Repent Satan

>>23818682
The Bible.

>>23818682
Well..
Have you heard of J. L. Mackie's error theory.
Ethics: inventing right and wrong (title).
In that book he argues that all objective moral statements are false by default because there are no objective moral values. He then systematically refutes every popular morality from utilitarianism to absolutist catholicism.
You could read the first few chapters so that you are familiar with the arguments and then skip to the end for the argument against absolutist systems. As long as you understand the basic idea you can spend your time studying any of the chapters individually.

The Talmud.

The Final Pagan Generation doesn't attack Christianity directly but it does make early Christians look disturbingly similar to modern shitlibs.

>>23818682
That book isn’t a critique of Xtianity it just whines that they were mean (so what doesn’t impact whether it’s true or not)

>>23818682
The Age of Reason, which is against Christianity as such, needs no further context, and is quite strong
Spinoza's Ethics and Philosophical-Theological Treatise, which attack biblical literalism and inerrancy to an extent that almost all Christians would deem heretical
Schopenhauer's Essay "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason," for a tl;dr of why traditional theistic arguments do not work.

For IDEAL route, to tl;dr the philosophy which would adequately prepare you for Schopenhauer, The Upanishads, Plato's Apology, Republic, Symposium, Meno, and Parmenides, Pars Prima of the Summa Theologica, the Spinoza I mentioned, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, either of Hume's main books, the Critique of Pure Reason, and Fourfold Root and then, finally, The World as Will and Representation (only volume 1 and the appendix from volume 2 on Kant is necessary)

Nietzsche's arguments can be rejected out of hand since he doesn't believe in truth only power, but also turned out to be a powerless person.

>>23818719
Also this. I'm really not willing to go through the mental gymnastics to believe that God told people to rape teenage girls and rip babies from the wombs of pregnant mothers.

The Quran is also a good anti-christian read because it gaslights you in basically the same way the Bible does.

>>23818682
The Golden Bough. It places Christianity in its context, and convincingly concludes that Jesus was just another Jewish scapegoat.

>>23818912
I don't want to call you a retard, but Nietzsche's argument against Christianity is way more powerful than Kant's, Hume's, since even with these guys there are ways of arguing for Christianity based on their very principles. Nietzsche goes to the historical process of value creation, with a bit of anthropology/philology, aesthetics.

File: 1724868947944156.png (53 KB, 1000x500)

53 KB PNG

>>23818994
>convincingly concludes that Jesus is exactly what Christians have been calling him for over 2000 years
woah... Anyway, does anyone know of any good books that attack Christianity from a uniquely pagan and non-abrahamic perspective?

>>23819108
Nietzsche's arguments against Christianity are indeed further from Christianity, but that's not the same as being stronger, it actually makes them weaker.

In order to have any kind of argument successfully, you need to have some kind of starting premise in common. Objective truth is a common premise between these authors and the Christians, and indeed they take many other Christian premises and show how they undermine Christianity. Because Nietzsche has nothing in common with Christianity or Philosophy, his arguments are of no account to us. The most I can say be means of genuine criticism is that for somebody who's standards of value are "life" and "power" leaving no offspring and the seeds of the failed ideology of fascism seems like a poor outcome.

Also, most of his "original" ideas are already explained by either Hume, Stirner, or Spinoza.

>>23818854
It shows that Christianity was a foreign Abrahamic force who wrought terror on the much more virile and beautiful EUROPEAN culture, and this beast could only be tamed when it was amalgamated into the already existing paganism in place. Yet as then such is now, the Abrahamic scourge and European tradition will always be at odds with one another.

>>23819136
>Objective truth is a common premise between these authors and the Christians
You mean scholastic Christians? If so, I agree. If not, then you're wrong. There are many Christians that emphasized their belief on precisely the destruction of reason, so to speak. Mysticism is an obvious form of it. Metaphysics' failure is the path to apophatic theology.
>for somebody who's standards of value are "life" and "power" leaving no offspring and the seeds of the failed ideology of fascism seems like a poor outcome.
You probably have never read a page of Nietzsche. But anyhow, the standard is very simple and spread among all ideologies, which is ''winning''. Christians may lose this life, but will win heaven. In the end there will be the Judgment. They will have the last laugh. It's always about that, you can't escape that, saving your life here or hereafter.
>most of his "original" ideas are already explained by either Hume, Stirner, or Spinoza.
He has a bit of influence from Spinoza indeed. There is nothing of Hume (in all his books he not even mentions Hume besides one aphorism in the Will to Power which have more than a thousand). I haven't read Stirner. But the obvious influence is Kant. But anyways, you haven't read a page of Nietzsche.

