/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

Currently at Radio Ernstiwan:


Animumusik by Yuno

M3U - XSPF


File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 22870
832 kB, 1200 × 900
1,4 MB, 1944 × 2592
3,9 MB, 1500 × 903
202 kB, 1400 × 844
Since a few of us here are seriously interested in religion, let us have a discussion for all things related to faith, theology, spirituality, metaphysics, et cetera. Virtually everything within the purview of faith is welcome in this thread. Absolutely no restrictions on any particular belief system. Cults are as welcome as major religion so long as they have serious, substantial beliefs. Agnostics, atheists, secularists and the non-religious are welcome, but keep your inquiries and arguments in good faith.
>>
No. 22924
277 kB, 800 × 733
I've been reading about Theories of Atonement. Christians accept that Jesus' death was for the sin of mankind, but there has been a lot of theological debate as to how exactly that was accomplished. He died for us, but in what sense? The way I interpret it: Jesus gave up something and recieved nothing; God gave up something and recieved something; and man gave up nothing and recieved something. The equation balances, but that still leaves open the details and exact mechanism of what was being exchanged. Anyway, it's an interesting topic, and I thought I would share my summary.

Ransom Theory:
Sinners are in bondage to Satan, and God offers Jesus' life in exchange for their freedom.

Recapitulation Theory:
Jesus is interpretted as a repetition of Adam. Where the first man disobeyed God and doomed all who followed, Jesus was obedient even unto death, and thus undid that original curse. This theory emphasizes Jesus' solidarity with mankind; He became like us, so that we could become like Him.

Satisfaction Theory:
A modification of the Ransom Theory, which posed a problem since it involved God owing something to Satan. This theory proposes that God is due honor, and human sin dishonors Him. This dishonor becomes a debt which must be repaid. Since Jesus died sinless, he essentially overpaid. This overpayment is used to satisfy the sin-debt which the rest of humanity has accumulated.

Penal-Substitution Theory
An evolution of the Satisfaction theory, which portrayed the relationship between God and man as a commercial transaction. Here the emphasis shifts from a debt being owed, to God's requirement for perfect justice. Sin violates God's law, and every sin must be punished. Jesus vicariously bore that punishment on the cross, thus allowing God to grant men forgiveness while still upholding His laws.

Moral-Example Theory:
This theory is built on numerous passages in the New Testament which exhort moral behavior. A rejection of the Ransom theory, which gave too much power to Satan, and the Satisfaction theory, which portrayed God as offended or judgemental. Here, the depth of Jesus' love was meant to inspire men to follow his example of obedience to God. Thus the death of Jesus does not change God's disposition, but influences the hearts of men.

Governmental Theory
This theory removes the vicarious repayment/punishment seen in the Satisfaction and Penal-Substitution theories, and imo is the most complicated. God is given the role of a cosmic judge, with the authority to punish sin-but not the obligation to do so. While sinners can be forgiven, to do this too freely would undermine God's moral law. Jesus' death was thus a public demonstration of just how seriously God views sin. Since the purpose of punishment is to deter future bad acts, this single crucifixion is a lesson which affects humanity without each individual having to face personal punishment. God, having established the severity of sin and its consequence, is then willing to forgive anyone who repents.

This is a good starting point for more detailed descriptions:
https://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ

I originally included some bible passages supporting each theory, but that post was just too long. The proponants of each idea, at one point in time, made their own case. Except for the Moral-Example theory. Peter Abelard was an early developer of that, and he wound up being condemned as a heretic(not just for this, though). I actually think his was an appealing interpretation, since it was built on Jesus' demonstrable actions which any man can understand, and emulate.
>>
No. 22927
Ok but is there a God? Can we definitively say that there is one through proofs so I don’t have to worry about my fleeting existence?
>>
No. 22930
>>22927
If there were and you had proofs wouldnt that just prove you in fact do have bigger problems than your fleeting existence? In a world without God and also nonafterlife or spirituality it means your consequences are ulimtaely immediate and trivial. If there is a God it means all your actions count, yes even your dirty thoughts.
>>
No. 22931
247 kB, 500 × 500
>>22927
>is there a God? Can we definitively say that there is one through proofs so I don’t have to worry about my fleeting existence?
The problem is that concrete proof that there's a God, by itself, isn't enough to relieve that stress. If I could conclusively demonstrate His existance, it doesn't necessarily follow that His eternal nature guarantees humans that same lifespan. Simply put, the universe needs God, it doesn't need me. To reach the point where God's everlasting life extends to the rest of us, I think you have to move beyond His merely existing, and into theological proofs of His nature and relationship with us as His children. That's the real challenge, and while this has not yet been proven to everybody's satisfaction, I'm convinced He's going to keep me around in one form or another.

>>22930
>If there is a God it means all your actions count
Yeah, that one hits hard sometimes.
>>
No. 22964
>>22927
No. Well sort of, since man created gods it would be easy to create one and then prove that you were right all along. If you fail that, well though shit.
>>
No. 22977
I've always been thinking of God as some sort of necessary concept to moral behaviour. Think of it as political realism, God therefore is the ultimate, un-challengable hegemonial power. All-knowing and allmighty he is the only institution capable of ensuring good behaviour among human beings or at least sanction misconduct. That doesn't make his existence true but necessary.
>>
No. 22978
>>22977
I think that moral systems predate religions, or at least they first have been developed independently from belief systems and then were incorporated into them. Benefits of morals aren't obvious, so in order to keep the society together, priests told about the harsh consequences for misconducts ("if you murder someone, the gods will fuck your shit up!"). Later, as societies were becoming more and more sophisticated, the enforcement of moral behaviour had to be taken charge of by the judiciary system, but the ethics still stayed in religious sphere, because it's easier to prevent a crime than to deal with a committed crime.
>>
No. 22987
>>22924
Ransom Theory: God created satan and there is no trade.
Recapitulation Theory: Jesus shows way back to heaven.
Satisfaction Theory: Only you will pay for your sins.
Penal-Substitution Theory: God can forgive anyone if he wants, and there's no "trade" around this you can't just make good things just for make more sins.
Moral-Example Theory: Yes he dies to make everyone believe.
Governmental Theory: mostly right
>>
No. 22990
>>22977
Your version of God is basically the Enlightened version of God. God in this case is nothing but a moralist, not a Creator and Maintainer of all things but a ruler of human behavior. This is what Voltaire meant when he said "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". Voltaire didn't need God for his scientific explanations of the world, but he still thought that God was necessary to keep humans from behaving evil. The same kind of reasoning can be found in Dostoevsky's saying "if God didn't exist, then everything would be allowed" (can't remember which of his characters said it or which of his books contained it).

