I am here.
I'll paste my response about Hume's problem here.
>It's the idea that past events cannot be used to predict the future, right? We've seen the sun raise every morning for all of humanity, but tomorrow COULD be the day it explodes and we have our first sunless morning. What about it?

>>543589626
There is no logic in Christianity. Its absurd nonsense. You worship a god who sacrificed himself unto himself to save us from himself.

>>543589663
Basically, I would argue that your understanding of the concept of 1+1=2 stems from this notion. You say you've worked with the math every day and if you have 1 apple and 1 apple then you have 2 apples. You're basing this on your experiences and on inferences from past observations. Hume's problem of induction says,
>how do you know you won't look down and see 3 apples next time you put 1 and 1 together?
What would your response be to this question?

>>543589626
Western society flourished with the distancing from the Church, embracing Greek and Roman ideals. As such, even if they were culturally Christian at the time, it was actually the acceptance of Greco-Roman ideals that advanced society. All the while distancing even more from the church over time.

>>543589725
Thanks for joining, I was just beginning to have fun and saw the last thread was about to die. Always exciting to argue with someone who is actually willing to talk in good faith.
Here's my response:
>>543589797

>>543589797
>1+1=2
Doesn't require belief. It's true regardless of personal feelings

>>543589903
See discussion on ZFC axioms in previous thread

>>543589797
>What would your response be to this question?
That it's technically possible in the way almost anything is technically possible. There's no proof of dragons existing, but one theoretically could crash into my home any second and devour me. Still, this won't make me run to hide in the basement. If I lived my life anticipating such absurdities, it wouldn't be much of a life. It's the same with what I know. Maybe one day I'll run 1+1 and get 3, but there's no real reason to entertain that idea until it actually happens to me.

>>543589928
No need..what I said is accurate

>>543589903
>Doesn't require belief. It's true regardless
This statement is the definition of "faith" btw.
It's called an "axiom," and we all have them.
We just don't agree on which ones.

>>543589993
>Maybe one day I'll run 1+1 and get 3, but there's no real reason to entertain that idea until it actually happens to me.
I think that's an understandable response, but it leads us back to the original question:
If you don't believe 1+1=2 with 100% certainty, is there anything you *do* believe with 100% certainty?

When I say 100%, I mean there is no possibility e.g., that you'll run 1+1 and it returns 3.

Since you've based your understanding of such a fundamental concept on experience, would it be fair to say that you trust your experiences/observations 100% of the time? What I mean by that is, if you actually DID look down and see 1+1=3 apples, would you believe that there were 3 apples, or would you think you were dreaming? Would you be more likely to question 1+1=2, or your own senses?

>>543590194
>This statement is the definition of "faith" btw.
Nope.

Let me.know when you can prove 1+1 = something else but 2

>>543590252
That can be easily done with a different set of axioms & definitions than ZFC. For example, we could replace the definition of "addition" in ZFC with "subtraction", and "+" with "-". Then we'd have 1+1=0.

The axioms and definitions are what make 1+1=2 true to mathematicians; however, they still need the axioms (faith).

>>543590252
>prove
Until you can "prove" literally everything in existence, you will have to make some assumptions.
Deductive reasoning is based on assumed premises, so even if you "proved" that 1+1=2 (which you cannot do), you would have inevitably made some other assumption to do so.

>>543590210
>When I say 100%, I mean there is no possibility e.g., that you'll run 1+1 and it returns 3.
It feels like the answer should be 'Yes, there's no way it can be anything but 1+1=2' but if we're looking at it from the perspective of Hume's problem, then no. I can believe something with such certainty that it might as well be 100%, but I can't deny the existence of some magical counterexample that I just don't know yet. It's Devil's Proof taken to its logical extremes.
>Would you be more likely to question 1+1=2, or your own senses?
My senses, clearly. I would assume I was drunk, dreaming, mistaken, or something similarly natural, because every previous time I made a counting error, it was on me, not the math.

>>543590382
>That can be easily done with a different set of axioms
Nope

>>543590388
I accept your concession

>>543589740
Your argument is too sophisticated for chrischans to understand. That’s why they’re chrischans.

I’d just add: what’s more probable, that “god” allowed people to kill him, or that person killed simply wasn’t “god”?

>>543590459
>my senses, clearly
Then this makes me think you have a reason to believe 1+1=2 beyond mere observation. Is it the repeatability of the observation that makes you believe it? If so, let's change the thought experiment: what if you looked down and saw 1+1=3, and you said
>I must be drunk or dreaming.
You go to sleep, and wake up the next day. Put one apple in a bag. Put another apple in a bag. Look in the bag: 3 apples!

How long would it take for you to observe 1+1=3 before you said
>I was not drunk nor dreaming. 1+1 is actually 3.
?

>>543589740
He didn't sacrifice himself, humanity killed him.

It's natural that you hate God and therefore hate Christians, it's part of human nature.

You love you humanity so much God will give you over to it through the process of reprobation.

>>543590490
I concede nothing except that you are unable to deductively prove that you exist. I must be talking to a bot.

>>543590595
>He didn't sacrifice himself
Bible disagrees

>>543590629
>I concede nothing
You didn't prove 1+1=3 did you? No, ok then concession accepted

>>543590490
>>That can be easily done with a different set of axioms & definitions than ZFC. For example, we could replace the definition of "addition" in ZFC with "subtraction", and "+" with "-". Then we'd have 1+1=0.

>The axioms and definitions are what make 1+1=2 true to mathematicians; however, they still need the axioms (faith).


>Nope

Oh, I guess that settles it then.

>>543590564
It's not possible to sacrifice yourself, but you can offer your life to a problem serving humanity by giving body and mind to solve the problem. That's what Jesus did through His sacrifice. He solved the problem of conscience, and superstitious belief in the middle east by protecting the most important truth of Abraham.

