Open bible

>literally what is symbolism
>do you have PROOF and EVIDENCE to support your dubious conclusion that ocean symbolizes "freedom" in the second stanza, sir?

lol

Define heaven. It depends, some might say yes, some might say they exist in a constant state of bliss, living in clouds next to pearly gates, that's a-typical.

Of fucking course.... it's the old "all the retarded parts are metaphors" argument. Sure thing... yeah... it's totally a wise spiritual text, not just the almanac/guidebook/tribe history/schizophrenic ramblings of Levantine pastoralists from 3000-2000 years ago.
>From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. 'Go up, baldhead,' they shouted, 'go up, baldhead!'
>The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.
>(2 Kings 2, 23-24)

>No Christian has ever taken the stories as literal fact

Thaaaats some bullshit.

>schizophrenic ramblings of Levantine pastoralists from 3000-2000 years ago

Please come back when you've at least read Kierkegaard.

>it's the I can determine what's literal and metaphorical thread

I dunno man, you could read some actual christian theology and philosophy. Because I am yet to find any writings discussing literal interpretations and not the moral consequences of actions.

>it's the "dumbest interpretations are axiomatic because I can't grasp anything more nuanced than a talking snake" thread again

>the only christians are theologians and philosophers

Apex kek

>the only Christians we should listen to are the ones who have only a marginal understanding

maximum overkek

Both Augustine and Origen, the two biggest poster-boys for this meme defended the historicity of the flood, and the ability of the ark to carry all the animals, right down to its physical measurements. (Contra Celsum 4.41, Genesis Homily 2)

They both also reckoned the age of the world by the genealogies in Genesis.

Kek, christian theology has evolved since 450 AD. But nice try.

Augustine also wrote in Literal Meaning of Genesis,

>The narrative in [Genesis] is not written in a literary style proper to allegory, as in the Song of Songs, but from beginning to end in a style proper to history, as in the Books of Kings and the other works of that type

>No Christian has ever taken the stories as literal fact

HOL UP, you be saying that Christians have never taken the WORD OF GOD seriously? And that this phenomenon appeared within 100-50 years ago?

Well you've got 1 or 2 Christians from 450 AD, good job. It's not like this was more a modern discussion anyway. Good shit.

Are you retarded? The word of god is in the moral teaching of the story not the literal interpretations of said stories. How can you misunderstand the logic so hard.

>First thing he reads in the Sacred Collection of Books is the jew culture reference section
Can't be a bigger pleb, can you? Of course you can, next thing you'll claim to be a satanist despite Satan being everyone's bitch

Not I, but most evangelicals. People truly believe in the literal interpretations of the Bible, for instance: creationists. Denying the fact that some people take it literal, is truly retarded AKA (you)

>for instance: creationists

>No Christian has ever taken the stories as literal fact, unless you count modern retards

Not as retarded as people like you who think people believe in the literal interpretations of the bible. It comes back to you not having read any Christian theology past the ones which enhance your position.

>Read Kierkegaard

Except your batting away at the lowest-hanging fruit and thinking you've actually refuted Christianity

>No Christian has ever taken the stories as literal fact, unless you count modern retards
You seemed to be implying literalism is a modern phenomenon when that's not true at all. The two people I posted were exceptional for interpreting scripture more symbolically, and even they still took most of it literally.

See
>No Christian has ever taken the stories as literal fact

*teleports the goalposts to their original position*
Pssh...nothin personnel, pseud

Are we arguing if there are Christians who take the Bible literally, or whether or not the Bible should be taken literally? Because the former no one contests, the latter is a resounding "yes" and I still have no idea why people who settle for the most pleb interpretations of their faith somehow refutes the interpretations of giants like Eckhart, Boehme, Aquinas, St. John of the Cross. Why you hanging out in the kiddie pool?

latter is a resounding "no"

>he tolerates heresies

...

...

Look mate, you either have it or you don't. if you think Biblical literalism is the only way to heaven/scriptural literalism is the only thing that religion has been and ever will be because you refuse to actually engage with actually sophisticated religious thought on any level, that's your problem.

You know those arguments make complete sense having read the bible. I do not believe in the slightest sense, but once I understood the actual piece of literature it's easy to see that everyone who makes these arguments (on the side against god) have never actually read or tried to read the bible.

Let that sink in, you want to have 100% objective knowledge and advice about a subject which you haven't even touched the surface of.

Case in point.
>read tablets
>they contradict each other
the tablets of law do not contradict each other, like the bible does. The tablets are the 10 commandments and cannot be any more clear.

The person who wrote that comic confused the 10 commandments with the bible rhetoric itself. Meaning, he doesn't even understand the thing which he is trying to critique.

>Catholic
>Sect

A sect of a church that's defined in part by its unity?

>Thou shalt not murder
>Tells chosen people to murder entire people.

"Not just the men, but the women and children too."

that's just a metaphor for completeness

t. fr robert barron

the second commandment just suddenly clicked for me, I get it now - they wanted to be an organized authority to control people and siphon their money, so they had to be sure to command people not to just make their own altar and worship at home.

They are laws for interaction between the people, aka the jews. Remember, in 2nd millennium BC, everyone but your tribe was an enemy by default.

Oh so I can kill non-Christians and it doesn't count as murder?

biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/murder.html

You are still not thinking logically. Seriously, read the book. Murder and killing are two different things.

OT verses about killing to follow.

>If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

> Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death.

It all boils down the terminology. Murder is obviously outside of the realm of killing. Again, we are talking about the 10 commandments here, not the fucking bible itself.

We're arguing over your claim that
>No Christian has ever taken the stories as literal fact
So you did contest the idea that there are Christians who take the bible literally.