It is debated where this idea of a moralist God came from exactly, Catholics blame it on protestantism, proddies blame it on cathols or try to pretend that the Enlightenment just so happened to emerge in the protestant world but didn't come from protestantism, but you can also find orthodox such as as Dostoevsky thinking like that. Whatever the origin, this idea of a moralist God also implies that if God didn't exist, we would have to create our own rules, and this is exactly what Sartre, Nietzsche and similar existentialist thinkers argue. Nihilism for them isn't bad, it's actually a liberation from archaic values, without God we are finally free to create our own rules. True liberalism and true humanism can only be finally achieved once we create rules from humans and for humans only. Much of the radicalism of the sex revolution was based in this idea.

This idea of God is alive and well among murkan evangelicals. Watch Dawkins and similars debating such evangelicals and you'll see that much of the rhetoric of evangelicals circle around the idea that values such as charity, empathy, love for one another, etc, cannot be accounted for in atheistic terms, be they scientific or political.

Some secularist thinkers such as Habermas have come to agree with this, they agree that much of the values that we all find good, common and necessary for our societies today cannot be accounted for in secular, enlightened, materialist, marxist, empiricist, etc, terms, that they are of theistic and abrahamic origins. But they go on to argue that these values today are common to all of us and so we don't need to look for them in their sources anymore.
>>
No. 23135
What I find stupid, particularly the desert religion, is the idea that the god that is omnipotent actually cares about you. If a god that created the universe exist then that entity would be so utterly incomprehensible to us, more like something out of Lovecraft then an bearded abusive uncle who likes to watches you masturbate. It would care less about you then you care about a single cell in your body. It would be even more bored about it's creation then R.R. Martin, he fucking wrote the book, he knows everything.
>>
No. 23145
451 kB, 1075 × 1000
39 kB, 564 × 423
>>23135
Fair enough. Even though I don't know how much sense it does make to a) find an entity such as God possible but then b) measure it with human standards. I mean, it would be very well possible that even though he is the fucking R.R. Martin he (or she or it or else) is still super into everything of his creation. Just saying.

Anyway, find to images attached how I kind of deal with religion currently.
>>
No. 23146 Kontra
>>23145
Add: i know that the second quote has never been mentioned as such as in Meditations (which I have only read in German though) but I still like the idea.
>>
No. 23181
>>23145
>pics
Seems kinda desperate ways to cling to meaning. Human brains make mistakes, so to say that you're set in your hedonistic ways as a religion is closed minded I would think. Why do you need to live forever to have meaning?
>>
No. 23191
>>23145
>super into everything of his creation
Yes. But it knows the outcome. It knows how your story will end and there is nothing you can do to change that. And then you are supposed to worship it even though the outcome is already set.
>>
No. 23202
265 kB, 1091 × 577
>>23135
>the idea that the god that is omnipotent actually cares about you
My belief that God cares about humanity stems from theology and Scripture, but I think I can reason to it another way. Start with the basic assumption that whatever God is, He is more than us in every way. I'm not saying that He's only a bigger, better us, I just mean that there is no metric where He is worse/less than us. Building on that assumption, I know that we have the capacity for moral behaviour, therefore He has the capacity for better moral behaviour. Our morality dictates that we care about the welfare of any creature which demonstrate consciousness. We are creatures which have demonstrated consciousness. Even though we're much smaller and very different, God would be able to percieve this, and in His better morality, would care about our welfare.
This is just to say that, as a moral God, I don't believe He could be indifferent. He could care in some empathetic way, and still choose not to act for reasons we can't comprehend, but that's not the same as indifference.

>>23146
>but I still like the idea
The quote looks similar to something Marcus Aurelius wrote in Medidtations, Book 2.11(pic). But you're right. It doesn't matter who said it, the idea is what matters.
>>
No. 23208
>>23202
If God was good why does it allow us to suffer in agonizing pain
>>
No. 23215
23 kB, 250 × 250
90 kB, 900 × 675
33 kB, 300 × 240
101 kB, 500 × 512
>>23208
Sometimes it is purifying. Sometimes it teaches you lessons, like about humility. And sometimes you just need to be punished, because there needs to be justice according to our kind. And as for the rest which in our case in the modern developed world happens to be most of it, it is because of free will, and that is why God tells us not to sin. If you have been greatly wrong by others then you also now know the importance of not winning, which hurts others, God, and ultimately ourselves.

>>23191
>>23135
Sweden is ironically partially right, except he still makes the mistake of assuming it works like us by presuming an egoistic God that once it's powerful and distant enough suddenly stops caring. Even I as a human have at least passing interest in an ant colony that happens to grow upon my front steps and I feed it sugar and try to help it grow. Sadly I haven't the power or authority to smite the other human beings who would have the audacity to mow over this ant colony, whose dominion I have claimed as my own. I need to find a solution to this problem where I can inflict great wrath upon all people who've tried to harm bird nests, wasp pr ant nests, spiders or anything else I've taken an interest in without getting arrested but anyway I'm rambling.

The point is God is not like us. Not even remotely. The whole point of Christ Jesus was not in some dude coming down and then just forgiving our sins by a bloody ritual sacrifice. The other point is to be like us, live like us, show it can empathize with us. Look at the physical descriptions of just the angels. They themselves are lovecraftian horror long before the genre even existed. Pics related are closer to what angels actually look like. Now what does that tell you about God?

The first thing any shadow of God sent to interact with is typically says is "be not afraid" partly out of the message of God to us, and also often partly because their visage and mere presence is utterly terrifying, and these are the beings meant as an interface with man.

None of this means God doesnt care about us. God does not need to be like us to care about us, which is very human thinking. Or rather, the thinking of the worst humans. Some humans care about numerous other species that are utterly unlike them and wholly alien. What too does this tell you about God? It is an eldritch being that shows us a form of itself that's nonthreatening to interface with itself.

I always say that to truly gain an appreciating and understanding of the nature of God, you have to read the Bhagavad Gita. When Krishna explains the nature of itself to Arjuna, then you will have a better understanding of and appreciating for the Jewish& Christian God.

I think that part of the problem is also quite simply white people. Europeans have traditionally had pantheons of gods as basically just being a bunch of utterly trivial and self absorbed people. The Greek and Roman gods were the same. The northern European gods likewise tended to behave in this manner and have these properties, of simply powerful people with petty squabblings, and the paganized Roman Catholic Church maintained this idiocy in the way it treats the saints and keeps a high emphasis on people and human politics. These things are irrelevant to a transcendant being. European mythology seems to be unable to truly grasp or approach the transcendent. Of course at the same time, there's a taint within Judaism that tries to portray the True God as nothing but an egotistical, wrathful, arrogant, materialistic, greedy and petty psychopathic human like deity at times.

