Religion ─ Christianity > Islam, atheism, catholicism

>20'17
>being a polytheist

Indeed he Negrus Feetus is Catholicism's most holy sacrament. And - dare I say it - its most -lickerish.

>Goes against the bible

it's easy to tell if something is bogus or not when you have a good reference

Indeed brother. This food is true food. And I want to bite it!

>What is your reason for not believing on the bible?
Because it's an incoherent mess. For fuck's sake, the Synoptic Gospels don't agree with John on rather important things like "What day did the crucifixion happen on?". Matthew can't even fucking count.

Because if your really believe it's a divinely inspired text you should also have enough humility to accept that basic reading ability isn't enough to fully understand it.

Explain yourself. You can find reasonable explanations to the things that you just mention.

>uh, why the four gospel say different stuff about the same thing?
cuz sometimes Jesus was just preaching the same things to a different group of people and used different words and stuff. Is that so hard to believe?

Just do some praying before reading it and God should help you understand it if you really want to.

Why not just start making fun of Jesus for helping the poor and the weak?

>God should help you understand it
This is some pagan level of heresy and hubris. Everything that God wanted you to know he already said through his prophets and saints. Your not Jesus Christ to have a hotline with God.

Yeah I agree Muhammad was the true alpha male

"verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." the bible backs me up. What backs you up?

So you claim to regularly commune with God with him giving you insight? So you claim you speak in the name of God? Wow nice delusion You know what why do you even need the bible in the first place?

>Explain yourself. You can find reasonable explanations to the things that you just mention.
No you can't, you can find tortured, twisted, pretzel logic "explanations" to the problem of what were obviously 4 very different accounts of a very different rendition of Jesus.

>cuz sometimes Jesus was just preaching the same things to a different group of people and used different words and stuff.
No, that is most explicitly not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about things like why does Matthew say it's 14 generations from Abraham to David, and then 14 from David to Babylonian Exile, and 14 from Exile to Jesus, when his own geneology (inconsistent with Chronicles geneology), is 14-14-13. I'm asking why do the three Synoptic Gospels make it very clear that the last supper includes the paschal lamb as part of the meal, whereas John makes it very clear that the presentation before Pilate, about half a day after the last supper, the passover lamb has yet to be sacrificed. I'm asking why does Mark have Jesus's disciples never quite figure out he's the Son of God, where John's Jesus is running around explicitly proclaiming his divinity. I'm asking why are there so many misquotes of scripture, and why John can't tell the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. I'm asking why the Gospels claim that the Sanhedrin can't put people to death, but Acts says they can. I'm asking why Acts has Paul going to a bunch of synagogues to start his preaching in Greece (because there were SO many Jews in Greece), but none of his epistles ever make mention of it at all and talk about how he would start up shops and preach "on the job".

Why do you have to strawman these things to defend your beliefs?

Didn't make any of those claims. God does gives me insight thought the bible though. I do not speak in the name of God, if I say something that contradicts the bible I am wrong, the same goes for you too.

Because most people don't have time to study the entire bible, read centuries' worth of theological tracts, and develop their own theses from it. Rather, they're citing the arguments made by past theologians who also share their beliefs. It's like mocking people for voting for a political party rather than running for office themselves.

>read centuries' worth of theological tracts
But OP believes that's unnecessary to him the bible is a solo work that needs no context.

I can't speak of the things I do not know, what you're talking about is strange to me but this I can say.

There's this verse in the bible;

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

that people can site as being a contradiction in the bible, even when a few verses down the same chapter it is fulfilled.

If you want to nitpick about those things. What can you say about the prophesies that were clearly fulfilled?

All you have to do is read the bible and see for yourself if it makes sense or not.

>I dont hav enouf tiem

right, because your fate after death isn't that important or anything

>What is your reason for not believing on the bible?
Because I have no reason to believe in it.

>What can you say about the prophesies that were clearly fulfilled?
What prophecies? Did war and death end? Were the lost tribes of Israel reunited and the cities of Zion restored? Why does Matthew just make up prophecies, like "He shall be called a Nazerene", that exist nowhere?

>I can't speak of the things I do not know, what you're talking about is strange to me but this I can say.
Color me shocked. Christians are fervent to an inverse degree than they actually read the scriptures. So like your verse about the Son of Man coming into his kingdom. What makes you think that it's talking about Jesus? After all, the title isn't exclusively applied to him. Do you even know what books of the OT make use of the title?

