tier tin foil.
>>42696621
I'm reading Genesis right now. I've never actually read the Bible before. I'm trying to let go of biases and yeah it as a first time thing. Looks like I have about half to go.
Without tipping, I really don't like God so far. He wanted everyone to remain ignorant, then he drowned everyone. I always thought it was rain, but I guess it was geysers?
Am I reading it wrong? I'd really like to be a Christian...
i'm getting REAL tired of atheimongs trying to refute her arguments about scientists guessing the time of certain supposed events as 50 million years ago, or 400 million years ago etc, by criticising some story in Genesis.
not everyone who doubts the evolution theory is a Bronze Age religion follower, gaylords
>>42696044
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vKGn9GH-Ww
We can see evidence of evolution today.
Elephants have long been hunted for their ivory tusks and as a result, in order to preserve the species, elephants with smaller tusks are mating and producing offspring that have no tusks at all.
Evolution is having the ability to adapt to your environment at its very core. Elephants getting killed for something on their face, time to get rid of it.
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/180301.stm
This of course is just one example. If you do some research into Dawkins, its clear that their is an overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence.
The bible has none. Not a single shred of evidence. It opperates based on faith.
>Sorry, if I question the ideas of 5000 year old goat fuckers
>>42698940
It's far beyond what /x/ could ever hope to be
>>42698960
>not everyone who doubts the evolution theory is a Bronze Age religion follower, gaylords
That's nice that you're proud to be a retard, but you're still a retard.
>>42693942
I watched 45 seconds and then I realised that level of stupidity was going to make my brain seriously hurt if I watched the whole thing.
>>42698677
>implying a non-christian wouldn't be just as biased
what you want Dawkins to do all of it?
>buy the book
It's a 1800 year old book it's in the public domain
>2. If he claims that the Creation narrative is not literally true,
Yes
>then he is in direct contradiction with the Bible,
No it's a metaphor
He is allowed to refer to metaphors
That's why they exist
For them to be referred back to about man's flawed nature
>because the Creation narrative MUST be true,
No
>for Adam and Eve's experience to be true,
No
Adam and Eve's experience describes the human's flawed morals
Adam and Eve do not have to be literal people to show this
>and that MUST BE TRUE, for Jesus' life, death and resurrection to have any meaning or value
No
Jesus' life death and resurrection are still equally as valuable because he is doing it for all mankind's sinful nature
3. You most certainly did cite these catholic bishops as a moral authority, you in fact stated that they were your GO TO AUTHORITY for biblical interpretation, which is BY DEFINITION citing them as a moral authority
Where did I mention morals?
>a theological authority is a moral authority.
why?
So I'm supposed to believe flippers became complex feet?
I'm not buyin it
>>42698951
>I always thought it was rain, but I guess it was geysers?
There's a good chance that different versions will have different translations.
Look up various verses and their varied translations. They can have completely different meanings. Part of the problem is that the grammatical structure of Hebrew and English are so different that translators have to insert words which cannot always capture the original meaning.
That's right, the supreme creator of the universe was apparently unable to produce an immutable document containing His laws.
>>42698787
Who is unbiased on the biblical narrative?
>I have done so, particularly if their argument is that the Creation narrative and Adam and Eve are metaphorical, rather than literal, then Jesus' entire story becomes completely irrelevant and meaningless, and the entire religion loses its context and becomes utterly devoid of purpose.
>I've said this multiple times. If Adam didn't eat that fucking fruit, the whole story is just Aesop's Fables and NO ONE should give a fuck about it. You're literally arguing for the death of your belief system, and you're too stupid to realize it.
Your lack of understanding is not my problem
If you don't think Catholic theologians have answered this question back when catholic theologians said it was a metaphor then I don't know what to say to you
We have the position we have always held
Holy shit, there are actually people in this thread that believes there is a spoopy space man watching over the Earth. Fuck, I need to leave this fucking planet.
God loves you
>Heres some aids
>Heres some cancer
>Makes humans violent and competitive
>Worship him or burn for eternity
>Makes sinning so damn enjoyable
God sounds like an autistic faggot.
You know what? That would actually explain a lot now that I think about it. Maybe the god that created this world is a retard.
>>42699147
>implying a non-christian wouldn't be just as biased
Yeah, they really would, because see, they wouldn't make the presumption that the Bible is true, when it lies from page 1 line 1.
>It's a 1800 year old book it's in the public domain
Don't care.
>2. If he claims that the Creation narrative is not literally true,
>Yes
>then he is in direct contradiction with the Bible,
>No it's a metaphor
Then he's not a Christian, and you aren't either. Enjoy the flames of hell, I guess?
Because if Adam didn't eat that fucking fruit, Jesus' life story is MEANINGLESS
>Adam and Eve's experience describes the human's flawed morals
>Adam and Eve do not have to be literal people to show this
Then your god is an immoral monster for throwing people into hellfire for an eternity of punishment based on the non actions of a non real, metaphorical character, and Jesus' entire life death and resurrection never happened, or were a waste and pointless if he is based on a real person.
You have accomplished nothing with this argument, except to castrate your entire religious belief.
Its really just that simple.
>Jesus' life death and resurrection are still equally as valuable because he is doing it for all mankind's sinful nature
That doesn't exist since Adam didn't literally eat the apple and isn't literally the father of the entire human species, thus passing on his original sin to the rest of us.
Apologetics is so pathetic.
Try this on for size: Morality in the Christian context doesn't exist if Adam didn't eat that fruit, either.