Understand God is not a person. God is not even remotely near like being a person. God cares about you despite this barrier, or perhaps because of the fact a transcendantal being can monitor and be aware of everything going on within reality.
>>
No. 23216
>>23215
>None of this means God doesnt care about us.
None of this means that God cares about you either. You just brought down the God to your (human) level and tried to describe its modus operandi in your (human) terms. It is you who are guilty of human thinking. Try, for example, to explain the human concept of "love" to a dog. Dog wouldn't be able to comprehend that, the best that's available to its intelligence is "affection". Now try to explain it to an ant. Ant is too busy surviving to waste its time on the fancies of your mind. And the gap between you and the God, the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely complex being, is much wider than the gap between you and an ant, or even you and a virus. Your assumption that it cares about us is but one of the myriad of other possibilities, the one you chose to believe in.
>>
No. 23221
>>23215
> presuming an egoistic God that once it's powerful and distant enough suddenly stops caring

And you presume an abusive uncle who likes to whip people for touching themselves.

The nice irony is that norse Gods are way more logical to worship because they will fuck your shit up if you are not careful, or if they are drunk or just because they want to fuck your daughter.

The god you portray is nothing but a petty abusive old man. Who by the way is all knowing and powerful and created you in his image but now he is punishing you for doing exactly what he created you to do. If he needs to care about you, he has done something wrong and that would mean he can fail. If the god exist, it does not care because it knows the end result.
>>
No. 23222
>>23221
Where did I say God was abusive? Like, anywhere?
>God
>Getting drunk
>ever, or even feeling the need to
This is exactly what I meant actually
>who'll fuck your shit up for any reason of you're not careful
So in other words, your concept of God is an abusive uncle because the false pagan ones are. Okay.
>>
No. 23223
>>23222
> Sometimes it teaches you lessons, like about humility. And sometimes you just need to be punished, because there needs to be justice according to our kind.

The thing is you claim your god is omnipotent and yet can fail.

You put human traits on it and claim you cannot comprehend it.

My argument is that if there exist an omnipotent being we cannot comprehend it and it is also pointless to care because your path is set and it doesn't matter what ever you do. If it needs to care it isn't omnipotent.

Norse Gods are never said to be that and are closer to what you want in a god.
>>
No. 23225
>>23223
I don't want my God to be a drunkard; in fact I don't think I actually "want" God to be anything personally except I guess all knowing, but frankly what you want is human and carnal and irrelevant.

>The thing is you claim your god is omnipotent and yet can fail.
I never said such a thing; I said humans can fail specifically because God has given us free will, yet does not allow us to run totally rampant, because we also cry out for justice as well as wanting to not just be slaves (YMMV if you're a Muslim).

>My argument is that if there exist an omnipotent being we cannot comprehend it and it is also pointless to care because your path is set and it doesn't matter what ever you do. If it needs to care it isn't omnipotent.
This is about God in relation to us. What I'm talking about is God needing to be a certain way because we are His creations and God is not cruel or pointless, regardless of His manifestations or long sighted will.

Again, you're mixing up free will and determinism, which is an ages old theological argument and the reason why the sect of Calvinists even exists, who reject the theory of free will as such and instead posit predestination, that is, the idea that some are simply destined to hell because while they can choose differently God already knows they won't and thus doesn't intervene in their own choices. I personally reject that view though because I'm not a Calvinist and don't believe such things about how free will might actually work. Regardless, it is not a free pass to just be a dick and shrug your shoulders saying oh well.

You always have a choice regardless of circumstance, though that may narrow your actual choices and hence put a damper on your free will specifically because it is not physically or even theoretically available to you. Nevertheless, you are given a choice, and what you choose is up to you, regardless of the fact some choices may be easier.
>>
No. 23243 Kontra
>>23225
You did say that. It is the basis of every shit that came out of the desert. God is omnipotent and cannot fail. Then people just has to make shit up because turns out when you hit your head against it cracks starts to appear.

But in essence >>22964
You created god, now you have to prove it.
>>
No. 23263
>>23223
Characteristics ascribed to God aren't about the nature of God, but about we perceive It. This is called negative theology, and it's the most basic kind of theology. God is indeed far too big and complex for our heads to grasp and our languages to speak of, but we can grasp and speak of his doings in this world, and this is the whole point of Revelation. Lets put it this way, we cannot grasp the godhead, but we can see the consequences of his hands acting in this world. When Jews call God "Father" or "Lord", they aren't saying that he has testicles or is a landed nobleman, they are giving him the highest human authority that our minds and languages can ascribe. Again this is just basic theology, they are very well aware that our minds and languages can't describe such a supreme being, but our minds and languages are all that we have, so we do it anyway, which goes to remember also that we are mere creatures with very limited powers. This way, the problem of ineligibility of God and God's powers lies in our own limitations, not in his.

And you're wrong in many ways saying that this is a problem of Abrahamic religions only. It is a problem of any metaphysical kind of religion (Hinduism has similar problems) as well as natural theology and even rationalistic philosophy. The whole debate between Idealism and Realism lies on this, it's very typical of idealists such as Kant, for example, to deny that we can have real access to the Reality out of our minds, but that we should try anyway, and that our job is to try to build idealistic models of reality that work well enough through science, but that we should always be aware that they are just scientific attempts, and not actually a description of reality.

I don't know norse mythos well, but your idea that abrahamic religions are somehow wholly different from pagan mythos is a typical protestant belief and I find it unsurprising that you're a swedeball (notice how neopaganism is typical only of protestant countries). Take the epic of Gilgamesh for example, it is a pagan text but also something that influenced the bible, the epic is about the greatest of all kings who's basically a super human, but still mortal in the end, and he wants that last upgrade in power, he wants that which belongs to gods only: immortality. These kinds of tales, of humans having to deal with their mortality no matter how powerful they are, are the basis of many religions. Existence of beauty implies existence of ugliness somewhere, existence of mortality implies immortality somewhere. The things that cause us to die were given the names of spirits, and then of gods, and then of God. Religions are about dealing with the awareness that we are very limited beings susceptible to much greater natural powers, this is why strongly atheistic modes of being, such as Marxism, recognizes that an entirely humanistic atheism must do away with any perceptions of limitations of human powers, which they try to do by preaching technological progress.
>>
No. 23406
>>23263
> this is a problem of Abrahamic religions only
Never said that. Most holier then though types on the internet comes from this strain of believers though. So it is easier to argue with.