I was disappointed when I found out the dark ages europe was not a post apocalyptic dystopia where the pope forbade people from reading and that technology and science in the region never stopped to advance

>>23819160
Reason is not the same as truth. Fundamentalists typically, but it universally, reject reason. Catholics and Orthodox categorically do not.

I have read Twilight of the Idols since I was told it was a good introduction since it concisely summarized many of his ideas. I then decided further reading would not be worth my time, based on the fallacies in the book and the amount of ideas he thinks are original that other philophers have already discussed.

How can I know whether or not I am "winning" without an objective truth to reference. I may or may not feel that I am winning, but if the ultimate standard is our subjective feelings, there's really nothing for us to discuss.

He is not influenced by Spinoza, he half unwittingly repeats him, learns about him after the fact, and then misinterprets significant portions of what he says.

>"I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness."

Because Nietzsche has not read any scholastic or neoplatonic philosophy, he does not realize that the "denial of evil" he speaks about is literally standard Catholic doctrine. The idea that he is only the second philosophy to deny the unegoistic is downright silly - nearly all philosophers, including Plato and Aquinas, deny that a person can do other than seek their own benefit.

I am not saying he plagiarized Hume. I am saying he hadn't read Hume, independently came up with the same ideas, and thought he was a genius for doing so. Because he does not take his predecessors seriously, he repeats them out of ignorance without citing, and therefore wastes my time.

>>23819128
Sallust's On The Gods and Julian's Contra Galileos are two examples. I'm sure there are other Neoplatonic works that attack Christianity.

As far as modern stuff goes anything that a Pagan writes that explicates or furthers their religion is, in a sense, an antichristian work by rejecting the idea that the basic principles of Judaism are or have ever been true. So, stuff like A World Full of Gods, anything by the Wodenings, and the Ringing Cedar's 10 volume theology book set, but even more nitty gritty stuff like the Asatru Folk Assembly's Trulagmol (tl;dr their catechism) counts

Nietzsche - genealogy of morals, Antichrist
De benoist - on being a pagan
Deschner - the criminal history of Christianity (untranslated from German at the moment)
All of Bart Ehrman’s books
Valliant - creating Christ

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity.

>>23819197
>Catholics and Orthodox categorically do not.
You have never heard about apophatic theology, Gottesfreunde, quietism, how even Augustine repeatedly needs to affirm the inscrutability of some mysteries? Reason is affirmed in different degrees, if it can be used to deny itself as the key to the ultimate truths, it can't be dispensed with at certain stages.
>I have read Twilight of the Idols
I particularly find this one of his worst works, despite having some good aphorisms.
>fallacies in the book
How can there be fallacies if there is no logical intention of argumentation?
>the amount of ideas he thinks are original that other philophers have already discussed.
In this book the main idea he cherishes is given credit to Greeks. But refresh my memory, then.
>How can I know whether or not I am "winning" without an objective truth to reference.
That's the point, positing objectivity or not, the particularity of its object, etc. is already the means for this victory.
>then misinterprets significant portions of what he says
He is literally deforming Spinoza to show that despite their sharing similarities they still bear differences. You couldn't understand that? Seriously?
>he does not realize that the "denial of evil" he speaks about is literally standard Catholic doctrine
Some Catholics deny the ontological reality or substance of evil, not that as predicate of moral acts, which is what Nietzsche denies as well.
>The idea that he is only the second philosophy to deny the unegoistic is downright silly
Where is he saying that besides him, only Spinoza denied the unegoistic and that nobody until himself denied it? I think at this point there's a fundamental problem of literacy obstructing your interaction with Nietzsche.
>I am not saying he plagiarized Hume. I am saying he hadn't read Hume, independently came up with the same ideas, and thought he was a genius for doing so. Because he does not take his predecessors seriously, he repeats them out of ignorance without citing, and therefore wastes my time
This part of your post is unintelligible. Translate it to me please.

