>>24768309
>Has this book been refuted?
Eherman's entire career has been refuted.
https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/a-conversation-with-chatgpt-about-bart-ehrman,1738.htm
https://www.apologetyka.info/tag/Bart%2520Ehrman/

debunked by early church fathers

>>24769453
Lmao "church fathers" - how many more daddies does the christcuck need?

>>24769466
>Matthew 23:9, "And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father, the one in heaven."
Really makes you think

>>24768319
>a-conversation-with-chatgpt-about-bart-ehrman

Behold, the intellectual power of American Christianity

>>24768319
>"My refutation is an AI chat"

>>24768309
>why do bad things happen to good people???
That's only happened once, and his name was Christ.

>>24769598
So all his direct followers that died in bad ways were bad people?

>>24769600
Everyone who has ever lived is a cursed and fallen creature, yes.

>>24769603
So is christ since he himself demonstrated he was not worthy of casting the sinless stone and by your logic his parents were bad and raised him to be bad so he still had to be baptized anyway, so he is also a bad person.

>>24769598
>>24769603
holy based

>>24769609
strangely Ehrman doing the same thing follows the same logic. do not judge lest thee be judged and yet that's what he's doing. literary criticism is a sin too.

>>24769609
That's not my logic, nor is it exemplary of Christian thought. Christ's perfect and sinless life constituted the requisite active obedience that rendered Him the immaculate, worthy, and all-sufficient propitiation for His elect.

You really should try to understand exactly what it is you're trying to refute before you attempt to do so.

>muh heckin modern secular understanding of morality makes our creator like an asshole, i'm gonna abort my children and have gay sex all day to show everone what real morality looks like

Yawn

>>24769620
>Christ's perfect and sinless life
That claim is refuted by the bible where he clearly was not perfect (he accidentally got a guard stabbed and had to miraculously reverse it) and demonstrated that he was not sinless (he had to be circumcised, baptized and couldn't cast the sinless stone).

You are the one who doesn't understand sinless if you think it applies to someone who needed to cleanse themself of original sin and who specifically demonstrated they were sinless by failing to do the task that was meant for a sinless person.

>>24769625
Then why didn't he ever make any commandments about abortions or raping unwed underage people, why did actually reward jews who raped and kidnapped goys instead of punishing them and why was jesus so gay coded and recommended that men cut off their dicks as a way to avoid temptation?

File: Screenshot_2025-10-03_03-59-43.png (37 KB, 314x278)

37 KB PNG

>>24769626
>>24769626
>That claim is refuted by the bible

To equate Christ's fulfillment of the Law and His demonstration of divine mercy with personal failure or sin demands a wilful, ignorant disregard for foundational biblical narrative and the very nature of His active obedience.

>>24769631
The entirety of Scripture reveals a sovereign God who relentlessly advances His redemptive purposes, employing flawed and compromised human vessels, not as endorsements of their vice, but as undniable proof that His overwhelming grace and covenant promises are suffiicent to achieve His will through ANY fallen agent.

>>24769625
>if God is so good, why didn't he make any commandments against voting Democrat or banning abortion and gay sex, huh?! checkmate, atheist

>>24769639
>checkmate, atheist
Christian*

lol, I type faster than I think.

>>24769637
>fulfillment of the Law
But he didn't fulfill the law, his whole message in that scenario was that it doesn't actually matter if you sin, so you shouldn't be punished according to the law for your indiscretions since everyone sins.

>God who relentlessly advances His redemptive purposes,
By that you mean he is racist as fuck and only favors the one bloodline he planned to inhabit while sending down extreme punishments to competing peoples for minor indiscretions that aren't even necessarily outside of his commandments or stated laws, but just inconvenient to members of the chosen bloodline?

>>24769642
>voting democrat
Republican*

These Freudian slips are alone enough to convince a sane man of our true, fallen nature.

>>24769643
>he didn't fulfill the law, and he's a heckin' RACIST

You're so far gone only God could save you. You're not arguing against Christian orthodoxy, but your own misunderstandings of what the Bible actually teaches.

>>24769648
No, you don't actually read the bible, your understanding of what the bible teaches actually comes from some establishment authority figures interpreting the words in ways that best benefits them and the establishment the most rather than what the book actually says, so you aren't getting your lessons from the bible, but from the bible peddling establishment.

>>24769661
>get refuted, move goal posts, repeat ad nauseam

You're a theologian now?

>>24769637
>We are fallen, incorrigible, flawed, worthless, damaged, spasticated, worthless
>Save me Jew daddy
>I will obey you
This is what you sound like. Is there any creed more pathetic and cucked than this?

>>24769667
Yes, yours.

All who reject Christ are dead. Gentile and Jew alike.

>>24769663
You didn't actually refute anything, you just implied that your church fathers already had, so no one else is allowed to discuss what is actually written because they don't have the authority or your demon daddies.

>>24769680
How quickly the unrepentant, rebellious child devolves into puerile fits. Again, nothing you've said is exemplary of Christian thought. You're arguing against your own ill-formed ideas of what Holy Scripture actually says.

>>24769688
>exemplary of Christian thought.
But it is what the book says.

>You're arguing against your own ill-formed ideas of what Holy Scripture actually says.
No, my arguments are based on what the book actually says while your arguments are based on what your church fathers told you it says.

>>24769695
>Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them, but they will not hearken to thee-- thou shalt also call unto them, but they will not answer thee.

>>24769700
But you aren't speaking the words of the bible, you are speaking the words of establishment bible authorities who are actively denying the actual words written in the bible when its inconvenient to the establishment.

>>24769625
Did ancient people think floods and plagues are a good thing?

>>24769603
Okay so would that include Paul? If so, how can we trust his revelation?

everytime i read arguments for christianity on this board, i get the impression that it's a reactionary thing just to be in opposition of reddit atheism

>>24769768
>Okay so would that include Paul?
Acts 26:10-11, "Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."

>If so, how can we trust his revelation?
II Peter 1:21 - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

I can't help but chuckle when the same person who claims his understanding of Scripture is superior to that of the church must ask whether or not Paul was a vile and base sinner. Pure comedy.

>>24769839
You'd have been better served had I used II Peter 3:16 for the case for inerrancy and divine inspiration. Pardon me.

>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

>>24769839
>>24769845
You're missing the point. You say every man after Jesus was wicked and deserved everything that happened to them, including brutal torturous deaths. If that is so, how can you say Paul (or for that matter, "Peter" (pseudepigrapha)) was simultaneously so corrupt that he deserved torture, but trustworthy enough that we should take his word for Jesus speaking to him privately in a vision? It seems to me you actually think very highly of him.
Moreover, how do you define "scripture"? Because Paul didn't think he was writing "the bible", he was writing letters to churches, nothing more. Meanwhile, there are many "gospels" like the gospel of Thomas, which actually claim to be scripture, but you presumably don't see them as such. How does one make that distinction according to you?

>>24769845
>>24769839
>how do you know you can trust this guy
>this other guy we know nothing about says to do so
so this... is the power... of christcuckery...

>>24769839
>I can't help but chuckle when the same person who claims his understanding of Scripture is superior to that of the church must ask whether or not Paul was a vile and base sinner. Pure comedy.
But YOU were the one who said he was vile (and base??) sinner.