>The universe is infinite! It has always existed and will continue to exist! That disproves creationism!

This argument literally makes no sense at all from a logical standpoint. It is just as faith based as Christianity.

The athiest argument is fully based on ego, there is nothing rational about any of this.

>>543590637
You can't sacrifice yourself, that's a stupid way to put it.

You can give your life over to a charitable service, that is what Jesus did.

>>543590680
Without this foundational agreement on what the symbols and operations mean, the statement would hold no logical value

We already have foundational agreement.

So yes, that does settle that 1+1=2 a fact

>>543590637
“You killed the Prince of Life.” — Acts 3:15

“You crucified and killed Him by the hands of lawless men.” — Acts 2:23

“The Jews… killed the Lord Jesus.” — 1 Thess 2:15

The bible agrees in everyway.

>>543590594
I... don't know. I get this is all hypothetical, but it's hard to imagine how I would react if something I've taken for granted was not actually true. I can see myself agonizing over it for weeks until I begin to seriously consider if 1 and 1 really is 3.

>>543590708
Where the fuck did I mention ‘sacrifice’, faggot?

>>543590735
>You can't sacrifice yourself
Matthew 20:28 states, "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many".

>>543590782
lurk moar

>>543590674
>prove 1+1=3
Why would anyone want to do that?
Broken bot.

>>543590772
Again

Matthew 20:28 states, "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many".

>>543590744
The scholarly consensus disagrees with your "foundation". It would place the foundation not at "1+1=2", but on the Zermelo axioms which make "1+1=2" provable, and which, again, are axioms (faith).

>>543590793
That's what it means a Holy Sacrifice, by giving your life to a worthy cause.

“Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us.” — Eph 5:2

>>543590806
>Why would anyone want to do that?
Because they can't that's why

Kek

>>543590822
You don't understand Holy Sacrifice yet then

>>543590833
>The scholarly consensus disagrees with your "foundation"
Not really

>>543590834
First it wasn't a sacrifice to know it's a Holy Sacrifice,.lmao
>>543590859
Kem

>>543590776
That's another understandable response. I think this ambiguity is why people don't like to use observations / induction as a grounds for truth. It is the reason that Hume's problem of induction is a "problem". The only fallback is deductive reasoning, at which point you have to come face to face with the Münchhausen Trilemma.

>>543590834
I shit down the throat of your ‘Holy Sacrifice’.

>>543590884
ZFC set theory is the prevailing mathematical standard, I'm afraid.

>>543590833
axioms are not "faith" in a religious or blind sense, because mathematicians don't claim they are absolute cosmic truths handed down from above.
Instead, a more accurate word is stipulation or rules of the game.

>>543590937
We are all making sacrifices in the sense I was talking about.

You have no discernment while you sit around sacrificing your own life for unworthy causes.

>>543590970
And like I just said

axioms are not "faith" in a religious or blind sense, because mathematicians don't claim they are absolute cosmic truths handed down from above.
Instead, a more accurate word is stipulation or rules of the game.

>>543590958
In your imagination which makes no difference.

>>543590995
Ah, so then you don't *really* believe 1+1=2? Good to know.

>>543591012
Ok so it was a sacrifice, like I said lmao

>>543590840
>1+1=2 because it explains everything
God exists because it explains everything.

>>543590949
I suppose. Sorry if this comes across as blunt, but what was the point of this hypothetical? How does it tie back into religion?

>>543591040
See

>>543589903
>Doesn't require belief. It's true regardless of personal feelings
Thanks for.playing

>>543591036
Kneel

>>543591061
In English words can have multiple meanings, I just showed you the true meaning of sacrifice in the bible and you are still acting stupid.

>>543591069
Try less strawman man kiddo

>>543591108
>it's a sacrificing when I define it!
Lmao

>>543591139
The bible spends pages and pages on defining Holy Sacrifice, you either are just too stupid to understand but I think you are just a troll.

You should leave this website and never return because the West is Christian.

>>543591116
Ok then, prove that 1+1=2 without a single assumption.
>inb4 kek lol lmao i accept your concession kiddo

>>543591214
>The bible spends pages and pages on defining Holy Sacrifice
This was you btw
>>543590595
>He didn't sacrifice himself
So we agree he did then

>>543591217
>Ok then, prove that 1+1=2 without a single assumption
You just did. Lol

>>543591255
No we do not agree because you want to troll the definition.

>>543591279
THATS THE WHOLE POINT
Broken bot.

>>543591087
No need to apologize; we can have some bluntness. My argument is basically that, once you reach the Münchhausen Trilemma there are three options: dogmatism, infinitism, and skepticism. The latter two are incompatible with even the most fundamental observations about reality. A skeptic has no reason to believe, e.g., that he is actually hungry. An infinitist believes his observably finite mind can contain infinitely many truths.

The other option is dogmatism: belief in some set of foundational axioms, from which you derive all other truths, which makes your life livable.

When I realized this was the only option that made life livable in a logically self-consistent way, my problem became "in which axioms do I put my faith?" The answer will change from person to person, but their reason for choosing the axioms is always the same. Ultimately, the reason is, "because it makes me happy". Christianity makes me happy. Faith in Christ gives my life the meaning and purpose to continue. That is why I believe.

I'm sure the namefag or some other anon will angrily rip this post apart because I've glossed over many important details, but that's the short answer to your question.

>>543590595
why do christkikes lie like this?

>>543591363
Side note: some scholars present a fourth option to the Trilemma, called "coherentism". In my view this is basically circular reasoning, and not ultimately much different from dogmatism.

>>543591325
>No we do not agree
So he didn't sacrifice himself?

>>543591355
What was?

>>543590382
LOL
>if we define this thing to be the opposite of what it is in reality, then we have something totally different!
wow, you sure showed me

>>543591410
Why do non Christians deliberately misunderstand Christianity and then act like authority over it. Is it pride? Why are you so obsessed with us?

