Christianity isn't a religion. It's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ

>Christian theology is compelling philosophy!
>The trinity and transubstantiation are profound mysteries of the universe, and not nonsensical drivel!

St. Paul > Jesus.

>The fact there are things implies a Creator.

So when are churches going to start paying taxes?

>projecting

Did your subreddit get shut down?

>>Christianity isn't a religion.

Wrong

>>It's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Yes

yeah jesus comes over to my house and plays xbox with me sometimes it’s pretty great

Yes. Correct.
Why have you said this with irony??

The Jesus and his interactions with The Christ is just symbolism. A riddle

Those fumbling around looking for physical evidence of the "12 World Teachers" have missed the point
The have missed the BOAT

I’m agnostic so no I’m not projecting, nice try tho

Love that image.

How good is He at vidya?

>Brainlet the post
What information we have of Jesus and his relationship to the abrahamic god springs from the christian religion.
Saying that you can have a personal relationship to any of those two without relying on the christian religion is asinine in the extreme. You might aswell have said that you have a personal relationship with Sauron and that you don't need Tolkien's works.

But are you an atheist or not?

No, it's like saying you have a personal relationship with Tolkien after reading the books and interpreting the meaning yourself, and not buying into the franchise of works surrounding it, like the Hobbit movies, pop figurines, or general bastardization of his thought by those that seek to profit off his works.

The bible wasn't written by god or Jesus, so your analogy is wrong and his is apt.

Brainlet. The Bible is the word of God.

As that other user said, the bible wasn't written by Jesus or Yahweh.

>The Bible is the word of God
Allegedly and brought to you by unreliable, fallable humans who formed the bible out of what was popular at the time.
In other words; you're the brainlet.

>The Bible is allegedly the word of God
I could quote scripture all day to prove you wrong, but it wouldn't matter as you clearly don't believe in God.

...

>buddhism that high

Overseas Chinese detected

Fedoras can't meme

You're correct. A circular argument is only convincing to the people who already believe it.

>i'm a nu male and i'm not afraid to show it to everyone

Depends what Buddhism were talking about because I've heard some profound shit from zen-buddhists

I’m agnostic, so no.

How about this: the Bible says it is the word of God. You claim it is not. Prove your claim.

Which answers the question of knowledge. I was asking if you believed in god or not.

That's not how the burden of proof works, brainlet.
Also. I never actually claimed that it wasn't the word of god.

You made a claim, you need to provide proof, brainlet. You claimed it was fallible, God is infallible, therefore you claimed it is not the word of God.

You are correct to mock the people who believe these things, but at the same time you are simply wasting your effort and time trying to mock them or convince them that they are stupid. Believe me, I've tried, it is like talking to a brick wall with the average christfag.

You should definitely work on your reading comprehension. What I wrote was that humans are fallible. It is you who make the claim that it's the word of god and that god is infallible.
Now, are you going to provide proof for your own claims or are you going to continue embarrass yourself by making further ones that only serve to make your position harder to defend?

I’m open to the possibility. Not necessarily a anthropomorphic God but a creator of some kind is very possible.

You are as dumb as they get. In the Bible, it states it is the word of God. You wrote that is is "allegedly" the word of God. As if a rock needs to proove that it is a rock. You need to provide proof for your claim that the Bible is only "alledgedly" the word of God. You need to provide proof that the words written are erroneous. A claim that the authors are fallible does not mean that "their work" (as they are simply transcribing the word of God) is fallible.

I recommend you read Philippians again (why am I kidding myself, for the first time), along with Both John and Matthew. The proof you claim is needed is there, if you're smart enough to read it. I hope you're not too stupid to need it all spelled out for you.

I hope you're also not stupid enough to continue to miss the original argument, that organized religion has reinterpreted and corrupted the Word of God for their own means.

Which translation is?

That's not what I asked though. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple yes or no question?

>Every question has a simple yes or no answer

> In the Bible, it states it is the word of God.
And you have yet to proved that.

>As if a rock needs to proove that it is a rock.
The rock doesn't need to prove shit. A person making a claim about the rock sure need to though. Especially if the claims in question are way out of the ordinary.

>You need to provide proof for your claim that the Bible is only "alledgedly" the word of God.
You already did that mate.

>You need to provide proof that the words written are erroneous.
Why would I need to provide proof for a claim I never made?

>A claim that the authors are fallible does not mean that "their work" [...] is fallible.
No shit sherlock.

>as they are simply transcribing the word of God
And when are you going to provide evidence for that being the case?

>I recommend you read Philippians again (why am I kidding myself, for the first time), along with Both John and Matthew.
That was boring the first time so I doubt that it will be any more amusing if I gave it a second go.

>The proof you claim is needed is there, if you're smart enough to read it.
Why would I ever do your job for you? You made the claims, now prove them. Don't chicken out like this. Also, as I've already pointed out your argument is circular as fuck.