>>24769901
>>24769907
It's very simple: Christians believe what is written in the Bible.

This shouldn't be news to you. If you want to debate the rationality of doing so, that's all well and good, but the idea that a Christian would use the Bible to argue his position is baffling only to fools.

>>24769920
>Paul was a good for nothing piece of shit
>but you trust him?
>SHUT UP!! YOU'RE LAUGHABLE!!! FOOL!!

>>24769781
Not always. My conversion happened during a NDE that my friend experienced in my apartment a couple of years ago. Basically pulled a Nikki Sixx on me and spoke fluent Latin after he awoke. He doesn't even have his GED.

>>24769928
Well, now you're just being disingenuous and willfully ignorant. I think this conversation has bore as much fruit as it's likely to. You "win".

>>24769935
That's the sickest thing I've ever heard. Nice.

>>24769907
Kek

>>24769935
do you speak fluent latin to recognize that he was, in fact, speaking fluent latin?

>>24769907
We definitely know some things about the author of II Peter. For example, we know that he was considered either lowly enough, or not known at all, that he had to lie about his identity in order to be given the time of day.

>>24769935
What was he dying of? What'd he say?

>>24769598
By framing the crucifixion as “the greatest evil ever committed” yet at the same time the necessary gateway to the highest good, Christianity implicitly teaches that even the most obscene acts of cruelty can be rationalized as part of some hidden, higher plan. Once you accept that logic, every atrocity can be sanitized: genocide, slavery, child abuse — all can be excused as “mysterious workings” that might someday reveal a divine payoff. Evil stops being evil in itself and becomes a kind of perverse currency, something that can be traded for future meaning.

This is why the crucifixion story is so insidious. It doesn’t just manipulate emotions in the moment — it programs people to reinterpret suffering and injustice as potentially sacred. If the worst evil in history turns out to be the best thing that ever happened, then why not accept every other horror as possibly necessary too? That’s how the narrative disarms outrage and resistance, teaching people to endure and even sanctify cruelty instead of confronting it. The resurrection doesn’t just redeem Jesus’s death — it redeems the logic of abuse itself.

>>24769996
Nice em dashes.

>>24770010
kek, prolly the same guy who posted >>24769500

>>24769947
Yes. "E Fidos" is the Latin root of the English word "Fidelity" which means Loyalty, ergo "Faith"

>>24769990
I have no idea but his life was a piece of work. Spent years on the streets, had brothers that forced him to ingest loads of crystal meth and coke so he could rob the houses of police officers, and if he came back empty handed they beat him. Got molested as a child, too and his brothers hated queers but would do gay things to him anyways, making them hypocrites. He was stuck living with them while they beat both him and his mother who was the only person he could trust, so he ran away often, ending up in half way houses and serving jail time often. He also got mixed up with some dudes who spent half their time pumping iron the other half huffing propane.

>>24770060
He said 2 words?

>>24770060
These are just the lyrics to most Skid Row/Motley Crue songs

Do christians really just make shit up on the fly like this?

>>24770060
your roommate was in bed and me mumbled "e Fidos"? There's nothing more to it? Am I missing something?

File: camboya-jemeres.jpg (26 KB, 811x426)

26 KB JPG

>>24769639
What a dubious comment to make. Certainly there's no agenda behind this no sir ee!

>>24770099
He didn't mumble, he out right said it. Told me he heard a loud booming voice tell him this.

>>24770073
>Motley Crue sings in Latin
On what fucking planet?

>>24770060
>>24770123
has to be bait

>>24770130
Bait is when I dangle my pecker in front of your mother's face.

>>24770138
now that you've realized how idiotic the story you've told made you look, you have to deflect.
your friend mumbled something while in a near death haze that may have sounded like "e fidos" that you classified as fluent latin, that he allegedly heard while almost dying (allegedly by the way too). which converted you to believe the scripture. you realize that this discounts literally everything you've written prior because you have to be a literal retard to make the conclusions that you've made

>>24770172
Cool beans. Didn't read, though. Have fun burning in hell.

>>24769996
>Noooo! You cannot transfigure suffering you have to wallow in it and become evil like Satan wants!

File: mqdefault.jpg (8 KB, 320x180)

8 KB JPG

If I, a Mets fan, can have faith, any can...

>>24770175
not if i ask for forgiveness, no? you should feel sorry for me and not gloat about the possibility of me going to hell, larper

Why Christians on /lit/ always crashing out in every thread? I always recoil in disgust at how they behave.

>>24769928
>>24769937
Not him but that was basically the play by play of the conversation

How do I become a high level christcuck

>>24770944
watch christ tiktok edits and say christ is king, quote random bible verses

>>24769661
The Bible does say that all humans are sinners, and it also says that Jesus lived a sinless life.
It takes less than 3 minutes to search these verses.

>>24770950
okay but what's the real way to become a high level christcuck, the herd standard is never enough for me.

>>24770287
Yes I feel very sorry that you got dropped on your head as child. So very, very sorry. Sorry that I don't engage with objective evil in good faith. The only way to talk to atheists is through sophistry, actually giving their ideas a fair shake is a step too far.

Just another version of the problem of evil, and therefore it suffers from all the same fallacies of the problem of evil as a species of argument (namely under defined terms and a lack of skepticism towards humanist claims)

But to be more specific to the problem of pain specifically, there are numerous Christian responses to why people suffer, and usually they are some variant of virtue development. In other words suffering is the “refiners fire” or the furnace that separates moral dross from the virtues.

It’s a better argument for moral virtue than what Bart offers since he’s an agnostic and thus bound to moral non-realism which makes the whole issue of undeserved suffering completely moot since there’s no coherent account of “deserves” or suffering as morally bad if materialism is true.

>>24770980
i'm not an atheist.
even the monks on mount athos wouldn't be able to resist calling you a retard larper after reading the drivel you've written

>>24770304
The same psychological profile that draws someone to Christianity through the web correlates strongly with certain personality dysfunctions

>>24770998
Thats not the point, though. You insulted my friend. You need to get the shit beat out of you until you're dead, faggot.

>>24771018
The pathologies that lead to a dogmatic acceptance of whatever ideology happens to prevail in one's civilization, even when it is as barren and obviously degenerate as materialist scientism tend to make people respond negatively to anyone who fails to see the dominant dogma as utterly unimpeachable and obvious. It's a sort of cognitive dissonance reduction to see anyone who fails to believe the dogma as utterly defective if not wicked (although materialism leaves little grounds for justifying such normative claims in any strong sense).

>>24771021
i didn't, but where is that in the scripture btw? i'd tell you to mention this thread during your confession but i'm pretty sure you don't actually attend church, larper

>>24769752
> Did ancient people think floods and plagues are a good thing

Yes, when it was inflicted on their enemies.

>>24769781
Nobody actually cares about following Christianity, they just care about pressing Christianity as tribe alliegence and performing some rituals like being anti-abortion.

Sola Fide has been a disaster for the human race.

>>24771036
Sure. Whatever you say. I attend my parents'. I was baptized in Bethlehem Lutheran, which no longer exists. But you keep telling yourself that. My mother is an avid Bible reader. But I don't need to tell you anything, because you won't believe it. You don't believe in anything. Thats why you post here.

>>24769625
>gay sex and abortion
>no suffering
>god
>all the earth's suffering which the entire bible is about, but it will get redeemed bro trust me.

