What did fundamentalist Presbyterians in the 1920s and 30s mean by this?

You didn't understand my post, which means you don't understand fucking Plato of all things.
Also, truth doesn't exist, but that's irrelevant.

Eh, no diety should be below no resurrection and no atonement

>truth doesn't exist
>but you didn't understand my post making reference to an analogy about leaving illusion behind for truth and society doing the opposite

if there is no truth then there is no correct way to interpret you post

Fairly self-explanatory.

>truth doesn't exist

Is that statement true?

profits?

I'm not making an analogy, I'm explaining the imagery used in the OP image using an ancient allegory which I have recently done a good deal of research on.

Goodness, you are stupid.
It doesn't matter. You do realize that rejecting truth also means rejecting 'reason', right? That means rejecting consistency.

I shouldn't even be posting, you people seem to only understand my typical shitposting.

You made the following statement:

>truth doesn't exist

Is that statement true?

>I shouldn't even be posting, you people seem to only understand my typical shitposting
don't tell me you're the guy who posts
>reason is gud cause greeks sed so

This does not appear to be atypical shitposting at all, but garden variety shitposting where self-refuting statements are not retracted, and in which the poster is condescending towards others, meaning talking down to them.

>they knew their shit and realized we descended into the cave
>what are you talking about I never made reference to the cave

This is your typical shitposting.

No, read my post you fucking dope.
I'm probably half of all posts on this board, it's so damn slow.
>self-refuting
Read my fucking post, please.

>You made the following statement:
>>truth doesn't exist
>Is that statement true?

I never made an analogy, the OP image is an allusion to the Allegory of the Cave. I am explaining the reasoning behind it.

READ.THE.POST

You can't dismiss everything that's happened after marx just because it didn't end well and then was later used as propaganda by the other side. They DID fuck up regardless.

>Read my fucking post, please.

The one where you abandon truth and reason?

That one?

Or the one where you confess you're nothing but a bored shitposter here?

tl;dr

You made the following statement:

>truth doesn't exist

Is that statement true?

>Boohoo believe what I believe guys

Is this you, yes or no?

>It's the Cave. Presbyterians knew their shit and realized that while we ascend 'intellectually', we descend spiritually and find ourselves intellectually blank in the Cave.
Did you, or did you not, use the word "realize?" Was this, or was this not, in reference to the cave?

>It doesn't matter. You do realize that rejecting truth also means rejecting 'reason', right? That means rejecting consistency.
I DO NOT NEED TO BE CONSISTENT
I AM MERELY CONDITIONED TO
STOP PLAYING SHITTY VIDEO GAMES ABOUT HISTORY AND READ SOMETHING

This is so narsistic to make

Are you now attacking my tone?

Look at it. It's called "The Descent of the Modernists".

A young man with his back to Christianity steps away from the infallibility of the bible and believes he's related to monkeys. He will then go on to deny miracles, including the virgin birth, the sign to the world that the Messiah had appeared.

As a middle aged man, he will abandon his belief in there even being a God, have no way to atone for sins he no longer believes exists, and will deny the core tenet of the faith, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ on Nisan 17, 32 AD.

As an old man, he will become confused and not know whether or not there is a God, until he finally decides to put his foot down and say there is no God. He is now an old fool, and at the same time, a Modernist.

Pretty simple. Modernists are old fools.

No, your word choice, because words have meaning. Meaning you are specifically trying to backtrack on. I get that you normally shitpost, but theoretically you can also turn that off, yes?

Answer the questions. They are simple yes or no answers.

What does a self-refuting statement have to do with video games? Is this just you sperging out? Have you lost your shit?

>self-refuting
I DO NOT NEED TO BE CONSISTENT YOU FUCKING HISTORY SPERG

You have achieved that status admirably.

Now tell me.

Did you not say that truth does not exist?

Is that statement true?

>demanding consistency
THAT IS A PRESUPPOSITION OF TRUTH
YOU ARE NOT BEING CONSISTENT YOURSELF

Kill yourself.

So you have now changed your position to acknowledge that truth exists.

Is this true?

No, I haven't. Please figure out how to read. There's more to living than history gaymen.
>you believe in truth
>you are presupposing truth to make statements on truth
>this is illogical (inconsistent)
>being inconsistent is also inconsistent with your position

How did they fuck up. Progressivism allowed for the development of modern democracies or republics, war protocols, human rights, labour laws, and environmental regulation. Traditionalism has mostly been an obstruction to these.

Calm down. Truth doesn't exist, so the guy you're arguing with isn't wrong.

Not him but Traditionalism has been an obstruction to them only if you define Christianity very narrowly.

Indeed, all the progressive reforms in any country can be argued is simply a secular form of Christian morality.

I mean, universalism, brotherhood and equality, not to mention the golden rule, are all typically modern values, and they are obviously Christian.

You made the following statement:

>truth doesn't exist

Is that statement true?

No, read the thread.

>Truth doesn't exist

Is this true?

Would it not have to be true in order for truth to not exist?

And yet if it is true, truth exists.

Hmmm, what to do when people don't know they believe self-refuting ideas....

I have read the thread.

Is that statement true?

Satisfaction with one's place in society was a Christian moral too. Thus traditionalist, at least in the way manifested in feudalism.

>Satisfaction with one's place in society was a Christian moral too.
Not at all. How stupid are you?

You misspelled Chinese.

Serfs duty was to serve their nobles faithfully and perhaps receive compensation for it in the after life. After all Christians believe that authority on earth is appointed by God. That was the conventional interpretation in the Christian West.