>>42698647
by using that picture, you're being mean.
that mentally handicapped individual is far more intelligent than megan fox.
>>42699315
There is a God, and I have seen him in my dreams. I've felt him in my life. You just have yet to feel his power. I pity you.
>>42699374
you are citing 100% subjective "evidence" as validation for the existence of god.
topkek.
>>42699374
>and I have seen him in my dreams.
You see many things in your dreams that aren't possible in the real world
>>42699287
Are you oblivious or is this just a bad case of cognitive dissonance?
>>42699315
Now I come to think of it maybe you're right.
Maybe God is real after all and he is all powerful but just has an IQ of about 50.
>>42699287
>Who is unbiased on the biblical narrative?
Academic historians for the most part.
Archaeologists who have actual archaeology degrees and work for actual universities for another.
Not seminary "Archaeologists" who have no training in the actual field of excavation and pick their sites based on Bible stories and then try to interpret their artifacts through that lens.
I can probably name some others. Biologists and the like with an interest in religion.
>Catholic theologians
All follow Pauline interpretation of Jesus' words, when Paul never met Jesus first hand, was not an Apostle, and directly contradicts Jesus' own statements on numerous occassions.
Papal "Authority" is derived entirely from the Papal seat's traditional authority as the head of the Roman Pagan religious authority.
So yeah. Catholicism is triple retarded and all Catholics are certainly condemned to hellfire and torment alongside their false idol Paul.
>>42699374
Still doesnt explain why hes such a fucking asshole to his "children"
Get over it. There is no fucking god.
>>42698903
>Book claims to be the answer to everything
I didn't say this
I wouldn't consult the Bible if I had a problem with a squeaky car engine
I don't think the Bible has the answer to everything
>Book believers get mad when we hold it to the standard it sets for itself
Where did it set the standard for itself?
>By what right do you have to interpret it in a non literal fashion, yes.
no
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
You haven't proven this assertion
Why do I have to take it literally simply because God has inspired it?
>God gave you that Holy Book, and now you want to say He got it wrong when he wrote it plain as the nose on your face, because when we read it now, with the knowledge we have, we realize what it says is FUCKING STUPID and COULDN"T HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY A GOD, and that MAKES THEIST'S BUTTS HURT, so they SHIFT THE GOAL POSTS and go LOL ITS JUST METAPHOR or LOL YOU JUST DON"T GET IT ITS 2 DEEP4U LOL
The Catholic Church has always claimed that the Bible is the word of God in the words of men
The words of man include metaphors in our daily speech
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
How does this preclude metaphors?
how did no life evolve to life?
when did evolution officially start? what made it start?
>>42693942
that's not so much a critique as it is the ramblings of a crazy cunt.
>>42693942
What a fucking lunatic
>>42699374
I fucked your mother in my dreams.
>>42698951
Go to a bible study
If you read the Bible on your own, it becomes a textbook or an instruction manual. You miss the forest for the trees
Within a Bible study you can draw on every single other person's experience with the Bible
Through this deep Group literary analysis you can see through the poems to find the true meetings behind the words
>>42699580
so, you're saying someone should drink the kool-aid instead of figuring things out on their own?
>>42699494
>I didn't say this
Don't care
>I don't think the Bible has the answer to everything
Then it has no answers for anything. It is a book whose truth value is functionally nil. It is Aesop's Fables, for sheepherders.
Do you herd sheep, yes or no?
>What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
You don't have a right to reinterpret God's word in a fashion other than literally, if God has not given you a guiding principle that is CONSISTENT AND REPLICABLE by which to reinterpret His word.
Its God's fucking Word, ffs.
>You haven't proven this assertion
I really have. What right do you have to question God? If God says in the Bible "I made daylight before I made stars", by what right or authority do you have to contradict God and say "No, see, God, that's a metaphor because you got it backwards, stars came before daylight"
You're literally saying YOU ARE MORE KNOWLEDGABLE THAN GOD in this situation.
You're literally debunking your own religion for me.
Can't you see it?
>Why do I have to take it literally simply because God has inspired it?
Because you don't have the authority to contradict God.
Or are you claiming you do? Are you better than God?
>>42699496
>how did no life evolve to life?
Giant pool of self replicating complex organic polymers competing for resources
>when did evolution officially start?
When the giant pool of self replicating complex organic polymers figured out how to build simple cell walls to insulate one set of replicating polymers from others, and that cell divided into more cells repeatedly, such that these cells were now competing for resources themselves, and each generation undergoes a change in the frequency of alleles in the population on which natural selection can operate.
> what made it start?
The unique chemistry of the carbon atom and the laws of thermodynamics.
>>42699580
>Get some other, non God, authority to tell you how to interpret it so you can convince yourself its all true
And this is why priests are not reliable sources of information on the Bible.
>>42699341
>Then he's not a Christian, and you aren't either. Enjoy the flames of hell, I guess?
>Because if Adam didn't eat that fucking fruit, Jesus' life story is MEANINGLESS
The fall of Adam the depicts man's sinful nature and gut instinct to turn away from God and choose himself
Adam does not have to be a literal person to say this in a poem
>Then your god is an immoral monster for throwing people into hellfire for an eternity of punishment based on the non actions of a non real, metaphorical character, and Jesus' entire life death and resurrection never happened, or were a waste and pointless if he is based on a real person.
every man is Adam, every man willfully chooses to turn away from God
Adam is a metaphor for every person on earth
Also, if you want me to touch on the subject of hell
Hell, is not being with God. Hell is separation from God. It is not a place where you are lit on fire in the poked with a pitchfork buy a horned devil
Hell is simply being separated from God for eternity as opposed to being with God for eternity
>That doesn't exist since Adam didn't literally eat the apple and isn't literally the father of the entire human species, thus passing on his original sin to the rest of us.