>>24769598
>Yeah man those kids deserved to be raped, tortured, murdered and eaten

>>24769625
>Y-you don't get it M-Morty. Anyone who is truly high IQ automatically becomes an empiricst-mechanist even though that ideology is itself a project of the particularities of Reformation theology. The true genius M-Morty does John Calvin but with God cut out and Rock in his place. Wubalubadubdub!

>>24773344
>even though that ideology is itself a project of the particularities of Reformation theology.
But that isn't true. It has its roots in Arab and Catholic Aristotelianism and many of the major figures like Descartes were practicing Catholics. It's like there's one to three anons who keep popping up in any thread like this blaming "modernity" on Protestants and le wicked nominalists - including, amusingly enough, the arch-realist Duns Scotus, if you count that anon who keeps claiming Heidegger only read nominalists. These same anons also like to pretend that medieval philosophers were all ascetic mystic saints when most of them were just plain autists who, if they lived today, would probably be in STEM. Cut it out man intellectual history is not that simple and you can't reduce it to good guys vs bad guys. I like that philosophy takes me out of this simplistic /pol/-tier logic that has permeated every aspect of life. Please stop trying to make philosophy into another aspect of the culture wars.

>>24769617
>You should drink water, because if you don't demons will come out of your closet and take you away
>No that won't happen, that's a made up story. I do still think that you should drink water though.
>WOW you're such a hypocrite! How dare you agree with the conclusion but not the premise!

Also, trying to understand what the bible says is a sin now?

>>24768309
christkekkery aside he has written a number of books, should I check any of these out?

>>24773554
I've read several.
The short answer is yes, just pick whatever topic interests you and go for it.
The long answer is also yes, but you will want to avoid some books depending on how knowlegable you are on the subject. He gives the necessary background for what he's talking about in a very clear way, but because he does this in every one of his books for popular audiences, if you read several of his works you might an entire chapter or two in one book that was already covered in another. I wouldn't call this self-plagiarism, it really is necessary context, just context you'd already know if you're very interested in this stuff.
So sometimes, he would have one book for popular audiences, the kind that you'd find on the shelf at an airport lounge,and another book with more "hard hitting" scholarship, where he actually shows HOW the things he's saying are proven, instead of giving one example to communicate the idea for brevity, as well as skipping the basics by just referring to some other book. A good example of this is "Forged" vs "Forgery and Counterforgery". You'll want to pick one book here, and which one you want depends on how much you already know.
And obviously, sometimes he just writes straight up univeristy textbooks, those aren't as well communicated as his usual books, since they're not meant to keep your interest by themselves.

But if you know nothing or little, but are curious, yes they're absolutely worth reading. Pick a topic that interests you and go with the one that's for popular audiences, as they all have comprehensive introductions.

File: web3-vendimian-of-bythini(...).jpg (1.07 MB, 1200x600)

1.07 MB JPG

>>24773373
>Empiricism and mechanism are from Aristotle.
>Actually, guys like Maximus were really just STEM guys, because, you know, you've average STEM guy is absolutely willing to have his writing hand cut off and tongue ripped out for his beliefs. Saint John of the Ladder and Saint Isaac of Nineveh might have lived as hermits for decades but they totally would have worked at Amazon if they could have. Heidegger is the key expert on ancient and medieval thought and his critics are all wrong and couldn't possibly have understood his godmind understanding of all past thought. Stop it Chud accept pomos as the authority on Christian thought and accept that everyone is deep down a STEM Amazon wagie.

No thanks Satan.

Tell me one (1) other ideology that emerged anywhere else in the world that posits a meaningless purposeless universe of subsistent units guided by mechanistic laws. You can't, because it's a developed unique to the historical particularities of Europe and the fact that athiests project this particular framing of existence as "what all rational cultures, even extra terrestrial ones will invariably affirm if they are simply smart enough," is just dogmatism, conditioning, and ideological blinkering.

>>24773373
This might shock you but "Reformation" is not a synonym for Protestant. It affected the Roman Church deeply as well.

File: maid cat.jpg (83 KB, 600x600)

83 KB JPG

>>24773554
I've read Misquoting Jesus and the one about the Gospel of Judas, I highly recommend both. It can be a bit of a bore at the very start since he feels the need to explain why he's writing about the subject for some reason, but after that it's smooth sailing into an interesting topic.

>>24773554
The ones I've read:
-The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
Of the many textual variants in the MSS, this flags the ones which affect doctrine, and how the protoOrthodox altered the text accordingly. Excellent. 5/5
-Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
Also very good, if a repro of Schweitzer's theory (which parallels Casanova's theory on "Mohammed et la fin du monde"). Nice to see it updated and in English. 4/5
-Misquoting Jesus
More stuff on orthodox manipulations of Scripture, meh. 3/5
-Forged
Feels like the same book. 2/5
-Did Jesus Exist?
A weak defence of Jesus' existence against "minimalists". He clearly didn't want to write it. 2/5
-Lost Christianities / Lost Scriptures
Really two volumes of the same thing, the latter being the primary source material for the former. Another popularisation of mainline Biblical scholarship mostly Gnostic. 3/5

>>24773603
That's if you count "Reformation" as an era in Church History, and if you are looking at it as a Jew or a Russian or some other smelly East European.
Protestants refer "Reformation" only to themselves, to Luther and to the people who tried to take Luther too far. Catholics agree: we would prefer "Reformation Era" or maybe "Trent".
"Counter-Reformation" is gay and I'm glad you did not use it.

>>24768319
Do you have any actual credible sources? Would love to hear.

>>24769598
Yeah man, those kids in the cancer ward deserve it. Another piece of wisdom from Christianity.

>>24769603
>Peak of God's power
>Creates a universe
>Creates man in his image
>In almost no time the whole thing goes to shit
>God takes no responsibility and punishes you for existing in his fallen creation
How do people buy this? It's the most retarded concept imaginable. All powerful God creates a total shitshow? And then punishes YOU for it? How are you not embarrassed to profess belief in this nonsense?

>>24769625
Nature aborts like 1/3rd of all fertilized eggs, so God is actually a big fan of abortion.

>>24770120
Fun fact, the Christian nation of the USA, with a majority Christian population and a Christian leader supported Pol Pot and ensured he came to power and maintained it.

>>24770304
It's because Christianity is simply a poor attempt to cope with death anxiety. On a certain level, believers know it is a cope, hollow in ineffective, since if dying and going to heaven were such a good thing, every one of them would desire death as soon as possible to go to the arms of Jesus and be in heaven. But they don't, because the whole artifice of religion is to cope with how bad and undesirable dying is. But whenever anyone challenges their little defense mechanism, it essentially reminds them that they are going to die and they suddenly get very afraid and extra defensive.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."

>>24773603
Interestingly, the whole "Christian dark ages, reason leads providentially towards Enlightenment and only superstition (read: Christianity) ever stopped its inevitable march narrative, still popular today, was largely developed originally by French "Catholics." However, I have read some convincing studies here that they are largely working off existing Protestant narratives that told this same exact story, only with the "darkness" confined to the reign of the Popes, and simply broadening them to contain the whole of Christianity. Yet the original ones still had some space for a "God of reason," whereas later versions quickly cut even this out but kept the assumption of a "law-governed cosmos" (now impersonal laws) and of the providential march of reason (both of these, as 20th century thought would show, being essential epistemic assumptions, although now no longer supported by the faith and theology that originally underwrit them).