> swedeball
What does that have to do with anything? Also desert religion isn't anything different then norse mythos. The Abrahamic god is just a god who's inventors won a war, real or cultural. There were a lot of gods running around in the desert, most of them are evil spirits or something nowadays. I was refraining from saying that but there you have it. Your whole life perception is based on some dudes in the desert killing some other dudes and raping their women.

Also
> pagan
Who is the pagan? People who string up horses and slaves in trees or people who believes they drink the blood of their god?
>>
No. 23432
>>23406
>There were a lot of gods running around in the desert, most of them are evil spirits or something nowadays.
That's the point and you still missed it. What I'm saying is that monotheism is just a natural upgrade to polytheism, which is an upgrade to shamanism and animism (and then there are people claiming that rationalistic atheism is an upgrade to monotheism). There's clearly progress in religious belief. Religions are about explaining things that are out of our control but greatly affects us (death being the main thing), advanced forms of polytheism typically have an hierarchy among gods, the higher god typically accumulates a lot of power, specially when it comes to being the creator of things, until other gods lose godhood and become angels, demons, etc. Hierarchy among gods is bound to happen when those believers begin to question what are the relationships among the many gods, because if gods have some kind of absolute authority among humans that we just have to accept (again, death), then it is natural to question which one of them has more authority over the other. Now what some people such as Habermas claim is that enlightened atheism came from christianity/judaism, because worshiping one god only ends up making it so that a lot of earthly things no longer can be explained by the action of gods, spirits, demons and so on; these things are now free to be explained by human reason. During the middle ages catholicism reintroduced ways of attributing earthly things to transcendental powers (Saints, dead people, etc), but protestantism banished all of that. I read this theory through Habermas, but I have an impression that it's Weberian in origin (never bothered to look for it).

You're complaining that an all-powerful God wouldn't bother about us (and if you read the Book of Job, this is basically what God says to Job in the end), and what I remarked is that we indeed have no direct access to God (except through revelation in judaism and christianity), but that we can see the effects of his hands acting on creation. But then came protestantism and its sola-fide sola-scripture theology and changed that: miracles no longer existed, our dead ancestors no longer were a link between us and the transcendental, god no longer could also be found outside the bible (through natural theology) but instead only through Revelation as it was registered in the bible. So we get to this god that looks more like an imposition, a god who revealed himself once and then vanished forever, instead of a god which is still necessary to explain phenomena in the world around us. Religion in this case becomes something completely other from the natural world around us.

Your objections are objections about how we think of god, and what I'm saying is that traditionally we didn't think of god directly, but rather we tried to think of him through things in this world that we thought needed god to be explained, god was an a posteriori thought. You're basically claiming that because time paradoxes can't be solved, then time has got to be an illusion, and Einstein's answer to that was that we shouldn't think of time as something apart from the rest, and this keeps the time paradox problems from arising, and the theist answer to your objections are of the same kind.
>>
No. 23473
>>23432
Religion is a system that installs a bunch of commandments (up to 613 in some cases), a whole layer of piety and a generic prayer curriculum into the psyche. This is characteristic of every religion save the Ba'hai one (the purest, most exalted and yet underappreciated Abrahamic religion). Religare - something binding. You have to display belief in certain precepts and maintain the required piety.
True esoteric religion is, on the other hand, liberating rather than binding, and instead of a set of dead dogma and teachings it, rather, introduces a connection with the One Living Deity that is everything and active in every moment and manifests itself in absolutely every objective phenomenon as a guiding force and an unseen mover. This is the esoteric doctrine that has been one and the same between Taoism and Rosicrucianism, between Martinism and ancient Sumer. There were never, at any time, two competing esoteric doctrines.
>>
No. 27380
We all know of the Christian Zionist movement in America, especially within the Evangelicals, but I've recently seen an emergence of Christian anti-Zionists neither affiliated with Orthodoxy nor Catholicism. Common Filth has particularly spoken out against the State of Israel, stating that Israel should be interpreted as a metaphorical place rather than a specific geographic location.

Having no knowledge of the Bible, I ask if there is a compelling case to make against Zionism within Christianity.
>>
No. 30598
>>23432
monotheism is by no means an upragde of polytheism. the only reason it became hype, is because christianity made relevant, judaistic religion traditions (from judaism to islam) and it did make it relevant with appealing for lowest of lows and eventually submit the roman empire.

it's completely political thing. these religions overall caused regression in human history.
>>
No. 30640
116 kB, 660 × 660
>>27380
I ask if there is a compelling case to make against Zionism within Christianity.

From a Biblical perspective? I'm not expert either. A major tip would be "you can't abuse the grace of the Lord". So, if you sin because implementing your political agenda... You run into trouble!
>>
No. 30642
>>30640
Why the guro, my friend?
>>
No. 30910
>>22927
>but is there a God?
Am I the only one who sees such questions as trick questions?
Atheists see God as a materialistic being, something tangible to be proven or disproven by the scientific method.
Theists see God as something beyond the understanding of Man.
For theists there is no good answer here - even if they were to prove(by the standards of atheists) that God exists, their concept of God would immediately fall apart, God would suddenly enter the sphere of Man instead of being outside of it. He would be just another natural phenomenon(or maybe an alien being) to be studied, nothing more.
So in proving atheists wrong they also prove them right at the same time.
>>
No. 30917
>>30910
Yeah, I see your point. If God is only proven by measuring His effect on the universe, then He might be no different than gravity, or electromagnetism. An unreducible force we don't understand, but still not outside of reality.
I think the way out of this trap would be to demonstrate the conscious intelligence of God. God, as Theists understand Him, isn't only a force, He is an actor; He makes considered decisions. If everytime we do A, we get B, then that is a natural law. But if sometimes we get C, or D, then we would know there is something else going on.
The best sort of proof, which still keeps God outside of time and space, might actually require an interaction of some kind. If tomorrow the sky was brown instread of blue, to an athiest that would mean there was something about light we didn't understand. But if we then requested the sky return to blue, and it did, then that would be God.
>>
No. 31085
>>
No. 31086
253 kB, 550 × 741
>>
No. 31102
>>30640
>A compelling argument against zionism
How about the fact that Jews themselves aren't even who they say they are. The Jews tell you that they are God's chosen blood and come from the seed of Abraham. While they do in fact come from the seed of Abraham. They do not inherit the promise made to Jacob. Why? because the Jews are actually the edomites in scripture. Most people normally point to ezekiel 37 when stating that the Jews are God's chosen people because it says that the people of Israel will return to the promised land. However there is something wrong. Jews have not been a company of nations like the promise made to Ephraim. In the new testament the Jews stated they had never been in captivity before. Remember both the Jerusalem(Which only contained a small fraction of the former population) and the kingdom of Israel(every other tribe including most of the tribe of Judah, benjamin and Levi as well) were both taken into captivity by the babylonians or assyrians(who deported them to the area near the medes.) The babylonians really only took captives the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Most of them were the ones who returned to Judea not only with Israelites though but also canaanites, egyptians, assyrians, idumeans and arameans. Effectively when Jesus was born he was a minority in his own land. So how do we know these Jews aren't the tribe of Judah? well because the bible tells us exactly who they are. They are Idumea(edomites). Simple enough? Obviously a lot more can go into this. and this is just scratching the surface on the amount of content in the bible. Also it is of my belief that the european paganism's are actually mere corruptions of biblical truths which is why we have in norse paganism a son of god coming down to destroy a serpent. Basically everything you know is a lie.
>>
No. 31104
>>31102
Ezekiel 36:5. Forgot to point to the passage that actually states it.
>>
No. 31953
One thing I find interesting about Christian theology and apologia is that it seems to exist in a spiritual vacuum, where arguments about the nature and necessity of God are limited to Christian preconceptions and a single ideological opponent - atheism.