>>23818682
The Church Fathers so that you can see what fundementalism gives up and also how radically alien it is to the early Church.

William Harmless has a good book on the desert fathers, his book on St. Augustine is my go to recommendation for him, because it's well organized and introduced excerpts rather than being a narrative, and his book Mystics treats similarly with Evargrius, Merton, St. Bonaventure, Meister Eckhart, etc.

D.C. Schindler's two volumes on modern notions of freedom, "Freedom from Reality" and "Retrieving Freedom," while a bit technical, are very good and show the problems with voluntarist notions of God and the idea of freedom as potency as opposed to in terms of actualizing the Good.

Plato (particularly the Phaedrus, Symposium, and Republic) and Aristotle (particularly the ethics) or Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy are good ones too.

>>23819251
I could be biased but I take the belief in God to be more fundamental than the belief in any of the Christian mysteries to Christianity. I am not claiming that either structure gives an absolute primacy to reason, but the most basic parts of the ideological system are supposed to be provable from principles a rationalist philosopher would agree with.

Fair enough about the fallacies, I was speaking loosely. It was more accurate to say that I was tired of his assertions without argumentation.

Example of what I am talking about with unoriginal things which thinks he is the first to think:

"THE “IMPROVERS” OF MANKIND
1

You are aware of my demand upon philosophers, that they should take up a stand Beyond Good and Evil,—that they should have the illusion of the moral judgment beneath them. This demand is the result of a point of view which I was the first to formulate: that there are no such things as moral facts."

Really? The first to formulate that there are no moral facts? Stirner? De Sade? Even Hume said that moral claims amount to statements of emotion.

>That's the point, positing objectivity or not, the particularity of its object, etc. is already the means for this victory.
I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean what I think you mean, Stirner, Spinoza, and even Hegel were more clear about this.
>Some Catholics deny the ontological reality or substance of evil, not that as predicate of moral acts, which is what Nietzsche denies as well.
The former is what Spinoza denies,not the latter. If he sees fit to "deform" Spinoza, why not do the same to Christianity?

For where he implies he is alone aside from Spinoza, is this not the meaning of "In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness." ?

In the last part I am only saying this: Those who not study philosophy are doomed to repeat it. The above example is a case where I read Nietzsche as treating something already frequently discussed in philosophy as if it is his invention.

>>23818682
Sobel's Logic and Theism has a reputation. I've wanted to read it for a while, but haven't done so yet.

>>23818682
Fundamentalist christianity lowers IQ and causes brain damage in the amagdala. It's antiscience and schizobabble. Fire and brimstone and eternal suffering blah blah blah, that scares children unnecessarily and is a grooming social control psyop.

File: 1701781245736648.jpg (75 KB, 594x592)

75 KB JPG

i genuinely believe that early christians in the roman empire were psychotic mainly because most of them were barbarians, as in the literal definition, and that christianity only started to come to its senses when people with a future civilisational potential got hold of it - europeans

>>23818682
the only true fundament list were the marcionites
you are reading a tradition into the text whether you realize it or not

>>23819313
>belief in God to be more fundamental
God is no less a mystery than any other.
>the most basic parts of the ideological system are supposed to be provable from principles a rationalist philosopher would agree with.
The most basic parts of the ideological system, like belief in God? We have reasons to believe in God, but not restricted to a particular view of him, we might have some to doubt his existence. But as I said, reason cannot be dispensed with at more fundamental stages, as in the formation of the very arguments, what they point to has way less monopoly on reason.
>he first to formulate that there are no moral facts? Stirner? De Sade? Even Hume said that moral claims amount to statements of emotion.
Hume removes morality from objective standards, but he still maintains them as stemming from custom, habit and, developing beyond a bit, from the natural advantage of having morals than not having them.
Sade had inverted morals, he believed being an immoralist was provided by natural laws, whereas morality was a disease and deformation.
Stirner might be the one Nietzsche should be most indebted to in this regard, but Nietzsche also proceeds with rhetorical tools in order to emphasize and polemicize. Although he himself will write about how there are philosophers with different characteristcs, those who create, those who synthesize, develop from others. Hegel took ideas from many philosophers, Schelling even accused him of stealing some of his ideas. But yeah, slightly different still than claiming priority.
>I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean what I think you mean, Stirner, Spinoza, and even Hegel were more clear about this.
No, I mean the epistemological difficulties we find in order to establish criteria for knowledge, truth and the inescapable presupposition of a particular committment.
>The former is what Spinoza denies,not the latter.
Uh, so? The point was your reference about ''denial of evil'' within Catholics.
>For where he implies he is alone aside from Spinoza...
Well, because he found in all aspects of Spinoza's philosophy his own? Not that particular point about the unegoistic.
>Those who not study philosophy are doomed to repeat it
If you want you can see the documentation of what Nietzsche read and the lectures he attended to.
>The above example is a case where I read Nietzsche as treating something already frequently discussed in philosophy as if it is his invention.
You only gave one instance which can only be more or less traced to Stirner, indeed. Besides that, I think you are making such an scandal about so minor and trifling point.