>>24773717
This is easily explained. God has the right to give and take away. We do not.

>>24773748
>God has the right to give and take away.
Why? Because might makes right? Do you really subscribe to the idea of an unquestionable dictator? A kind of divine North Korea? All you do here is betray your desire to be a slave.

>>24774187
>Why? Because might makes right?
No, I would rather say might coincides with right in this specific case. That's not always true in general when it comes to fallible created beings. But with God what I just said is completely true.
>Do you really subscribe to the idea of an unquestionable dictator?
I don't think God has disallowed people from questioning Him. That's why there is free will and rebellion. That also explains the whole "problem of evil." There are bad actors in this world; their actions are the cause of everything that is negative.

I just think if you're being intellectually honest with yourself, you'll realize the world is better when it is in the natural order anyway. Having seen what I've seen, a world in the kind of structure where the Creator and Lord is in charge of everything, is quite literally better. I don't want anyone else in charge. The basic reason you could provide to explain this is that He is perfect, incorruptible and infinitely wise. And I'm fine with recognizing my Creator as God.

>A kind of divine North Korea?
Very inaccurate analogy. In the Biblical worldview, nobody is forced to worship God, those who do so are voluntarily doing it.

>>24774226
>might coincides with right in this specific case.
Isn't this a little too convenient? The kind of thing people would make up to make themselves feel better?
>rebellion
And what happens if you "rebel"? What if you use your reason and conclude human beings create religions with a big main king guy as their God and he is perfect and makes everything okay like a big loving daddy?
>world is better when it is in the natural order
Absolutely not. Dying from a tooth infection is quite common in nature. Having a parasite slowly feed on your body until you waste away and die is quite common. And this is without mentioning that nature is very much red in tooth and claw, a constant competition between the swift and the deadly.
>Having seen what I've seen, a world in the kind of structure where the Creator and Lord is in charge of everything, is quite literally better
This gives away the game, anon. You have just surrendered to wishful thinking.

>>24771018
>>24773729
Is there any atheist argument that doesn't rely on pop psychology?

Christians always like to say that without God everything is permitted and while that is literally true, in reality it doesn't make a difference. If you look back to Medieval Europe where everyone was Christian and living in a society that was soaking in Christianity it wasn't like people stopped raping, robbing and killing each other. Just look at the Sack of Rome in 1527. Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) raiding the centre of Christendom and carrying out unspeakable violence like the rape of nuns, genital mutilation, tortures and humiliations.

I heard a Christian commentator talk about how great it was that the Vikings were replaced by the Christian Knight but what you find if you examine things is that the exact same kind of violence and barbarity went on with both, and that in fact the scale of the violence was significantly increased with consolidated medieval armies.

So yes, without God everything is permitted but the reality is that people are going to do what they want regardless.

>>24768309
One problem I have with Christianity is that it requires me to believe that people *from the Levant* truthfully recounted events 2000 years ago.

>>24774458
yeah, the one in the OP for example

>>24774863
This is my biggest hangup. It’s actually pretty reasonable to believe in a creator but the bible just comes off a ethnosectarian hocus pocus most of the time. Also the problem of evil

File: 1748031399551647.jpg (16 KB, 300x350)

16 KB JPG

>>24769625
>i'm gonna abort my children
Yes, but this has nothing to do with atheism. An unborn baby doesn't have a soul until "quickening" after the bones have fully formed.

PROOF:

Adam's body fully formed before he got a soul:,
>" And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7

Stillborns don't have souls:,
>" Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light." Job 3:16

John the Baptist's had a soul when Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant:,
>" And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth... " And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:" Luke 1:26,41.

After bodies were fully formed spirit breathed life into the dry bones:,
>" Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD." Ez. 37:5-6

The spirit of life enters unborn babies from the mother after the baby's bones have formed:,
>" As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." Eccl. 11:5

The spirit of life travels from the mother through the umbilical cord, into the navel, and then into the baby's marrow so that a soul can fully form and the baby becomes a living human being.,
>" It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones." Prov. 3:8

Death of unborn baby not equal to a murder under the law.,
>" If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Ex. 21:22 (edited)

>>24769781
This is the result if American fundi-Christians have nothing other than ad hominem.
>>24770175
You sounds like a retard when you threat others with hell. And it is blasmeious, since only God knows who goes into hell or not.
>>24770304
Could it have something to do with the fact that /his/ is so much in the hand of Atheist bros?
>>24770980
>I'm too stupid to actual arguing. Hehe. I just pretend to be retarded. Hehe. Got you
>>24770993
>since he’s an agnostic and thus bound to moral non-realism
1. No, it doesn't
2. Dude, the problem of evil occured out of your framework.
3. Moral Realism isn't persuading.
>undeserved suffering completely moot since there’s no coherent account of “deserves” or suffering as morally bad if materialism is true.
You don't understand the entire concept of so called "internal critique", right?

>>24773594
You needs to be more critical against desired outcomes if you recognise that you have the tendency to believe in something solo because it makes you feel good.
Our day to day experience clearly indicate that wishful thinking is a powerful scource of error.
Therefor, it is obligated from a rational point of view to avoid it at all costs.

The atheists perspective of the world is not inherently wishful thinking. Yes, of course, you do not have to deal with the fears of demons and hell and so on. Although most Christians reject this anyway.
The atheists viewpoint has nothing inherent compfing, no notation of salvation. Therefor, the burden of wishful thinking doesn't lie on their side.

>>24773729
Your Marxistic bullshit is incoherend with the first paragraph. Therefor, I conclude, you've all your "thoughts" got from other people. The point about death is from Russell.

>>24773713
Enjoy hell.

>>24775430
stillbirth often occurs in the last 2 months of pregnancy, when most bones are formed, so they must have souls. or is this yet another le heckin biblical allegory™

>>24775508
>Anyone who disagrees with my belief system deserves death and eternal torment
You are no different than a Bolshevik executing someone for questioning the revolution. I hope you can see that

>>24768309
I like how no one in this thread has even attempted to answer OP's question. Almost like no one has even read the book or know any of its arguments.

>>24775718
see >>24768319

>>24774376
>And what happens if you "rebel"?
That's the cause of evil.
>What if you use your reason and conclude human beings create religions with a big main king guy as their God and he is perfect and makes everything okay
Human beings create all kinds of religions, but that doesn't invalidate the truth. Attempting to say that it does would be the pitifully flawed argument of the sophists. People are perfectly capable of being wrong. The truth is not a democracy. That's why you can't find the truth based on what is most popular or based on feelings or anything like that.
>Dying from a tooth infection is quite common in nature.
That's due to corruption from the original goodness of creation, which is due to sin/rebellion, which brings me back to the original point.
>You have just surrendered to wishful thinking.
By wishful thinking, you mean where a person simply wishes that sin and corruption hadn't happened or that it didn't happen? I acknowledge what's going on. I'm not denying it: The Bible says that the world will need to be completely destroyed and judged before real order can be restored. That's not going to be easy. There are going to be hard times and conflict. But I do recognize that's what the Bible says is going to happen.