>I hope you're also not stupid enough to continue to miss the original argument, that organized religion has reinterpreted and corrupted the Word of God for their own means.
Wait, so you're now saying that the Word of God is corrupted?
Also, if you wanted to stick to only that then why did you respond to my first comment or one of its follow-ups?

Nice strawman faggot.

The question of faith just so happens to be one of those really easy yes or no questions.You either believe in a deity or you don't. If you're not a theist you are by definition an atheist. The only reason I can see why won't answer is that you are for some reason afraid of being labeled as one or the other.

If it helps you I'll rephrase the question: What god(s) do you believe in?

Not every question, but "do you believe in God" is a simple question that needs a simple yes or no as an answer.

what are you on about? there is no way to know for sure whether the universe was created or not.

>I refuse to read the proof provided and then state that there is none
>I refuse to acknowledge that I am making claims
>I refuse to provide proof for my claims
I'll leave you with these passages, but I don't think you'll understand them:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.
1 Corinthians 2:13
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
John 17:8
For I have given them the words You gave Me, and they have received them. They knew with certainty that I came from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

I hope, if at some point you are able to think, that you will understand.

>Catholicism isn't a religion. It's a personal relationship with the Holy Mother of God.

so we should believe the Bible is the work of God because it says so?

>I refuse to believe that a rock is a rock
If you don't believe so, then you don't believe in God. That was already apparent. I hope you change your mind.

We're not talking about knowledge but belief, mate. Do you believe in a god? If you do then you're a theist but if you don't then you're an atheist. It's as simple as that.
No matter if you're answer is yes or no we haven't touched the question of knowledge. That is a seperate question. Whether someone is an agnostic or not regarding their belief is irrelevant to that original question. You don't have to know that there is a god to believe in one and you don't have to know that there are no gods to not believe in any.

That is correct. Pic unrelated.

Religion, from religio, is a system of bondage.

There is perhaps no more thorough system of bondage on earth than Roman Catholicism. And none of them have any relationship whatsoever with the real Mary, mother of Jesus.

To go further, as I have said numerous times, the Bible is not claiming to be the word of God. It IS the word of God. Refusing to believe that is refusing to believe in God.

You should study it for yourself, because the prophecy in the bible, about 30% by content, is unlike anything on earth. 100% accurate. Centuries and even millennia in advance.

As only God can tell the story of the earth from beginning to end, the bible, telling the story of the earth from beginning to end, had to have some input from God.

And that input was the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit within the 40 or so men who wrote the 66 books of the bible over about 1500 years.

The bible is a collaboration between man and God, with God indwelling the men who wrote it.

And with God providing what the men could not; peeks into heaven, into hell, and mostly into the future.

You're not a skeptic.

You're a fool who has joined a losing rebellion because you think its leader is cool.

>I refuse to read the proof provided and then state that there is none
Stop strawmanning what I say mate, it only makes you come of as insincere and desperate.

>I refuse to acknowledge that I am making claims
When I make claims I have no problem acknowledging them. However, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that I made all the claims you say I did then the burden of proof is still on you to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims. However, I'm a good enough sport to say that I'll give you my proof after you've demonstrated your claims to be true.

>I refuse to provide proof for my claims
Where have I done this? Also, this is hilarious coming from you, buddy.

>Bible quotes.
Wow. You're actually sticking to that circular argument.

I could have done without the pepe faces honestly

Having a foundation for belief is not circular.

Your opinions masquerading as facts in your mind, now that's circular.

You've failed to correctly dispute a single point. Try again.

Do you have any rational argument that backs up your wild assertions?

>who has joined a losing rebellion because you think its leader is cool.
Is this really the best you got?
Satan is a fucking idiotic concept mate.

>Having a foundation for belief is not circular.
No, but justifying the belief by an argument that is reliant on already believing is textbook circular.

What are you on about?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Later: Fall of Man
Later: Flood
Later: Tower of Babel
Later: Hebrews
Later: Succession of Babylonian, Medeo-Persian, Greek, Roman, and Antichrist Kingdoms predicted.

I know your kind. You deny all evidence and cry that there's no evidence. You murder your parents and throw yourself on the mercy of the court as an orphan. You take all of the wisdom of the ages and dismiss it out of hand.

You live in darkness. Your eyes are dark and admit no light. You have no hunger for truth; in fact you avoid it at all costs.

Daniel writing about the empires above was enough to cause Alexander the Great to spare Jerusalem when he read it, and then despair, and then die.

But you? No, you're immune to evidence. You're so stuck in your delusion that neither truth nor light nor evidence nor reason can possibly penetrate the darkness you live in .

Have a nice life.

You have no idea what "circular" means.

This whole fucking post.

Well that's all well and good, but the Quran was given directly from heaven to mankind. The Quran existed in its totality before the universe was even created, and was given directly to one man, memorized word for word, and passed from person to person word for word exactly as God willed it to be. The fact that you are ignoring the final prophet of God and worship a man (Jesus) is what will damn you to hell for eternity. Imagine burning and being tortured by demons for eternity, this is the fate you choose for yourself by ignoring true monotheism and worshipping the cross.

