What is the best part of the Bible?

When that woman pours a bottle of perfume on Jesus' head and he says "Don't bother help the poor there is too many of them"

GOSPEL OF JOHN
O
S
P
E
L

O
F

J
O
H
N

Literally any book of the Bible with verifiable authorship

AKA anything Paul wrote and nothing else

It really does BTFO a lot of people with a misguided view of Christianity. Ultimately, helping the poor is important but it's not the most important thing. The most important thing is worshiping Christ.

Idiot

this, the Gospel of John is sublime. The Psalms are the best part of the OT, along with Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs

Have I offended you, user?

resurrection, but it's all the best

Jesus is just a figure. His teachings are what matters.

Also an idiot

reading it... or singing it

youtube.com/watch?v=H9W6XKbn6TE

Eckhart Tolle pls go

Enlighten me daddy

I read the whole bible cover to cover.
Honestly I didn't find any part particularly good or interesting. First of all, it's a translation, and an ancient translation. So the prose is particularly dull and bland. Secondly, the meaning of the various texts is often ambiguous and unclear... I guarantee you that if it wasn't for the Church telling you what the point of the text was, people who read the bible would walk away completely lost. It's only after years of indoctrination and brainwashing that people walk away with what we know today as the christian formula, i.e. jesus is god in the flesh come down to take the punishment for our sins, and the purpose of life is to worship this all-powerful being.

No

Quran is beautiful

Read Paul

What kind of an asshle stores books in a vase?

>First of all, it's a translation
Embarrassing

No? What do you mean? This wasn't a yes or no question....

P.S. I also read the Quran cover to cover, it is much clearer than the bible, but is still rife with ancient prejudices.

Just try to read the Quran without the context.

It reads like a commentary to the Bible, essentially.

It really IS like Bible chapter II which is why I like it so much.

I desperately, unironically want to know what he meant by this

Jesus teaches that He, Himself, is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Those he taught, His disciples, profess this plainly. Who are you to ignore the true significance of His teaching? You clearly haven't read the Gospels if you think Jesus simply taught some sort of effete, new age, progressive morality.

Ecclesiastes

God died on the cross and the only thing left is the church.

user, that's heresy

Shut up Ahmed, the Quran is the most repetitive, tedious thing I've ever seen. Every single Ayah 'There's only one God, he's very angry. Submit to God. Be warned, he's angry. There's only one of him, lest you forget what I've already mentioned 27 times on this page.'

>It really IS like Bible chapter II which is why I like it so much.

how so? cuz that sounds retarded

Quran seems to be OT on steroids, but more doctrinal and significantly younger and that looks like God's revelation of what He wants His people to do has reverted.

Yeah but it's actually rather nice. In other words, if God exists and he has done these things like create floods and do mass things all at once, we know him to be a very calculated, fear-invoking awe-inspiring being.

The Quran is the depiction of God, first hand.

Eh.

All monotheistic religions have an element of that forcefulness.

It's because we know God to be real, an exists.

Neoplatonic Islam is the only way Veeky Forums!

He's referencing Psalm 22, whose messianic prophecy he is fulfilling. He makes other references to Psalm 22 while being crucified.

Does anyone know what Dumbledore meant by saying: “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”

>religions have an element of that forcefulness.
Except Christianity, somewhat.

It's what Judaism and Islam have in common that I enjoy.

The book of Daniel is easily the coolest thing ever.

>Neoplatonic approach to the least metaphysically workable major religion
>"the only way"

>mfw I tell hardcore creationist conservatives that the New Testament was written by Hellenic Jews and (((Jesus))) led the world's very first social justice movement

Sermon on the Mount, of course, OP.

It's a quote of Psalm 22, which is a messianic psalm. More than likely, His estrangement from the Father, which was necessary in order that He might become Sin, is what causes Him to say it. Man is born estranged, but through the Cross, he can be united with the Father. Likewise, Jesus is born united, but through the Cross, He is separated from the Father (for a moment). Both processes, both passings through the Cross, result in new life, resurrection.

Wait woah woah woah.

There are whole realms of Islam which are based on metaphysics, friend. Stop being dumb.

I AM telling you, there are Neoplatonists who apply this sort of thinking to Islam well.

This is the perfect solution to our religion problem, Veeky Forums. Because it seems like whenever anyone brings up Islam it is labeled as dumb, however now, we can show people we have done our research. In order to be a Muslim you need only have read three books, The Old Testament, The New Testament, and the Qu'ran, but in order to be a Neoplatonic Muslim you must have read many more books!

Indeed, it's the only way. Master race. Reminder the Qu'ran never said to wear burkas or kill anyone because of their religion

If they were smart they'd blitz you on what I am sure are many allegorical misunderstandings of a surface reader but then they're hardcore creationists, so...

>Reminder the Qu'ran never said to wear burkas or kill anyone because of their religion
You are straight up wrong. Jihad has two meanings: one external war to spread the word, one internal war that we must surrender.