That's rich coming from a man who is quite clearly very ignorant of the Bible.

Islam is by far the most global religion, God want's everyone in the world to serve him, shouldn't his religion be found everywhere? Islam is the default religion people should go to before wondering what other religion could be the true one. After someone reads a real Koran though, it becomes your reference and all other religions text you study are compared to it. If it goes against the Koran and it doesn't make any sense, there's no reason to believe something else.

>submit
>serve
Huh so God wants to enslave humanity?
Islam for ya.

>God want's everyone in the world to serve him
If God wanted humans to be servants he wouldn't give them free will. Reminder that humans are the only being living on earth that can say no to a direct order from god, no animal or plant can do it.

He wants humans to freely choose to serve him. Submission to the will of God is the only true form of freedom.

I'll mention only one "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Instead of questions could you please quote the verse? that would make it easier for me to come up with a reply.

> MUH INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IS CORRECT.
The "arguments" you mentioned are always used since most Christians are unable to refute. The same can be said about many other folowers of the vast religions in the world.

99% of the people in this world haven't even read the bible cover to cover, I'm part of the 1%

>Islam is by far the most global religion
right, that's why if you really want to study the quran you gotta learn arabic and also why you gotta change your name if you convert. good bait.

>many
It'll take that as 4 at least. Name four vast religions in the world that aren't exclusive to an ethnic group.

So this is an argument to popularity? If it weren't for people in African nations breeding like rabbits then Islam would be on the fast track to becoming the world's most popular religion.

It's popularity only makes it your starting point, the reason as to why end up believing on it should be whether it makes sense to you or not.

> There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Clearly, the Western Wall, and its ongoing tourism, is just some sort of mass hallucination.

>Instead of questions could you please quote the verse?
Here you go little baby, enjoy your spoonfeeding.

>Matthew's inability to count
Matthew 1, verses 12-17

>Inconsistencies regarding when the passover was offered in the Passion narrative.

Mark 14:12
Matthew 26:17
Luke 22:7-8
John 18:28

>Disciples knowledge
Mark 8:32-33
>Jesus openly proclaiming his divinity
John 10:30, among many others.

>Misquotations of scripture
Mark 1:2
Matthew 2:23
Luke 18:19

>John's ignorance of the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic
John 19:20, 19:17

>Execution powers within the Sanhedrin.
John 18:31
Acts 5:28

>Paul's preaching strategy.
Acts 17:1-2
1 Thess 1:9, and 2:9

>Unfulfilled prophecies
End of death, Isaiah 25:8
Ruins of Israel restored, Ezekiel 16:55

>99% of the people in this world haven't even read the bible cover to cover, I'm part of the 1%
Bullshit. You wouldn't need me to spoonfeed you all these verses if you had read the Bible.

>2017
>Not Yehudi
Why live?

>Clearly, the Western Wall, and its ongoing tourism, is just some sort of mass hallucination.

Wouldn't call it mass hallucination but Jewish trickery
askelm.com/temple/t000701.htm
popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2013/article/wailing-at-the-wrong-wall

Thanks for taking the effort, the following are google searches that I made concerning the verses you cited.

>Matthew's 1:12-17
So, which is correct, 13 or 14 ?

solution: Both are correct. Jeconiah is counted in both lists, since he lived both before and after the captivity. So, there are literally 14 names listed “from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ,” just as Matthew says. There are also literally 14 names listed between David and the captivity, just as Matthew claims. There is no error in the text at all.

>Passover inconsistency
read the four verses couldn't find anything wrong with them.

>Mark 8, John 10
can't find anything wrong there either, sorry.

>Matthew 2
Matthew did not say that any particular OT “prophet” (singular) stated this. He simply affirmed that the OT “prophets” (plural) predicted that Jesus would be called a Nazarene. So we should not expect to find any given verse, but simply a general truth found in many prophets to correspond to His Nazarene-like character. There are several suggestions as to how Jesus could have “fulfilled” (brought to completion) this truth.

>Mark 1
First, it should be pointed out that, in spite of the change in words, the original sense is retained. In view of one of the fundamental principles of understanding difficult texts (see Introduction), “A NT citation need not be an exact quotation.” As long as the meaning is retained, the words can differ. Second, in this case, Mark simply draws out the meaning by adding “before Your face.” This is implied in the original passage, but made explicit by Mark. Third, the change from “Me” (first person) to “You” is necessitated because God is speaking in the Malachi passage, whereas Mark is speaking about God. Had he not changed the words he would have changed the meaning.