I reiterate
Catholic teaching says the Genesis is a poem and Adam metaphorically represents every person on earth
>>42699807
>Hell is simply being separated from God for eternity as opposed to being with God for eternity.
So kind of like life on Earth now, huh? God hasn't even said good morning to me ever.
>>42699461
>Academic historians for the most part.
>Archaeologists who have actual archaeology degrees and work for actual universities for another.
>Not seminary "Archaeologists" who have no training in the actual field of excavation and pick their sites based on Bible stories and then try to interpret their artifacts through that lens.
>I can probably name some others. Biologists and the like with an interest in religion.
We are talking about the Bible right?
For you to completely disregard the arguments put forth by priests is unfair
You can certainly take their biases into consideration
I certainly wouldn't cite them as an unbiased source
But if you want to understand why the Catholics believe what they believe you can ask a Catholic who is well-trained on their Catholic belief
That is all I am saying
I wouldn't ask in atheist to opine on Catholic theology because I would not expect an atheist to know, or care, about Catholic theology
>All follow Pauline interpretation of Jesus' words, when Paul never met Jesus first hand, was not an Apostle, and directly contradicts Jesus' own statements on numerous occassions.
>Papal "Authority" is derived entirely from the Papal seat's traditional authority as the head of the Roman Pagan religious authority.
>So yeah. Catholicism is triple retarded and all Catholics are certainly condemned to hellfire and torment alongside their false idol Paul.
lol ok
>>42699807
If your God is willing to send a single solitary soul to Hell for failing to believe in a metaphor, your God is a worse evil than Satan could ever hope to be, he is a vile creature, whose depravity and depth of wickedness and immoral nature would blight out the light of the sun.
I would stand in a line an eternity's length long to tell this version of Yahweh to go fuck himself with an ice cold dragon dildo.
Am I making myself clear yet?
Your apologetic is only making the case that your god is a sick piece of shit unworthy of worship and your entire religion is a sham.
>Hell, is not being with God. Hell is separation from God. It is not a place where you are lit on fire in the poked with a pitchfork buy a horned devil
Does being separated from God involve an eternity of suffering, yes or no?
I don't care if its literally hellfire or not. It is irrelevant. Eternal punishment for finite, or rather, in the case you're arguing, NONEXISTENT crimes, is an ABOMINATION and an IMMORTAL AND UNENDING INJUSTICE that would make your god the most wretched and unworshippable entity I can imagine existing.
>>42698976
>in order to preserve the species, elephants with smaller tusks are mating and producing offspring that have no tusks at all.
>Elephants getting killed for something on their face, time to get rid of it.
Evolution does not work that way..
>>42699991
>Evolution does not work that way..
Except it does.
Not in the minced way that the other guy described, but the poachers have created an evolutionary pressure by targeting elephants with a certain feature. And because of this pressure, elephants with large tusks are less likely to reproduce, therefore they do not pass on their genes.
>>42699807
>Catholic teaching says the Genesis is a poem and Adam metaphorically represents every person on earth
That's nice. Catholicism also worships false idols and is paganism with a Jesus face lift.
>>42699955
>We are talking about the Bible right?
>For you to completely disregard the arguments put forth by priests is unfair
No, in the same way I would disregard, for instance, a geneticist who believed that Darwinian evolution was incorrect, and LaMarckianism was the true mechanism of change, and his bias necessarily was the filter through which all his research was run through. In both cases, the bias of the individuals in question makes them unreliable.
This is how real science works, by the way.
>But if you want to understand why the Catholics believe what they believe
Why would I care? Catholics literally believe when they take communion that the wine and crackers turn to Jesus' real flesh and blood. This is retarded. I don't care why snake handlers handle snakes. I just want them to stop mistreating the snakes and stop handling them and stop getting bitten and refusing treatment and teaching their kids to follow in their retarded fucking footsteps.
You're all snake handlers to me.
>>42699640
I'm saying you can figure it out on your own
I'm saying you should figure it out on your own for yourself
But to not get the opinions of others is foolish
I wouldn't expect anyone to make any decision without input from another source
>>42699713
>Then it has no answers for anything.
>If you can't answer everything then you can answer nothing
LOL
>You don't have a right to reinterpret God's word
I'm not reinterpreting God's word
> in a fashion other than literally, if God has not given you a guiding principle that is CONSISTENT AND REPLICABLE by which to reinterpret His word.
I believe this is always how we have interpreted it
Please see my reference to St. Augustine of hippo
He was a theologian who lived in the year 200
He took it as a metaphor
This is my citation for the fact that we have always taken it as a metaphor
If you have something showing otherwise please post it
>What right do you have to question God?
Abraham question to God
> If God says in the Bible "I made daylight before I made stars", by what right or authority do you have to contradict God and say "No, see, God, that's a metaphor because you got it backwards, stars came before daylight"
The poetic language of genesis claims that the earth was made in the 7 days
There is no way a Bronze Age man could have conceptualized Day and night without light
Because, as I said before the Bible is the word of God in the words of man
So in order for this poem to make sense there had to be light in order for there to be a second day for him to make the stars
This is why Genesis has never been taken literally by the Catholic Church
>You're literally saying YOU ARE MORE KNOWLEDGABLE THAN GOD in this situation.