>tfw no Kierkegaard or Ellul-reading Christian qt

tfw

>There are whole realms of Islam which are based on metaphysics, friend. Stop being dumb.
I know there are. I said it was the least workable. Which it is. Not completely unapproachable.

But if you can explain to me why Neoplatonic Islam is a much more fertile ground than Neoplatonic Christianity I'd be open to hearing it. Though I very much doubt that you're going to say anything to pique my interest, no offense.

>to be a Neoplatonic Muslim you must have read many more books!
To be a Neoplatonic anything you must have read many more books than most people. What's your point?

No, I mean there is a passage in the Qu'ran that specifically warns AGAINST killing others because of their religion. I can find the Sura if you want.

I found a couple

Say to the disbelievers [that is, atheists, or polytheists, namely those who reject God] "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine" (109:1–6)

fight in God's cause against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits [in aggression]; God does not love transgressors" (2:190)

It's basically just the principle of aggressive self-defense. The kind of thing Britain used to win World War II.

Not that guy, nor do I support Neoplatonic Islam (Ghazali absolutely assblasted neoplatonists in perpetuity already), but jihad is a defensive war, and should only occur until the opposition is prepared to make peace. It says it right there in Surah at-Tawbah (Repentance) after the verse neocons like to quote about 'killing the disbelievers wherever you find them,' (4:5 if memory serves)

Also, the Quran does state women should cover their hair and breasts (33:59), some scholars however interpret 'narrowing the gaze' to be proof of the burka/niqab, but it is predominantly cultural (only really present in the Arabian peninsula) and it's mostly, if not entirely, a Sunni phenomenon.

Ellul thinks Jesus was a Communist and that hell doesnt exist. He sucks

stopped reading when i noticed you started you post with "Eh."

Indeed. Neoplatonic Islam being more fertile ground than Neoplatonic Christianity is simple: the trinity is unwieldy. The Qu'ran pokes a salient hole in the theory of three gods being one, you cannot have this and be a monotheist. It's not a lack of comprehension, rather it's a lack of faith in unity, in the monad, which is an arithmetical quantity used by Nicomachus and Pythagoras to designate the mystical qualities of numbers.

I will say this: you can be whatever you want, I'm just saying the logical stance would be Monotheism. I would consider Christianity to be a more progressive stance than Judaism, which seems too historically and financially entrenched to even really be called a religion anymore. Islam, however, has purpose: it posits that God has come down and enacted a visible miracle in the last 1300 years, instead of 2000 years, and that is enough for me. In terms of religions, I like positive proof of a God's existence.

Suffice to say, Plato was a monotheist at heart. He has a place with any of the Abrahamic religions. But if you don't mind, Neoplatonic Islam requires much faith.

There is even some creedence in dispelling much of the Hadiths. Just taking a quranistic approach to this is what I suggest. Saying ISIS will go to hell puts you even further in God's arms, because they are enacting Satan's work, nothing more nothing less.

Now chaos is bad, so this current system has its flaws, but war is worse. Like I said I could find the sura for you if you want, but God basically says 'Do not kill others because of their religion'.

Always be open-minded. Just because a people has misinterpreted something like a religion doesn't mean the teachings aren't true. This is what Mohammed taught us about Christianity and what I"m teaching you about Islam.

And finally, this kind of religion puts intellectualism first, and violence last. It kind of combines a lot of different aspects of religions and makes us think that the political arena has potential for religious monotheism, because of its approach towards Good.

Objective morality is something this country needs and the world needs. We are starting to see worldwide cultural decadence. And this does not bode well.

Overall, I just want a religion that makes me hopeful for the future. That something or someone else may come and cure us of evil still further and in the meantime I may do my best to do what I can to remedy the general will of the public.

I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he offers a great synthesis of writers like Kierkegaard and Barth. Also, the NT is objectively anti-materialist and communalist. Certainly not communist, but it doesn't really espouse any economic system that exists today.

Acts 4:20 is essentially socialism. Fits in with The Republic quite well too.

Most great texts that are trying to give us an ideal, divine society say something like this.

"All goods were held in common, all property was shared, so there was no theft"

Makes sense. That passage from Acts is idyllic and so is The Republic. Improbable but not impossible.

Retard

It sounds like you literally only read that book.

You worship christ by self-sacrifice and service. They are the same thing.

>Objective morality is something this country needs and the world needs.
I was with you until this line. I think objective morality is precisely what's keeping us down: it's owing to the Jehova world cycle that we're currently in. One of edict and law. A self-chaining. We need to take the principle of Moses and invert it through creative imagination. Law isn't going to save us. All it'll do is further compound misery in the world. It is the reproach of the "Good Man" that keeps us from Paradise. But then this is closer to being a hermeneutic reading of history so take it however you want.

This.

>helping the poor isn't the main thing
>just worship Christ and you're all set
No. Christ spoke AT LENGTH about our obligation to the poor as one of the conditions of salvation. Pic related, it's you.