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?"
(2 Peter 3:10-12)

"The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
(Matthew 10:24-34)

>>24775733
Fake Christian. Enjoy hell.

>>24775489
>Therefor, the burden of wishful thinking doesn't lie on their side.
You're wishfully thinking that all the offenses you have done will just be forgotten when that isn't the case at all. The atheist is wishfully hoping they will escape into a bliss of rest and nothingness, instead of the eternal conscious torment that actually awaits them.

"For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
(Ecclesiastes 12:14)

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
(Daniel 12:2)

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
(John 5:28-29)

>>24775718
Ehrman is right though. The Bible fails to answer life's most important question and not only that but presents a grave and, in my view, irreconcilable contradiction in the idea that the world is the creation of a loving, all powerful and all good God which is something that is certainly not reflected in the world as we know it to be.

As far as I'm aware, Dostoyevsky is the only one to ever address this problem properly. His view is presented in two ways; Alyosha and Ivan. Ivan refuses to accept the world and the idea that a loving God is behind it, Alyosha acknowledges the seeming contradiction but chooses to take the leap of faith as Kierkegaard called it and accept Christianity whilst the question is left unanswered.

My view is that if you are able to make the leap of faith and believe then that's fantastic. I myself can't do it anymore and have left behind my belief which is not even to my own betterment as I was much more secure when I did believe. However I cannot live a life in denial of my lived reality purely to make myself feel better. That's just living a lie.

>>24775733
>That's due to corruption from the original goodness of creation
tooth infections predate humans. how did corruption take place before then? or is the earth really 6 thousand years old?
>>24775744
are you gonna mention telling people to enjoy hell during your confession so you can be a good christian again next week?

>>24775762
>I myself can't do it anymore and have left behind my belief which is not even to my own betterment as I was much more secure when I did believe. However I cannot live a life in denial of my lived reality purely to make myself feel better. That's just living a lie.
Maybe you should stop doing things based on feelings then, anon. All you are doing here is repeating the same fashionable things that the world wants to hear so that you'll fit in. You're still a liar doing things based solely on how other people perceive it and how you think it will make people see you, not based on whether it's actually true or not. That's the irony here.

As to the answer to the question of the problem of evil, the answer is plainly given. See what it says in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. ("For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.") It's the same basic answer that's given here: See >>24774226

The problem isn't that nobody has addressed or answered the problem of evil. The only "problem" here is that people who only care about how they look and how they are able to present themselves to others will turn away from that since it doesn't suit their fancy – they'll even try to pretend the inconvenient but true answer doesn't exist when they've already been presented with it, since pretending they haven't been given an answer already is the most "convenient" thing for them, even if patently untrue and they know it. It's just intellectual dishonesty.

>>24775787
You don't know the first thing about me buddy. I don't give two fucks about "fitting in" or whatever is the majority position. I believe what I believe because I believe it to be true. When I was a Christian I was convinced I had found the truth and believed it despite the fact that I was surrounded by people telling me that what I believed was nonsense. What ended up happening is that I had the integrity to challenge my own beliefs and risk putting myself into a very horrible existential situation when the lived reality of my life came into conflict with the message that I was being sold.
And how dare you take your position of moral smug superiority and look down upon me because I have taken a different path to you. Do you see your vain intellectual narcissism as Christlike? Do you see how you are no different from atheists who get high from their own egoism and belief that they have found "the truth"? Christ would be ashamed of someone like you. You are clearly more at home nailing people to crosses than following the crucified.

The "problem of evil" is a meme for atheists who can't cope with God's existence. It's literally just
>If that's true, how do you explain my feelings?

>>24775806
Enjoy hell, apostate. I will personally dance on your grave.

>>24775806
>You don't know the first thing about me buddy.
I know what you said. You said you were just living a life in denial purely to make your life better. Or are you going to backtrack on that?

>And how dare you take your position of moral smug superiority and look down upon me because I have taken a different path to you.
Because there's a difference in intellectual honesty going on here.

>Do you see how you are no different from atheists who get high from their own egoism and belief that they have found "the truth"? Christ would be ashamed of someone like you. You are clearly more at home nailing people to crosses than following the crucified.
What's sad is that people who are way more intellectually dishonest, and who constantly say and try to teach that everything is relative and that everything is opinion and cannot claim the status of truth, would be the first ones to use torture devices on me. I'm the one saying the truth. That's all I'm doing, I'm not physically assaulting anyone, but the words of Scripture seem to cut far deeper than any physical wound ever could. Some devious, scheming little atheist might secretly like to inflict physical wounds or physical death on me for telling you the truth, even while he pretends that all viewpoints are relative and equally valid. But that's because, even if he won't acknowledge it, secretly he understands that what I say is true (as it is based on the Bible) and some part of him can't stand the fact that there is no refuting it. As it says, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

>>24774458
I mean, the most obvious, every culture invents their own god or gods and they are all different and conflicting, therefore you should automatically assume they are all man made creations.

>>24774818
Nazi Germany was like 90% Christian and the Catholic Church endorsed Hitler and celebrated his birthday from the pulpit every year he was in power. If you can convince someone god endorse an action, literally any action becomes not only permitted, but necessary.

Can someone define what a Christian is for me, with how often christkekkers are telling each other to enjoy hell I don't know.

>>24775489
You sound awfully defensive, almost like you are too attached to your illusion and any form of criticism becomes a personal attack and a reminder to you of your mortality, the knowledge of which is something you dearly attempt to repress. Read the passage again, I'm sure you can improve your reading comprehension enough to be able to get it.

>>24775508
Okay, so, basically you have no actual answer to this problem? God is literally perfect, all powerful all knowledgeable, yet he creates a world that instantly becomes corrupted and fallen, and his solution is to just sit around and watch for thousands of years until he has the genius idea to have himself born so he can eventually get tortured and murdered so he can be a human sacrifice to himself or the sins that he allowed to enter his creation? He didn't just remove the sin or find a way to have free will without sin or to just forgive people out of mercy on an individual basis or any of a million better solutions? Seriously, how do you show your face while believing this stuff?

>>24775489
The athiest gets to absolve themselves of all guilt because "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so," while still exalting themselves for being in any way decent because they *choose* this in a way the "slaves to dogma" don't. You see this all the time. It's very clear in some famous thinkers. Russell had an extremely sorted personal life, trying to seduce his friend's wives, etc., but clearly thinks he is quite morally superior to Saint Thomas and other Christian philosophers because he acts decent without the motivation of his strawman conception of Christianity.

The entire idea that atheism is not psychologically appealing is belied by the fact that in every bookstore philosophy section Nietzsche is the most stocked author and has been for decades. Nietzsche has been the philosopher of the masses for the entire Neoliberal era. People don't shy away from this stuff, they run to it. Ayn Rand is popular for similar reasons.

Second, the assertion that "most" Christians don't believe in Hell or demons is bizzare. If people don't believe in these they are heretics. Universalism is a position embraced by a handful of Patristics, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Isaac of Nineveh, Origen, Saint Jerome early on, etc. and it might be implied by some others, but none of them deny Hell or that no one comes to salvation except through Christ.

>>24775733
>That's due to corruption from the original goodness of creation, which is due to sin/rebellion, which brings me back to the original point.
Read Genesis 3:22. Adam and Eve had not eaten of the fruit of the tree of eternal life, therefore God made them originally mortal and they would have died eventually without the fall.