I don't think I am more knowledgeable than God
I think God "spoke" in a metaphor
>>42699955
It would help for you to understand that, although both sides are arguably biased, modern scientists are explicitly taught to at least attempt to recognize and mitigate bias.
Theologians, on the other hand, begin by presuming truth in the bible, and explicitly operate from a position of bias. Which makes them a much less reliable authority on the questions of logical consistency and ultimate veracity.
>>42699748
You learn about every thing you learned in college by yourself? No
You had input from other people
By all means, go to a Bible study as an atheist who thinks there is no God and leave the Bible study as an atheist who thinks there is no God
But you might understand why we believe what we believe
>>42700214
>>If you can't answer everything then you can answer nothing
Yep. Its just the exact sort of logic theist's have used for generations being thrown back in your face.
The fact that you don't realize it makes it all the more amusing.
>I'm not reinterpreting God's word
Is the sky a dome holding back an ocean of water above the Earth from an ocean of water below, yes or no?
I don't even need to progress past here in your post. I'm going to disprove you right here and make you look like a fucking retard.
>>42700266
The Bible was written for bronze age sheepherders.
I've tackled Gould's Structure of Evolutionary theory, I think I'll be fine reading your book of sheepherder fictions.
>>42699847
God will enter into your life
If you open your heart
>>42699989
>If your God is willing to send a single solitary soul to Hell for failing to believe in a metaphor, your God is a worse evil than Satan could ever hope to be, he is a vile creature, whose depravity and depth of wickedness and immoral nature would blight out the light of the sun.
>I would stand in a line an eternity's length long to tell this version of Yahweh to go fuck himself with an ice cold dragon dildo.
That's a nice opinion
>Am I making myself clear yet?
No more than usual
>Does being separated from God involve an eternity of suffering, yes or no?
It is being separated from God that causes the suffering
So yes
The very fact that you are separated causes you to suffer
>I don't care if its literally hellfire or not. It is irrelevant. Eternal punishment for finite, or rather, in the case you're arguing, NONEXISTENT crimes, is an ABOMINATION and an IMMORTAL AND UNENDING INJUSTICE that would make your god the most wretched and unworshippable entity I can imagine existing.
It is rather easy to avoid though, all you must do is have faith
Tell me, would you want to spend eternity with someone you have not loved?
No
You would not want to be in heaven with God
You would not enjoy it
You would not want to spend eternity with a God you did not love
You are not sent to hell
You go to hell of your own free choice
The gates of hell are locked from the inside
It is the damned who won't let God into their hearts
It is not God is that will not let the damned into heaven
>>42700214
>This is my citation for the fact that we have always taken it as a metaphor
So a guy writing approximately 1000 years AFTER the book of Genesis was first laid down on parchment is your evidence?
Sure you want to go down that retard route?
You do realize that the Old Testament is OLDER than the New Testament, correct?
>Abraham question to God
Are you Abraham?
Claiming to be a prophet now? Akin to the First Prophet, no less. Pretty hilarious bit of hubris you got there, anon.
>The poetic language of genesis claims that the earth was made in the 7 days
>There is no way a Bronze Age man could have conceptualized Day and night without light
Probably why we should stop reading the book as if it has any functional truth value in 2015.
Because the book is fucking retarded.
>This is why Genesis has never been taken literally by the Catholic Church
This isn't true, isn't justifiable, and is irrelevant anyway. The Catholic Church is an organization of child rapists and the Papal authority is an usurpation of the Jesus narrative by Pagan Romans.
>I don't think I am more knowledgeable than God
>I think God "spoke" in a metaphor
And I don't really care what you think, because its contradictory to 2000 years worth of Christian belief.
Jesus himself spoke of Genesis and Enoch as both literally true stories. Enoch couldn't even make the cut, it was so ridiculous.
>>42700114
>That's nice. Catholicism also worships false idols and is paganism with a Jesus face lift.
We were discussing Catholic theology, no?
I claimed the Catholic Church does not have a problem with evolution because many of the things you think we take literally are not taken literally
And now I explain to you the Catholic theology of why we believe what we believe
>No, in the same way I would disregard, for instance, a geneticist who believed that Darwinian evolution was incorrect, and LaMarckianism was the true mechanism of change, and his bias necessarily was the filter through which all his research was run through. In both cases, the bias of the individuals in question makes them unreliable.
ok
>Why would I care? Catholics literally believe when they take communion that the wine and crackers turn to Jesus' real flesh and blood.
ok
> This is retarded.
Nice opinion
What does this have to do with the fact that Catholic teaching does not conflict with the theory of evolution
>I don't care why snake handlers handle snakes. I just want them to stop mistreating the snakes and stop handling them and stop getting bitten and refusing treatment and teaching their kids to follow in their retarded fucking footsteps.
K
>>42700460
>I can't actually address the point you're making
>the greentext post
Eternal suffering for metaphorical crimes makes Yahweh a shitty god no one should worship.
>all you must do is have faith
Faith is not a virtue, belief without evidence isn't a virtue. This is the argument of the snake oil salesman. Purchase my product today, for delivery tomorrow. I don't think so. Take the time share pitch down to Florida.
Everything past this point in your post is just you proving your god is an immoral monster that thrives solely on threats.
I'm as scared of your god's threats as I am of Santa Claus not leaving me a gift for Christmas this year.