In anthropological terms this makes sense, because the only adjacent spiritual rival to European Christianity (for 90% of its history) was Islam, which shared essentially the preconceptions about the nature of God. But, even with copious and readily available documentation of the very detailed theologies/worldviews of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Taoism, these alternative theoretical models of divinity and spirituality are completely ignored.

If you're trying to establish a firm defense of the Christian religion in the 21st century, are you not required to directly engage with every other vital spiritual tradition that is in competition? But instead, it seems that Christians spend some time developing their arguments against atheism, and then take for granted that, atheism being refuted, they can safely return to taking their core assumptions for granted.

Personally, I find the Indic models much more intellectually sound than the Abrahamic one. Without resorting to materialism, you can sidestep the problems of an omnipotent and activist creator god entirely.
>>
No. 31961
196 kB, 1400 × 932
>>31102
Me and a bunch of black guys from Philly dressed like D&D characters are reading this post and slowly nodding in agreement.
>>
No. 31965
37 kB, 529 × 548
>>31961
British Israelism is one of the stupidest, silliest, most jester like appearances of a fake ideology I ever heard of. Long story short, it is an expansion of the infamous narcissistic British egoism that goes so far as to state that Brits are in fact a lost tribe of Israel (and most important one of course). Those silly shit Dan Brown novels are essentially an extrapolation upon this, which also states in essence that the British royalty are bloodline descendants of Jesus Christ. They make weird overtures to things like the legendary Camelot and setting out England herself to be some sort of Zion or promised land, and that Englishman are the "true God's Chosen Ones."

I'm not making this up; this really is an actually stated belief of some people in Bri'un. I somewhat suspect this particular sea monster is an extension of that, so just remember when you see any of them prattling on about it that it's some kind of narcissistic defense mechanism against the factual reality of British imperial "at first I was like--but then I was all" longing for what they truly believe is their God granted "right" to be recognized as the Lanisters of the earth.

Read it and have a laff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism
>>
No. 31984
>>31961
I met a sect of those guys once. Though they were dressed in military camo and smelled terribly, I'd prefer those LARPers.
>>
No. 31985
>>31965
Truth be told, every nation has the belief that they are the chosen ones.
You guys have American Exceptionalism(tm).
The Germans thought they were destined to rule the world.
The Russians think Holy Russia is the only thing standing between the world and the Antichrist.
The French believed themselves to be the messiahs of freedom and equality.
Poland is "the Christ of nations".
And we have the "God of the Hungarians" tormenting us for our sins, so that we may one day redeem our nation. (Not to mention the nutjobs who believe that Jesus was actually a Parthian-Hungarian warrior-prince from Sumeria, and that once the second coming happens, a giant flood will destroy the world, except for the Carpathian Basin, since that's where the chosen live.)

It's a logical conclusion of the middle ages, where every nation had a story about how they are related to some biblical tribe.
Don't know about the English, but our made up story was that we are descendants of Gog and Magog's tribes that were "walled off" with iron bastions by Alexander the Great.
>>
No. 32012
>>31985
American exceptionalism isn't a fringe belief, most Americans think there's something special about their country. I've never heard of British Israelism and I'd be surprised if you could find a dozen of them on the other hand. They appear to have written half their own Wikipedia article.
>>
No. 32015
>>32012
>>31985
I would say there's a difference between "I feel that my country is special" and "my country is actually a lost tribe of israel, we are the true chosen of god".
Then again americans treat certain aspects of their society with a religious fervor much more than traditional religion, and inflating one's "heritage" isn't uncommon in burgerland.
>>
No. 32025
>>32015
I mean he actually is right in that American Exceptionalism often posits--along with Manifest Destiny--the idea that this country is the true Chosen of God and divinely mandated beacon of liberty and freedoms to the whole of the world etc etc, not to mention one of our other crackpot examples being the Mormons who quite literally believe exactly the same thing (that Indians are a lost tribe of Israel, that Jesus Christ came to America, that this is His Chosen land or whatever) but still.

>>32012
And as for you please see >>31102 and then compare to British Israelism. I don't know if you're the same person but practically guaranteed you're/he's drinking from the same slop trough as British Israelists to posit that kind of nonsense.
>>
No. 32027 Kontra
>>32025
He sounds like a generic imageboard schizo, frankly.
>>
No. 38420
Judaism is basically the worship of the Christian Father but not the Son or the Holy Spirit, and various forms of Gnosticism (and Catharism I think?) worship the Son but not the Father, so what would a religion that only worshiped the Holy Spirit be like? Zoroastrianism is the closest I can think of, but seems imperfect for some reason.
>>
No. 45222
the reason why believing religion is not openly diagnosed with mental retardation it's because uneducated masses tyrany. I refuse to respect a "medicine branch" which behaves according to politics.
>>
No. 45223
>>45222
I find it interesting that imageboards tend to attract the outcasts and dissidents of their societies, so much reliably so, that you can pretty much tell what their society is generally like by imagining the opposite of it. I'd infer from this that Canadians are above average valuing intelligence and politeness, possibly even prudish, and that America is a more racially diverse/tolerant society as is Germany, and that Turkey is filled with Islamic bydlo as is Kazakhstan to an extent. I'll never forget that one Kazakh who ranted on and on about "Islam is such. SHIT. you wouldn't believe" some years back. Probably around like 2015 or something.