>Luke 18
Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

>John 19
Can't see the problem

>John 18
Both statements are correct. According to the Jewish Law of Moses, anyone who blasphemes God was to be given capital punishment (see Lev. 24:16). However, when speaking to Pilate, the Roman governor, the Jews correctly noted that the Romans did not allow their subjects to exercise capital punishment, but retained that right for themselves. Thus, the Jews correctly said to Pilate, “it is not lawful [according to Romanlaw] for us to put anyone to death”

>Acts 5
can't see the problem

>Acts 17, 1 Thess
can't see the problem

>Isaiah 25:8
Where's the contradiction here? Because it hasn't happened yet it will never happen? that's what you mean?

>Ezekiel 16:55
What's the contradiction here? Because it hasn't happen

I did read the bible btw

bump

I dont believe in the biblical magical shit because its preposterous. Could it have actually happened? Sure, I wasnt there and I dont have all the answers to what existence is all about. But its about as likely as Tom Jones being the Creator of all that is. Its just not within the realm of belivability.

That said, i believe the new testament is the best guide on how to live as a human on a planet with other humans. Be cool. Dont be a dick. Help out. Treat other people like you want to be treated. Then theres some shit about not eating lobster, but whatever. I thikn they even retconned that in the NT

>But its about as likely as Tom Jones being the Creator of all that is

What makes you say so?

>Wouldn't call it mass hallucination but Jewish trickery
>One pilgrim from France makes a statement.
>EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG AND STUPID!
Your own articles cite how these are non-mainstream views. That's not great proof.

> Jeconiah is counted in both lists, since he lived both before and after the captivity.
See, this is how I know you haven't read the list at all, you just read some apologetic site. If you count Jechoniah/Jechonias in the middle list, you get 15.

>David, Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, Ezekias, Manasses, Amon, Josias, Jechonias
Unless you don't count David, but wait, David's around in Davidic times (duh), so you're making a rather patchwork counting system. Not to mention that if you take a peek at Chronicles, which I suggested upthread, you get a very different list in chapter 3

>Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ahaziah, Josah, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jethokiam
Which gives you 17 names even if you don't count David.
>read the four verses couldn't find anything wrong with them.
Then you're really stupid. Or, as I suspect, you didn't read them. Let me spell it out for you.

1/4?

> And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
>Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
>7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
>8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

Notice how in the three Synoptics, they all have killed the Passover, and are getting ready to eat it.

Now, over in John, in an episode that's about half a day later

>Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Remember how people were eating the Passover last night in the other three Gospels? THAT's the problem.

>can't find anything wrong there either, sorry.
Jesus is so openly proclaiming himself as God in John 10:30 that the immediately next verse is how the local Jews are trying to stone him for blasphemy, because they think he's a man claiming to be God.
Somehow, in Mark, Jesus's own closest followers never make that leap. They don't even get the idea that as a messiah, he's supposed to suffer and die. The level of retardation that would be necessary for both of those to be true is staggering.

>Matthew did not say that any particular OT “prophet” (singular) stated this. He simply affirmed that the OT “prophets” (plural) predicted that Jesus would be called a Nazarene.
Really, and where is this predicted at all?
2/4

>So we should not expect to find any given verse, but simply a general truth found in many prophets to correspond to His Nazarene-like character.
Nazarene isn't a character. It's a place. You are a Nazarene if you're from Nazareth. Unless of course you mean NAZIRITE, which is a different thing altogether, and of course Jesus in no way is one, given how he drinks wine and touches dead bodies.

>First, it should be pointed out that, in spite of the change in words, the original sense is retained.
What original sense? Isiah simply does not say what he claims Isaiah says, which is spliced between two different prophets.

>Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”
I'm sorry, I misquoted. I meant to say Luke 4:18-19, not Luke 18:19, where Jesus is giving a scroll of Isaiah, and almost, but doesn't quite quote Isiaaih 61; which for instance contains no references to healing the blind.

>Can't see the problem
The problem is that he claims two Aramaic words, "Gabbatha" and "Golgotha" are Hebrew.

>John 18
>Acts 5
>can't see the problem
The problem is that they're not allowed to put people to death, but seem to have nobody protesting when they're doing it in Acts
>Acts 5
>Acts 17, 1 Thess
I'm sure there were lots of pagan idolaters in the synagogues that Acts claims Paul was preaching at but Paul at the same time makes no mention of.