So, now that you have this piece of information, your entire worldview will require an overhaul, right? Like, this is a pretty core issue to be wrong about. Not only that, but if you read Genesis, the Serpent tells them the exact truth, that they will not die the day they eat the fruit, and the only reason that God says not to eat it is that He fears they will become as powerful as Him (proven correct by Genesis 3:22). Meanwhile, God directly lied to them when He said they would die in the day they ate the fruit. Not only that, but they were destined to die anyway since, as we have established, they had not yet eaten of the fruit of the tree of eternal life. In the Biblical account of Genesis, the Serpent is more moral than God is. Maybe sit with that for a while.

>>24773729
I often wonder how people can spout such dogmatic positions without seeing the irony that they are criticizing others for dogmatism and small mindedness while reciting a dogma they have been indoctrinated with that would fall apart under the tiniest hit of critical thought.

Nothing about Homer's afterlife seems appealing. Achilles says he would rather be the slave of a dirt poor farmer than he among the dead. The afterlives of the Near East were often worse. Nothing is psychologically "reassuring" about gods who transform into all manner of animal and descend from the sky to rape you or you wife/daughter.

Nor are many forms of Christianity going to fit this bill. Under Calvinism you are very likely destined to suffer the most horrific punishments for all eternity and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Full stop. And you deserve it.

By comparison "the world is purposeless and valueless so you are basically your own God as far as morality is concerned and you need never feel bad about anything and death will be a peaceful, dreamless sleep," is far more psychologically compelling than even Indian religions endless cycle of suffering that can only be broken after extreme effort.

It's a narrative people are raised on that doesn't hold up to even the slightest critical thinking. What part of "I am a slave who gets beaten and raped in this life and I get to be pharaoh's slave for eternity" is reassuring?

>>24775733
>Human beings create all kinds of religions, but that doesn't invalidate the truth. Attempting to say that it does would be the pitifully flawed argument of the sophists. People are perfectly capable of being wrong. The truth is not a democracy. That's why you can't find the truth based on what is most popular or based on feelings or anything like that.
What makes more sense: that the same mechanism of faith is used by all cultures to create in-group cohesion where the content of the belief is irrelevant, or that everyone else's religion is made up except yours, even with the exact same mechanisms and function, which is actually the super true and central one, which you just happened to pick (or more likely to have been randomly born into) and believe in to the exact extend every other believer believes in their religion? Again, at some point you need a little self awareness: religion and faith are anthropological, they are products of culture and are literally human inventions. At a certain point, we ought to grow up and realize Santa only exists in so far as we invent him for the benefit of children, in other words, The Wizard of Oz is just an illusion and the man behind the curtain is the source. Once you cast off these illusions and step outside them, the true world is much more beautiful, you will be much freer, and your bonds of solidarity with your fellow men will be infinitely more genuine.

File: images (54).jpg (21 KB, 199x253)

21 KB JPG

>>24776289
>Biblical commentary according to Satan.

God resurrects people at will and stops fire from burning them, etc. God does not need a tree to make man deathless. The point is that once man decided to use his freedom to usurp God's place as the key good the will strives for (the will curving inwards on itself as its own object) man is no longer fit for immortal life. Death is a necessary medicine to stop man's slide into degeneracy, but ultimately Christ tramples down death by death.

But of course the demons talking through you already knew this. Drive them from your mind with the name of Jesus brother. Pray to the Theotokos that as mother she might intercede for you, that grace might unblind you, that you might behold the influence of Lucifer and his archons and the glory of the Holy Trinity.

>>24776300
Each example you cite has to do with a person's supposed place in a grand order. Each one purports to say that you cosmically and divinely belong in a certain spot, so how is it you can take this and claim it does not provide a kind of reassurance? You even betray yourself when you add in that Calvinists believe "you deserve it".

Also, Homer did present the Elysian Fields, a paradise for those especially favored by the gods.

You obviously did not actually read the quotation by Marx, since there is no way in which it can be read as "the world is purposeless and valueless so you are basically your own God as far as morality is concerned and you need never feel bad about anything and death will be a peaceful, dreamless sleep". It is a call to look at the world without illusion, to break the chains on your mind and to experience the beauty and wonder of reality, to join in solidarity with your fellow man, precisely because there are valuable things in life and a purpose to be found. Death is annihilation, the end of your existence, but it should be looked at honestly and unflinchingly.

Also a bit ironic that you reference Achilles saying "he would rather be the slave of a dirt poor farmer than he among the dead" (evincing an extreme fear of death above all other fates), but then end your post with almost the exact fate Achilles would have preferred, a slave, and then claimed that as a less compelling fate than death. Don't you at least see the contradiction there? Being Pharaoh's slave for eternity would literally be preferable to tons of people than annihilation, therefore it literally is reassuring compared to the alternative.

I think, if you cared to discuss further, you would find I am not dogmatic, I am open to all kinds of theories and criticisms, but I am firm on things requiring a logical and consistent basis, therefore if that is your minimum requirement for someone to be "dogmatic", I will have to be convicted on your standard.

>>24776320
>>Biblical commentary according to Satan.
The Book says what the Book says. If you don't like it, maybe there is a reason.
>God resurrects people at will and stops fire from burning them, etc.
On a completely arbitrary basis? Why not rescue the kids down at the cancer ward? Oh, mysterious ways and all that, right? Uhuh.
>God does not need a tree to make man deathless
But he did make one. Just for no reason then I guess? You have to be embarrassed at this point, c'mon anon.
>Death is a necessary medicine to stop man's slide into degeneracy, but ultimately Christ tramples down death by death.
Why does man have a nature that inclines him to degeneracy? Who implanted that nature? Who gives free will, and then sentences the one who uses it? That sounds sadomasochistic to me, like the character of a Devil.
>But of course the demons talking through you already knew this. Drive them from your mind
Ironic since you've just described that the being you follow acts exactly like a Devil.

>>24776289
>therefore God made them originally mortal and they would have died eventually without the fall.
The only thing implied by Genesis 3:22 is that they (and their offspring) would have lived forever after having committed sin. It doesn't really imply anything about their lifespan before committing sin.

>Not only that, but if you read Genesis, the Serpent tells them the exact truth, that they will not die the day they eat the fruit,
There was a spiritual death, a separation from their communion with God. It also resulted in their inevitable physical deaths, and a day with the Lord is as a thousand years according to Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3.

>and the only reason that God says not to eat it is that He fears they will become as powerful as Him
I don't see the word fear there, I see God's infinite wisdom in preventing a mistake from becoming worse. He was doing us a favor. Similar with the dispersion at the tower of Babel. In that event God was ultimately helping us not destroy ourselves as we would have, because the Lord is infinitely more wise than we are.

>>24776339
>Why not rescue the kids down at the cancer ward?
The purpose of all things is to ultimately glorify God. It's not about ourselves.

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."
(John 9:1-3)

"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."
(Genesis 50:20)

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
(Romans 8:28)

>But he did make one. Just for no reason then I guess?
The existence of the tree of life definitely proves a point. Also, it's still there now and is mentioned in Revelation 22. So clearly there's more use for it still to come. Maybe you just don't have the infinite wisdom and foresight that God does.
>Why does man have a nature that inclines him to degeneracy? Who implanted that nature?
We just went over this, that's because sin entered into creation. And that is due to satanic influence ultimately. According to the Biblical account, attempted rebellion will not prevent God's plans. He will masterfully make use of this situation to glorify Himself in ways beyond comprehension.

