For what purpose did the omnipotent sustainer of reality spend thousands of years preoccupied with petty tribal...

Just like that Futurama episode

Really makes you think

I'd call that evidence for Christianity.

>Since there are parallels and commonalities in various people's mythology, this is evidence that my specific arbitrary one is true and not any of the other ones

So if I hear an old story and then claim it happened to me, you consider the original story evidence that I'm NOT lying? You can't honestly think that makes sense.

If it's evidence for Christianity, then it's also evidence for those semitic mythologies, moron.

>Abrahamic religion
>making sense

Fool me once...

I think its because he is fictional.

well according to the Bible itself it's because Abraham was the least shitty person on Earth at the time.

and despite being the "least shitty person on earth" he still doubted his deity and fucked a concubine whose descendants that have been stuck in the stone age for thousands of years.

>The old testament is fucking plagarized from shit that came before it
You are on a device that can link you to scholarly works from thousands of historians and archeologists and you spout this shit? The only thing the Jews "borrowed" was names for God. They were super xenophobic; they didn't borrow shit.

I shouldn't have to say this but it's only an excerpt of Chesterton's argument. You're going to have to read it if you want to understand why he thinks that way. Or you can just keep being ignorant, whatever.

>ur ignorant if you don't study my cult shit
Why would you presume I want to read any of that? Anyone who caries on such blatantly convenient apologetic shouldn't be taken seriously at all.

The entire book of genesis is plagiarized from Sumerian works. The flood, the garden of eden, tree of knowledge, all of those common themes were plagarized

>The only thing the Jews "borrowed" was names for God.

The creation story, the story about Adam and Eve and the story of Noah's flood all have extremely similar historical predecessors. Borrowing myths from other traditions wasn't a strange phenomenon at all

*explains the motives of an omnipotent being to a pile of flesh and bone*

haha nice damage control

why did you post it if it's such a useless little excerpt?

why didn't you accompany the excerpt with further explanation?

You're going to have to argue properly and use proper sources if you want to convince people, or you can carry on being a smug idiot, whatever.

>God's hobby was playing god

Kek, it all makes sense now.

It's a rhetorical question, silly billy.

Just read the essay yourself. You may want to familiarize yourself with Blatchford, the person he is responding to first.

cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Christianity_and_Rationalism.html

I thought religious people were supposed to be the stupid and lazy ones. This sort of attitude is actually what drove me to religion in the first place.

>The old testament is fucking plagarized from shit that came before it

Is this supposed to disprove Judaism somehow?

summarizing and or giving an excerpt would be very useful. i might read this later but when people counter your point and you simply respond with a source that supposedly explains it you're just being lazy and refusing to argue your point further

>summarizing and or giving an excerpt would be very useful.

Are you stupid? This is a genuine question.

if judaism was a revealed truth then the truth would be revealed by God, not by altering previous stories in the exact same fashion of all other non-revealed religions

How do you respond to Chesterton when he says that people further from the center of truth will have a muddy version of the facts? If god were real and made us humans we would naturally be drawn to him, and people would misinterpret things.

how do you know which version is closer to the truth then? perhaps the oldest story closer to the original event/ revelation? so then Noah is actually a corruption of the real, immortal Utnapishtim who was warned by Ea, not Yahweh

judaism is disproven, yes

I really don't see why you would argue otherwise unless you are another inbred turk who thinks he's one of gods chosen

If every religion seems to be a muddled version of Christianity then wouldn't that point to Christianity being the center? Tolkien was obsessed with various myths around the world and this was conclusion that drew.

Take a guess op it's all fiction

in what sense is christianity the center? also my point is that if other religions had muddied versions of Christianity and the OT stories then we wouldn't see the corruptions occur before the revealed truth, but after

Humans are drawn to supernatural things regardless of the truth of them.
The fact remains that the author arbitrarily selects his own personal religion, then finds all other supernatural beliefs to support his religion rather than their own. This is such a manifestly sophistical and convenient argument. Practically the definition of begging the question and post rationalization, all other supernatural beliefs are shades but my special category of religion is automatically true.

Are you even arguing in good faith or just throwing accusations of "stupid" and "lazy" at anyone who responds to you.

>What makes you think that god wouldn't have sufficient reasons to reveal himself the way he did?
Because he'd still be aware of what time is even if he transcends it. What happened to God feeling the suffering of all his creations? Doesn't he understand that 100,000 years of human suffering before he appeared to Abraham is pretty bad?

I think it only makes sense if you're a YEC, but that goes against pretty much all the observable evidence. The only creator God that makes sense to me is a deist God.