>Because it hasn't happened yet it will never happen?
Oooh, this one. Tell me, oh wise "scholar", if it's going to happen in the future, how can Jesus be any more of a fulfillment of it than literally anyone ever, since apparently death is no bar to fulfillment of prophecy.

Then you have a remarkably bad time of putting it together as a whole, and you're quite ignorant in general.

3/3

>Islam is by far the most global religion, Allah want's everyone in the world to worship him, shouldn't his religion be found everywhere? Islam is the default religion people should go to before wondering what other religion could be the true one. After someone reads a real Quran though, it becomes your reference and all other religions text you study are compared to it. If it goes against the Quran and it doesn't make any sense, there's no reason to believe something else.
fixed that for you, no need to thank me

>...people chose to rather use the arguments other people...instead of studying the subject themselves and making arguments of their own?

Because this is how people deal with almost all issues. Whether philosophical or not, Christians of all people should be able to appreciate the value in making use of the wisdom of the past and others.

Why should religion be any different?

>there are a bunch of religions, how can u say urs is the true one?
>Hav u read all the other religions texts before drawing into the conclusion that urs is the right one?

These are rather important questions because when you accept one you consequently hold the others to be false.

How would you view me If I said I know that Marxism is true because Ive read Das Capital but not a single other book on the matter?

If you dont read other works you arent "studying the subject"

>Christianity is by far the most global religion, God want's everyone in the world to worship him, shouldn't his religion be found everywhere?

So by your reasoning Europeans wanting to think about religion should have started with Islam up until the 1700s?

Secondly you are begging the question - you prove Christianity by requiring its description of God to be correct, kind of like if I said "God wants people to submit to him so shouldnt his religion be based on submission" as a tie in to Islam.

>If it goes against the bible...

Have you considered that you are falling into the same mindtrap you outlined in your first sentence?

This reasoning here is simply done in bad faith, it assumes one text is true and that all others can only be true to the extent they reflect that.

Look at your reasoning in another context

"Aristoltes Physics was the most widely read and highest quality work on the matter" therefore if it goes goes against this there is no reason to believe anything else hence we must reject the idea that mass does not effect the acceleration of dropped objects.

>Christianity should be the default religion because it is and we'll make people start with the Bible

Not a ton of justification of the truth of the text itself. I stopped because even a good Christ can have horrible Christians. One of these drove me away with her paranoia and doomsday prediction and her instability.

>non-mainstream views.
gee, there's no way a group of powerful people wouldn't oppress experts in favor of what they want people to think it's real and what not.

>you just read some apologetic site.
no shit "the following are google searches that I made concerning the verses you cited." anyways, let's count and find out if what you're saying is truth

>If you count Jechoniah/Jechonias in the middle list, you get 15.

14
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judas
Phares
Esrom
Aram
Aminabad
Naasson
Salmon
Booz
Obed
Jesse
David

>second list
Solomon
Roboam
Abia
Asa
Josaphat
Joram
Ozias
Joatham
Achaz
Ezekias
Manasses
Amon
Josias
>(Jechonias) until here 14 my dude, next list
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Sadoc
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph
Jesus + parenthesis = 14 :^ )

gee, I wonder why you didn't gave the the full three list of names, you said it yourself pal 14─14─13. If you take David from the first list and place him on the second you get 13 as the first list's number which you had previously stated yourself that was 14. Are you just trying to troll me?

>Then you're really stupid
says the man that either doesn't know how to count himself, or is trying to twist and change stuff to fit his arguments, you're no better than a Catholic.

>still not getting it
>We can count Jechonias twice
>But not the OTHER linking guy twice, because it would mess it up to apply a consistent set of standards.
>We will still ignore Chronicles which gives a 17 generation genealogy for the second set, because we can't have that

>But not the OTHER linking guy twice, because it would mess it up to apply a consistent set of standards.
What do you even mean by this?

>We will still ignore Chronicles which gives a 17 generation genealogy for the second set, because we can't have that
If what you say is true I'm sure there's a reason for that too. Working on replies for your other post rn.

>What do you even mean by this?
I mean David. After all, it's "14 generations from Abraham to David, and then 14 generations from David to Babylonian exile". If we can count Jechonias as being in both groups, why not David himself?

