No Christian would believe it they were told the girl next door had been miraculously impregnated and was going to...

No Christian would believe it they were told the girl next door had been miraculously impregnated and was going to conceive despite being a virgin, yet they believe in reports about this supposedly occurring two thousand years ago.

To this day, I have never been given an adequate or reasonable explanation as to why the Christian scripture is inherently any more 'valid' or 'real' than those of any other religions, or even more 'real' than those bizarre claims of paranormal activity such as UFOs or a spirit activity.

Of course, that's because there IS nothing inherent in the Christian scriptures that separates it from other religions or bizarre paranormal claims.

Other urls found in this thread:

totheends.com/eligible.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Feels, basically.

It's less that Christians actually believe and more that they simply enjoy the 'aesthetic', since it was inculcated into them from an early age. They know it's false, but will fight to the death for maintaining the falsehood so as to not ruin the presence of an aesthetic they like.

Biblical accounts are themselves not "proofs" of divine activity, you are correct. The idea that The Bible stands on its own and jusfifies itself is a idea introduced in Protestant Christianity. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both have a hierarchy of supporting "pillars" that give the Church its persuasive power on multiple fronts.
I'll talk about Catholicism because that's what I'm familiar with, but a short summary: Biblical canon is defined by the Church and its interpretation is part of Sacred Tradition. The Church itself bases its beliefs on both philosophy and the proclamations of Church Councils. It is accepted that institutional authority is the only way to preserve faithful practice and theology, because personal inspiration is not a reliable way to form sound, systematic theology. The Catholic system starts from assumptions common in western philosophy, and is itself a continuation of Plato and Aristotle - indeed, many precepts of the Thomist system can be held without any Christian beliefs being necessary. However, at some point you have to deal with revelation and the significant historical challenge that Christ and the writings of the NT poses. As well as the apparent continuation of the Church through 2000 years and its role in establishing modern society - it's irrational to ignore this.

I can't be arsed to type the quote in the image into google. Is it real?

Yes, that's a real New Testament quote. It's Luke 6:30

unelect reprobate detected

Superstitious idiot detected.

>cant refute anything so he resorts to namecalling

...

>No Christian would believe it they were told the girl next door had been miraculously impregnated and was going to conceive despite being a virgin, yet they believe in reports about this supposedly occurring two thousand years ago.
show me the prophecy saying she will conceive in this manner. Jesus Birth was the fulfillment of the prophecy:

>ISAIAH 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Don't worry, no one actually follows the Bible.

>To this day, I have never been given an adequate or reasonable explanation as to why the Christian scripture is inherently any more 'valid' or 'real' than those of any other religions

Testaments of the resurrection of Christ are more historically valid than even commonly accepted portions of the historical record, like the authorship of Homer. If the bones of Christ were ever discovered, the Christian faith would be entirely deflated. Other religious tenets, like those in the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, or the various pagan religions of Europe and Asia like Tengriism do not hedge their validity in an objective historical event, but rather the symbolic explanation of natural phenomena as developed from primitive animism.
t. Christian

>They know it's false

It's nice that you can enunciate your own views, but I do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I believe that he descended into hell, and I believe that he trampled down death. There is no aesthetic component to this. I believe these things not because I have been indoctrinated, but, simply, because I do.

Don't speak for people you know nothing about, user.

>but will fight to the death for maintaining the falsehood so as to not ruin the presence of an aesthetic they like.

We don't fight. We die. The seed of our faith was nourished with the blood of martyrs. Men and women who died willingly and in peace.

>but I do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I believe that he descended into hell, and I believe that he trampled down death

Opinion discarded. No use in pursuing a discussion with a gullible peasant who believes in such ridiculous things, nor is it to be expected that - believing such idiotic superstitions seriously and literally - you would be able to contribute anything worthwhile.

[contentless vitriol intensifies]

>idiotic superstition
>posts roman emperor

You know the Romans worshipped planets and seasons, right dingus?

SHUT UP YOU DUMB IDIOT DOO-DOO HEAD

>Christianity
Shiggy

...

But that's wrong. The messiah has to be descended from David patrillinealy. Not a bastard child of Zeus.

Daily reminder that fedoras and LARPers will deny Christianity as the rational conclusion of astrotheological sun-cults.
>luminous warmth, life and love
>trial of the passion/equinox cycle
>the sun still emerges from winter/hell unscathed, free from the domain of the goat/capricorn/satan
>the unconquered sun/son

lel

Roman religion was quite different from modern Abrahamic religion. The idea of 'devotion' was particularly alien to them - Roman religion can be compared to those things people do today such as opening fortune cookies or splitting wishbones. People did perform certain rituals in order to try to incur good fortune, but hardly invested themselves in them as much as Christcucks do, insisting they must be 'real'.

A Roman would pray at a shrine to the gods less because he 'believed' and more because it was simply the "lucky" thing to do, unlike Christians praying to their god, who (supposedly) insists in a complete and exclusive faith and devotion in and observance to him and his supposed narratives.

Comparing two very different things.

>People did perform certain rituals in order to try to incur good fortune, but hardly invested themselves in them as much as Christcucks do, insisting they must be 'real'.

There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin. The Romans were hardly the zenith of a secular, "culturally" religious society, and they were just as embroiled in superstition as their Carthaginian and Germanic contemporaries, who literally sacrificed babies in ovens and prayed to fucking trees.
Also, if this pre-abrahamic paganism was less zealous and uniformly more tempered, as you say, why did Christianity so efficiently and totally succeed it?

>Also, if this pre-abrahamic paganism was less zealous and uniformly more tempered, as you say, why did Christianity so efficiently and totally succeed it?
Because it was less zealous and uniformly more tempered.

Would you agree that ancient Hellenic faiths (and others local to their people, like Egyptian is to the Egyptians, Shinto is to Japanese, etc.) are superior religions because of this moderate quality, as well as the fact that they were rooted specifically in the peculiar local "character" of a location? Or are they inferior religions by obvious fact of submission to Christianity, but better conceptual frameworks for a society to be developed around?

I would say they are superior exactly because of their generally moderate temperament.

>patrilenally
Where in scripture did you find this?

Nothing in the Odalist vein, relating to the lack of internationalism in Hellenismos or Shinto compared to the pan-ideological nature of Christianity and Islam?

>There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin

Says the one who appears to have no idea how Roman religion worked and probably thinks they worshiped their gods like Christcucks worship theirs.

Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1

It's why a supposed genealogy of Joseph was given in Matthew.

>The Romans were hardly the zenith of a secular, "culturally" religious society, and they were just as embroiled in superstition as their Carthaginian and Germanic contemporaries
I don't think they were as secular as that user is trying to say, but they were much more so than Christians. They called Christianity superstition, which back then meant something like excessive, fanatic religiousity.

Isn't there a theory where the woman can become pregnant without sperm from a man?

It hasn't been observed and is only theorized to be possible though if I remember correctly.

Neither of those verses specify patrilenally.

Jesus is physically descended through David via Mary:

>the actual physical genealogy of Jesus through his grandfather Eli and his mother, Mary. He was a physical descendant of King David, and therefore eligible to fulfill the prophecies pointing to the Messiah.

totheends.com/eligible.htm

...

That really depends on how you define "superior", really; universalist religions are historically much more successful but have a tendency to bulldoze existing beliefs whereas ethnic religions are often more fragile but wonderfully curate the spiritual identity and soul of a people.

No.

But that's wrong, you fucking retard. Google parthenogenesis.

Which doesn't occur in mammals, if and if it did the offspring would be female.

Parthenogenesis does not occur in humans.