Well shit nigga, some ancient Greeks believed in reincarnation alike the ancient Indians did, guess Hinduism is correct.

All human belief is just muddled Kekkism, our new deeper understanding of Meme magic has revealed the fundamental truth that all previous religions were blindly reaching for..

Center meaning the truth. I don't know if you're aware but some of these old testament stories aren't literal history, they're stories meant to convey certain teachings. Somebody that's further away from the center or truth may have a similar but ultimately corrupted story.

Kekkism is a meme

Platonic Memetics is the true path to meme power

I get irritated with people that can't comprehend what they read, or when they ask for a summary after one has been provided. Sorry for hurting your feelings.

The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert. that God spoke to them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood, & so be the cause of imposition,
Isaiah answer'd. I saw no God, nor heard any, in any finite organical perception; but my senses discover'd the infinite in every thing, and as I was then persuaded, & remain confirm'd; that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote.
Then I asked: does a firm persuasion that a thing is so, make it so?
He replied, All poets believe that it does, & in ages of imagination this firm persuasion removed mountains; but many are not capable of a firm persuasion of any thing.
Then Ezekiel said. The philosophy of the east taught the first principles of human perception some nations held one principle for the origin & some another, we of Israel taught that the Poetic Genius (as you now call it) was the first principle and the others merely derivative, which was the cause of our despising the Priests & Philosophers of other countries, and prophecying that all Gods would at last be proved to originate in ours & to be the tributaries of the Poetic Genius, it was this. that our great poet King David desired so fervently & invokes so patheticly, saying by this he conquers enemies & governs kingdoms; and so we loved our God. that we cursed in his name all the deities of surrounding nations, and asserted that they had rebelled; from these opinions the vulgar came to think that all nations would at last be subject to the jews.
This said he, like all firm persuasions, is come to pass, for all nations believe the jews code and worship the jews god, and what greater subjection can be

Yeah that's definitely what is being said there.

How is every religion a muddled version of Christianity?

For example how is Vedic Hinduism a muddled form of Christianity?

I don't study Hinduism. Just search for similarities between the two religions and work from there.

Well since you were already lashing out even in the same post of providing the first except, and are already accusing people of being lazy for not instantly being intimately familiar with some esoteric document, I'd say that it's more likely that you are simply an irritable and disagreeable person by default.

And how do you know that the center of truth isn't Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the Bible being the corrupt version of it?

If you look at every single religion and notice that they all usually have fairly strong similarities with Christianity while having little in common with each other, there might be something to this idea that Christianity is the center.

Similarities does not equal plagiarism. Unless you think the Mayans, Ojibwa and Norse also plagiarized the Sumerians?

Perhaps Chesterton was portraying an object lesson on the dangers of indulging in religious bias, by soliciting this self-serving argument it shows the inability for a religious person to entertain universal human empathy and to blindly confirm a held belief. His thesis must be that religious people's attempt at rationality will inevitably be a pretext to affirm their preconceived position.

Given this interpretation of the essay, it's a very enlightening psychological profile.

I would be interested in some specific details to back up this claim, since it seems simplistic.

maybe if you have a bias towards Christianity

You could say the same thing about anyone with an opinion on the matter.

I'd sooner slam my dick in a car door than read anything but that fucking moron.

Perhaps you're biased against Christianity.

Is there a religion that makes sense?

Only people who's opinions are not informed by a rigorous rational inquiry.

Anyone that refers to themselves as the rational one is certainly not.

Realtalk how many other religions are you familiar with to make this blanket statement?

What blanket statement?

Spinoza's God.

whether I am or not is irrelevant

>mythologies/religionss have little in common with each other except Christianity
They have plenty in common with each other.

Why is relevant for me but not you?

If you look at every single religion and notice that they all usually have fairly strong similarities with Christianity while having little in common with each other

You forgot to include the IF part of that quote. IF this is the case then wouldn't follow. This is different then saying "this is the case". Do you follow?

Because you posit that Christianity is the center.

Yeah that's what I said. IF. You bastards really need to learn to read.

So, it makes sense to you that this guy came up with a god.

Not that a god made this guy.

Maybe when you outgrow playing with pretend gods, you can meet the one true God.

Haha what a fucking backpeddle.
Get the fuck out of here and take your bullshit essay with you.

So IF this particular user looks at every single religion then it follows they all have strong similarities with Christianity while having little in common with each other

lmao mate stop typing like a retard and learn to argue

If you can't understand what a premise is then do you even try? If this premise is true then this conclusion would be reasonable.

So it's not an argument at all but just a silly hypothetical scenario that avoids his question. Great.