A SCIENTIST BOOK
XXXXDDDDDD

>>23819316
You've been brainraped by msnbc and sjw teachers congrats!

>>23819212
Bart Ehrman is useful to Christians insofar as he effectively destroys the Christ Myth Theory bullshit despite not being a Christian. His other books aren't really that shocking and he's lost debates before (like Brant Pitre forcing him to admit that Mark makes a bigger claim of Christ's divinity than he let on).

If all atheists were like Bart Ehrman atheism would be a lot more respectable.

>>23819619
Because Bart Ehrman is actually a scholar. Dawkins’ understanding of what religion is is so antiquated that even Fraser looks like a decent scholar by comparison.

File: killdozer greek tragedy.png (14 KB, 542x94)

14 KB PNG

>>23819384
This comparison seems so weak but the more I think about it, the more it seems to be true. As much as the apologists like to base their arguments in highly intellectual interpretations of scripture. I think Christianity really just boils down to:
>world is a fuck and everything sucks
>we're slaves/conquered/poor
>this world is pure evil but if you believe in me you will be given utopia
>if you go against me then you will burn in literal hell forever
>we are actually the good guys, everyone who isn't us (poor/slaves, etc) is evil

As much of a meme as it may be, comparing Christianity to Communist revolutions seems like a fair comparison. You could take it a step further and take the Nietzschean view that Christ himself had fair points in terms of how to live, even going as far as to die over his beliefs, but his teachings were then bastardized by Paul and the rest is history. The entire Abrahamic view going back to the garden of Eden where they view it all as a mistake rather than how every other belief views it as a daunting task worth taking. It's essentially sick to the core going back all the way to the origin story.

You then eventually have the Romans get involved due to how popular it became just to regain control and with that you eventually end up with established Christianity.

>>23818994
Rene Girard proves even more convincingly how wrong The Golden Bough actually is.

>>23820002
A humble, pious lion

>>23818682
Read the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

>>23819264
OP is almost certainly bait to start a discussion but I can think of nothing more crisis inducing for a modern fundementalist than reading how the earliest Christians, who read the New Testament in the native language and lived in the same cultural setting, viewed their religion and the Bible itself (which they were of course still compiling and arguing over). The whole "return to real Christianity," thing seems like it would be forced to accept that "real Christianity," died by the time we have any extra Biblical sources (so extremely early) and then went dormant until the beginnings of fundementalism in the 19th century (or at the very least until the Reformation).

File: 1726644774582505.gif (352 KB, 256x256)

352 KB GIF

Unrelated question but how did disciplies write down all these things Jesus allegedly said? And if it was in Aramaic did they autotranslate everything to Greek first?

>>23818682
Your picrel is pretty facile and depends on lazy generalization, misunderstanding, and treating personal inferences as of the same status as an historical text.

Nietzsche's a good challenge, I would also add Heinrich Meier's books, which all, both directly and indirectly, challenge revealed religion.

>>23819625
>>23819619
I mean, Dawkins is a real scholar in his actual field. Ehrman does branch out into theology and philosophy in one book and it isn't good.