I accept your concession though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua#The_enemy

Soooo... When Joshua had all the women and children killed, it wasn't murder because they weren't Hebrew?

Christ widened the definition of God's people to cover the entire world through His new covenant, so no, as a Christian, murder (note: here meaning an unjustified killing) is forbidden.

If you're jewish, knock yourself out tho.

>Amerifat """"""""" theology""""""""

>i
You are not arguing with me, I am , you are arguing with a completely different user who agrees with me. i am no longer replying to you because why would I want to circle jerk.

By the OT laws, yup. It was only horrific, not nessecarily against God's law.

Meant Christian, just fucked up.

>implying the stone tablet is a stand in for the ten commandments and not the bible

You don't even understand the thing which you are trying to critique.

Again, for the fiftieth fucking time. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING BIBLE.

THIS IS ABOUT YOU, you have not read the fucking bible, yet you want to have objective knowledge about it, you think you are correct.

I AM NOT ARGUING WITH YOU. YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

I am here to say you need to actually read and study the bible if you want to know what you are talking about or you will look like this retard who makes a comic and cannot even differentiate the 10 commandments and its teachings form the bibles.

This is not a bout the inconsistencies inside the fucking bible you moron, this is about the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about and you simply cannot because you haven't read the fucking bible. That's simply it.

They used tablets because they're cavemen you autist.

>10 commandments

See:

How do you people keep making this same mistake? They're cavemen, what the fuck else are they going to write their bible on?

Why must you prove me correct? That comic is obviously depicting Moses and the 10 commandments.

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

Was Joshua's genocide murder or not?

Reading the Bible it says they killed everyone they could so I'm trying to get clarification on the definition of murder.

(you)

They're cavemen. They don't have paper. Do you actually believe the guy who drew that comic thought the ten commandments talked about heaven and hell?

You cannot be this retarded? Are you saying its wrong on purpose?

What? Nothing about it is wrong except your misinterpretation of it. They're cavemen. They use stone tablets for writing things because they don't have paper. It's not the 10 commandments. It's talking about metaphorical vs. literal interpretation and heaven and hell, nobody believes the ten commandments have anything to do with those topics. The comic isn't depicting the ten commandments.

Top irony

...

>Nothing about it is wrong except your misinterpretation of it.
See
You don't think the bible itself is the guidelines, the 101 on how to get into heaven, do you? That would be the 10 commandments, which that comic is expressly, EXPRESSLY depicting. I mean two of those panels depict a fucking mountain, atleast an upwards slope towards a mountain.
>they are tablets because they are cavemen
>they aren't the tablets of law
>i-i-i swear

I am getting at the fact you do not understand what the fuck you are saying. You are using OT as reasoning against christianity, you understand since the OT jesus has come down and he gave us the NT which followers are meant to follow.

Again, my main fucking point, read the goddam bible if you want to argue it.

>You don't think the bible itself is the guidelines, the 101 on how to get into heaven, do you

You get into heaven through faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ. That is all.

At the time, was it murder or not?

Why are you avoiding the question?

i don't know which is worse, these stupid threads or that damn creationist

These threads aren't stupid. The talking snake? Now, this is a joke of all times.

>open Origin of Species
>all animals are derived from a common ancestor despite all the evidence against it (irreducible complexity, certain behaviors, parasites, symbiotic relationships, etc)
People were killed because of this.

An omnipresent God created the universe a few verses before,a talking snake isn't much of a stretch

>(irreducible complexity, certain behaviors, parasites, symbiotic relationships, etc)

[citation needed]

>Catholics
>Christians

>believes in some g*rman cunt's ramblings 1500 years after jesus
>b-but i am da troo christian

Catholicism was also invented after Jesus, there is no truth in this fabricated bunch of a cherry picked believes that ignores entire gospels inconvenient for ruling elites of their time.

>people citing kierkgaard and other authors as if they were authority regarding the word of god

>be Papist
>bribe a bunch of old Italians to make me the avatar of God on Earth because that's totally what God intended
>sell IOUs for salvation for money
>spend money on whores and wine
>Have thousands of Christians murdered on my command
>promote pedophiles to high offices in the Church
>dig up previous Satanist-in-Chief's corpse and chop off his fingers
>do it again
>"Dude I don't think this is what Jesus told us to do"
>Fucking German actually claiming that Christians should act in accordance with Christ's teachings
>Have no actual answer so just ban him
>I am da troo christian

> jewish fanfiction
> word of (((god)))

>not believing Q exclusively

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

unironically neck yourself

Everything stated and more can found here.
evidentcreation.com

>scientific evidence
>bunch of cartoons

pick 1

That was rebutted years ago, got a new source?

Merely a representation of the truth in the text.

>rebutted years ago
By whom?

i don't think you know how science works if you think that's a valid source. come back when you can refute all this my dude

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry

evolutionnews.org/2016/05/in_arguments_fo/

By corresponding scientific works.

I posted my sources, you post yours, or are you atheists as incompetent as you are arrogant?

labspaces.net/blog/1340/Evolution_Part_I__Creationism_Doesn_t_Work

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creation_science

>scientific evidence
>creationist propaganda websites with no scientifically peer reviewed research results

pick 1 again by dude

> pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/
Here you go, actual science works, not some dubious site.

>citing AronRa (anti-theist)
>rationalwiki (fedora commie central)

> I ignore sources because they disagree with me!
Wha is your point, user?

>open site
>video of dude scared of death so he has to beleive some bullshit to make him feel better about impermanence

hmm

>le enlightened european catholic

They are reviewed, they just happen to have broken free of the consensus field.

>PBS: promoting atheism and groupthink for generations
They also said Behe couldn't attend the interview, despite being perfectly capable of doing so. Also, Miller gave false tesimony at the trial.