John: Hey, if you add two and two, then you'll find it equals five.

Mick: No it equals four.

John: Woah dude I said IF you retard; it's different from saying "this is the case".

>If you look at every single religion and notice that they all usually have fairly strong similarities with Christianity while having little in common with each other

This is blatantly false, as others have pointed out. Also, this might also mean that Judeo-Christianity ripped off a good number of themes from earlier religions, which it did. For instance, you'd be making a much stronger case if you'd said that every single religion has a fairly strong similarity with Zoroastrianism.

Finally, it's also painfully clear that you'd hopelessly biased towards Christianity, either because you're a Christian, and you're only interested in confirming what you already know to be true, or simply because you were born and grew up in a Christian culture. I'm almost certain that if you had been born in an Islamic country, you would've said the same thing about Islam.

Either way, your 'argument' is much more a demonstration of your own obvious and highly biased worldview than it is of Christianity being the center of anything. You're not at all interested in any truth, it's quite obvious that you're only interested in persuading people to view your religion as the right one, which is highly dishonest, to say the least

>then it follows

That doesn't even make sense.

If every religion has major similarities with Christianity while having little in common with each other THEN IT WOULD FOLLOW that Christianity would be the center. I can't simplify this anymore.

Wannabe sophist.

So if user did look at every single religion it's true?

And I assume if user did not look at every single religion, it is false?

Then your statement is false, I highly doubt user has seen every single religion.

stop responding to this autistic b8 poster guys
saying a generalized unsubstantiated theory and than telling us 2readmoar is obvious shit posting

That isn't the same as what you originally posted sophist.

You said "If you look"

If you look

IF YOU LOOK

So you're argument was that if one looks, then it is true

If that was not your argument, then you were wrong in arguing " IF part of that quote. IF this is the case then wouldn't follow." and should have reviewed your post.

It literally means the same thing. If you look and see that every major religion.., You can reword it a hundred different ways and still mean the same thing.

Yes that's how this works.

IF you never posted again and you notice that everyone else was glad, then there might be something to the idea of never posting again.

>If every religion has major similarities with Christianity

If every member of group X is similar to Y, and every member of group X has little similarity to eachother, then Y is the truth.

Is not the same as

If Z looks at every member of X and Z sees that members of X are similar to Y and have little similarity to eachother, the idea that Y is the truth may have some backing.

But then that leads to further issues.

What if one user has seen every religion

that would mean Christianity is true

but what if a new religion arose that the user had not seen

that would mean Christianity is no longer true, but false

>If Z looks at every member of X

Already you fucked up. It's no wonder you're not getting it.

Yeah, see, here's the thing, those places aren't right next to where the ancient Hebrews were. The Norse are the closest of the three, and they're waaaay far north of them, to the point that they'd only likely meet each other while trading, if they even got that far down. The Ojibwe and the Mayans are on a different continent altogether, so there's no way they'd ever meet outside of God picking them up and dropping them off there for a spell, and then taking them back. Meanwhile, ancient Sumer is comparatively right on their doorstep

Just out of curiosity

Why do you post like this

It looks retarded

Punctuation is important

No you're the one that fucked up

You posted:

If you look at every single religion and notice

If Z looks at every member of X

-----

Every single religion

We can take religion as a group in this case
so religion is X and single religions are members of X

------------------------

Even if I wrote

If Z looks at every X and Z sees that Xs are similar to Y and have little similarity to eachother, the idea that Y is the truth may have some backing.

It is still not the same as

If every member of group X is similar to Y, and every member of group X has little similarity to eachother, then Y is the truth.

Because when I'm having autistic shitpost battles

I tend to get get concise in prose

may look retarded

but it avoids confusion

I presume

>If Z looks at every X and Z sees that Xs are similar to Y and have little similarity to eachother, the idea that Y is the truth may have some backing.
>It is still not the same as
>If every member of group X is similar to Y, and every member of group X has little similarity to eachother, then Y is the truth.

These two literally mean the same thing. I can't believe you're this dumb.

It's almost like they're all part of the same species or something

I'm convinced you're trolling at this point, or retarded.

They don't mean the same thing.

The first argues that if somebody looks at some information and perceives specific further info, then another idea has something to it.

The second argues that if multiples things are similar to a specific thing, but the multiple things have little similarity, then the specific thing is correct/truth/centre.

You've had enough (You)s for the night baitman. Seeya later.

I think you only half-understood the point I was trying to make.

>hey what if this false thing was actually true, then golly gee wouldn't that be funny guise
>yeah but it's false tho
>WOAH WOAH HOL UP

& Humanities