Your problem, sir, is in a fundamental misunderstanding of reality: bydlo gonna bydlo. There is no solution or cure to this, except that you at least find a way to temper their behavior from being shit throwing retarded apes. Every ideology has some intellectual of some sort, just as it has its fundamentally retarded ideologues. It would be far easier for me to engage somebody who's a sincere intellectual even if it's an ideology I hate, than it likely would be for me to routinely deal with bydlo who agree with me.
>>
No. 45270
63 kB, 103 × 83, 0:02
>>23215
What I find exceedingly interesting about the Christian God is that has personality traits. All this love stuff from him is kinda absolute. We've been warned that his wrath is very powerful too, but in general this is something that I find curious. Curious and pic if you think too much about it I guess.

Pic? What does happen if you meet God face to face when you are alive IMHO. Exodus something, KJV.

t. Christian
>>
No. 45275
>>45270
Honestly I think that aspect is kind of a bunch of bullshit that is directly the result of this really peculiar European mindset that I just don't get. The Judaic interpretation true has just as much of the personality stuff, but God is truly seen as being much more ineffable and mysterious, and even His angels are basically Chtulhu. I relate much more to a lot of the Judaic aspects of the religion, and find truth in the fact God is just as much seen some sort of eldritch abomination from beyond time even moreso than an ant could not possibly hope to perceive any of us in full on even a physical level, let alone comprehend why I am getting annoyed with it or feeding it to a spider, which I deeply, regret, shame, not sure right word. But I've tired of the ants and responded in not even wrath but frustrated coldness and killed probably a hundred of them and it's gnawed at my sanity I hate killing them but it's beginning to be a paranoia they'll end up shorting out electrical equipment somewhere, like a human having no idea behind the reason committing sorcery is pissing God off.

So in that case I guess I do find it kind of relateable but only insofar as it's more of a Hindu or Mahayana Buddhist conceptualization of God also choosing a physical avatar like Christ. Frankly there's things about Catholicism which very much remind me of that taint of our collective pagan idolatry background, like the praying to Saints and pseudo-idopatry of them or pseudo-deification of the Pope. It ultimately strikes me as way too human and way too reminiscent of what happens when someone with a psychopathic personality disorder warps the perception of reality of those around them only to found a dynasty with some complete lies to enforce it and control behavior while hundreds of years later people are still trying to make excuses for psychopaths and trying to rationalize why theyre doing those inexplicably viciously sadistic and violent things. So it is also clear to me why fedoras gonna fedora.

I think though that one of the things I like about the Christ part is how thoroughly contrary it runs to my own nature, and that's a good thing. I'd legitimagely be such an utterly remorseless cunt otherwise with no real brakes on my behavior and we need that.

I do think that taken as a whole it's a rather wildly coherent philosophy and ideology it's just that you unironically need an extraordinary IQ to understand it. Like, I was at the point years ago where I came to understand that it really does contain some mystical secrets of the universe in it and that a lot of those rules had a purpose but I'm just way too dumb and lacking any kind of context or sight beyond my narrow tunnel vision to understand it.

I would lastly like to add that just as I suspected acid was totally overrated however I can see how anybody who's not spent much time inside themselves or doing introspection or engaged with the mystical or philosophical in other words your average keine would get a kick out of it and suddenly think theyre enlightened. In my personal experience it's a really speedy psychological kind of a drug better suited to psychoanalytics and I spent much of my time in a sort of contented detachment analyzing things like the sins and demons trying to stop me from reaching Heaven--figurative and literal--alongside the interesting notion that perhaps a great lie would be that I was still needing to keep looking after having already Found it or whether that actual lie was not the lie but rather that injecting the sense of doubt while Seeking was the lie. It was mildly interesting. I also found alcohol to be among the most thoroughly demonic of substances when abused so it's really no surprise to me at all the Arabs banned it.
>>
No. 45358
53 kB, 852 × 480
>>45275
I'd like to answer something sensible to your nice comment but I'm too tired, let's see if another day...
>>
No. 49632
Why was my comment deleted? I just wanted to know what Ernst's opinion was to Christianity being a Jewish psyop.

Any takers?
>>
No. 49634 Kontra
>>49632
Judging by this post alone, whatever it was I can see why it was. It was a schism within Judaism FYI.
>>
No. 49641 Kontra
2,2 MB, 1000 × 1850
199 kB, 952 × 1411
>>49632
Your question implies both control of a movement and benefit from it, but there is evidence for neither.

My opinion? You are focused on the modern kinship between Christians and the Jewish people while forgetting the much more hostile relationship which existed for the better part of 2000 years.

Enjoy some nice iconography.
>>
No. 49644
>>49634
>>49641
And what about this video saying it's a psyop, what's your opinion on that: https://www.bitchute.com/video/7h9YnJ6SuroM/

This is my last post on this by the way.
>>
No. 49646
>>49644
>bitchute
Fuckin lol why do you expect us to even open that link. Look I know you're probably at least actually making the effort to argue out of your own curiosity so try to sum it up in your own words.
>a psyop
I am sure it has occurred to many of those who believe in a modern ZOG and also believe in some perversion of Nietzschean thought so I'll put it this way, the original Christianity was a sect of Jews who believed in what was probably a charismatic figure, or he may simply have been the Richard Stallman of ancient Judaism and led his band of freetards against what they perceived the heretical proprietarianism by installing JudaismTwo, or what I like to call Christ+Jew. The movement was an effort at reform against what He and others perceived to be the decadence, tyranny, and moral decay of the rabbinical class which at the time had been effectively the local rulers. His very words have been a rather consistent assault on the rich, on corrupt religious authorities, against the wealthy and powerful. Because of this I think Christs aims at the time were political in outward character, while being inwardly much more religiously motivated, because it must also be remembered that sandpeople liked not distinguishing between politics and religion (nor usually anybody else except the Wect since Enlightenment times even for us Christendom had been as much a political force). The real aim of it was to destabilize rule by rich, fat, corrupt rabbis who'd been besmirching the good name of HaShem by doing shit like conducting business openly at Temple, and turning something holy into a place of transactions. He did not seem so much to go against the Romans which weren't his primary target but also because it would immediately get everyone around him killed, and the infamous trial scene shows what bs Christ was put through where the Rabbinate was trying to get him to hang himself with his own words by either a verbal and ideological transgression against the local Jewish rulers or against Roman rulers, hence a big part of why he said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's." It's quite clear in context however that he would've thought Nero and all those filthy Romans before him were godless, wicked, and corrupt to maximum effect.