I get that Ehrman is good at what he does, but he makes his case look way too strong when he tries to sell it. I recall an NPR interview where he he seems to claim his thesis, that he has somehow recovered "what the Apostles really thought when Jesus was alive and in the years immediately following his death," as somehow quite probable because his premises are "scholarly consensus." He even suggests this about his claim to have successfully psychoanalyzed other NT texts (whose authors he claims we do not even know), discovering that they "made Jesus God," as a sort of one-upsmanship with Pagans, being motivated by things like claims of the Roman Emperor's divinity.

I mean, these are incredibly specific claims. I get that getting tenure means getting citations, which in turn means being "novel" and "provocative," but this seems a little much. This is a huge problem throughout history, particularly ancient history where sources are sparse. I get that no one wants to read a book that says: "we don't know and we cannot know, everything here will be extremely speculative and highly unlikely to be correct in all of its main points," but there is a point where confidence starts to become dishonesty.

For instance, Ehrman's thesis obviously relies on a "just-so" dating of the various NT texts, denying Apostolic authorship to all the Epistles aside from St. Paul, etc. And he can indeed point to current "scholarly consensus," here in a weak sort of way. But the fact is that "consensus about what is most likely given the evidence," here does not amount to any high degree of confidence.

I feel like historians could really benefit from the sorts of classes intelligence analysis get and some basic statistics. If you're telling a complex argument with lots of main premises, then even if you are 90% confident about each individual premise taken alone, it is still the case that it is highly unlikely that ALL the premises will be true. That's just basic statistics; and confidence here should never be 90%. Fad theories come and go through "consensus" without any change in the underlying evidence. I'm no wholehearted disciple of Kuhn, but there is very much a sort of sociological force at work in ancient history scholarship.

The honest thing would be to say "we don't know." But Erhman also clearly has a bone to pick with Christianity, in part because his world was rocked by things known about the Biblical text since the earliest centuries of the Church, leading to "intense mental anguish." And I think in his agenda his massive overstatement of the realistic confidence one should have in his theses begins to slide into the disingenuous.

I mean, psychoanalyzing policy makers from the Bush administration is extremely fraught, and this is a very recent period with tons of evidence.

>>23819128
>Jesus is exactly what Christians have been calling him for over 2000 years
Funny, I thought they called him the Son of God. So why did they ignore all the other Jewish scapegoats?
>>23820116
LOL, who?

>>23818739
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics:_Inventing_Right_and_Wrong
>The argument from disagreement, also known as the argument from relativity, first observes that there is a lot of intractable moral disagreement: people disagree about what is right and what is wrong.[3] Mackie argues that the best explanation of this is that right and wrong are invented, not objective truths.
This is one of the most absurd things that I have ever read. By that logic, Earth has no shape just because people disagree whether it's round or flat..

>>23820527
>how did disciplies write down all these things Jesus allegedly said?
Memory. anon. Also, eyewitness testimony.

File: 1703294161188777.jpg (48 KB, 319x475)

48 KB JPG

>>23821067
They also refer to him as Lord, the new Adam, son of David, son of Joseph, son of man, the Word (Logos), along with the Lamb of God. Do you think they're only allowed to give him a single appellation?
>So why did they ignore all the other Jewish scapegoats?
You call referencing the old testament so incessantly to justify "types and shadows" to the point it feels like fan-fiction ignoring the other scapegoats?

>>23821112
The difference is that the curvature of the earth is measurable and proveable. Morality isn't.

>>23821427
>measurable and proveable
Irrelevant.

>>23820527
>did they autotranslate everything to Greek first?
Jesus has certain lines of dialogue in the Gospels that are preserved in Aramaic (when he resurrects the dead girl, when he quotes Psalm 22 on the cross, I think one or two more I don't remember).

Greek was just the standard lingua franca of written documents at the time.

>>23821112
Design an experiment to determine whether a moral statement is true or false.

File: pray.jpg (41 KB, 675x516)

41 KB JPG

>>23818682
The best you can unironically do is read philosophy of religion and all of it's arguments against god. Any introductory textbook will do. Check out also Graham Oppy's work

>>23821431
It is not. The roundness of the earth can be physically grasped, it exists independent of opinion. Morality is not observed to do this. You made a false equivalence.

>>23819384
The earliest christians were the greek speeking jews who allowed converts the last 300 years. There was already a rising hebrew heterodoxy for centuries by the time Jesus was born. Greco-Jews for the ancient world is very civilized

>>23818682
Edward Gibbon.

