Ends philosophy by closing the classical philosophical schools

> he doesn’t realise monks are he only reason we have any Greek/Roman texts
> he fell for the dark age meme
> he takes prot caricatures seriously
Teaching burgers to read is always a mistake.

anyone familiar with the bible who isn't Christian is well aware there are significant contradictions in it. Obviously not as many as that infographic but still talking about birds and bats doesn't resolve the fact that the synoptic gospels disagree on presumably important things like the details surrounding the empty tomb.

Attached: slide5.jpg (940x434, 72K)

They really don't. They put emphasis on different things, since the writers are different people. There's nothing that is a literal blatant contradiction.

I assume you're referring to the one vs. two angels. The one angel is the one who moves the stone. Both Mary's see this one. The two angels are only seen by Mary Magdalene, and they're inside the tomb. These events happen at different times.

this but ironically

how about when jesus sends his disciples off to preach in duos and in one gospel tells them not to take anything even a cane, but in another he says they can take a cane

When Matthew, Mark, and Luke write, they don't use the same word, and if they do use the same word, they don't always use it in the same way.

Here's a good article on it:
christianthinktank.com/nostaff.html

None of them say the exact same thing. In one Jesus highlights that you shouldn't stay with Gentiles, but this isn't mentioned in Mark, for example. So at one moment Jesus says to not take a staff because everything you need will be provided for you, at another moment he says get up and take the staff you have and get going. This is the main issue.

youtube.com/watch?v=WI2_SVvPbCE

Attached: 1520897903794.png (1440x1557, 738K)

Also makes you think that they outright stole from many philosophers and tried to claim it as their own. Christianity is a frankenstein of what was popular at the time + what was useful for the Vatican

The philosophical schools closed down due to a lack of students. They were tolerated long after the conversion of the empire, they just faded away.

Pagan borrowing was a meme theory invented by some germans in the 19th century. There's no textual or historical evidence for it.

There wasn't a Vatican when the Gospels were written, you dumb faggot.

Christian metaphysics is a cheap copy of Plato you dumbfuck. You can be sure they included any records of that in the several book burnings once you've read Plato himself
>b-but they preserved...
They only preserved what was either useful or neutral towards the church. If you still think they were the good guys, look at how they used the Franks as their army to enforce laws such as usury exclusivity. Not to mention send millions of Europeans to crusade in Israel while muslims were invading the Iberian peninsula

I know sweetie, but what do you want me to use to refer to them? The group behind the Vatican was already pulling strings. Of course I could outright name ((them))

what group
inb4 da jews

>couldn't win in a fair marketplace of ideas....
Why would violence and bans be out of these ideas? I'm a free man, I can punch you in the face if I want to.

>I know sweetie, but what do you want me to use to refer to them?
Pentarchy is fine. The Emperor of Rome is another.

desu "fair marketplace of ideas" is a meme. The fact Christianity still exists in this age of freedom of religion is proof that the most rational ideas don't necessarily achieve the most popularity. Censorship is still bad though.

>WHY DID THE BIBLE GET FORCED AND SPAMMED SO HARD IN EARLY HUMANITY?
The 4th century is not early humanity.

>There's nothing that is a literal blatant contradiction.
Nothing is a literal, blatant contradiction if you do enough mental gymnastics. Your explanation is convoluted and lacks support from the text. For one who isn't convinced that the Bible is infallible, the explanation that the accounts simply contradict each other makes more sense. I mean, there are fans of Harry Potter and Doctor Who who can similarly explain any inconsistencies or holes in their canon by appeal to explanations that are logically valid but go beyond a reasonable interpretation of the text, the difference is they usually know they're bullshitting.

everything you said is just gibberish unless you cite an example

>rational ideas
>censorship is bad
when will you fucking liberals learn

I was referring to the explanation about the angels in user's post. If you want another example of Christians doing mental gymnastics to "resolve" a contradiction, here's one of my favorites:
answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/how-long-were-the-israelites-in-egypt/
>No, see, the 400 year period of affliction has nothing to do with the slavery mentioned in the same sentence, it starts with Isaac being picked on by his older brother, even though Isaac and his descendants were quite well off most of the time between then and the aforementioned enslavement

well for one, "mental gymnastics" is a slogan, its not really a rebuttal
for two, whats stopping someone from saying "this is a moral issue, whys it matter if your morals are subjective and mine are from God hence objective"

>mental gymnastics" is a slogan, its not really a rebuttal
Well I already said what I mean in more detail
>Your explanation is convoluted and lacks support from the text. For one who isn't convinced that the Bible is infallible, the explanation that the accounts simply contradict each other makes more sense.
Same goes for the Answers in Genesis link.