>>543591040
According to Harvard, 2+2=5. This means that 1+1=2.5

>>543591454
>>543590194

>>543591410
Admitting truth threatens the structure of their existential beliefs.

I don’t come to such threads to hear them speak the truth, i expect them to lie and manipulate at all costs. It’s a gift that keeps on giving

>>543591454
>So he didn't sacrifice himself?
Not in the sense you are thinking, which is why I helped you understand Holy Sacrifice in which case you stick you fingers in your ears and screech like a demon.

>>543591363
I see. Then I have no real counterargument. If divinity is something you accept for its own sake, it's no less reasonable than anything else that's taken for granted.

>>543591469
On what grounds does ZFC use the definition it currently does? It's merely a convention; we can change convention.

>>543591535
> helped you understand
That’s exactly what I needed. Thank you soo much.

>>543591512
Ah, you don't know what faith means. Gotcha

>>543591535
>Not in the sense you are thinking,
How can you assume to know what I think?

Anyway I'm glad we agreed that he did sacrifice himself

>>543591557
Now you see my point completely. We all have axioms/faith, and it is foolish for an atheist to think he has some logical high ground because his axioms/faith are different. The only one that can claim true logical high ground is the nihilistic skeptic, who wouldn't have any reason to believe he was having a discussion or making an argument to begin with. His attachment to what we call reality would be completely severed if he had any conviction in his skeptical stance.

>>543591612
Here you go troll, have some more information. Hope you don't burn in hell
Suicide:
self‑killing

self‑destruction

self‑harm

no external agent

no offering to God

no priestly mediation

no redemptive purpose

Holy sacrifice:
self‑offering

carried out by others

directed toward God

priestly mediation

redemptive purpose

obedience, not despair


Obviously Jesus sacrifice was worthy and Holy and not suicide.

>>543591615
>How can you assume to know what I think?
That is the difference in me and you, you can read English and still be stupid.

>>543591677
To add on to this: the nihilistic skeptic cannot even assert "God does not exist". He cannot assert "I don't know that god doesn't exist", or "I don't know anything". Any assertion at all (even an assertion of his own ignorance) is a statement of supposed fact, which he himself has regarded as unprovable.

>>543591696
>Jesus sacrifice
>>543591718
Thanks for agreeing

>>543591750
I only agree on a specific definition

SAC'RIFICE, verb transitive sac'rifize. [Latin sacrifico; sacer, sacred, and facio, to make.]

1. To offer to God in homage or worship, by killing and consuming, as victims on an altar; to immolate, either as an atonement for sin, or to procure favor, or to express thankfulness; as, to sacrifice an ox or a lamb. 2 Samuel 6:13.

2. To destroy, surrender or suffer to be lost for the sake of obtaining something; as, to sacrifice the peace of the church to a little vain curiosity. We should never sacrifice health to pleasure, nor integrity to fame.

3. To devote with loss.

Condemn'd to sacrifice his childish years to babbling ignorance and to empty fears.

4. To destroy; to kill.

>>543591696
Ohh you, my redemptor, priestly mediator.

Would you be so kind to help me understand the trinity, pretty please?

>>543591822
>I only agree on a specific definition
Doesn't matter really. He still sacrificed himself

>>543591742
>To add on to this: the nihilistic skeptic cannot even assert "God does not exist"
This is something I've believed prior to this conversation as well. I'm atheist, but a type that another anon has told me is called 'weak atheism.' I don't believe in God because the evidence I've seen is insufficient or self-defeating. I don't reject the possibility outright, as that would be a Devil's Proof and thus impossible. I just don't entertain it the same way I don't entertain the Greek pantheon.

>>543591844
Trinity is easy, I understood when I was 7yr old

God is like a Father someone who plans to have children and provides for them and gives them freedom and sovereignty to do what they want. He is invisible and all knowing.

Jesus is the only begotten son, he is infinite like the Father because He is God's Word manifest in the flesh. Whatever God the Father says, Jesus does, they are essentially the same thing, except you can see, tough, and experience Jesus as a person. Jesus isn't all knowing, he has to learn like a human learns.


The Holy Spirit is the invisible Spirit manifest in everything. The Sun is like God in that it provides light and life to all things on Earth, yet it's not God, it's just expressing the Spirit of God. It is visible in all of creation.

>>543592005
Thank you, I understand now
that asking chrischans to schizoexplain is same as sending niggers on a goose chase, always fun

>>543592005
you literally can't stop lying. every fucking post

>>543592254
It's essential to understand God becoming completely man.

God experienced everything a man would experience, he was born not knowing morality, he had to grow in wisdom, he had to pray and become better through suffering. These are things all men can do, but no one is willing. Just look around how many people are willing to make sacrifices for the betterment of society?

>>543591907
Obviously, I'm in no position to judge the axioms upon which you build your worldview. I will merely point out that life in Christian Europe was substantially better than life in Pagan Europe. A good microcosm of this, as Orosius points out in his histories, is the sacking of Rome by pagan Gauls under Brennus in 390BC vs. the sacking of Rome by Christian Visigoths under Alaric in 410AD. Livy's description of the former was enough to bring me to tears. Not something people should have to live through. In contrast, during the Visigothic siege, Christian Romans taking shelter in churches were spared completely by the Visigoths.

The phrase "know them by their fruits" seems apt in such contexts.

>>543592256
Don’t think that I’d be asking that question, if I didn’t already know the answer he’s going to give.

>>543592256
I'm not lying at all, it's all in the bible you can read it yourself.

>>543592425
>he was born not knowing morality
I guess that defeats the omniscient part. Which then deletes any claim he's omnipotent

>>543592452
You are just afraid to leave you group think.