>>42700460
>God will enter into your life
>If you open your heart
He sure didnt help my friend who passed away from stage 4 pancreatic cancer, who converted to Christianity in an attempt to ask god to heal him.
He died without dignity praying to a god that doesnt exist.
Fuck you and your fake god.
>>42693942
Honestly, as much as people want to circle jerk of this video - she makes some good points. Science is made up of 70-90% of the best theories - but they're still just theories.
>>42700460
>It is not God is that will not let the damned into heaven
Did your God make the universe?
Did He define the rules by which we may go to heaven or hell?
Does any action occur that is not fully aware of before, during and after it occurs?
Does he have the capacity to stop actions that would lead to damnation?
Then he is, in fact, the one that sends us to heaven and hell. Period.
You can't get around that, either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smPEplUcPgY
The only way I am willing to accept that god exists is if this planet is actually hell and we are being punished and just barely making the most of a bad situation.
There is no way this universe was created by a loving god.
>>42700228
I never claimed it was an unbiased source
I claimed it was a source on Catholic theology
If you want to know Catholic theology and why the Catholic Church has the positions it does is acceptable to go to someone to hear their opinion
They aren't the authority on the logical consistency and veracity
You are your own authority on these matters for your self
But if you wish to know why we think what we think and interpret that as you will ask a Catholic
>>42700277
>Yep. Its just the exact sort of logic theist's have used for generations being thrown back in your face.
Two wrongs don't make a right my friend
>Is the sky a dome holding back an ocean of water above the Earth from an ocean of water below, yes or no?
No
>>42700689
>Two wrongs don't make a right my friend
Yeah that's not a two wrongs fallacy.
Try again.
>Is the sky a dome holding back an ocean of water above the Earth from an ocean of water below, yes or no?
>No
>6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
>9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
So when you said that you aren't reinterpreting God's word, you were lying.
>>42699315
>>42699448
This makes a lot of sense. God is an autistic child, and we are his playthings. The universe is his playpen.
>>42700579
Didn't help my childhood friend either.
He died of a brain tumor that he had for 3 agonizing years. He was either in constant pain or drugged. Had a number of serious surgeries too. We met going to a private christian school.
When he died, so did my religious beliefs.
>>42700471
I would claim that the rabbis who wrote it and then interpreted it later would have taken it as a metaphor
They would have been the ones who taught the first Christians when they converted that it was a metaphor
Who would then don't want to teach people like St. Augustine who would claim that it was a metaphor
>Are you Abraham?
Abraham can be taken as a parable for every man
Everyman can be God's friend just as Abraham was God's friend
>Probably why we should stop reading the book as if it has any functional truth value in 2015.
Should we stop reading Moby Dick because it is not functional truth?
>This isn't true,
It is
If I am wrong prove it isn't justifiable
I have posted sources supporting my claim
>and is irrelevant anyway.
It is relevant because we are discussing whether or not the Catholic Church's teachings contradict evolution
Which they don't
>The Catholic Church is an organization of child rapists and the Papal authority is an usurpation of the Jesus narrative by Pagan Romans.
Ok
>because its contradictory to 2000 years worth of Christian belief.
Then why did St. Augustine say what I am saying 1800 years ago?
This is not been said for 2000 years
Biblical literalism did not exist before the 19th century and it has certainly never been a part of Catholic teaching
Which is what we are discussing, Catholic teaching
>>42700887
>I would claim that the rabbis who wrote it and then interpreted it later would have taken it as a metaphor
So what? You can't prove it, because its not true. The rabbis who wrote that shit were taking the oral traditions that they themselves believed, and putting them into written format to preserve them, and codify them, to justify their positions of authority, and to formalize the system of worship.
You can claim shit all fucking day long. Its directly contradictory to the known history, and therefore is fucking irrelevant.
>Abraham can be taken as a parable for every man
I don't give a shit about your attempt to jam every story in the Bible into a fucking parable about the every man. That's not remotely what actual, historical, Catholicism and Protestantism have held to be true. I don't care how many times you try to assert differently.
>Should we stop reading Moby Dick because it is not functional truth?
You saw it here, folks, Theists so desperate to justify their belief they're comparing Moby Dick and the Biblical narrative now.
You're right, though. Jesus is the White Whale.
A fiction of a delusional and obsessed, alcohol and time addled mind.
>Prove I'm wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
>The "doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture"[8] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[9]
You're literally retarded and don't know your own religion as well as I do.
>>42700887
>Then why did St. Augustine say what I am saying 1800 years ago?
I don't care. Augustine is one man and didn't define the Catholic dogma, those were derived at the various ecumenical councils like the Council at Nicea, etc. starting in the 4th century after Constantine
You just literally need to go read some goddamn actual early Christian history from NON APOLOGIST SOURCES.
>Biblical literalism did not exist before the 19th century and it has certainly never been a part of Catholic teaching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";[1] or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".[2]
The "doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture"[8] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[9]
Derp
>>42693942
Man she let herself go since Transformers.
>>42701185
I thought the same, but it's not the same cunt
She reminds me of this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
> Believing that the grace of Christ was indispensable to human freedom, he helped formulate the doctrine of original sin and made seminal contributions to the development of just war theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
>Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden.
So this Theistfag wants us to think Augustine, who came up with the idea of original sin being based entirely on Adam's actual, literal rebellion in Eden, didn't think the Adam and Eve/Creation narrative, were literally true.
Could theist fags being any bigger liars, frauds, hucksters, and dishonest dissemblers?
