Why can't we have a Christian thread on this History & Humanities board? What the hell?

Why can't we have a Christian thread on this History & Humanities board? What the hell?

Other urls found in this thread:

desustorage.org/his/thread/1066454/
desustorage.org/his/thread/1065737/.
desustorage.org/his/thread/1047956/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
ccel.org/fathers.html
covenantkeepers.co.uk/sinai.htm
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

mods are atheists

inb4 christcucks

Christian shitposters overstayed their welcome.

We are here to stay.

this

The problem is that you can't have a secular debate about anything without Fundamentalists (And Fedoras) coming and using religious or ideological arguments against those who try to use archaeological arguments.

So the solution is?

there's always a ton of these types of threads. even though i do post more often in these threads than in others i have to say it's getting to be too much

>tons
and it's mostly atheists trying to start arguments.

>can't have Christianity discussion on /pol/
>can't have Christianity discussion on Veeky Forums

why does it matter who starts them?

dude there's an Eden thread up right now

the solution is to be respectful. If you already fundamentally disagree on something just don't bother replying to them. Find or make a different thread for it. There's no point in rehashing a 200-post name-calling contest anytime someone calls the divinity of the pope into question or calls the orthodoxy cucks.

This is fucking Veeky Forums try not to be so thin-skinned, after all you're being christians on a site that hosts discussion of anal vore and summoning succubuses IRL

Because it's called falseflagging and then trying to go on to say that
>Look at the Christcuck arguing while I look oh so superior

What is a "Christian thread?" A thread where only Christians are allowed to post?

They deleted my previous thread which was perfectly fine desustorage.org/his/thread/1066454/ and that I made in response to this one desustorage.org/his/thread/1065737/.

And I say perfectly fine because it was nothing like the bait threads I've made like desustorage.org/his/thread/1047956/

Can a janitor or mod post (anonymously) and explain to me which rule was breaking? I'm confused.

The fundamentalist false flag's probably succeeded at tainting this board's view (and the mod's) of religion entirely

No, it's for having Christian discussion.

an atheist starting a christianity thread isn't falseflagging in and of itself

this

Which is asinine, why the hell would it be deleted?
>he's now on /pol/ trying to shitpost about the Catholic Church
Fucking protestants.

>he's now on /pol/ trying to shitpost about the Catholic Church
?

I don't come often to Veeky Forums, but I'd like to express my surprise that there are actual Christians on Veeky Forums . Given the passive nature of the religion, I would expect Christians to never step foot in a place as eager to offend as Veeky Forums.

On another note, how the hell do Christians who can at least think rationally keep being... you know, Christians? Hasn't science completely refuted the notion of the Christian version of a God (you know, Earth that is just thousands of years old etc.)? Or am I misunderstanding Christians here?

Weren't some of those guys Catholics that stayed Catholics their entire lives?

So how many of those Young Earth posters are real and how many are not?

>blue boards are red boards
Come on.
>science
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

Oh and your beloved Big Bang theory comes from Georges LemaƮtre, a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. Pic related.

The ones without Spurdos yes
That's the joke basically

There's one who's literally everywhere. He's the one who keeps saying ''Everything properly in the bible is true.''

The fucker is on /pol/, you know the guy who claims he's a Christian yet he never goes to Church and is total fetishist to the whole Babylon bullshit. I swear everytime he pops in the thread to start shitposting it all goes down hill.
>I would expect Christians to never step foot in a place as eager to offend as Veeky Forums.
Anime user. It's all about Anime.
>On another note, how the hell do Christians who can at least think rationally keep being... you know, Christians? Hasn't science completely refuted the notion of the Christian version of a God (you know, Earth that is just thousands of years old etc.)?
That's protestant talk. Sola Scriptura is utter horseshit.

Take it easy
You aren't exactly going about this correctly.
Biblical literalism like you're equating with all of Christianity is a 19th century American Protestant invention for the most part.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

Who /BishopBarron/ here?