>>543592005
literally heresy.

>>543592460
It’s beautiful that you have your own truth.

>>543592563
Not necessarily because He is the son of the most high, who is omnipotent and omniscient. Jesus just has to cope through suffering ignorance.

>>543592646
I have scripture to back it up, that is why it's not my truth it's all in the Word.

>>543592604
You make the best assumptions.

>>543592647
>He is the son of the most high, who is omnipotent and omniscient
Ah so you're in the camp that Jesus isn't God?

>>543592643
>literally no argument

File: 1788843197532423.jpg (156 KB, 1024x1024)

156 KB JPG

>>543590834
why are chiggers like this?

>>543592441
Adding on, I think we're seeing today what an "atheist" Europe looks like. I don't know of anyone who would call it an improvement over Christian Europe.

>>543592710
He is fully God and fully man, that's the trinity.

>>543591108
>pilpul to pretend your magic rabbi sacrifice isn't a sacrifice

File: 1789363514242602.jpg (43 KB, 706x909)

43 KB JPG

>>543589740
>I know he's not the omnipotent God of all because that's not how I would have done it

>>543592441
yeah christians were all hugs and kisses, like in the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. what a retarded argument.

>>543592762
christians are so jewish

>>543592441
Sure, but by that logic you can say that we live better now than they used to, and this is the era when secularism and atheism started becoming more mainstream. Not to say the present day doesn't host its own tremendous bullshit, but I do think the separation of Church and state is one of the most important political developments we've had. The Bible's a decent starting point in terms of morality, but law requires neutrality and fairness.

>>543592730
Masturbation isn't a sin

>>543591488
>NO NONONONO NO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND HIS SACRIFICE WASNT A SACRIFICE IT WAS A SUPER DUPER SACRIFICE IT DOESNT COUNT BECAUSE IT COUNTS AS THE LAST REQUIRED HUMAN SACRIFICE

>>543592753
You're contradicting yourself

>>543592677
The world would be perfect like the corpse if everyone was subjected to your truth of the new testament

>>543592840
It counts as the last animal sacrifice, we still require human sacrifice. Jesus was the ultimate example of what humanity should do.

>>543592851
how so?

>>543592726
you are retarded, it's very tiresome to "argue" with you. if I told you 1 + 1 = 3 is wrong you would say "nuhh argument!!" because you are intellectually speaking a toddler shitting his diapers.

just look up modsaidm and subordinationism. this is very basic.

>>543592879
If more people understood Holy Sacrifice you wouldn't be trolling.

>>543592786
Not what I said at all. Of course Christian Europe had its faults; but they were less severe than pagan Europe.
>>543592792
I would argue that the tolerable aspects of life today are owed largely to Christian thinkers, scholars, industrialists, scientists, &c...
I haven't seen many things produced by atheists that make life better. And certainly nothing by pagans. If life is better today than it was in, say, the late Medieval period, it is in spite of atheism/secularism and not because of it.

>>543592913
>modalism

Thats retarded, God doesn't shift form like turning into bear to be a furfag or something.

>>543592944
>If life is better today than it was in, say, the late Medieval period, it is in spite of atheism/secularism and not because of it.
Spoken like someone who hasn't been burned like a Salem witch

>>543592647
>He is the son of the most high, who is omnipotent and omniscient. Jesus just has to cope through suffering ignorance.
>>543592753
>He is fully God and fully man
>>543592907
See above

>>543593067
If you have a perfect King, and the King has a son who is perfectly obedient to the King then they act with the same authority and power.

>>543592792
Regarding your point about law requiring neutrality and fairness:
This was an idea with its origins in Christian Europe, particularly in the High Medieval legends of Arthurian Romance. Fairness under the law, chivalry, honesty, these were all ideals of Christian society. Do you think the law is fair in secular society today? What of "anarcho-tyranny"? What of Tommy Alexandrovitch? Do you think Klaus Schwab deserves to be strolling Italian beaches dressed in women's underwear? Or should he be behind bars? Secular society has failed to reproduce the meritocracy that made Christian Europe magnificent.

File: buddha.png (993 KB, 1280x720)

993 KB PNG

>>543590949
Let me recommend just Not Thinking.

>>543593104
>the King has a son
OK so two different people now

>>543593067
God the Father gave us the perfect example of a perfect Father and Son relation ship.

If we are to be the actual children of God, then we should follow His perfect Son.

It's not that hard.

>>543593046
Again, Christian Europe had its faults. But most if not all of the examples that you point to are violations of actual Christian doctrine, not manifestations of them. If the goal of Christianity is to be Christ-like, then you can't point to a Spanish Inquisitor peeling someone's fingernails apart as a representation of that belief system.

Such behavior was and is the status quo in pagan and secular societies; Christianity is the antithesis of such thought, even if humans aren't perfect executors of the doctrine.

>>543593304
Exactly the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 different persons.

>>543593242
I've been down that path. I volunteered to serve soup in Buddhist temples when I was living in the Orient as a child. Ultimately, I found the worldview less fulfilling than Christianity. Although some Buddhist teachings are quite beautiful.

>>543593307
>Father and Son relation ship
Right, still 2 different people

>>543593150
>Do you think the law is fair in secular society today?
For most cases, yes. The ones that catch the most attention, like Lindsay Clancy, are so notable precisely because of how obviously insane the defense and the jurors are to claim she's anything but 100% guilty.
>What of Tommy Alexandrovitch? Do you think Klaus Schwab deserves to be strolling Italian beaches dressed in women's underwear?
I don't know either of these two or what they did. They sound like they should be in jail, and maybe a Christian court system would have put them there, but it'd also likely convict more innocents, too.

>>543593348
Right, so Jesus isn't God according to your logic

>>543593395
Buddhism teaches a lot of great things like discipline, self sacrifice, loyalty, kindness, abstaining from lust. These are all great, however they have no hope for afterlife.