I don't think so.
>>42700564
>Eternal suffering for metaphorical crimes makes Yahweh a shitty god no one should worship.
ok
Nice opinion
What does this have to do with Catholic teaching not contradicting evolution?
You really have gotten off-topic
This doesn't have anything to do with the Catholic Church and evolution
>>42700579
Ok
>>42700636
We are getting off topic
Do you concede that catholic teaching does not contradict evolution and that evolution does not contradict catholic teaching
>>42700755
>6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
>9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
Yes I believe this is a metaphor
>So when you said that you aren't reinterpreting God's word, you were lying
I believe it was always taken as a metaphor
>You can't prove it, because its not true. The rabbis who wrote that shit were taking the oral traditions that they themselves believed, and putting them into written format to preserve them, and codify them, to justify their positions of authority, and to formalize the system of worship.
I don't see what putting down oral tradition base to do with metaphors vs non metaphors
>That's not remotely what actual, historical, Catholicism and Protestantism have held to be true.
you see when I claim something like,that I post a source
Like saint Augustine saying its a metaphor
Post a catholic source to support your claim
>>The "doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture"[8] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[9]
Genesis is a metaphor
It's not wrong
It metaphorically describes God's sovereignty over everything and describes mankind's instinct to chose to turn away from God
>>42701230
I actually get a Skyler White vibe from her
>>42701311
Its not an opinion, its a demonstrable fact.
If your god will punish people eternally for crimes that never actually happened, he is a piece of shit.
That's not an opinion. That's a demonstrable fact.
And then you cry "We've gotten off topic"
No, I will not stop hitting you simply because it is inconvenient to you.
Not sorry.
>Do you concede that catholic teaching does not contradict evolution and that evolution does not contradict catholic teaching
>HEY GUYS STOP TALKING ABOUT ALL THAT STUFF THAT IS INCONVENIENT TO MY POSITION
>NOW DO YOU AGREE WITH ME 100% ON EVERYTHING I'VE SAID OR NOT?
Literally retarded.
Has to be.
>>42701239
>implying Lucifer's defiance of God's plan wasn't the original sin
SHIGGY DIGGY, CHRISTFAGS
>>42701322
>Yes I believe this is a metaphor
I don't care what you believe.
Also
> And God said
> And God said
You're calling God a liar.
Its really that simple. The Book is God's word. It says "God said X" and you claim "God was really saying Y".
Now, this conversation started when you asked me to demonstrate a place where you were reinterpreting the Bible.
I have now fulfilled that obligation.
You are literally a fucking idiot.
Not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post until you address this fact, you immoral imbecilic coward.
>>42701389
No, see, that's supposedly a metaphor too.
Didn't. Everything from Exodus to earlier is just all made up, apparently.
A nice story, but has no actual truth value.
This according to Catholicfag.
>>42701204
Lol, you don't say.
>Augustine's teachings were totally consistent with evolution guys I promise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
>After the fall of humanity they are now experiencing dramatic combat between one another. They are two categorically different things. The body is a three-dimensional object composed of the four elements, whereas the soul has no spatial dimensions.[62] Soul is a kind of substance, participating in reason, fit for ruling the body.[63]
The body is not composed of "the four elements" and there is no evidence for a soul, and it is certainly not a "substance".
>>42701145
>I don't care. Augustine is one man and didn't define the Catholic dogma, those were derived at the various ecumenical councils like the Council at Nicea, etc. starting in the 4th century after Constantine
not only was Saint Augustine canonized he was declared a doctor of the church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Church#Catholic_Church
Basically it means that the entire Catholic Church hierarchy has said that this man has been a significant influence on catholic theology
>Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";[1] or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".[2]
>The "doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture"[8] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[9]
the Catholic Church interprets genesis as a metaphor
>So this Theistfag wants us to think Augustine, who came up with the idea of original sin being based entirely on Adam's actual, literal rebellion in Eden, didn't think the Adam and Eve/Creation narrative, were literally true
Augustine himself said it was a metaphor
Are you saying he was lying about his own opinion?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
>>42701387
Ok
>>HEY GUYS STOP TALKING ABOUT ALL THAT STUFF THAT IS INCONVENIENT TO MY POSITION
>>NOW DO YOU AGREE WITH ME 100% ON EVERYTHING I'VE SAID OR NOT?
It's not relevant to whether or not Catholic teaching contradicts the theory of evolution
>>42701435
The entire point of this discussion is about what I believe and how we does not contradict evolution faggot
>Its really that simple. The Book is God's word. It says "God said X" and you claim "God was really saying Y".
I think that God was saying Y by using X as a metaphor
>Now, this conversation started when you asked me to demonstrate a place where you were reinterpreting the Bible.
I'm not reinterpreting the Bible this is how the Catholic Church has always interpreted it
>>42701590
>because I like something a man says that means I have to like everything that man says
lol
>>42701595
>not only was Saint Augustine canonized he was declared a doctor of the church
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Church#Catholic_Church
>Basically it means that the entire Catholic Church hierarchy has said that this man has been a significant influence on catholic theology
So?
Did you miss this post?
>>42701239
>the Catholic Church interprets genesis as a metaphor
No it doesn't. Again
This post right here
>>42701239
>Augustine himself said it was a metaphor
>Are you saying he was lying about his own opinion?
No, again, right here
>>42701239
And again. Don't care.
Repetition ad naseum of a refuted point is a fallacy. Try again.