>whats stopping someone from saying "this is a moral issue, whys it matter if your morals are subjective and mine are from God hence objective"
Huh?

It would be more accurate to state it as early western culture, if anything.

>because the world is beyond comprehension and language
Why?

>rational

"Rational" atheistic nations always turn into garbage dumps. See: Revolutionary France and the Soviet Union.

>Christian metaphysics is a cheap copy of Plato you dumbfuck

Christian metaphysics exist independently of Plato. Platonic language was just a useful tool for communicating them.

>You can be sure they included any records of that in the several book burnings once you've read Plato himself

So now you're resorting to conspiracy theories? You're more of a pitiful faggot than I thought.

>They only preserved what was either useful or neutral towards the church.

More conspiracies.

>If you still think they were the good guys, look at how they used the Franks as their army to enforce laws such as usury exclusivity.

So the Church, which was against Usury, used the Frankish Army to enforce Usury? You stupid nigger.

> Not to mention send millions of Europeans to crusade in Israel while muslims were invading the Iberian peninsula

You've never heard of fighting a war on multiple fronts? Especially when the goal is th reunify the East-West schism.

>The group behind the Vatican was already pulling strings. Of course I could outright name ((them))

Nigger, the Jews hated Christianity from day one, and the apostles were replaced almost exclusively by gentile leadership as they died.

This is what happens when cunts like you learn history from r/atheism.

If the Bible has errors and contradictions why don't they just re-edit the Bible so it makes better sense? I mean, I'm a Christian, but I don't see why the Bible has to be this flawless, unquestionable thing. I was written CENTURIES AGO BY DIFFERENT ANONYMOUS PEOPLE for Christ's sake!

>If the Bible has errors and contradictions why don't they just re-edit the Bible so it makes better sense?

Because it doesn't. I guarantee all "biblical difficulties" come from atheist cunts being lazy readers or misunderstanding theology.

> anonymous people
It ok to admit it was compiled by the Catholic Church user.

Pretty sure contemporary France has higher rates of atheism than revolutionary France and is doing fine.

>contemporary France is doing fine.

DOGOHOHOHO!

>youtube.com/watch?v=FF0F8YjT1og

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

10:50
That's the same argument as the Answers in Genesis article and it's ridiculous because even if you interpret Ishmael's mocking of Isaac to be "persecution" in any way comparable with the Israelites' slavery, most of that 400 year period was not spent in persecution by any stretch of the imagination. Isaac wasn't harassed by Ishmael his entire life and the Israelites weren't persecuted in Egypt prior to Joseph's death. On the contrary, they had a position of great wealth and influence thanks to Joseph. So according to this timeline, this 400 years of affliction contains

3:25
That correction doesn't create the timeline he wants it to anyway, since it says "children of Israel." He is incorrectly labeling Abraham and Isaac as Israelites before Israel even existed.

*So according to this timeline, this 400 years of affliction contains 71 years when it's hard to imagine how the Israelites could be better off.

Friendly reminder that Celsus BTFO Christian theology and Porphyry BTFO Christianity's claims of authenticity.

"I dunno guys, things look pretty okay over here"
-Porphyry of Tyre

Attached: 1-porphyry-of-tyre-greek-scholar-mary-evans-picture-library.jpg (750x900, 388K)

Celsus is only known because Origen absolutely destroyed him.

>we can use Origen when it suits us

>The Church may use what was right in the writings of a christian philosopher.