>>543589626
Free Will. Embrace it or fail.

>>543593447
He isn't God, He has the same divine nature as God and all the authority and power of God so He practically is God.

>>543593498
>He isn't God
Right so back to
>>543592710
>you're in the camp that Jesus isn't God

>>543593553
Then lets define God.

God can be a person, or it can be a title.

Jesus isn't the person of God the Father, yet he has the title of being God.

>>543593322
>Christianity is the antithesis of such thought,
From your perspective, sure. From their perspective, they think all the atrocities they're committing are for God. This is the inevitable result when you have a belief system that's unfalsifiable but also incredibly open to interpretation. If you get it in your head that you personally know what God wants better than anyone else, you can justify anything. God is always correct, after all. This is how you get Peter Thiel, who argues that the population be terrorized to prevent the end times.

>>543593439
It seems you're a little less willing to entertain the possibility that life was better under Christian Europe than you are the possibility that you might look down and see three apples instead of two, one day...

Maybe you are right; maybe life is better in this technological world that secular society has created. My self-guided study of history still through primary sources (not my "schooling", which was useless) only extends to the early Medieval period. So far I've found Christian society more palatable than both the pagan societies of antiquity and the world I live in today, but maybe that will change as I read more. So far, the Amish seem happier to me than the inhabitants of Silicon Valley.

File: asfga.jpg (1.46 MB, 1984x2807)

1.46 MB JPG

>>543589626
Oh here, let me go ahead and settle this for you:

Everything about Christianity that's ACTUALLY TRUE is going to be reflected in the metaphysics of the actual universe.

You can argue about details, but the most important part of "The Jesus Thing" vs "The Satan Thing" is simply being a FRIEND to your brother-soul and not an ADVERSARY. That's it.

Its so simple, OF COURSE a worldly church had to bury it until they could twist it into a loyalty oath.

>>543593597
>Then lets define God
Man's anthropomorphic personal feelings >>543593597
>yet he has the title of being God.
No, he has the title of being the Christ

>>543593651
>This is the inevitable result when you have a belief system that's unfalsifiable but also incredibly open to interpretation.
Haven't we just been through a discussion showing that all belief systems meet such criteria? The problem is more fundamentally with human nature. There are worldviews that take a stance against the ignoble parts of the human race, and there are worldviews (like much of secularism and paganism) that embrace such things.

Christianity (again, although imperfect in humanity's execution of it) is a stand against the undesirable impulses of human nature.

>>543593676
>It seems you're a little less willing to entertain the possibility that life was better under Christian Europe than you are the possibility that you might look down and see three apples instead of two, one day...
We went over how I would have had a three-week long crisis if that happened. It's easier to talk about 1+1=3 because the example is so absurd I don't think it will ever happen to me. As opposed to right now, you're trying to convince me to change my opinion on medieval Europe, and I just can't say I'd live there as opposed to here.

File: e40edf1c4d88a681a50134d5c(...).png (3.71 MB, 1323x1872)

3.71 MB PNG

>>543593842
>Christianity (again, although imperfect in humanity's execution of it) is a stand against the undesirable impulses of human nature.
The flaw of this is that christianity HOUSES many of those undesirable impulses.

Specifically, the collective form of PRIDE that comes from attaching yourself to a powerful egregore like a chuch.
Christians might be humble as individuals, but their collective attitude about their churches makes those churches behave like boisterous degenerates. (and that's before you get into their servitude to the Synagogue of Satan)

File: kjhfdk.jpg (3.01 MB, 2806x3680)

3.01 MB JPG

>>543593597
>God can be a person, or it can be a title.
Wrong. Its a concept.

You literally just dropped an O. The word you're looking for is GOOD.
That's why "God" is three. There are three planes with their own inherant form of Good.
Power in the material (Father)
Love in the astral (Son)
Truth in the mental (Holy Spirit)

>>543593842
>Haven't we just been through a discussion showing that all belief systems meet such criteria?
Yes, and you can say my belief that there is inherent value to human life to be completely groundless. But the difference is that God is an unaccountable yet always correct entity. Justifying atrocity is much easier when you don't have to actually explain why genociding a rival nation is actually the moral thing to do.

File: b6b463cc759f468f2c0d8a9f2(...).jpg (906 KB, 2201x3000)

906 KB JPG

>>543594133
>God is an unaccountable yet always correct entity.
This is why its important not to personify "God".

If you jumped off a cliff, you would not blame the force of gravity for pulling you downwards.
Its the same way with Goodness in the universe. The universe responds to what we do.

Something like genocide might be a great triumph for material power, but the extent of astral/soul-level atrocity means that you have an even bigger "bad" to go with that "good", and the universe will settle you up for it.

>>543593977
Another example of "in spite of", rather than "because of". The churches that behave in that way are in error. Pride is explicitly prohibited by the Bible in multiple places.
>>543593951
Maybe you personally wouldn't trade lives with the average Medieval citizen, but then, neither would Elon Musk. When discussing such things, we have to look at general societal trends and disregard personal prefererences (to the extent that we can). What was the suicide rate of Medieval Europe? How many hours a day did they work? How many were able to reproduce? How happy were they, generally? These are the questions we have to ask.

Maybe "High Medieval" is a bad era as an example owing to lack of (Christian-driven) technological progress. We can consider the mid-1800s and ask the same questions, if you like. Or we can even ask the question today: would you rather live in 87% Christian Serbia or in Secular New York?

>>543594283
*preferences
Sorry, running on not much sleep.

File: ujhgfjhfg.jpg (838 KB, 800x1200)

838 KB JPG

>>543594283
>Pride is explicitly prohibited by the Bible in multiple places.
Doesn't matter. Christians don't engage with metaphysics enough to understand egregores, so they're totally blind to their collective pride.