>>23818912
It’s worth noting that most of the stuff you mention acts as refutation of Christian fundamentalism and literalism, the spiritual essence of Christianity is strongly affirmed by quite a lot of these writers. It’s also worth noting the incompatibility of the old and new testaments, the latter of which is much more clearly what the more enduring and fundamental aspects of Christianity stem from whereas the Old Testament feels like an unselfaware accidental self-justification of antisemitism by the jews

>>23818682
Which denomination of christianity?

>>23818682
I dont get how people dont just drop the book after they realize 0 out of all the given genealogies make jesus eligible to be the messiah.

>>23824020
>0 out of all the given genealogies make jesus eligible to be the messiah
And your basis for this claim is...?
>just google it
No. You're the one who made a claim, so you're the one who has to substantiate it.

What I now find odd is that after rome took over christianity the key message of jubilees and debt forgiveness was watered down and obfuscated.

>>23824072
I'm not going to have a dialog with someone who never read the bible. This is a literature thread not a thread for people to show up and ask to taught scripture because they have an aversion to an idea they havent even thoroughly researched. If you are uneducated you shouldn't be in this thread, which is why you are clearly so upset

File: opinion discarded.jpg (81 KB, 680x680)

81 KB JPG

>>23824088
>I'm not going to have a dialog with someone who never read the bible.
I fucking knew you'd resort to
>just google it

>>23824094
Thanks for proving my point. Come.back after youve read the bible, maybe then you won't have to angrily make strawman online and you can have a civil discussion without lacing your seething posts with pejoratives.

>>23824112
I've been reading the Bible for pultiple months now. Genealogy clearly establishes lineage from Adam to David to Jesus. I really don't see what about it is supposed to disprove Jesus' messianic status.
What strawman? The fact that I correctly predicted you'll basically tell me to educate myself? That's what "just google it" means.

>>23824195
Pick a genealogy. We'll discuss why its not valid.

>>23818682
Nietzsche completly demolished Christianity in the Genealogy of Morals. There is no coming back after reading that. Christianity is a sad cope for life hating losers constituted of vulgar platonism and jewish overcompensation for their inferiority complex due to being historically humiliated by every mediterranean empire around.

Christianity is irrefutable because faith is not rational. Christ is Truth and no amount of debating and endless arguing over concepts will change this.

>>23821120
Both notoriously unreliable

>>23824354
That could apply to any religion then.

>>23824474
I never said it's perfect, anon.

>>23821144
>Do you think they're only allowed to give him a single appellation?
No. But I've never, ever heard him referred to as a scapegoat by Christians. They prefer to use euphemisms like "redeemer," "saviour" etc.
If they admitted he was a scapegoat, it would be an endorsement of the Jewish scapegoating tradition, and an admission that sacrificial animals (including actual goats) could take on their sins the way Jesus did. Sounds rather heretical to me.

>>23824200
*crickets*

>>23824557
If you seriously believe that Christians don't think of him as a scapegoat, then I think it's clear that you just haven't read the text which the books being recommended in this thread are interested in arguing against. Jesus being the final scapegoat is the new testament's central theme, besides "love" as Paul defines it. Christians do believe that Jewish scapegoats were efficacious; the reason why there isn't a tradition of scapegoating in Christianity is because they believe that Jesus was the ultimate scapegoat. The "Lamb of God" was a scapegoat, hence a sin offering [Lev. 16], but if that sin offering were to be perfect and "without blemish" [1 Peter 1:19, Lev. 4:32], then to continue that tradition after the fact would be to suggest that the sacrifice was insufficient; in other words, to absolutely stultify all grounds for their religion's existence. Paul essentially lays the foundations for that new religion in Hebrews.
>For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of rmany, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

>>23818682
>What books provide the strongest arguments against it possible?
Any history of europe. Perhaps Gibbon.

>>23818682
Don't waste time with all that philosophy stuff. What destroys Christian faith like nothing else is reading current mainstream Biblical scholarship. Bart Ehrman's books are a good start, except for Did Jesus Exist? (which is just hundreds of pages of appeal to authority) or How Jesus Became God, because nobody gives a shit. Steer clear of apologist buffoons like NT Wright unless you like unintentional comedy.