>but muh Jewish global domination plot!
Aside from the fact some of this really is just the trailerpark version of whitey keepin me down, if it's a world domination scheme from the bronze age it's a pretty fucking godawful and poorly thought out one considering that it was the Christians themselves who routinely purged Jews. Once it spread to Rome and incorporated more and more newfags it retained less and less original Jewish character, leading to friction within the community and thus proscriptions against things like pork and to get circumcised were fully suspended in favor of "he who is not circumcised of heart is not circumcised at all." From then on it more and more became a Greco-Roman sort of thing until just a few centuries later it was Christians persecuting Jews, and had remained so until Islam arose and also started persecuting Jews likewise.

If this was a psyop it would have to be a really fucking shitty psyop to get your people kicked out of literally every single job except usury, acting Jews are prone to being theatrefags not so much out of some plot to control the media--that came later and is a thing--so much as acting was considered a sort of low tier Walmart Greeter if not lower form of disreputable work and was frowned upon with the attitude if the Juden want to beg for change and dress in costumes let them, and let them clean our cisterns too, iirc jewelsmiths for some reason, and a couple of other fields which came to be dominated by Jews because it's literally all the work they had available to them in Christian Europe that wasn't banned already and they ended up becoming very good at it until it had the unforseen consequence of them dominating what would later become very important and wealth generating fields. I'm pretty sure if medieval Christians had only clue these Jews would use Hollywood, publishing, radiobroadcast, and other things to cement dominance, or would use jeweling and usury to become a wealthful and powerful force, that they would've banned them from working in those professions too.

You are somehow forgetting that it's literally only been within the last few hundred years that Jews have not been actively at odds with Christians, and that really it's only been about in the last century where they became such a dominant American force and wed themselves to things like Christianity and yet even today you can see the latent hostility of Jews towards Christians or at least deep mistrust and likewise everyone from Prots to Catholics still being just one step away from calling them Christkillers and accusing them of devil worship or rejecting the Messiah or something, which is funnier and even more hypocritical when neonazis do it and try to whitewash that they do, in fact, belong to a semitic religion that merely got adopted by Europeans and slowly got europeanized to the point that a rejection of Christendom is quite literally a rejection of two thousand years worth of culture from white people. The obvious correct approach is to not be a retarded ideologue and accept that certain pertinent facts conflict wildly with what you want to say regardless if you think it's overall correct or not without entering profound levels of cognitive dissonance, as the WE WUZ JESUS N SHEEIT Christian poltards for example tend to do. If you're going to believe in Christianity btw regardless if he was some baldling short brown 33 year old Jew or not the physical form would be irrelevant, and exactly the kind of move you'd expect a Christian God to play, like having His emissaries appear as some black janitor or a white homeless man. People who obsess and get annoyed about that should accept what they are politically and abandon religion entirely.

>
>>
No. 49647
>but muh Jews gave me a weak not conquering ideology
Yeah well that didn't stop the medieval Christians nor the Moslems now did it? Some of the worst, most brutal conquests were done under Christian banners, sadly, and we know full well how violent Islam can be when you could just as easily accuse Islam of being a "Jewish psyop" and look how well Jews get along with Muslims.

The more uncomfortable fact for these people, I think, is the level to which Evangelicals (who themselves routinely flout their own religion) ignore muh based Zion man typically being irreligious and reacting towards Christianity with deep suspicion as a result of those aforementioned centuries of violence against them by the Christians. I mean hell the Jews probably suffered less under the Iberian Muslim rule than they typically did under European Christians, which is where something like 90% of the list of countries they got kicked out of comes from, most especially the Black Death when these superstitious peasants largely concluded either "I bet the Jews did this" or "clearly God is punishing us for tolerating Jews who hate Him."

As for the geopolitcal circumstances that likely led you towards this conclusion it is a largely geopolitical arrangement dating back from the Cold War when Israel was on our axis with the other side our ameribear BFFs--the Muhammedans--being blowback from supporting them because while their countries largely allied with USSR bloc the USSR, as atheist Communists, tended to piss off the religious and became a convenient tool against the Russkies. It should be noted that Tibet is the same thing and that the utterly shitty Tibetan Lamas are supported to this day because it's been a tool against CCP power to such an extent the Tibetans were trying to scam the CIA into giving them a nuke to smuggle to Beijing and the CIA thought giving atomic weaponry to those Tibetan fanatics a but extreme. Likewise, the US never went to Europe to "save the Jews." It literally had been a convenient way to justify the war and make ourselves look like heroes and has been part of the national myth since 1945 for that reason despite the fact we knew about the Holocaust since the early 1940s and didn't do shit about it and in fact turned back whole boatloads of Jewish refugees to occupied Europe. This is also part of why American Jews are always going to side with immigrants because they well remember that time the US sent Jewish refugees back to get holocausted and I'm surprised they don't publicly bring this up more. Regardless, the myth that we "saved the Jews" was always just post-WWII and Cold War propaganda, and very effective one at that in crafting this national mythos to ourselves of "this is why we fought the war guys this is why" and "we are the freedom fighters and liberators of yurop I am a American man fight for the rights of every man plays in the background" "look what heroes we are for saving Jews and saving yurop installs more military bases on Germany".

Since that time groups like AIPAC have thrown tremendous effort and resources into coopting American Christian movements into some fucktarded version of Zionism, and American right wing political power has likewise wed itself to the American religious fanatics against the warnings of people like Barry Goldwater. It syncs with certain geopolitical aims although I think over time it got more and more apparent what snake they'd gotten in bed with to the point where now parts of our political apparatus are paralyzed by the efforts of the Zionists through not just AIPAC but a variety of other means including guys like Epstein, regardless of the fact both the CIA and KGB/FSB pull the same shit in compromising political assets. Amusingly enough their chief political threat is the leftists who do not care about Israel and are often openly hostile to people like Evangelicals, leading to purges of political forces like Corbynites and I wonder how long it will be before Israel fully and publicly betrays us for an alliance with China.

Tl;dr if it was a psyop it's the worst, most convoluted, backfiring psyop plan I've ever seen
>>
No. 49648
>>49646
>lolol bitchute, come on now

Ok yes, the video is silly but one of the arguments in the video were fairly cognizant, more specifically the woman's.

I myself didn't really want to argue this, that wasn't the aim of my brief posts (obviously). I just wanted a sufficient opposing criticism to this claim that I could compare (which the people in this video lack greatly) without having to do all of the thinking for the opposition myself.

In truth I am trying to figure out what this ideology really is.