They allow their churches to very much "become God", when the mindset should be more strictly focused that, "A map is NOT the territory", and a church is not divinity itself.

>>543594283
>Or we can even ask the question today: would you rather live in 87% Christian Serbia or in Secular New York?
New York, easily. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be better than this dump of a country. Anecdotally, the people here tend to be the most stubborn and illogical people I've ever had to deal with.

>>543594395
You're right, but this only contributes to my original point that the problem is with human nature and not the doctrine itself. We can either combat the negative aspects of human nature or embrace them. The doctrine of Christianity is to combat them.

>>543594428
I'm sorry for you. I can empathize; there are not many people around my area willing to engage in philosophical discourse like this, either. That's why I come to 4chan.

>It is the task of the enlightened not only to ascend to learning and to see the good but to be willing to descend again to those prisoners and to share their troubles and their honors, whether they are worth having or not. And this they must do, even with the prospect of death.

I would wholeheartedly disagree about New York, but it seems we're straying into the realm of personal preference again because I framed the question so poorly.

>>543593832
>anthropomorphic personal feelings
No man comes to the Father except by the Son.

this means you can definitely have a personal relation ship with Jesus as a person in order to come back to the Father.

>>543594608
It's all cool, these aren't topics I can talk to anyone here either. Comparing Serbia and the US is kind of unfair, seeing as most people college-age like me want to flee Serbia for the West. If it were New York versus a more rural and religious US state or EU country, I might pick that over New York.

File: 1657714652121.jpg (1.4 MB, 2048x2732)

1.4 MB JPG

>>543594608
Bro, it doesn't matter if a society is religious because society is worldly.
If it IS religious, it will ALWAYS cause problems by twisting Goodness with its own incentives.

Here's what you're sleeping on tho: Think about how just "The circumstances of material peace and plenty" allow people to actually have time for reflection and refine their souls a bit?

Hell, even being able to CONTRAST YOURSELF against a blatantly corrupt world isn't an entirely negative thing... Especially if it can be done within some level of lowered stakes and safety compared to the deadliness of the base world.
Read: Even GETTING SCREWED OVER is better in our world!

>>543594766
>No man comes to the Father except by the Son
Like I said, personal feelings and opinions

>>543593597
If god has the property of being all-powerful and all-seeing, jesus can't be god. He could be a a co-god or assistant to god.

>>543594790
I was attempting (poorly) to draw a contrast between stereotypical secular society and Christian society, but even New York is a bad example since it was founded by Christians. My point really is, I'd rather live amongst people that don't push sodomy on children, don't encourage promiscuity, don't abort the unborn, don't disregard the family unit, don't embrace feminism, &c... than those that do. I personally find the morals and ideals of secular society to be abhorrent, and my personal preference is apparently vindicated by the general trends concerning quality of life in such societies. As Western society has abandoned Christianity, people have become less happy. We can debate whether their abandonment of Christianity was the cause or merely correlates, but I don't think any serious person would argue that the general population is happier today than before. Anyone asserting that would need a damn good explanation for the suicide rate.

>>543592776
>god works in mysterious ways bro

>>543595133
>Anyone asserting that would need a damn good explanation for the suicide rate.
There's no real explanation because it's exactly what it says on the tin. Atheists are more suicidal than Christians. The state of the world is depressing, partly for the reasons you described, though the real stressor in life, from what I'm noticing, is financial. The economy is in the gutter, people are losing jobs to automation, and the rich have never been more prosperous. Christianity does offer respite, and I won't say that hope isn't valuable, but I feel like it can encourage a "I'll win where it really counts in heaven" mentality that makes you waste the one guarantee in life: life itself.

>>543589740
Ignoring the fact that not a proper understanding of the Trinity, what is absurd about it? God, being perfectly morally good, must also be perfectly just. yet God is also perfectly merciful and gracious. You would need some means by which Justice and Mercy can intersect - the unrepentant to eternal damnation, the repentant to eternal life. And that means is the cross. Christ took upon the sin of the world on the cross, it was crucified with Him. His Body and Blood shed for the forgiveness of sins. God doesn't dismiss our sins, He forgives them, so the means of forgiveness would logically be very dramatic (the crucifixion of God himself) because our sin is a big deal. The wages of sin, any sin, is death after all.

>>543595492
For many people, "I will win where it really counts in heaven" is the one thing that prevents them from throwing their lives away in suicide or in some other death of despair.

Financial woes are largely an issue with usury, which has been completely destigmatized and has consumed nearly the entire planet at this point. What limitation does secular thought place on usury? The Christian limitation has been cast aside for a long time, but Christian doctrine does nevertheless place a penalty on usury: usury is a sin, and the wages of sin is death.

So an argument can be made that even the financial system would improve under a society guided by Christian doctrine.

>>543595738
>God, being perfectly morally
Is it objectively wrong to circumcise a healthy baby boy?

>>543595807
Yes, and the vast majority of Christians throughout history have not practiced circumcision. Circumcision only entered American society through secular means: jewish doctors in the first half of the 20th century convinced American families that the science said it was healthier.

>>543595909
>Yes
Which the means it was wrong when God commanded it too.

>>543595986
Have you ever studied gnosticism? You may learn something.

>>543596028
Lol the OT God is the big bad

>>543596088
...yes?

>>543595807
Considering God is the source of objective morality, nothing commanded by God can be objectively immoral. So the answer is No, not if commanded or established as a covenant by God.

>>543595772
That's fair. The moment I sent that message I thought, 'Am I making his point for him?' and I was. Don't have anything else to say, and I have to go (my IP changed since I'm typing this on data instead my home wifi). It was good talking to you, anon. I'll think more about this conversation. Best wishes.

>>543596178
Very much enjoyed this talk anon. You've given me more to think about, too. Have a great week.