>>23819208
also, a lot of Christian metaphysics is directly copied from platonism/neoplatonism. Cosmological arguments, prime mover etc.

It's a huge gap to jump from a platonist idea of god to specifically the abrahamic one. the two are very separable and neither implies the other. Christians like to hide this fact whenever they make non-biblical arguments for the existence of god

>>23819543
>>23819316
fundies and SJWs share the same basic worldview and beliefs. in fact the latter is just the secularized version (or less mystified) version of the former

t. been around enough of both

>>23824354
it's just true ... because it is!

braindead

>>23825175
>also, a lot of Christian metaphysics is directly copied from platonism/neoplatonism. Cosmological arguments, prime mover etc.
This is true in Islam and Judaism as well.

>>23819175
This is one of those cases where people propagated a myth so hard that there was a kneejerk reaction which propagated a falsehood.
Example: people thinking katana is folded a million times and can cut through steel beams, led to a subversion where people were saying actually the katana is a worthless piece of tin foil, when the truth is that it’s still a great sword but within reason.
The “dark ages” is another one. Got pushed so hard by family guy and r/atheism types, that there was some kind of tradcath kneejerk to “acktually” the post-Roman collapse centuries were just fine and dandy thanks to the church preserving knowledge and never burning literature or heretics, no never.
Just ignoring the reality that cities were 9/10ths abandoned, barter replaced money in many places, trade shrunk to a few percentage points of what it previously was. Literacy tanked and population crashed back to Iron Age levels. Barbarian invasions.
It truly was a centuries-long regression for a great chunk of Europe.

>>23825411
Also, the church did jack shit to preserve ancient literature that wasn't christian.
The biggest excerpt of Cicero's De Re Publica was found overwritten with a work by Augustine in the Vatican Library

>>23825931
>the church did jack shit to preserve ancient literature that wasn't christian.
Did you expect something else?

>>23824354
Faith is just trying to brainwash yourself instead of accepting the truth of new evidence.

>>23826723
No. But the overwritten books did shock me a little.

>>23826723
>but the VATICAN was an institution that PRESERVED KNOWLEDGE (from what? oh don't ask that!)
Yeah? That's like... The whole argument for why Christianity is LE GOOD here.

>>23820527
We know at least that the book of John was written by somebody who was given testimony from somebody else. It's not unusual for a well educated elite man of that time to be fluent in his native language and Greek. He was almost certainly receving it in Aramaic and writing it down in Greek. Which is probably how all of the early authors did it.

>>23826968
What?

>>23826970
>He was almost certainly receving it in Aramaic and writing it down in Greek
Almost certainly not.

>>23827191
Why not? The people of the region almost only spoike Aramaic and John was written in Greek.

File: 1709004273006266.jpg (94 KB, 1024x571)

94 KB JPG

>>23818682
I hope you know German.

>>23827194
Because the gospels are written anonymously. The attribution to disciples is a later accretion. They weren't written by john, Luke, Mark etc. They were written in Greek by Greek speakers

>>23827941
>Because the gospels are written anonymously
Duh
>They weren't written by john, Luke, Mark etc
Never said they were. If you read what I said before I said that it was written by somebody who was given testimony from somebody else not that John was written by John.
>They were written in Greek by Greek speakers
Written in Greek, by collecting testaments from people who spoke Aramaic.

>>23827982
>by collecting testaments from people who spoke Aramaic.
You have no evidence for that because it isnt true. The gospels contain Greek linguistic mannerisms that you wouldn't have in Aramaic, like how translating a pun from Spanish to English doesnt work. The default.baseline is that they were written in Greek by Greek scribes. There are no Aramaic gospels. This is the literature board not the theology board.

>>23827988
>You have no evidence for that because it isnt true
John 21.24. The author literally states this.
>The default.baseline is that they were written in Greek by Greek scribes
Yes I said that. What are you trying to argue for, your lack of reading comprehension?

>>23825931
you mean individual monks who were running out of paper?
those men are half the reason we even have anything from that period;
the other half being the rich merchants who were wise enough to scan every monestary for said manuscripts

>>23828017
>John 21.24. The author literally states this
I didnt read the rest of your post because you just tried to use a source to prove the same source. We are done with this discussion.