This is what the Bible indicates.

>Who gives free will, and then sentences the one who uses it?
See the following:

"Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.
For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.
Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment."
(Job 34:10-12)

File: 1724681057600501.jpg (1011 KB, 3840x1200)

1011 KB JPG

>>24776308
>Once you cast off these illusions and step outside them, the true world is much more beautiful,
The true world consists of the only logical explanation for why anything exists at all. It didn't come into existence randomly, which is a convenient lie for some. Many people would seemingly like to believe the seemingly convenient, but logically absurd, idea that the observable universe randomly started to exist for no reason at all – but that very stupidly ignores the truth about why anything exists at all. Because you haven't explained what the cause is. The natural universe has a supernatural, uncaused cause.

You are an ignorant idiot if you choose to ignore the above. Whoever chooses to ignore the order of the universe, who wants to ignore that and think for convenience's sake that this universe is random (so that means nothing they do matters), is choosing to wallow in ignorance like a dumb, primitive animal because they don't want to deal with the ramifications. I am convinced they will get the treatment they deserve for choosing to impose such ignorance on themselves. And further, they'll get exactly the outcome they deserve for trying to use these different falsehoods and fallacies (i.e. begging the question, ignoring the obvious reality that the universe can't create itself) and even outright lies that they know aren't true, all in an attempt to equivocate and deceive others to go along with it – all just to provide what they think is going to be an "excuse" (but it won't be) for their corrupt behavior. It won't work. They will be in eternal conscious torment for choosing the way of ignorance.

>which you just happened to pick (or more likely to have been randomly born into)
In this statement you're assuming there is no purpose behind things, but you haven't even proven that. You're just baking that unproven assumption into everything you say. Everything else you say is invalidated here, because things don't actually just happen randomly for no reason, and you've never proven, nor even attempted to prove, that they do. You've just assumed it for no good reason.

Also, to go even further, if your assumption here is true, you would have no reason to make any argument at all, as there would be no reason to do anything. It is very clear that if you're trying to argue that a certain point of view is right or wrong, then you don't even believe this assumption in practice either, i.e. that everything happens randomly by chance and that there is no order to anything. It's only being used as an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device. This radical skepticism is really only a sophistical rhetorical device, used only when you want to criticize things you don't like, but never on yourself anyway.

>>24776425
>The natural universe has a supernatural, uncaused cause.
That does not follow from the stated premise. Consider this for a moment, what does the word "cause" entail? Well, in common parlance, it denotes a temporal relationship when one event is prior in time and leads directly to an event later in time. But hang on, if we are talking about the first moment of time, it can't have been caused since it can't have any temporal relationship with anything before it, since it is the first moment. Therefore, it literally CANNOT have been caused in the way we use the word. Therefore, when talking about the first moment of time, we have to consider whether it could be retroactively "caused" by an event later in time (since, if we are going to break the rules of cause and effect, anything is on the table). This is at least a possibility, as much as creating an entire dimension of the "supernatural". Also, there could be other universes or dimensions which are perfectly natural and resulted in the first moment of our universe. In conclusion, there are several logical possibilities, one of which is the divine. Now consider which of us is actually demonstrating ignorance here.

>>24773717
Pretty absurd when you consider Christians who think that every fertilized egg has a soul and if they die before birth they go to heaven.
>Narrow is the way that leads to eternal life, and there are few who find it... except for the huuuuuuuuuuge number of people who were never born, that's most of what heaven is full of actually

>>24776787
Yes, because Jesus declared:
>"Verily, verily, I say onto you, I am here speaking about all human souls, and certainly not to those who grow old enough to understand the words I am saying."

But let's be real, the point here is to try to twist the Bible to justify murdering hundreds of millions of people because they are inconvenient and would "lower my utility," and has nothing to do with implantation.

>>24776274
it's the same person telling everyone to burn on here, it's just shitposting

>>24768309
Erhman's primary contention with the God is the problem of evil.
>>24770304
A lot of internet Christians are culture war converts

>>24776379
you didn't answer the cancer ward question, you just said "we have to worship god".

>>24776927
>A lot of internet Christians are culture war converts
right on the fucking money. i'd even argue that most are christian solely to be in opposition of atheist trannies of the left

File: carrotpepe.jpg (68 KB, 615x839)

68 KB JPG

>>24769920
>the bible is true because part of the bible says so, if you don't accept this line of thinking you're a fool

>>24775727
None of this addresses any points made in the book, you braindead retard.

>>24775787
>For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
How is this a "plain" answer at all lol. I know you're trying to twist this into the standard modern free will defense but that interpretation is adding a lot to this single line.

>>24778176
To be fair, there are constantly people going around everywhere trying to claim the Bible does not even claim itself to be true, so the fact that it really does this actually has to be pointed out repeatedly.

I fully expect that for the rest of this life, I will keep running across people who blithely say that it doesn't say this, and whenever that happens, I will keep pointing out that it does. And when I do I will quote for them exactly where it says so. I will never get tired of doing this no matter how many times it happens, I'll just keep pointing it out every single time.

>>24778395
>I know you're trying to twist this into the standard modern free will defense but that interpretation is adding a lot to this single line.
It's referring to the part where it says "by man came death." It refers back to the fact that all the problems started with sin. Recall that they were warned not to eat of that tree, because in the day they did, they would surely die. As a result of that act, everything related to the "problem of evil" started. See the explanation earlier given and linked to in the post you replied to. See also below:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
(Romans 5:12-19)

>>24776379
>The purpose of all things is to ultimately glorify God
Suffering glorifies God? So you just admit your God is evil then?
>The existence of the tree of life definitely proves a point
Yes, it proves death was already lurking in the Garden of Eden since Adam and Eve had not eaten of that tree.
>in ways beyond comprehension
Why even bother making a case for it then? Ultimately, you admit your own beliefs are incomprehensible, you can't explain them, you just believe them anyway. Your whole system of thought devolves into subservient obedience to an authority, with no thought for yourself, and an express rejection of freedom. You are a sad sort of a man, anon.

>>24776898
Murdering unborn souls fast tracks them to heaven and gives them the great gift of skipping an existence in this fallen corrupt world. It also spares them the risk of rebelling and possibly going to hell. In the Christian worldview, killing unborn babies is a great thing for them, they get to go straight to heaven with no suffering, no corruption, and no risk. You can't claim this world is a trial, a vale of tears, a terrible trial to be endured so that you can finally reach heaven and spend eternity with God in the arms of Jesus, but then claim it's terrible to skip right to the arms of Jesus.

>>24778243
Why settle for debunking one of his books where his entire dishonest self can be presented instead? He is a known liar and manipulator, anything that comes from his mouth should be ignored

>>24768309
Refute it yourself. Turn your fucking brain on. Read it. Holy shit. This is unbelievably pathetic.
>hurrrr I disagree with this book I havent read. Can someone else with my bias read it for me? Durrrr!
>>24768319
Case in point.
>Save me from the burden of critical thinking, AI bot!