>We need to take the principle of Moses and invert it through creative imagination

And this, my friend, is what reading a lot teaches us: that Nietzsche was completely right about self-empowerment but wrong about one thing: God not being real. It is THROUGH God that we are empowered! And this is the key.

Essentially, this is why you read Nietzsche first, then Kierkegaard. Because even though Kierkegaard doesn't reference Nietzsche, it doesn't matter they are trying to say the same thing, but one uses the material reality to try to say it, while Kierkegaard uses the synthesis of Soul (or will) and Body (or mind) that is united by God to try and explain it. It's why the trinity is such an almost-perfect concept. Everything is God, so God can be nothing but one. However, there are different aspects of reality which lend itself being analyzed on the basis of material ground, and then spiritual grounds.

The synthesis of this is God. It's not that Kierkegaard was wrong, but that instead of viewing it as a trinity, it's really just two parts under an umbrella. And the rain is evil, something that exists wholly outside.

Now here's the interesting part about Kierkegaard's philosophy: we're living in his worst nightmare. His philosophy was actually really practical. He viewed hell as being completely deterministic. Where, instead of our will determining our lives and surroundings, this was COMPLETELY determined by external forces. Sounds kind of similar doesn't it?

These are the best threads on Veeky Forums. Guaranteed.

Works are required for salvation in the same sense that getting wet is required for jumping into a lake. Works are an indicative end, not a means.

"By their works you shall know them." Helping the poor isn't a prerequisite to salvation. What matters for salvation is belief in, and devotion to, Jesus as God. However, a genuine faith in Christ, and a willingness to follow in his footsteps, will necessarily lead a true disciple to help the poor and also do all the other things Christ commanded his disciples to do. But the acts themselves aren't boxes you check off to obtain salvation. They flow from genuine love for Christ.

You can have works and not be saved. You can't be saved and not have works.
Therefore, works are required for salvation, but they are not what saves you.

That was the other part about the Qu'ran that was good.

God was constantly asking you to give to the poor.

Basically, it seems that God exists and he philosophically has a very severe stance towards giving to the poor. This is the reason why Jesus acted the way he did.

Taking religion in this way, you can almost perform a scientific analysis of God's character. Taking all the holy texts, I mean.

Also what of Plato's story of the Flood? At the end of Laws part III he talks about Floods like perhaps they have occurred before the one that afflicted Atlantis. Perhaps there was more than one? Perhaps it is something God does when humanity becomes too sinful. We know for sure that God has done it at least once because of the tale of Noah. But how often do we really know that it flooded like this? Certainly God has smited whole cities like Sodom and Gomorrah. And there are mentions of cities smited that existed during the transcription of The Holy Bible that were not mentioned in the Bible but in the Qu'ran.

Very interesting.

The other Gospels are cool but in John Jesus becomes a total faggot and douchebag. The other psalms have interesting, esoteric parables and teachings, Jesus also being very understated about his role as Christ/God in the flesh -- some might even argue that he's not paying that much attention to it -- and preferring to keep it hidden, and in the Gospel of John it's all

>OMG I'm like the SON OF GOD, I'm like GOD himself and all you Jewish cucks are going to HELL because I'm GOD and all you need to do to be saved is BELIEVE IN ME because I'm fucking GOD IN THE FLESH sola fide motherfuckers

Easily the worst Gospel. Also, no I'm not trolling, I'm really as dumb as you think I am, if you think I'm dumb, which I'm alright with.

>>Neoplatonic approach to the least metaphysically workable major religion
>>"the only way"
It's like you've never heard of the Sufis, probably the most interesting mystics of any mainstream world religion.

Also one more interesting aspect to all of this that might bring it home for everyone reading.

There is nothing stating or stipulating in the Bible what the technology was of the inhabitants at the time before the flood. Indeed, it could have just been shepherding and nomadic families living in the cradle of civilization.

Or this stuff may have existed. They certainly had enough time in their lives to develop great things. People back in those days lived to be centuries old. Why could they not have developed technology with all that collective wisdom.

We, as fallen from God, have relatively short lives, and we have our sins to blame for that, but through God's grace they lived to be centuries of years old. Don't you think they could have developed some advanced technology with that kind of life span? This is what the lord meant when they were gone in to sin perhaps. That they had fallen too far with their morals and were not of perfect faith like Noah.

Imagine living in an atheistic society like that and being told to build an ark. Noah must have gone through absolute hell. Everyone was gainsaying him. The Qu'ran goes over this in more detail. They HATED Noah and everything he stood for. Simply for saying God was warning of a flood.

>psalms
*gospels

sounds like an annoying git

Genesis 2-3. There's a reason it's the most referenced story in the Bible besides the crucifixion and ressurection. Almost every verse carries volumes of meaning that resonates with almost everyone.

>least metaphysically workable

Enoch

420 lmao

The Quran

His books are pretty comfy. He read a bunch of Nietzsche but then became a nihilist anyways, while constantly appealing to Nietzsche. It's really interesting.