File: 1000017064.png (38 KB, 594x496)

38 KB PNG

Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard

>>23828025
Why would the author of a book not be a legitimate source as to how he got the information for his book? There is no evidence otherwise for how he would have written.

>>23829572
You can't take a book that contains fallacious historical.accounts as factual in regargs to anything it says. This is a book that says Pontius pilate was a merciful ruler and was apprehensive about prosecuting jesus despite all recorded accounts showing that he was recalled from office because he was so bloodthirsty and violent and didnt think twice before putting people to death. You are also doing what
>>23828025
Said and trying to prove a source from a source, which is an invalid metric.

>>23829572
>Why would the author of a book not be a legitimate source as to how he got the information for his book
So do you believe the Hindu holy books where the authors say the monkey god spoke to them?

>>23818682
You do not need a book, just watch this video from 13:00 - 37:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr2LItuzdtU&ab_channel=Citizen

>>23831600
>YouTube as a source

>>23831672
Pseud.

>>23831786
Retard.

>>23831795
Fool.

Bump

>>23827823
Translation when?

bit off topic but I'm an atheist and want to try LSD but have concerns this could turn me into a religious person. What do you guys think?

>>23834408
Yes, drugs alter your perception of reality, thats the whole point. What's the question.

>>23830838
>You can't take a book that contains fallacious historical.accounts as factual in regargs to anything it says.
This is incredibly poor reasoning. What motive would the author have to lie about the fact that he recieved testimony from others to write the book? You can't just dismiss an entire work just because there is bias within it, otherwise we wouldn't use any sources from the past that aren't purely administrative.
>>23830850
Not even remotely the same.

>>23834552
I'm not going to argue with you anymore you just keep repeating the same exact things that aren't valid arguments. Youve answered none of the valid and accurate statements that ive made and just keep saying "yeah but why would they lie it makes no sense" yeah man why would people pushingba religion lie, for sure, I guess christianity just so happens to be the one true religon that nobody lied n their holy book but all the other billion religions are false right. Dude you are beyond out of your league here

>>23834552
>You can't just dismiss an entire work just because there is bias within it
If a company made 2 medications , one for cancer and one to prevent heart attacks, and it turned out the one for cancer was really jsuy sawdust and a little bit of cyanide and the pill ended up killing people, you'd still take the cancer drug? No. You wouldn't, because the source isnt reputable. You just are biased in favor of christianity so you are rationalizing.

>>23834408
If you're so scared of being religious then you should think about why you want to take a drug that's supposed to give you a spiritual experience.

Try the gnostic fragments and nag hammadi library texts. The gospel of Judas, of Mary, and of Thomas.

File: Risitas 1.jpg (19 KB, 430x360)

19 KB JPG

>>23834408
>this could turn me into a religious person
Made me laugh. Have a (You).

>>23818682
Edward Gibbon Rome

File: SomeMistakesOfMoses.jpg (140 KB, 667x1000)

140 KB JPG

>>23818682
I'd definitely recommend "Some Mistakes of Moses".

>>23834408
Read the Bhagavad Gita first. No, really.

>>23834561
>you just keep repeating the same exact things that aren't valid arguments.
Explain how
> Youve answered none of the valid and accurate statements that ive made
Your argument is that one thing in the book does not allign with the view of another source and therefore it's all wrong.
>and just keep saying "yeah but why would they lie it makes no sense"
I said that once, and you're still yet to answer why the author would lie about how he recieved information to write the book.
> I guess christianity just so happens to be the one true religon that nobody lied n their holy book but all the other billion religions are false right
That's not my argument at all. I am not arguing against the fact that there are inaccuracies or lies within the book of John. I'm questioning for what purpose would the author lie about how he received information to write said book.
>>23834569
So we should never use any historical source ever because in one part they show bias at one point? How can we be sure of anything in the past if nothing is to be trusted?

>>23834706
I'm not a FAGGOT, sorry.

>>23834408
Why would you be scared of your personal perception of the world changing? Do you lose something in the process?

>>23835949
F-a-g-g-o-t

>>23825411
The nigredo stage of a cycle is not bad, only overcivilized city academic types fail to realize the necessity of it.