>If what you say is true I'm sure there's a reason for that too
READ THE BIBLE YOU FUCKING DUNCE.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Chronicles 3&version=KJV

>*prepare* that thou mayest eat the passover?
>*prepare* for thee to eat the passover?
>*prepare* us the passover, that we may eat
>getting ready to eat it. (u said it yourself)
It doesn't says that they ate the passover, three mentions said "prepare" if in John it says "that they might eat the passover." They didn't eat it then, maybe they prepared it or had women preparing it for them.

>The level of retardation that would be necessary for both of those to be true is staggering.
I still don't see a problem here pal.

>Really, and where is this predicted at all?
Like, the paste I send over to you was pretty straight forward man. I recall people in the New testament naming prophets that can't be found in the old testament. Does that means that they were lying? No, those were legit prophets that wrote books but those books didn't end up in the bible.

We count Jechonias twice and not David because Jechonias lived both before and After the captivity man.

>READ THE BIBLE YOU FUCKING DUNCE.
I haven't called you names I think, you shouldn't call me names either

>You are a Nazarene if you're from Nazareth. Unless of course you mean NAZIRITE
no comment?

>which is spliced between two different prophets.
No comment?

>which for instance contains no references to healing the blind.
*sigh*

>"Gabbatha" and "Golgotha" are Hebrew.
I mean, taco is an Spanish words and also an English word. maybe something similar happens with those words.

>seem to have nobody protesting when they're doing it in Acts
people are people I guess. you were supposed to only have one wife in the old testament, yet Solomon had a bunch of concubines and stuff.

>I'm sure there were lots of pagan idolaters
wasn't Paul the one that mention something like have no fellowship with demons and made the statement that when people offer stuff to idols they do it to demons actually? It was in one epistle I think.

>death is no bar to fulfillment of prophecy.
When Jesus died on the cross he did defeat death, is that what you want me to say instead?

>*prepare* that thou mayest eat the passover?
>*prepare* for thee to eat the passover?
>*prepare* us the passover, that we may eat
So it's your reasoned opinion that none of them are actually talking about the last supper and they're just thrown in as nonsense? That when Luke says "prepare us the passover that we may eat" it's for a COMPLETELY different meal than the Last supper that goes on to be described?
>getting ready to eat it. (u said it yourself)
No, I didn't. I'm saying that by that statement, the passover hasn't been offered almost half a day after the last supper; which makes the synoptic statements dubious. If you bothered to read the Old Testmaent, you'd know that you offered the passover some time before actually eating it, and that the Priests were not in fact getting ready for dinner (in the morning). And of course, since the Synoptics openly proclaim that "the time to offer the Passover" as being in the same evening as the Last Supper, it can't be done the next day when John is purporting to put the offering.

>I still don't see a problem here pal.
Jesus is running around so openly claiming to be God that the local peasants figure it out in about 6 seconds and want to stone him for his blasphemy. But Jesus's closest followers, the guys who hang around with him everywhere listen to his teachings, see all of his miracles, etc. don't get it, something that is the very core of his message.

>I recall people in the New testament naming prophets that can't be found in the old testament.
And can't be found in any sort of text whatsoever.

>Does that means that they were lying?
Probably not so much as lying as they were grossly mistaken, which given the low level of OT literacy in the Gospels, is hardly surprising; these are after all, the same documents that can't really tell the difference between Sadducees and Pharisees, or have guys like Mark implicitly claiming that women can initiate divorce in Judean society.

1/3?

>We count Jechonias twice and not David because Jechonias lived both before and After the captivity man.
Well, actually, no, once again, if you had read the Bible you would know this isn't the case.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah 52 The actual king who was reigning when the Babylonian exile started was Tzedekiah, (one of the guys Matthew doesn't bother mentioning), and the one who was in charge when they leave is Zorobabel/Zerubabel, which can be found here biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra 2&version=KJV

>I haven't called you names I think, you shouldn't call me names either
I haven't pretended to have read the Bible while being grossly ignorant of what it says, nor have I offered absolutely ridiculous trash as arguments, like "when they were preparing the passover for eating doesn't actually mean the last supper, and they'd still be preparing it for almost a day later!"

> maybe something similar happens with those words.
Or, maybe John can't tell the difference between Aramaic and Hebrew, and offers up Aramaic words mistakenly thinking them to be Hebrew ones. That's why you have translations like the ESV trying to "correct" the Greek Ἑβραϊστὶ biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 19&version=ESV

2/3

>people are people I guess.
So if people are people and they can get away with such judicial murder, why bring Jesus to Pilate in the first place?