>lacks support from the text
The most preliminary reading of Matthew will reveal that one of the main points of Jesus' ministry was arguing against the desctructive literalism of the Pharisees. One of the most well known stories by Christians and pagans alike is "let he who is blameless throw the first stone." This is emblematic of the entire spirit of Christianity, not in that it tells people not to judge, but rather that should uphold the law in themselves before applying it to any other. Or consider when a woman is healed by touching the hem of his robes. He explicitly says it is by her faith that she is healed, not that the robe itself holds any transitive divine property. Or again with the Roman Soldier who said "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof. Just says the word and he will be healed." Perhaps one of the most baffling things about Jesus to everyone described in the bible is how much he does not behave as they expect. He does not act as a magician. He refuses to do many miracles in the sight of people. He tells them explicitly, as they are in poverty, to concern themselves less with the material of the world. It doesn't take mental gymnastics. All it takes is a basic ability to read. Lastly, consider how he rides into Jerusalem on a donkey. Yes it was prophecied, but more importantly it was a joke, a deep satire of the state of Israel. He was the son of God, heading without objection to his death, at the hands of his own people, and he mocked their selfishness by riding into town on a cheap, stubborn beast of burden. The mental gymnastics comes in believing that a bunch of ignorant fishermen and shepherds could come up with such sophisticated moral system and deliver it in such a wonderfully simple story just by bullshitting their way through it.

Life sucked after the fall of Rome and Christianity was better than dying in your 30s in the middle of nowhere after achieving nothing.

It is still unclear if Origen himself is anethema, or if it is only a misinterpretation by those who came after him which was ruled anathema.

Anything that can be said can be said clearly. Anything that can be thought about clearly can be said in human language. Human language is limited and therefore human thought is limited.

>you know what would suck? If most people went to hell for millions of years instead of forever

Attached: 1521398745405.jpg (686x718, 67K)

Whoa, ever thought about going into theology?
Universalism is truly one of the most stupid heresies.

Thanks for sharing. You've piqued my interest in Ecclesiastes. Thank you for making me reconsider The Bible's relevance in my modern life.

If it's stupid why was it so widespread in the early Church and taken seriously even by Augustine? Fuck off, purgatorial universalism is the most coherent doctrine if you look at the whole Bible.

>Taken seriously by Augustine.
You have no clue of what you're talking about. Augustine, in his book on Christian Doctrine, explicitly talked about the eternal damnation of those who had not Christ as the foundation of their heart, and the cleansing by fire of those who, though imperfect, did.
Why was it so widespread in the early
Why was Arianism, Marcionism or Pelagianism? Because it appeals, as the latter two, to what we feel, as damaged beings, is good.

Sculpt your own story about jesus my fambalambs.
Who cares.
Just dont preach against him, or against one another

Hmm, why would the easier ideology be more popular? Why would people want to follow the path that asked less of them, that didn't ask them to change, that promised them salvation simply for desiring it. What possible appeal does that have to fallen man?

Early Christians believed in the doctrine of Annihilationism. Meaning non-believers simply have their souls destroyed and have no afterlife.

Ghenna was the place people went to burn trash, that is the metaphor. Heretics got too fixed on the fire part and not what was burned and why.

>going to hell for some intederminate period is easy
>its easier to believe in eternal damnation of even loved ones

Like, maybe if you're a jerk looking for a ticket into heaven. If you're actually a caring person its pretty difficult to think about.

Attached: 1521332647459.jpg (353x465, 140K)

Must be hard having such a terrible reading comprehension.

my point is no genuine Christian who ever considered universalism did so just to save their own hide and conversely that any Christians who try to participate in God's justice and judgement and delight in this incomprehensible torment of the wicked are on the broad path of moralism.I'm saying Christians don't usually consider the significance of hell and its understandable why those who do look at alternative eschatology.

There is no "fair marketplace" you cunt. The book was adapted as state propaganda for Roman emperors, and they killed people who disagreed with the.

The fuck does that have to do with a marketplace? If you even read the book, you would know what the protagonist though of marketplaces.

Time is marked by difference. A defined period of suffering after life would pass to nothing against the backdrop of eternal salvation. Why do you suppose that time works after death in even a remotely similar way as it does in life?

The Platonic One is not compatible with the mercy wish granting God of the New Testament or christian theology. The indefinite dyad has no parallel in Christian cosmogony at all.
I think he is using a popular term from academia as I have seen this used in progressive liberal textbooks this quarter at uni
nothing was BTFO’d people didn’t address most of the contradictions
>the dark age meme
this is not a meme, culture was basically nonexistent until the Gothic period.
the Jews didn’t control the Vatican you dumb schizo, you’re right about the rest but it wasn’t Jews. People can be manipulative and deceitful and still be HUWHYTE ARYANS

That's exactly the argument I give as to why- under Abrahamic eschatology- life isn't anything to be grateful for and that Christians and Muzzies who procreate are unconscionable. Now what are you going to do?