>>42701667
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.[1]
>>42701604
>It's not relevant to whether or not Catholic teaching contradicts the theory of evolution
All I can see here is you begging for mercy.
>The entire point of this discussion is about what I believe and how we does not contradict evolution faggot
If you think that evolution and a God are consistent, you don't understand evolution, or your God.
>I think that God was saying Y by using X as a metaphor
That's nice. Notice that "I think" part again?
Idolatry.
The book says "God says".
Ergo what "You think" does not take precidence over what "God says".
>I'm not reinterpreting the Bible this is how the Catholic Church has always interpreted it
You've literally been demonstrated to be reinterpreting the book and, for about the 1000th time, don't give a flying shit what you think the Catholic Church thinks.
>>42701645
>because I appeal to his wisdom, I can't run away from him when he's proven to be as much of a dumb fuck retard as I am for these terrible arguments
lol
>>42701729
Repetition ad naseum of a refuted point is a fallacy.
Original sin[edit]
See also: Original sin
Portrait by Philippe de Champaigne, 17th century
Augustine taught that Original sin of Adam and Eve was either an act of foolishness (insipientia) followed by pride and disobedience to God or that pride came first.[94] The first couple disobeyed God, who had told them not to eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17).[95] The tree was a symbol of the order of creation.[96] Self-centeredness made Adam and Eve eat of it, thus failing to acknowledge and respect the world as it was created by God, with its hierarchy of beings and values.[97] They would not have fallen into pride and lack of wisdom, if Satan hadn't sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix Mali).[98] Their nature was wounded by concupiscence or libido, which affected human intelligence and will, as well as affections and desires, including sexual desire.[99] In terms of metaphysics, concupiscence is not a being but bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[100]
>NO GUYS LOOK
>LOOK GUYS LISTEN
>LISTEN GUSY
>GYUS LISRNET
>HE THOUGHT IT WAS ALL METAPHOR GUYS
>GUSY IM SUPER SERIOUS
>>42701733
I can't think someone is speaking in a metaphor?
>>42701770
I am literally quoting him saying "hey guys I don't think this is literal"
Original sin doesn't mean it hasn't to be literal
Original sin is man nature to chose sin over righteousness
>>42701849
>I can't think someone is speaking in a metaphor?
You can think it.
But you're demonstrably wrong.
>>42701849
>I am literally quoting him saying "hey guys I don't think this is literal"
And I"m literally quoting him and his actual, full positions, and it shows that he thought the Fall of Man was quite literal, the issue we've been going round and round about this whole time.
Stay randy though, theist fag.
You guys should read more of your Bible.
>>42701889
The fall of man is Adams choice to sin aging God
Adam represents every man
Every man has the "original sin" that is is nature to chose to sin
Nothing demands literalism
>>42701981
All I see is straw grasping desperation of throwing anything at the wall hoping it'll sound plausible to not sound ridiculous.
Its pretty pathetic bro.
Even your boy Augustine believed Adam ate that fucking apple. You can cry about it all you want, but you've been demonstrably discredited here.
Also sin does not exist, because sin is a violation of divine law, and divine law does not exist be violated, because gods do not exist to create divine laws in the first place.
Stupid facile desperation is stupid and facile.
This is the thing, too, you know. When you just go ahead and accept the reality that all this shit is sheepherd's fairy tales, you no longer have to do this retard dance of faux intellectualism trying to make up excuses for why the book doesn't really say what it says but rather really says what you want it to say because you think it sounds better/more plausible/more reasonable to others so they won't judge you to be the batshit snake handling loony you really are.
Cats outta the bag now, though, fag.
>>42696036
I grew up Catholic and went to a Catholic school for most of my elementary years. By 4th grade, we had covered a lot of ground in the basic theory of evolution, plate tectonics, geomagnetism, marine science, ecological systems and balance, fundamentals of chemistry and physics, etc. In kindergarten, I remember learning about fucking pH and (then modern) DOS computers.
And then I went to public school when we moved and we watched fucking Bill Nye for our 'science' lessons and relearned what happens when you mix baking soda and vinegar for what felt like every year until high school. Fucking hell, this is why our country is sucking shit more every year.
Tell me, Catholicfag, is the Miracle of the Sun a metaphor?
What about transsubstantiation of the eucharist?
Hmmm?
Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ.[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.[7][8] What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10] The manner in which the change occurs, the Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."[11]
>you are now aware this belief contradicts evolution, as if it were true, we could easily use transubstantiated eucharist to clone Jesus
In the arguments which characterised the relationship between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in the 16th century, the Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who:
"denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" and anyone who "saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema."[21]
Here's a 16th century Catholic doctrine dictating that disbelief in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist is a sin.
>Nothing demands literalism
Except, you know, transubstantiation of the eucharist
>>42702075
>Even your boy Augustine believed Adam ate that fucking apple. You can cry about it all you want, but you've been demonstrably discredited here.
as a metaphor
See
>>42701729
You are telling me he things it's literal when he literally says it's not literal in a direct quote
>>42702091
Public schools a shit
>>42702121
No
No
Neither are related to evolution so I will not discuss them because I am fucking tired because it's 12:30 and I need to be up at 6
>>42702163
>>42702203
What the fuck does Transubstantiation have to do with whether genesis is literal or not?
This is not relevant
>>42702291
Your quote is regarding Creation
We're talking about Original Sin and Adam and Eve now, and your boy INVENTED THAT SHIT
>Neither are related to evolution so I will not discuss them because I am a coward and know that you've got me dead to rights
>What the fuck does Transubstantiation have to do with whether genesis is literal or not?