I dislike that pic, just because most Protestants today accept evolution. It's still funny though
Dr. Kenneth Miller is a go to for refuting the stupid Christian maymay though. Devout Roman Catholic and wrote the foremost textbook on evolution

it isn't that simple though. I was a christian long after I started seeing evidence christianity was wrong and had even accepted some of it as true. first of all there's pascal's wager, which though it doesn't actually give a good reason ti believe when other religions are factored in, expresses the fear of hell from within the faith and why you might not want to take the chance of being wrong. also there's an emotional component. you can become quite attached to this God character by imagining him watching over you and always trying to communicate with him through prayer. kinda like an imaginary friend that is also a father figure

I like him a lot too
His understanding of scripture's poetic nature that's infused with historical narratives, and ability to help explain to the faithful that genre is key to understanding scripture is a great boon to the Church. Honestly I think he'd make a good pope in the future.

What the hell? I never said that Christianity or Christian scientists have not existed. I hope Christians on Veeky Forums don't all strawman like you.

Anyway:
is what I was looking for. Thanks.

>What the hell? I never said that Christianity or Christian scientists have not existed.
But you implied that one cannot have undertsanding of science and still remain Christian because you think that the Bible is meant to be a science book.

>is what I was looking for. Thanks.
That second post is mine btw.

>What the hell? I never said that Christianity or Christian scientists have not existed. I hope Christians on Veeky Forums don't all strawman like you.
First day here or something?

he wasn't talking about science specifically though. he meant rationally reflecting on the faith and still believing

Stop being so defensive
I think this user was looking for genuine understanding and explanation rather than being a fedoralord

Am I blind and are we seeing different words?

>Hasn't science completely refuted the notion of the Christian version of a God (you know, Earth that is just thousands of years old etc.)?

user, he's being naive and asking a question. From the looks of it he's trying to be nice and not a total faggot, sure the question seems asinine but he isn't going ahead and trying to stir a massive pot of shit.

I think he genuinely believed that literalism rather than proper literary interpretation was the orthodox (little 'o' on purpose) practice.

oh i looked back at a different section. anyways "it's a metaphor" is pretty unconvincing to me. if it was meant to not be taken literally then it wouldn't seek to explain why snakes don't have legs, men are dominant over women and why childbirth is painful

>Biblical literalism like you're equating with all of Christianity is a 19th century American Protestant invention for the most part.

What are some sources on this? I'd like to study the history of the development of Christian beliefs.

Is it also true that the idea the Jesus dies for all of humanities sins is a recent one?

and I'm being defensive because atheists' only argument is ''science''.

Which is why some even smugly say ''I'm not religious because science xD'', I've had some of them smugly say this to me in real life and their attempt to make you look dumb because apparently Christianity is anti-science is unfuriating. I've also literally had to listen quietly to 2 obese literal fedora-wearing atheists (not kidding) in front of me strawmanning the shit out of the Bible while pretending that it's meant to be a science book.

Those anti-Christian lies about Christianity's ''anti-science'' are to be immediately refuted because it's impossible to have a discussion with atheists if they actually think you believe the Earth was created in a week.

>What are some sources on this? I'd like to study the history of the development of Christian beliefs.
Catechism is a good start.
>Is it also true that the idea the Jesus dies for all of humanities sins is a recent one?
No.

I just feel like it's be nice to have less "Jeebuz is lawd generul" or "R annunaki jiants reelz?" and more finely tuned discussion of the variance of doctrine and theology among rare or little known texts and traditions rarely interfaced with in modern secular society.

That and more non-Abrahamic discussion that's not oriented around facile "stoned white kid" notions of Buddhism.

Read Ross Douthat's "Bad Religion". He examines the history of the beliefs. Or go right to the writings of ccel.org/fathers.html these fellows
>Is it also true that the idea the Jesus dies for all of humanities sins is a recent one?
No
The Gospels are greco-roman biographies so they've always been meant to be read literally. People now have a harder time accepting that the bible is 73 books bound together rather than 1 book.
I think that user was actually questioning this in good faith though. In the US Evangelicals are happy to make it a fight between God and science, they'll say as much.