I'm thinking, currently, that it has nothing to do with le psyop to conquer le white race either.
>>
No. 49657
>>49648
To which ideology are you referring? And it could also perhaps be interesting from which contextual reference points you're coming from to ask that. Are you referring to theirs, or to what a bloc of ideologies like Christendom represents(because it's in truth very fragmented depending on sect)? It should also be kept in mind that Judaism itself is not a hivemind, and that one of the most frequent and obvious jokes among Jews is the totally EC tier levels of autism that happens when you bring two Rabbis (or two Jews for that matter) together to talk about and argue over Judaism, which itself is not the only ideological block as many Jews also are irreligious. Actually come to think of it to what purpose or objective were you hoping to come to an understanding? Even among Christians for example the Catholics actually generally accept both the theory of evolution and the proposition that there can be ayys out there, whereas you have the well quite frankly bydlo worldview of certain Protestants (I myself being shocked to find out nondenominational Christians were asking questions such as will their legs grow back in Heaven, will their ears heal over from piercings from earings etc. it was quite literally on the level of thinking it's a physical place that also gave me deeper insight into the fact Jihadists likewise believe their Jannah is a physical place where they're physically eating dates and screwing around with harems etc.)

There is very clearly a shockingly different mentality among a diverse array of religious believers, among which you can generally find the core texts as the starting point for divergences on interpretations of them as well as differences among which texts get emphasis. Certain Evangelical types largely ignore the Gospels in favor of certain Epistles like Romans, and like to revert back to just talking about Genesis and Leviticus, which is part of why I've started referring to them as trailer park Jews since years ago.

The crux of the split ultimately comes down to the Gospels. The Jews rejected him as some imposter or non-divine political reformer, and eventually went the way of adopting Talmudic doctrines of varying degrees and interpretations, whereas the Christian split occurred with declaring Jesus divine, and the texts that followed.

The key difference--the genuine rock solid core of doctrine--that differentiates the one ideology from the other occurred in the Gospels. He is the core figure here for differentiating all three Abrahamic religions and their offshoots. Moslems view Jesus as being divinely inspired but no such God or trinity and merely being a prophet, the penultimate one and second greatest. The Muslims actually believe ideologically similarly on some accounts, including the interesting interpretation of endtimes being largely similar but two key differences I noted is firstly Mohammed having Jesus at his side when both come for God's judgment of this world etc., and the addition of Ad-Dajjal aka the Christian antichrist being "one eyed." I have seen this referenced in the Islamic world with the Illuminati eye, which afaik was originally a Catholic symbol called "the eye of providence" and had featured prominently in certain cathedrals and artworks to represent The Father, which is unusual given that no Catholics were here afaik, and which likewise has a separate occult meaning and features prominently in some Western occult traditions.
>>
No. 49661
>>49657
>Actually come to think of it to what purpose or objective were you hoping to come to an understanding?

Quite simply I have no meaning in my life, everything feels out of place for me, it hurts and I am attempting to put religion in my life to see if I can better cope with it. I notice I naturally gravitate towards it, especially in dire situations. But I didn't want to gravitate towards it, atleast back then and indeed, this was never ever the case before I took LSD (or not that I was aware of). Before I was rather apatheist/agnostic and I didn't care for religion or finding G-d. In fact I didn't really know what I wanted back then, still don't. And I feel like there is something empty- this feeling cannot be filled by the basic normal needs.

Maybe I desire the Absolute for self-realization? I don't know, man.
>>
No. 49663
>>49657
I think I repeated this line of reasoning before to you.
>>
No. 49666
I have a really unreasoned hate towards Islam. I try everyday to temper my thoughts cause I know it’s probably autistic. But one must think I can’t do much more. I know that read the Qu’ran would’nt really convince me about the ideology but maybe should I read it.
>>
No. 49678
>>49666
You'll start hating it even more :-DDD
t. read the Qur'an

Well, maybe not hate, but a strange mix of despising it for being such a retarded book, and and despair that billions of people believe in it.
>>
No. 52980
47 kB, 555 × 358
1,9 MB, 2604 × 3472
How can Christianity be the one true universal religion when it depends on literature and agricultural civilization? Christianity depends at its core on Scripture, and without someone to pass on and preserve that gigantic volume of Scripture, not to mention liturgy and patristic text, the religion cannot exist, at least not in its most orthodox form. But cavemen can't be literate or preserve writing. They have no need of it, and neither did the majority of people in cities in Jesus' time, only a small percentage could read. I think it's also almost impossible to preserve that entire corpus orally, especially faithfully, and we know how branches squabble over the most trivial textual difference.

This Scriptural approach is not very universal however, since how can you preserve that Scripture in primitive hunter-gatherer societies that can't read? Could Adam read and write? Christianity therefore cannot be the one true universal religion.
>>
No. 52985 Kontra
>>52980
Most cultures used to have oral traditions where they memorized verbatim entire stories to pass on their oral histories generation after generation. This is known. You'd be surprised what you can memorize when you actually have to and don't just store it on some shitposting device. That includes the fact that even just 30 years ago everybody had a rolodex in their head. As a kid I had dozens of phone numbers memorized for people, and multiple different addresses. I don't know numbers anymore because I do not have to. You also somehow try and make it implied Europeans weren't complete barbarians (literally, we were the barbarians that sacked Rome) and yet somehow preserved that knowledge through a class of scribes. This, in case you forgot, is a lot of what the Schism was about, because not only the Catholic clergy had monopolized the knowledge, but they also were among the only ones who knew Latin. So not only was it a small caste of literates preaching to ignorant peasants, but a bunch of ones that had to do it bilingually no less. I'm not even sure I know anyone who is genuinely bilingual other than a few foreigners who took academic jobs here. That does not imply the clergy could not do it then.
>>
No. 52986
>>52980
It gets passed on through the ages and morphs over time. Well to start with the Christian God is a Canaanite god and many of the myths relating to the religion pre-Jesus are from Canaanite religion or other regional religions. Regions tend to copy from each other.

But yes, most of the people of the age could not read, particularly not peasants and many of Jesus disciples were peasants so it is unlikely that they actually wrote what is attribute to them. Early on there were many different versions of what would become the Bible written by different people, overtime a few of these became cannon and the rest were discarded(such as the one found recently that has Judas as the only disciple that understood the true message of Jesus while the rest did not).

It's the same with any religion, Greek myths have different interpretations and variants and what we have are just the variants that have survived, the Christians from early on had tried to centralise and unify into one common scripture so they removed much of the variant texts.
>>
No. 52987
>>52985
>sageing your own thread
pathetic
>>
No. 53003
>>52985
I doubt anyone can or could memorize the entire Bible verbatim, not to mention as I said eventually divergences would emerge.
>>
No. 53172
0 Bytes, 880 × 1060
File deleted
G-D IS REAL

BELIEVE, ERNST