>>24779386
>Why even bother making a case for it then? Ultimately, you admit your own beliefs are incomprehensible, you can't explain them, you just believe them anyway.
I'm not really saying anything different than what the original writers of Scripture said here.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
(Romans 11:33-36)

I'm just trying to be consistent with them, friend.

>>24779389
>It also spares them the risk of rebelling and possibly going to hell.
You're acting like you somehow have the ability to know what risks are involved. In reality, you do not know what you are talking about here. All you can know with certainty is that you were told not to do it.

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
(Proverbs 3:5-6)

>>24769453
The early Church fathers are such seething faggots who's fans had to destitute all the works arguing against them because they knew they were wrong. Like Taylor Swift fans destroying all the good music to make Taylor look better.

>>24769609
Jesus, in human incarnation has God the father as his father and Mary who was also immaculately conceived as a mother, and yeah he still did need to get baptized by John in the narrative.

>>24781642
>You're acting like you somehow have the ability to know what risks are involved. In reality, you do not know what you are talking about here. All you can know with certainty is that you were told not to do it.
Am I mistaken believing that the Christian view is that unborn children who are aborted get fast tracked to the arms of Jesus? Isn't getting to the arms of Jesus a good thing? What am I missing here, it seems, under the Christian view, aborted babies have been given a great gift, skipping the vale of tears and going straight to Jesus. Please address this.

>>24782074
In the Biblical account God destroyed the Canaanites for their child sacrifices, considering it a detestable crime. Destruction is what it merited them. If anyone seriously believes the biblical account, they get this. That fact remains regardless of whatever kind of logic you think applies. It's a very basic point, and it involves being told not to kill other people. I don't think you really are taking this conversation seriously, because I think even you already understand this. You understand that it says you shouldn't do evil, and that, if the biblical narrative is true, God has all the reason in the world for commanding you not to do evil. But you are either playing dumb, or choosing to play devil's advocate. It's disingenuous. You are being blatantly disingenuous and if this weren't a public conversation you'd get no answer because this kind of a performance deserves none. If anything it actually deserves ridicule. Accordingly, I'm only responding to this for the sake of other people reading this thread so they have a better idea what's going on. It doesn't matter what you have to say, anon. It's just going to be more disingenuous intellectual dishonesty and bad faith conversation just as you've been doing so far.

>What am I missing here,
You're intentionally ignoring the obvious. See above. Not that anyone needs to have what I've just said pointed out to them if they actually care about the answer. So, either try reading next time or having an ounce of intellectual honesty and be willing to recognize very basic facts, instead of wasting everyone's time with this continued pretending to be oblivious.

>>24782246
The killed children are actually better off though, are they not?

>>24782247
I guess you didn't read the post. I said you were going to keep being disingenuous and here it is.

>>24782247
See the problem is that you're reasoning out your morality based on how certain actions would affect other people, when instead you should be doing things or not doing things because God says so regardless of apparent consequences to others because he can send you to hell for going against him.

>>24782252
Okay, so you are just totally unwilling to engage on the actual fate of the unborn souls going straight to heaven? This is categorically a positive and desirable fate, why would you want to doom someone to life in a fallen corrupt world when you can instantly transport them to an infinitely better place, heaven? At least >>24782267 states the crux of the issue, don't think about it, don't weigh what is actually going on, just blindly obey.

>>24782306
what you're proposing is a sin. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2125, Rom. 1:18)

>>24783501
Answer the question

>>24783501
That simply creates a scenario of self sacrifice, you take sin on yourself to save another and send the unborn soul to heaven. It's actually Christ-like, when you think about it.

>>24782306
Why do you think anyone has to believe your specific brand of consequentialism?

>Okay, so you are just totally unwilling to engage
People who have been posting ITT have been pointing you to place after place in Scripture saying that killing is immoral.

>>24783974
Immoral FOR WHO? Yourself? This is just a commandment, an order. The act itself ensures the savior of the unborn baby and gives it the great gift of skipping this fallen world. It is categorically a good thing for the baby under the Christian worldview.

>>24783974
>Why do you think anyone has to believe your specific brand of consequentialism?
Okay, so just answer his question. It actually is a better fate for the unborn baby. You should be able to present your case, you should always follow the commandment of God, while also acknowledging the fact of the unborn baby going straight to heaven is a positive thing, and actually a better fate than any of us who must toil through this trial in a fallen world before we get to go to the arms of Jesus. Why must you equivocate and avoid addressing the question head on?

>>24784018
>Immoral FOR WHO? Yourself? This is just a commandment, an order.
If you are assuming what the Bible says is true, that means God is the ultimate judge of what is right and what is best, not you. Therefore, following God's orders is required, and sinning is never an end that justifies the means. Under that paradigm, God is a better judge of what is right to do than you are. It doesn't make sense to assume that the Bible is true but then also decide to reject the value judgement contained in it, that's self-contradictory.

>actually a better fate than any of us who must toil through this trial
I'm not willing to say that any sin whatsoever, even the slightest sin, has an end that justifies the means, nor am I willing to say this either.

In Ephesians 2:10 it says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

And in 2 Timothy 1:9, "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"

Frankly, the whole line of logic being pushed against the basic thought being repeated above is self-contradictory, since it's 1) assuming the Bible is true, but then 2) claiming that its judgements are false. Which is it? It can't be both. It's also self-apparently satanic in addition to this, since it is repeatedly expressing a desire to kill unborn and newborn children, and deliberately obtuse to the value judgements given in the Bible.

>>24784076
>I'm not willing to say that any sin whatsoever, even the slightest sin, has an end that justifies the means, nor am I willing to say this either.
You can acknowledge the fate of the killed unborn child is a good one without saying that the ends justify the means, but I suspect you are balking because admitting this part of your belief system undermines the whole thing, making you the dishonest one in this exchange.
>It's also self-apparently satanic in addition to this, since it is repeatedly expressing a desire to kill unborn and newborn children, and deliberately obtuse to the value judgements given in the Bible.
Is it satanic to secure the best possible outcome for a child's soul? Again, you seem to hold that going to the arms of Jesus in heaven is the best possible thing in life, while also holding that sending people there quicker is a bad thing, and your only justification is to appeal to "because God said so". You are evincing a manifest contradiction and cognitive dissonance and you even go so far as to refuse to look at it at all. You simultaneously value this life as of supreme importance while also deeming this world a corrupt fallen world which is a trial and a vale of tears to be endured and borne as a heavy burden. You can't have both. Either you value life above all, which means no fate after death can be better than life, or you think the fate after life is better and thus all killing which sends a person to that fate is a good thing. Remember, God is constrained by the laws of logic, there are certain formulations which are inviolable (otherwise, why have evil at all?). Your system of belief does not stand.

>>24776957
We just saw Jonathan Rinderknecht ritually burn a Bible and then go out to burn down the Palisades.
Maybe Ehrman is right. (In fact I think he mostly is, on points.) Look at the people who are taking Ehrman to heart. They're disasters and they are bringing fire and murder to the rest of us, who just wanna grill.
That's why we're going for Christianity. Not necessarily the fundie kind which Ehrman's mostly debunked. Orthodoxy or Catholicism will do.

>>24784175
Illusions won't save civilization. They are what bring it down.

>>24769603
your christology is lacking
quite, quite lacking