>you were supposed to only have one wife in the old testament
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 21:10-11
Please READ the Bible before you say stupid shit like this.

>wasn't Paul the one that mention something like have no fellowship with demons and made the statement that when people offer stuff to idols they do it to demons actually?
I *think* what you're going for is that some of the Church fathers (not Paul) claimed that other, idolatrous religions like Hellenist ones, were demon worshipers. That doesn't impact the objection; Paul is clearly writing to a formerly pagan/gentile audience, not a Jewish one.

>When Jesus died on the cross he did defeat death, is that what you want me to say instead?
Really? Lots of people have died ever since the crucifixion, so I'm not sure about death being defeated. And I don't want you to say anything but a good argument backed up by good sources. Most immediately, that would actually involve reading the Bible. If Jesus can come back from the dead to fulfill prophecy, why not another?

Why should religion be any different?
How could they tell if the people they're getting their ideas from know what they are talking about or not? Most things aren't as serious as the possibility of spending the rest of eternity in hell.

>Marxism is true because Ive read Das Capital but not a single other book on the matter?
Like, I've heard about Cuba and the fall of the USSR, my eyes have the last word.

>So by your reasoning Europeans wanting to think about religion should have started with Islam up until the 1700s?
yeah my argument wasn't that great.

> you prove Christianity by requiring its description of God to be correct
I prove Christianity with the bible, that's why I think people should read it

>Have you considered that you are falling into the same mindtrap you outlined in your first sentence?
I should had said things in a different way, what makes the bible viable is that it makes more sense than all the other religious text. Mohammad was a pedophile for crying out loud.

>"Aristoltes Physics was the most widely read and highest quality work on the matter"
you can't compare spiritual stuff with worldly stuff

the text speaks for itself though. You are supposed to follow Jesus and the bible though, not other people.

>How could they tell if the people they're getting their ideas from know what they are talking about or not?... eternity in hell.

Inquiry and introspection, however its ultimate imperfect as the only way to get confirmation of Christian, Islamic and Jewish notions of the afterlife is to literally die. That said just because there is no perfect answer does not mean all answers need to be equal.

>Like, I've heard about Cuba and the fall of the USSR, my eyes have the last word.

Are your eyes ears now? You havent seen either of those countries/events and without reading the texts you cant even say if they were communist or not outside. - its the equivalent of a person saying Christianity is false because of the crusades or the witchburnings.

>yeah my argument wasn't that great.
Does your argument have much of a bearing on your belief? ie does it being right or wrong have any impact on how you live.

>I prove Christianity with the bible, that's why I think people should read it

But your own argument in the OP states the opposite - that worldly and material things (Christianity being widespread) prove the bible and make it worthy of being read.

>what makes the bible viable is that it makes more sense than all the other religious text

So you are saying that a book that defined your culture makes more sense than one that defined a different culture? The bible and Christianity are extremely alien and dont make much sense to Hindus and Buddbists yet you wouldnt accept that as a proof of their other religions being true.

>Mohammad was a pedophile for crying out loud.

If I follow that reasoning then I should reject the OT then because

-King Solomon had a harem 1000 wives and concubines

-Joseph used economic manipulation to enslave Egyptians and render them into poverty

-Jacob used terrible tricks and deception against his disabled father to increase his material position

but we dont because prophet =/= perfect

>you can't compare spiritual stuff with worldly stuff

Im not, Im simply showing that assuming a particular book is the measure of all truth leads to bizarre conclusions

>the Bible, the Bible, the Bible
There was no conjoined set of Biblical texts in a single volume until the 4th century.

God's a slow speaker.

>because there is no perfect answer
That's where you're wrong, there is a perfect answer.

>Are your eyes ears now?
they perform different task but basically do the same job so yeah.

>Does your argument have much of a bearing on your belief?
My belief is anchored on the words of the bible, my arguments have no bearing because I may say things I didn't intend to just because I'm not good with words.

>But your own argument in the OP states the opposite
Actually no, this is what I said " Christianity is the default religion people should go to before wondering what other religion could be the true one." Christianity being widespread doesn't prove the bible. It just makes it reasonable for everyone to study it first before looking into other text, what's written in the bible is what proves it.

>So you are saying that a book that defined your culture makes more sense than one that defined a different culture?
Yes it does, try reading the quran or any other religious text and try weighting it against your reasoning along with the bible. There's only one truth.