Attached: Christian-Natalism.gif (359x253, 1.97M)

>lumber-trading with Tyre constantly mentioned throughout the book.

I think they liked the idea of a free market, user. Fuck you.

And now I know you never read it

>doesn't remember the lumber-trading with Tyre in the last ~3 books of the Tanakh.

And now I know YOU haven't read it.

That's retarded. Life is choice, and choice is the greatest gift God could give. It comes with responsibility, which weighs heavy, but in our choices we may play an active role in the infinite creation, we become authors of reality with God.

>That's retarded. (procreation, rape, murder literally anything) is choice, and choice is the greatest gift God could give. It comes with responsibility, which weighs heavy, but in our choices we may play an active role in the infinite creation, we become authors of reality with God.

Attached: 1491961212065.gif (300x168, 175K)

>life is choice
>specific action is a choice
Do you see the difference? My claim was that the generic, unfulfilled choice--the potential--is the gift. That you can furnish bad and evil choices does not change this. If we do not have the potential to do harm, then we cannot do good. Our actions could be described as good, but the goodness will be external to our will. The ability to choose goodness gives us the opportunity to share a small part in God's infinite glory.

>people argueing about god in 2018

Why.

Seriously, why?

Gift to whom?

Attached: 1499815182386.gif (500x418, 957K)

What the FUCK is wrong with you? You thought getting rid of God was PROGRESS?

I got news for you motherfucker. We have been going through a regression that has started around 100 years ago. This last century has been increasingly atheistic, for NO seemingly good reason. Morals are in decay. Look around you.

Hitler was wrong. The answer is not a Nietzschean hash of Darwinism. The answer is simple supplication to a God who loves. Simple and easy. But the manipulated masses do not want that. The '''''masses'''''' want chaos and anarchy. They want nothing but anger for no reason. This is the world you live in.

Now go out and look around you. You live in a warzone of Good and Evil. It permeates your existence. You must be Good to survive. But sometimes you may have to be aggressively Good. It is the way.

Oh, yeah things are definitely worse than they've ever been.

Attached: the-judas-cradle-u3.jpg (650x549, 87K)

contradictions in the geneologies.

this but un-fevereshly fanatical

>The Judas Cradle was 100 years ago

Oh user, you mustn't be implying that God is simply a conservative being who wants us to revert or maintain a former state are you? Please don't be taking that logic.

The clearly superior stance is the implication that God favors progress, and enjoys watching civilization progress. Which is ideologically, and demonstrably, true.

Its not demonstrably true because the Bible mostly just advocates a humble existence of self-sustenance. God doesn't even think materials should be synthesized.

Balongne. The progression of the Abrahamic faith from Judaism to Christianity shows a bit of leniency on God's part, to relax his former notions a bit. The same is true if you look at the progression of Christianity to Islam. This just shows there will be more stages of the Abrahamic process in the future.

>implying God changes

Attached: 1518474221764.gif (480x264, 1.88M)

I'm not implying that.

I'm implying culture does.

>Moral relativism
wew

> Islam isn’t a heresy
wew

God technically has objective notions, but he understands it if society wants to act differently or in a different direction. The wisdom of God is obviously above us, so the people he sends to spread his message, or the previous regulations he retracts are beneficial for humanity because it is inherently something logistically beneficial for humanity. The overall operations and mechanics of society are benefited by his exhortations.

It's not, because without it, you wouldn't have further additional proof of progress through God.

Other than subjective experience, of course (which should inform everyone sufficiently well)

Nice relativism

>Hmm, what's the most American-sounding bait post I can make without saying "HOLY FUCK I LOVE BURGERS BLACK COCK AND EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTISM"?

But there’s sort of the whole thing where monks kept the Greek texts alive and kickstarted the Renaissance, but I assume that irrelevant because Galileo was a huge ass who couldn’t resist making the dumb character in his dialogue represent a powerful political figure, and adding heresies on top of his sound ideas.

Holy fucking cow dude.

I already believe in this, God IS the ultimate Aesthetic. LOVE is the purest and the most authentic form of Cosmos.

You should NOT type like this, if you want to have a loving discusion about God.
You reek of self dissatisfaction, if you wish you grow learn your wit.

I made a mistake. It is not in that book, but in the Enchiridion, XVII, that he denounces universalism.

To whomever accepts it.