>You can't be christian and a man of science
>implying the former leader of the human genome project and head of the Nation institutes of health isn't a Christian

oh and I can't give links to people in real life so as soon as I try to refute the ''anti-science'' meme they simply refuse to believe me and quickly smugly say ''what about Galileo then? ;^)''

alright, let's ignore genesis. isn't exodus through chronicles supposed to be actually true still? there is no archeological evidence for Israelites being slaves in egypt, wandering in the wilderness for 40 years or even the united kingdom of david and solomon. no david means no davidic lineage for Jesus. perhaps there was a david, but he was no more than a cheiftan that only controlled Judah or parts of it. personally I don't think that's a enough of a david for the messiah

Wasn't it because Galileo was being a total cunt during the whole situation and couldn't actually prove what was going on?

Interestingly enough about him, he's a devout convert to an Evangelical strain of Christianity from atheism. IIRC he says his work on the human genome led him to a belief in God.
Just tell them what actually happened.
I'd strongly recommend the documentary Patterns of Evidence. Biggest reason for their being "no evidence" is that people refuse to look at time periods other than Ramses the Great's reign as pharaoh. Semites living in Egypt, slaves with Hebrew names, etc. have all been found. The only issue is that it's at a different time than when people think Exodus should have happened (note a year or pharaoh name isn't given in the bible it's all based on an anachronism)
Yes, but he had evidence. Just not enough to get approval to teach it as fact. But he went on doing it anyway and then shit talked the pope in his book

So he had some evidence, but not enough to say it's the whole truth?

Yes
Stellar Parallax was something he had no way of explaining for instance.

So why do people like to clamor about how Galileo was bullied by the Church even though he didn't have enough evidence to say it's true and then went on to shitpost about the Pope?

>there is no archeological evidence
covenantkeepers.co.uk/sinai.htm

a lot of the fuel for this difference in thought obviously stems from the protestant reformation. In the eyes of a more orthodox participant, I can easily imagine seeing the spread of a newly literate social class being told that the Bible is self-explanatory being concerning. Protestants are generally seen as rejecting established theological thought to preach whatever they personally see in the bible, and in my own experiences I've attended protestant churches in which the pastor came to very specific conclusions about modern social events by 'divining them' through studying the Bible. I'm not condemning protestantism, please understand, I'm just saying that this is the rep that they get and why.

being against 'Biblical Literalism' sounds antichristian from the outset, but the term is more a comment on drawing conclusions from sentence structure, sketchy contextual cues, modern moral themes, etc. in a book that is - after all - a translation from a culture far removed from today. For an extreme example, trying to claim Jesus had something to say about immigration laws by cherry picking verses about being aliens in a foreign land, etc.

Because Galileo turned out to be arguing for the right conclusion and also the Black Legend so people don't know the full history.

>worshipping the demiurge

That still doesn't excuse him from being a total asshole during the time.
>Black Legend
What's that?

>slaves with Hebrew names, etc.
these could easily be mere Canaanites though. "Hebrew" is the same language that was spoken by Canaanites and it is closely related to Phoenician. Jews shared a lot of names with non-Jews. for example there is a Canaanite warlord who we have tablets that were sent to the pharaohs at the time complaining about him and asking for troops. his son has the same name as Saul's son who fought David over control of Israel after Saul's death. various Hebrew names like Samuel (notice the -el) come from El worshippers. this is probably during the period that Egypt controlled Palestine, am I correct? where is the record of plagues? where is the record that these slaves escaped?

*pharaoh

forgot to add: the exodus and conquest of Canaan were supposedly in the 1400s BC, when Egypt was still firmly in control of the region

>where is the record of plagues? where is the record that these slaves escaped?
They erased/hid many records including one that we recently discovered about Nubians BTFOing Egypt from Upper to Lower Egypt. Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't want people to know that they experienced God's Wrath.

After the reformation England basically made a bunch of shit up about how evil the Catholic church is and how they killed zillions and repressed science to smear their Catholic rivals.
Yes, but there's no way you can actually dismiss them as Hebrew names. If there were Hebrews you'd find their names though so while it's not conclusive proof it's still something you'd need to find.
I can't remember the exact time period given for this, but IIRC it was during the middle kingdom period and they do find a serious collapse in Egyptian power in the time. Note that what I've mentioned isn't everything given. It goes fairly in depth for each stage of the Jewish account of coming into Egypt and leaving. More than I can do off the top of my head. It's at least worth a watch.