>If I follow that reasoning then I should reject the OT then because
What bad thing can you say about Jesus though? He's the one who has the power to save souls, not those prophets.

>people chose to rather use the arguments other people have made instead of studying the subject themselves and making arguments of their own?

Because its impossible to agree with and adopt the arguments of others. Nice false dichotomy fascista

>fascista
wtf

Nice quads.

Nice double dubs.

>That's where you're wrong, there is a perfect answer.

By perfect I mean an answer with no ambiguities or mysteries - if you sincerely believe the bible provides this then you are no christian as this would eliminate faith entirely.

>they perform different task but basically do the same job so yeah.

You forgot the more serious sentance that came after that quip of mine.

>my arguments have no bearing

So why even make them in this thread?

>Actually no,

Ah I see. I missread you.

>Yes it does, try reading the quran or any other religious text and try weighting it against your reasoning along with the bible.

You misread my sarcasm here, indeed you go on to confirm my own point. It makes sense precisely because its a central part of your culture in the same why that Koran makes sense to Arabs or the Gita does to Hindus.

Following your reasoning English is the only language that makes sense - try reading a book in Urdu or Swahili and weigh it against your reasoning.

>What bad thing can you say about Jesus though? He's the one who has the power to save souls, not those prophets.

Jesus's legitimacy as a prophet and son of God is contingent on the OT and its prophets being true. If you reject them you reject Jesus.

>He's the one who has the power to save souls, not those prophets.

So I should ignore Muhhamads pedophilia because he doesnt have the power to save souls only Allah does?

>freely choose to serve him
>or get punished for eternity

Tough choice.

You're already going to hell because of they sins you've committed, Jesus paid the punishment of sin so those who believe on him can go to heaven. You go to hell to pay for the sins you've committed, not because you don't believe in Jesus

but islam is the largest religion in the world

Just face defeat, infidel.
You never had a chance, you were doomed from the start.

what are you on about nigel

>By perfect I mean an answer with no ambiguities or mysteries
You seem like a person that knows about what he's talking about, I'd dare to say that you've even read the bible, why do you think God doesn't show himself to us and clears this ambiguities?

>its the equivalent of a person saying Christianity is false because of the crusades or the witchburnings.
I disagree with you, it's not equivalent.

>So why even make them in this thread?
I'm not interested in my arguments, but in the arguments other people can make related to this.

>It makes sense precisely because its a central part of your culture
this is a lie, I've always been surrounded by Catholics and yet I'm a bible believing christian.

once again you're comparing spiritual stuff with worldly things, it doesn't work like that.

>Jesus's legitimacy as a prophet and son of God is contingent on the OT and its prophets being true
Is contingent on God, the prophets were humans but they spake moved by the holy ghost, God is the author of the bible not them personally, I can reject the prophets read only the new testament believe on Jesus and go to heaven actually.

>So I should ignore Muhhamads pedophilia because he doesnt have the power to save souls only Allah does?
No you should ignore him because he's the prophet of a false god.

/spoiler/ It isn't /spoiler/

>God doesn't show himself to us and clears this ambiguities?

I dont have a nice answer for this outside of the "best of all possible worlds" one but even I find that unconvincing.

The answer I find more convincing would probably derail things.

>I disagree with you, it's not equivalent.

I think its a good equivalency as both instances involve making a judgment about something without direct experience or reading the source material for it.

>I'm not interested in my arguments, but in the arguments other people can make related to this.

Ok

>this is a lie, I've always been surrounded by Catholics and yet I'm a bible believing christian.

When I was talking about this I was talking more among macro lines- Christian culture as an umbrella - Kind of like Hinduism (which is not a specific religion itself and has enormous divisions)

Btw what are your views on Pastor Steve Anderson?

>once again you're comparing spiritual stuff with worldly things,

The point I was trying to get across here was how important the lenses which we view the world in shape our understanding (even if not as extreme as the lanauge example). For instance ideas like original sin, the importance of feeling guilt and fear as a means of humbling man come across as madness and nonsense to most of the Buddhists schools just as the Buddhist idea of "salvation" requiring no intercession or all humans having perfection in them is seen as nonsense and madness to Christians.

>I can reject the prophets read only the new testament believe on Jesus and go to heaven actually.

If that is the basis of your faith I would say then that its not a product of the bible but of mysticism and direct experience.

>No you should ignore him because he's the prophet of a false god.