>After all Christians believe that authority on earth is appointed by God.
No, this was a meme made by royalists.

Well most Christians were arguably royalist or monarchists. Interpretations of scripture have shifted in the lead up to the present.

Slippery slope, the fundamentalists are always afraid of going against a traditional narrative of biblical teaching. This is especially founded in the Calvinist sect of Christianity. They are afraid that their doctrine and traditions will get challenged leading them into a downward spiral. Get Ryie's book on basic theology and he will spout the same idea. Talk about NT Wright and the new perspective of Paul and the Calvinist will be the ones who complains about it. Talk about how predestination and foreknowledge are not fused together and they will complain about it.

Well are they wrong?

I wouldn't say they are wrong even though I don't agree with them.

Very few Christians today actually believe like Christian people did a 100 years ago.

>A young man with his back to Christianity steps away from the infallibility of the bible and believes he's related to monkeys
And this is a problem because?

>I wouldn't say they are wrong even though I don't agree with them.

>Very few Christians today actually believe like Christian people did a 100 years ago.

I agree that they get many of the fundamentals right, since I'm also conservative but at the same time they ignore things that need to be addressed and can't be fully reconciled by their traditions.

It's incorrect.
A bunch of gay skulls are meaningless.

>Modernists
Why do Christfags misuse simple terminology? Modernism was an artistic movement

because once a man honestly believes he is no different than an animal he begins to act like one.

where's your argument?

I wasn't aware we were having one.

It seems rather presumptuous to assume each step is a necessary consequence of the previous one. Also, few religions can survive without adapting to the societies they are practiced in.

But man has always been acting like an animal, even with gods aplenty.

once a man believes he gets eternal salvation simply by asking for it he'll act like an animal

How so?
Why are they meaningless?
How can a skull be gay?

Like this guy?

>"It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form', but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline."

>"One should not vent one's wrath on animals, Theology decree that man has a soul and that the animals are mere 'aoutomata mechanica,' but I believe they would be better advised that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility."

Homo skulls.

Can someone without faith but with many works be saved?
If I donate a billion dollars to an orphanage in the name of God but I do not believe, will I go to heaven?

>what is taxonomy?
>what is Latin?

>>what is taxonomy?
Trash, like all science
>what is Latin?
The language of pseuds.

Can someone with faith that they will be saved regardless of their sins keep themselves from raping and murdering their way to spiritual hedonism?

Why can't you answer my question?

Not really.
I mean strictly yes, obviously that's true because men ARE animals. However the idea that man is seperate from animals is a statement of philosophical intent that creates an approach to life that is entirely different than a that of man who sees an equivalency in value and meaning between his own life and that of a pig

If man is an animal and it is not immoral for animals to eat each other, why should it be any different for men? Apes don't sit around remonstrating over whether it's right to eat the captured young of an enemy troop, is that an arrangement you would find preferable for human society?

I can.
Depends on what kind of "Christian" you ask. According to most doctrines that I'm aware of you go to hell if you don't have faith, whether you're a good person or not. Not really sure how asking me that question helps your argument, you're kinda just proving my point. Now answer my question.

>being this fucking autistic

How can one say that if he has no works is saved by faith? For faith is useless without works. For as James says, even the demons believe that God is one. For we are saved by our faith and receive the free gift of grace from God. But what evidence do we have that our hearts have changed and want to show ourselves as Christ-like as possible? It is through works that our faith is an example, something to please God. We do so not to achieve salvation, but rather for our love for God.

But one must also acknowledge the differences between the apes themselves. Prime example are the chimps and bonobos: equally related to us, yet are at opposite ends of the social spectrum. One is a brutish "baby-eater," while the other is a somewhat docile pet.

So faith is necessary for salvation but works are only sufficient?

>lobbing insults instead of addressing the issue

Many Christians reject the idea of works entirely. That isn't to say they reject the idea of being "good" in the eyes of God, however "works" is not universally accepted.
Again, that depends on who you ask, I believe the bible puts faith above pretty much everything, if I'm not mistaken. Then again I'm not quite sure it doesn't contradict itself on that particular issue.
This a question of posters in general...does the bible make overt statements about "doing good work" and whatnot or does it just demonstrate such behavior in the illustrations of Jesus and his follower's lives.

'twas not an insult my good fellow, merely an observation that you are replying in earnest to a jape.

talk about autism ;)

I'm just tired and very irritable.

>One is a brutish "baby-eater," while the other is a somewhat docile pet.
Yes, a "docile pet" that engages in what we would consider child molestation and incest, that ties into my point.

>I mean strictly yes, obviously that's true because men ARE animals.
Wrong

>Many Christians reject the idea of works entirely.

I understand why and I'm not even a Catholic. The problem is they see any form of works that you do even as evidence of faith as a sign of Catholicism, Pelagianism or Legalism. Protestants and some Restorationist need to realize that of course we saved by faith and given the free gift of grace, you can't just do whatever you want and think God would allow that to slide, one must also be loyal to him, since Jesus says that there will be those who will say they follow him, only for him to say that he does not know them.

That's the spirit!
My mama didn't raise no ape!

All I was saying is that they were vastly different, and yet anatomically are almost identical. Just imagine how different they'd be if the encephalization quotient was dramatically increased, leading to more sophistication within the brain.

Where are the proofs?

Proof doesn't exist, STEMturd

But what makes us more than the animals? It is that we created in the image of God.

...

They left out the no saints step, and the "there isn't any need for sacraments" step

Can a man on his deathbed accept Christ? Also, how can we have an objective measure of what is right action?

...

He eventually ends up like you.

It's what people do. It's observable. Predictable.