>>543596167
>No, not if commanded or established as a covenant by God.
Sorry but you don't understand what objective means. It's absent personal feelings and opinions. Like God

>>543596139
Interesting. Who's the God in the NT?

>>543596471
There are like a billion gnostic texts and their derivatives that will explain all this to you better than an anon with a 2000 character post limit. Why don't you go read them (and some set theory and David Hume) instead of humiliating yourself?

>the man born of a virgin who came back from the dead!
>yes, it REALLY happened!
>no i am not smoking DMT

>>543596820
>instead of humiliating yourself?
You goons make up claims you can never back lol

You still didn't answer the question though.

>>543589740
YHVH is Satan, it makes internal sense once you accept that, but can't make any sense if you don't. That's why Nicean Christians need "faith" - faith that the religion somehow is somehow internally consistent even though they can't understand how

>>543596893
>If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

>>543597431
Sorry bro but virgin girls in Roman age Levant don't give birth.

>>543589626
Atheism is preferable to believing in abrahamic crap.

>>543595738
You do realize this is just a bunch of made up nonsense correct? There is no logical thought pattern in Christianity. It is literally a mental prison.

File: cb2.png (207 KB, 800x600)

207 KB PNG

the existence of one god can be logically disproven through philosophical reason. there must always be more than one outside of the reality the gods are physically is in. since theres no god thats physically here it implies for there to be a god existing within our own reality, because it has not previously existed within our reality, requires multiple gods to exist.

socrates, zeno, and parmenides proved this 250 years before the bible was even conceived. its also likely why christianity diverted towards the trinity, because the intellectual world in pagan europe was not unfamiliar with plato's process for determining that. essentially the past 2000 years have been about jews getting someone into power to shoehorn christianity in order to destroy intellectual theism. because christianity was never about what was true, it was about what most benefitted jewry.

File: Polish_20250502_192707750.jpg (3.24 MB, 4096x8865)

3.24 MB JPG

>>543596028
i certainly did.
jewish things are jewish, thats what i learned

>>543599580
>atheist trannies profane the sanctity of marriage and the act of creating new life
Wow, I guess you showed me.

File: _(1578).png (588 KB, 1186x704)

588 KB PNG

>>543596167
do you think a divine being would order systematic mutilation of its own creations? i would think if he wanted them circumcised, he would just design them precircumcised on the back-end. if anything, it can be interpreted as a giant middle finger to divinity.
>>543599659
im just showing you jewish people being jewish. maybe furries are more your speed?

>>543600048
>gnostic garbage on the rise again

File: 1790760164100201.png (633 KB, 1475x1173)

633 KB PNG

>>543590595
You are a mentally ill trans-jew.

>>543596285
You need an objective, authoritative moral mind to point to in order to have objective morality. That mind is God. Otherwise you cannot tell me by what objective standard circumcision, or rape, or murder, is immoral.

>>543600181
i dont think jews and the people who call themselves gnostics know that the label "gnostic" was being applied sarcastically, and i think because theyre often former christians, theyre not reading the material to find that out for themselves.

>>543600283
>If you don't worship my Chinese dan who lived in China and spoke Chinese and taught exclusively to the Chinese about Chinese customs then you're Chinese

>>543598506
The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men

>>543597051
You don't understand what Christians mean by faith. Faith is not something that is conjured up but is a working of the Holy Spirit, given through the means of faith which is the Word and the Sacrements (Baptism and Lord's Supper). God does the heavy lifting needed to possess the faith needed to believe. In fact He does all the lifting. God upholds both sides of the bargain needed for each of our salvations.

>>543600048
Doesn't matter what I think but what God thinks, and He intentionally decided His plan for salvation would involve what mankind sees as foolish. His OT ways tend to have symbolic meaning that points to Jesus, a shadow of things to come.

File: Screenshot_20261001_11194(...).png (1.07 MB, 1439x2421)

1.07 MB PNG

>>543600324
which god?
how did you come by that god, and not another?
how did you attune yourself to the will of that god?

File: mhaou6.png (182 KB, 961x1912)

182 KB PNG

>>543600820
so what youre saying is you trust jews to act as a medium between you and divinity, and for them to honestly deliver you honest answers. rookie mistake.

why not just circumvent the completely unnecessary jewish middlemen entirely?

>>543601332
the God of Abraham of course. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Does not say "the Gospel contains the power of God" but IS the power of God. Exposure to the Word will always lead to conversion so long as the person does not resist grace. That's why demons hate when believers preach Christ Crucified for the forgiveness of sins.

>>543601441
I trust God, who protected His holy Word and Gospel, as it is the product of the Holy Spirit and not of man. When you see a hand-written book, do you way "this was written by a man" or "this was written by a pen"? The man wrote the book, the pen was merely the instrument. In the same way, God wrote all Scripture, the men (Jews) were merely the instrument.
Also your meme is deceptive because second temple Jews are not the Talmudic larping Jews of today

>>543600324
You still don't understand what objective means

>>543589626
You are brown and you have made this board unusable.

>>543600324
>Otherwise you cannot tell me by what objective standard circumcision, or rape, or murder, is immoral
Neither can you lol

Consider the same God is subjective on the matter, lmao

File: Circular_reasoning.jpg (57 KB, 604x523)

57 KB JPG

>>543601476
>The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation

File: john 4-22.png (56 KB, 800x500)

56 KB PNG

>>543601476
>The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

File: So_out_of_the_thousands_o(...).png (527 KB, 629x624)

527 KB PNG

>>543601476
so what you are saying is you did not isolate yourself from other people and come to those same conclusions of your own accord independently of the people who wrote it down, i.e. the name of your god is yahweh, israelites are his chosen people, ten commandments for noahides, 613 mitzvahs for the choosen, foreskins, etc, and youre just sorta trusting someone else knows, and is right, without having any experience in determining whether anything is true or applicable to reality?

i would think the very first page of the bible wouldve been enough to dissuade you that those people have no idea what theyre talking about. theyre on an earth thats 6000 years old, where the first man postdates human beings, the shape of the earth is wrong, and one that is fundamentally incompatible with the earth you live on. but you decided to ignore those glaring deficiencies in understanding, and trust people who cannot properly conceive of their own material reality to have a perfect knowledge of the immaterial?

thats like.. spiritual suicide.