Which is why I think it doesnt make much sense to bring up his pedophilia as you did.

>The answer I find more convincing would probably derail things.
I have a reasonable reason

>it doesn't work
"And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt."

People will only believe whatever they want to believe, God coming down from heaven wouldn't change the mind of someone who's hellbent on the idea that death is the end.

>without direct experience or reading the source material for it.
that argument is true, a hearsay doesn't make up a good argument.

>Pastor Steve Anderson?
He's a godly man that preaches the work without holding back.

>how important the lenses which we view the world in shape our understanding
We are the ones that make those lenses though, our environment has influence over it to some extent but everyone is free to choose what is true and what if false. That doesn't change reality however.

>For instance ideas like original sin, the importance of feeling guilt and fear as a means of humbling man
This idea doesn't come from the bible, what we get from Adam is a sinful nature, but God who is just would't punish you for something you haven't even done, that's clearly stated on the bible, people go to hell to pay for their own sins.

>not a product of the bible but of mysticism and direct experience.
I disagree with that, the soul of people is often won over only with the use of verses from the new testament, even if you know nothing about the prophets of old but trust in Jesus, you'd still go to heaven.

>People will only believe whatever they want to believe, God coming down from heaven wouldn't change the mind of someone who's hellbent on the idea that death is the end.

Yeah but most people aren't like that a huge amount of people want to believe (where that the case new age cults and political cults would never have been so successful) and there are certainly a huge amount of people who would abandon apathy.

Whilst there certainly is a hardcore group of people who would reject everything it seems tragic to ignore that larger group for their sake alone.

>We are the ones that make those lenses though, our environment has influence over it to some extent but everyone is free to choose what is true and what if false

Of course we always have that radical liberty but these lenses are ultimately the primary means by which we can understand what truth is and where it is.

>That doesn't change reality however.

Naturally but at the end of the day we have to view through one lens or another there is no pure view in this life.

>This idea doesn't come from the bible, what we get from Adam is a sinful nature, but God who is just would't punish you for something you haven't even done, that's clearly stated on the bible, people go to hell to pay for their own sins.

I was just using that as example to contrast some more general values.

>the soul of people is often won over only with the use of verses from the new testament,

From the Christian perspective I would say that whilst that might be the trigger without some direct experience via the holy spirit those words wont do much let alone convert - hence why when a christian tells you to read the bible they stress the importance of prayer and why there is an empahsis on preaching rather than simply delivering books.

>dude instead of learning what others have written about mathematics why don't people just invent calculus for themselves

You've simply restated what I said.

Christianity claims a historical figure from the Middle East is literally God.

Islam claims that there is one transcendent God and that he has sent many messengers and prophets throughout history and to all peoples.

Islam is more universal in nature. Numbers don't prove true universality since true universality is a metaphysical quality of a doctrine. Christianity is still very exclusivist.

hey op, what reason do you have for rejecting the book of mormon

>it seems tragic to ignore that larger group for their sake alone.
I'm including the larger group, there's a history in the bible about a rich man going to hell and seeing someone he recognized being in heaven with Abraham, the rich man asked Abraham to send the man he knew unto his family, that they may believe in God by seeing a ghost, and Abraham reply was " And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." this goes in line with the previous verse I mentioned.

> what truth is and where it is.
>That doesn't change reality however.
Anyone who actually makes an effort to find out what the truth really is will find it "For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

> direct experience via the holy spirit those words wont do much let alone convert
I believe you receive the Holy Ghost after believing on the Lord Jesus, a non-believer has to decide on his own whether what the bible says makes sense and it's true or not.

>You can't disprove some formulas on Math.
>You can't disprove or prove the existence of God.

different things pal.

>Islam is more universal in nature.
Sure, that's why the vast majority of the people that believe in it are or come from the middle east.

Like Indonesians!

>vast majority

You have made yourself an ambassador for the text. If it is your mission to go forth and baptize all nations, you're gonna need to make a more convincing case. You have shown that your true intention is for you, not for Christ - you have not spread his message, only his brand.

>Roughly 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide
>202.9 million in Indonesia
>Look at what was British india to get you 146.6 million in Bangladesh, 181.7 million in Pakistan, and 172 million in current India.
>703 million and change, over a third of the worldwide muslim population
>B-b-b-but they don't count!

> You have shown that your true intention is for you, not for Christ
How have I 'shown' that to you? just wondering