Lol. Poor Catholicfag.
Transubstantiation is only possible if Jesus is really the Messiah and Jesus can only really be the Messiah if Adam ate that fucking apple.
Its all relevant and your tears and cries for mercy are delicious.
So I repeat
>Nothing demands literalism
Except, you know, transubstantiation of the eucharist
Also
>What about transsubstantiation of the eucharist?
>No
So Catholicfag is in direct violation of the Catholic Church's own doctrine.
Catholicfag has no credibility left in this debate.
Catholicfag isn't even a Catholic. Catholicfag is a Poe and a fake.
>>42702233
transubstantiation is based on Jesus, the man in the bible, saying
This is my body which will be given up for you
It's not poetry
It's someone taking down what someone said
Genesis is not this
These parts of Genesis are poetry
It always has been poetry
The gospels are almost always depicting what Christ said or did
Now jesus can talk in metaphors
But is something he literally said
>>42702368
>We're talking about Original Sin and Adam and Eve now, and your boy INVENTED THAT SHIT
he first coined the phrase
> Jesus can only really be the Messiah if Adam ate that fucking apple.
This is my problem with your argument
Genesis describes man's corrupt nature
Christ died for our corrupt nature
>>42693942
>critique of evolution process (by starlet whore)
>valid point
pick one
>>42702529
>It's someone taking down what someone said
You actually think someone wrote down literal words Jesus was saying
That's so goddamn hilarious I don't even know where to start.
Great laugh to send me off to bed. Thanks anon.
>he first coined the phrase
Incorrect, that Ireneaus actually.
Augustine helped define it, and he defined it in literal terms.
Sucks to be you.
>Christ died for our corrupt nature
That's stupid and makes God an immoral monster yet again.
Blood sacrifice is always immoral. Blood sacrificing one person, for any other person's, or persons', crimes is immoral as well.
Pretty much every angle you look at this, you come back with "Yahweh's a real dick".
Anyway, laters.
>>42702683
>You actually think someone wrote down literal words Jesus was saying
That wasn't really what I meant but it was the gist of it
>Incorrect, that Ireneaus actually.
>Augustine helped define it, and he defined it in literal terms.
AHAHAHAHAHA fuck you
>hat's stupid and makes God an immoral monster yet again.
It was his own choice
He willingly went to his death
Just as "Adam" chose willingly to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Jesus Christ chose willingly to go to his death for our sake
He could have said no
>Blood sacrifice is always immoral. Blood sacrificing one person, for any other person's, or persons', crimes is immoral as well.
The wages of sin is death
Who are we to dictate what is right and wrong
>Pretty much every angle you look at this, you come back with "Yahweh's a real dick".
That's your opinion bro
I think it is just
>Anyway, laters.
Good night my friend, it was fun. I always enjoy these
>>42693942
this shit has literally made me shake with anger
>>42693942
holy shit it is a fucking dragon!
kid dreams confirmed as true.
>science will deny dragon king
>>42703169
Why?
>>42704212
Cuz he denies our LOARD and savior jebus
Doesn't anyone think she raises at least one good point?
>>42704593
yes but I'm sick of arguing the point if people want to believe that monkeys in lab coats know everything there is to know and are there gods then they (the people) deserve to eat the shit they are fed. like everything evolved from rocks.
>>42693942
I don't know if I've ever seen such a stunning display of The Dunning–Kruger effect. She starts out not even knowing what a eukaryot is, then proceeds to explain why scientists are totally wrong about that thing she just found out existed less than a minute ago...
Then there's still 28 minutes left in the video. Fuck!
>>42704593
Every single point she makes is wrong. That is not an opinion. Literally every single point she tries to make is factually incorrect.
>>42704815
ya but have you herd of the new single cell called eukaryotamiskis voulpindersin cell? because you know I can make up shit names for collage kids to mesmerize new meaningless definitions too.
>>42704942
prove it kid. prove you know it. I'll send you sexy hookers if you can.
>>42704766
>yes
I didn't watch the entire video, but I think one of her "points" at one point was
>Haha Oh wow!? How much did this all cost.. You can't even READ all of this.. don't look at the man behind the curtain, noo noo..
Com'on now.. Of all things to complain about.. she bitched there was to much to read, than blames the illuminati...
>>42705037
building a dark environment that with a winding hallway that encourages you to not discuss the ideas and items presented to you is not good building designe for a museum. and ending that building in a gift shop dose not make you feel it is creditabl in any way. having signs you cant read because of dark lighting is not a exceptionable form of learning
>>42705305
The signs were entirely readable, you also are forgetting its tailored for children, numbnuts. It's supposed to look cool and be exciting.
>>42704815
>She starts out not even knowing what a eukaryot is, then proceeds to explain why scientists are totally wrong about that thing she just found out existed less than a minute ago...
You don't know if that's true. she might have very well known what they were but not known how to pronounce it, ya know?
>>42705390
I always liked big open well lit museums even as a kid with display boxes but if you preferred dark hallways where you can score some dope then fine. I don't give a fuck about you idea of appropriate learning environment.
>>42705305
>and ending that building in a gift shop
Are you kidding me?
Kids love gift shops, that was what I looked forward to the most as a kid when at a museum, also it needs funding to stay open, all museums do.
>>42698965
Evolutionists blown the fuck out.
>>42694232
*tips fedora*
You know who she reminds me of, she reminds me of Annie Wilkes from the movie Misery.