Virginia opossums are Christian.

>>543594836
No, it comes from our scripture and His Word, has nothing to do with my feelings.

>>543595102
Everything was created for and by His Son Jesus.

>>543602018
The Samaritans were basically half breeds who worshipped a knockoff temu version of Judaism spawned by the northern Kingdom of Israel after the split after Solomon's reign, since the Temple resided in the south. True Judaism remained in the southern kingdom of Judah, and it was from the tribe of Judah that Jesus, (whose name is literally The Lord is Salvation), comes.

File: 1780160865373629.jpg (170 KB, 656x1200)

170 KB JPG

>>543601593
if your god is lying to you about the most basic things like the shape of the earth, then why would you think youre worshipping a god? why is your god a liar? does he not trust you enough to tell you the truth? why does he require deceipt to obtain his ends, or why is your god capable of being wrong? why are you? these are questions you should be asking

>>543602416
>comes from our scripture
Again, personal feelings

>>543602416
>His Word, has nothing to do with my feelings.
It does

File: HJxxa7qXEAAaoZX.jpg (226 KB, 1408x768)

226 KB JPG

>>543601719
The bible is not the Word of God, it's scripture. The Holy scripture can contain errors but the Word is perfect. We know it's perfect because it's in the correct Spirit.

File: 1790470537DOrH1fvSLmLrbQ.jpg (77 KB, 640x367)

77 KB JPG

>>543602436
thank you jewsus

>>543602690
>It does
I have no emotional attachment to what the Word says. It's just like gravity, you don't get emotional when you drop a glass bottle of milk and it breaks do you?

>>543602692
>The bible is not the Word of God
Lol, take it up with this anon
>>543601476

>>543602772
That's a result of fallen man, fallen creation.

>>543602778
>I have no emotional attachment to what the Word says
You do

>>543602779
The Gospel is the Word.I have not problem with what that anon said.

>>543602829
ok

>>543602839
>The Gospel is the Word.
The word of who?

>>543602903
God, duh

>>543602171
I was atheist til age 30. Then I actually did what every atheist claims to have done, I read the Bible. I started in new testament (the four books of the gospel). By John I realized I believed. This faith was not my own doing but the doing of the Holy Spirit, the faith given to me by reading the gospel, and sustained in me by continuing to hear the Word preached at Church and by reading Scripture, by Baptism, and by participation in the Lord's Supper.
The faith given to me by God makes it effortless to understand that the world is indeed as Genesis describes it. We all came from Adam and Eve, only 8 humans survived on Noah's Ark, the earth is about 6000 years old, and Jonah was swallowed by a large fish. Thanks be to God.

>>543602868
What version of "the Word" do you prefer?

Isn't it weird that neither the Old Testament, the New Testament, or even the Quran mention anything that should've been outside the scope of knowledge available to people at the time? Like Angel Michael didn't come down and give people polynomial notation or a practical miracle like explaining germ theory.

>>543602692
>The bible is not the Word of God
>>543602927
Lmao

>>543602951
there is no preference, in the bible it tells you when God speaks. Everything He says is the Word.

>>543602988
right, the bible is scripture, it's not the Word, the bible contains the Word.

This is extremely important or else you end up being judaized.

>>543603000
>Everything He says is the Word.
>>543602692
>The bible is not the Word of God
Lmao

>>543603035
You're really deep in pilpul my friend

>>543603062
Not every thing in the bible is God speaking smart one.

>>543603109
Not everything God said was for gentile nations, some of it was just for Jews.

File: 1776952266815154m.jpg (100 KB, 724x1024)

100 KB JPG

>>543603113
You're one of these lmao

>>543598506
You do realize that merely declaring something to be illogical and nonsensical doesn't actually make that thing illogical and nonsensical.

There is no "your truth", there is only The Truth and Jesus Christ, the Son of God manifest in human flesh, is The Truth. The Bible has stood the test of time greater than any other work in history.

Cope and seethe, queer.

>>543603155
No, Christians generally agree on the core aspects of what the bible says.

>>543603135
>I decide what is and isn't the word of God
Lmao

>>543603224
Most Christians agree the Bible is the word of God

>>543603229
Yes, because I was baptized in the Spirit. It's the first initial response to becoming a Christian. If you don't do this you WILL go to hell when you die.

>>543603268
That's a popular misunderstanding. No Catholic, or Protestant will tell you that God is speaking the entire time throughout the bible.

>>543603272
>Yes
Lmao, the hubris on this one. You also, subjectively decide what it means too.

2 very emotional positions

File: 1642840997183.jpg (62 KB, 680x382)

62 KB JPG

>>543589797
There's not really a problem there. It's a semantic argument about what "knowledge" is.

I believe "pure godlike knowledge" doesn't exist and you do. I believe "human knowledge" exists and you don't consider that to constitute "real knowledge". Even though our knowledge is imperfect it's good enough for us as humans.
You are simply redefining what the word "knowledge" usually means and make it mean something else. Out in the real world we make predictions based on empirical observations and that's what refer to as "knowledge".

>>543603331
I don't, the bible is 6th grade reading material, anyone can interpret it

>>543603327
>That's a popular misunderstanding
Not really no

> will tell you that God is speaking the entire time throughout the bible.
That's not the argument. Rather, the.enire bible is the inspired word of God