That's asinine, why do people follow a king that couldn't have a heir to the throne?

St. Thomas More didn't :^)

still we have no evidence to support such a large number of people in the wilderness for 40 years and there is no evidence of large scale of Canaanite cities. in the Bronze age collapse most of these cities simply became uninhabited and people moved to the hill country. no destruction layer. there were some cities that were destroyed in the region but they didn't happen close enough together to be part of one campaign and most of them can be attributed to other groups moving into the region, like the Philistines. not to mention that if you date it based on the bible Joshua's campaign happned in the 1400s when the region was under egyptian control and stayed that way for 200 more years

God rest his soul.

>Yes, but there's no way you can actually dismiss them as Hebrew names. If there were Hebrews you'd find their names though so while it's not conclusive proof it's still something you'd need to find.
I agree, I just wanted to explain why this didn't prove it by itself

>no evidence to support such a large number of people in the wilderness for 40 years
You expected cities to be built? Also

Oh I know I was just listing some of the commonly held things to be unfound. They go through far more than the two I listed. They go from Joseph to the conquest of Canaan.

And may Henry VIII forever be known as a fat cunt.

>Henry literally can't have any males
What a waste of a king.

no, but even nomads leave a trace behind that shows they were living there. tools, abandoned campsites. remember this was thousands of people. archeological surveys of the area south and east of Judah show signs of a few hundred nomads at most. this isn't even enough for the edomites and various other groups the israelites interacted with during the wandering

Henry VII should've let Richard III keep the throne.

Never forget what could have been
Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic named defender of the faith for his writings against the reformation and Luther until his first son by Catherine of Aragon died and drove him mad for an heir.
There could have been an entirely Catholic new world ;_:

www.covenantkeepers.co.uk/sinai.htm

>They go from Joseph to the conquest of Canaan
I've already addressed why the Israelite conquest doesn't match up with what archeology has found

...

Like I said give it a watch. Patterns of Evidence

the existence of an actual mount sinai is unremarkable, especially when weighed against what I've posted

I'd rather you use what you learned from it to refute my points than to just refer me to it repeatedly

There is archeological evidence.

But I'm eating an don't want to :^)

Its a heavily propagandized film ironically mostly linked to Jewish zionism than Christianity. Many of those cast were rabbis

Biblical archaeological concensus disagrees such claims. Thats why Christians always go for documentaries that only consists of few folk who disagree rather than citing articles, etc. Because with documentaries they can label their view as true and popular, but if you look at the general academic consensus they are a fringe group.

I'm a phd student in archaeology so I had my fair share of "le bible is true look at this movie" folk.

of mount sinai specifically? great. now explain why there is no evidence to support hundreds of thousands living in the wilderness or even just thousands, there aren't enough destruction sites in Canaan nor are they dated close enough together for one campaign and the bible dates the conquest to a period under which Egypt was in control of Canaan and stayed in control for 200 more years

Satan put dem evidence to test our faith.

that's what I was expecting. I was 90% sure that I was going to find out it was on youtube

You expected cities to be built?

kek. already responded to that

Origen believed in a literal flood and thought the earth was only a few thousand years old. He also believed in transmigration of the soul (reincarnation).

Mainline protestants have far and away done the most to refute Biblical inerrancy through critical scholarship. I would argue they have been the most accommodating towards evolution as well

This. He'd have more in common with Ken Ham today.

And I responded to that too

yeah. I grew up in a Presbyterian church and I was never taught that it was even this metaphor nonsense. I was taught it was simply wrong but had some vague basis in truth. an oral tradition of the world's beginnings and of the actual fall that became corrupted over time before finally being written down. i actually learned about the flood story in the epic of gilgamesh in Sunday school

You can have a Christian thread once you supposed Christians start following the Bible again and stop committing usury like the New and Old testament says not to.

What do you mean?
Are you implying
>do this to be forgiven
Is usury?