>atheism
>truth
>in a world controlled by elites that do verifiable dark rituals in hidden places

>Well that's all well and good, but the Quran was given directly from heaven to mankind

Not even the most devout muslim believes that, as it contains satanic suras, abrogated suras, and scientific errors.

>100% accurate. Centuries and even millennia in advance.
I'm glad this is common knowledge, I've been on Veeky Forums for over 7 years and this is the first post I've seen deal with the prophecies
Genuinely, if you haven't read the bible yet, the prophecies in the book of Daniel is the most mind blowing content I've ever seen in my life. Then this, grouped with the teachings of Jesus, the poetry of David, the wisdom of Solomon, you'll wonder whether there was a man called Jesus who was the Son of God

don't be stubborn, humble yourself and just read into King Nebuchadnezzar's dream. No other book in the world could have done what was done there

Actually, the quran was memorized by several men, in different variations, which were later reduced to writing. Abu Bakr then picked the one he liked, destroyed the rest, and killed any naysayers.

There are of course other variants of the quran still in existence, including one in Spain that is unlike the "original", which, of course, was written after Mohammad's death with no input from Mohammad.

Obviously.

No it doesn't

>circular logic [...] is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
>Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Yeah, I wasn't kidding above. Alexander the Great was going to sack Jerusalem; the rabbis hustled out there with a copy of Daniel and showed him that he was the leopard, the waist of bronze on the statue of empires, and Alexander was so moved that he spared the city.

This
wow, an user really broke it down for you guys
You're genuinely lucky

Then why is there a fatwa on the head of Salmon Rushdie, again?

The bible is true.

The bible is not true because the bible says it is true.

You must grasp objective truth if you are to have any hope in this life, or the next.

I came from a Christian family and only had atheist friends in school.
The only thing that kept me christian was the knowledge of Daniels prophecy and the benefits of a life of discipline. That's genuinely enough proof for me

One sura abrogated 113

Are you even trying?

The "Verse of the Sword" refers to Quran 9:5, and abrogates about 113 suras.

>buddhism isnt a religion because there is no gods its more like a philosophy

Jesus thought it sufficed for Jerusalem, on Palm Sunday, as Daniel had told them exactly what day the messiah would be cut off.

69 weeks of 7 years, 483 years, past the proclamation of Artaxerxes that the temple could be rebuilt, the messiah was cut off. The proclamation was in March of 445, with 360 day prophetic years.

It would suffice for Israel today, but they no longer consider Daniel a prophet, and no longer read his book.

>chinese are buddhist

the state of Veeky Forums

It's more like a holistic pain management system.

Don't be retard. I've never in this thread stated that the bible isn't true. However atleast one person has made the claim that it is without demonstrating that to be the case. The burden of proof is on that person to prove their claim. This is basic fucking logic.

And you have been told that the bible is self-proving through the study of prophecy; that the bible is 30% prophecy; and that all of the prophecies in the bible come true when ripe.

Every single one.

And that as only God sees the end from the beginning, only God could have inspired the men who wrote the bible to write of the story of the earth from beginning to end, which is what the bible actually is.

The bible is self-proving.

You don't have to take anyone's word for it. Go ahead and spend your life trying to disprove anything in it. Seriously. That's the only route for people like you to see the truth, because you're not looking for the truth, and you wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass.

You're being pedantic to try and rhetorically force someone into saying the word atheist so you can rev up your strawman and ad hominem rebuttal cannon. If he said he doesn't know whether he believes in God or not then that's by definition agnosticism. To definitively say he doesn't believe is not be agnostic. So please shut the fuck up.

And yet he has shown himself to be neither an atheist nor an agnostic, but an antitheist.

Let me give you a small glimpse into what I'm talking about.

Revelation 11
And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.

>Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see

This was written in 95 AD.

Do you have another source, written in 95 AD, that states that in the future, the entire world will be able to witness anything like this? Like two men laying dead in a street in Jerusalem?

Such a thing is now considered trivial.

In 95 AD? How do you think the Revelator knew this technology was going to exist?

...

>hurrr the wine becomes blood
>well, nothing really happens but let's pretend it does because it's MAGICAL
Literal witchdoctor tier bullshit.

>You're being pedantic
No shit I'm being pedantic, I'm arguing semantics.

>so you can rev up your strawman and ad hominem rebuttal cannon.
I honestly don't understand what this is suggesting. Could you elaborate?

> If he said he doesn't know whether he believes in God or not then that's by definition agnosticism.
You're confusing the question of belief with knowledge. Being an agnostic means that you don't claim knowledge of the divine.

> To definitively say he doesn't believe is not be agnostic.
Ackchyually he can still be an agnostic no matter if his answer is yes or no to the belief question.

I don't think that I understand your question. Could you try to rephrase it?
Or are you just asking how someone from that period in time could predict that the whole world would know of an event?

...