Open Bible

>Haha, that's obviously a metaphor, atheist!
>Ok, then which parts are to be taken literally and which are to be taken metaphorically?
>...
Every damn time.

Even Christians should be saying "People DIED over THIS shit".

Attached: JdskHWLQlupw3NHOQ4PjuP_RVkTSwDLglRka_uCoPOw.png (260x234, 6K)

>it’s a metaphor but I still believe in the Adam and Eve story

the heart isn't the brain which isn't the liver which isn't the heart but that makes you
are you stupid?

wrong person

Except when it used to be taught as objective truth

The more interesting part is the one where God curses the snake to crawl on its belly. How did the snake move before this?

>This is worth fighting a war over

are you?

Attached: 1521764113490.jpg (442x933, 38K)

these 3 elements surely aren't enough to make me mate.
but minus the brain that makes you

Snakes before Christianity are seen as guardians of holy.

Since Christians saw other religion as heretic, they saw tales about talking snakes as talking to evil.

There was never a war fought over Trinitarian doctrine.

is =/= is part of

The Bible was written by the Romans, and Christianity was invented as a way to pacify rebellious Jews, although they weren't even really Jews back then and they fought each other as much as they fought the Invaders.
The whole "if a Roman soldier asks you to carry his pack a mile, carry it for two" line kind of drives that point home for me.
The idea, that right at the beginning of a 150 year period of bloody rebellion and genocide, a messenger would appear preaching love and peace, but above all peace with the dominant military occupying force in the area seems kind of laughable to me.
That being said, there's definitely wisdom in the Bible, it just needs to be taken in the proper context and that includes all the parts that were left out of the finished product.

Also the shroud of Turin is real, and is infact the holy Grail. And the mere existence of the shroud perpetuated the myth of the resurrection.

Attached: images.jpg (193x261, 17K)

Christianity literally falls apart if Adam and Eve aren't historical.

everything before noah, noah, songs and some of the stuff on the kings of isreal, the egypt arc is made up we would notice that in egyptian cultures if that many people left.
and some of christs sayings, the obvious metaphors and the ones that you have to know about ancient mediteranian to get.

desuarchive.org/his/search/text/People died over this shit/

Dumb samefag. Sage and report.

So the snake couldn’t talk?

>he doesn't think there are talking snakes
How do you distinguish any metaphor from any literal occurrence?
You can't. If you need this explained to you then you are hopeless

The talking snake isn't until chapter thREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>open latin vulgate
>exodus chapter 34
>moses growns horns after looking God in the face

real mystery babylon shit

Attached: Moses_with_horns_092.jpg (1600x900, 412K)

It's a satirical reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

half of the bible was taken from the hebrew bible.

yes there were. germanic tribes were arian christians and this no doubt led to conflicts with the papacy and the byzantines. it's why the lombards were conquered by charlemagne (or pepin?) on request of the pope.

>Talking snake

just wait until you get to the talking donkey.

Tiny, little snek legs

>let me just take this religion that was engineered by backards tribals thousands of years ago and obviously intended to be taken literally and turn it into a METAPHOR
>haha, nobody will call me on my bullshit!

>what are the arian christians
>what are the inumerable conflicts they were party to
>what are the heretical sects that the catholic church demanded exterminated
But it's okay, because it wasn't a "war." Just lots of killing.

>LEL a religion possibly having divine origins? WHAT THE HELL LMAO!?!? It's obviously backwards savages even though it contains very cryptic messages that when looked at with a modern perspective indicate scientific knowledge nobody could've possibly known back then! Haha it was totally backwards tribals who intended it literally rather than a prophet from God
>having cognitive dissonance
:(

>even though it contains very cryptic messages
Did you know that seeing patterns in nothing is a sign of schizophrenia?

The entire religion of christianity is a metaphor

So can Christfags tell me if Jesus really was meant to have magical powers

>>it contains very cryptic messages that when looked at with a modern perspective indicate scientific knowledge nobody could've possibly known back then!
Clearly, these are references to the hyperwar and the massive WMDs used during that conflict.

Attached: Finno-Korean_Hyperwar_Info.png (317x1442, 282K)

Attached: A84DC35F-E566-41BD-BFF2-F9FBEE4CD6A8.jpg (1000x735, 94K)

THAT'S PARTIALISM, PATRICK!

Attached: oh, Patrick.jpg (1280x720, 94K)

You're analogy is heresy my friend.

>The Bible was written by the Romans
Stopped reading there

*blocks your path
islam.ru/en/content/story/scientific-facts-holy-quran

>the heart isn't the brain which isn't the liver which isn't the heart but that makes you

So this is the power of christian intellectuals

Demons are literally shapeshifers and can assume almost any form.

I thought God trapped all the demons in Hell for rebellion

genesis was part of the rebellion

nice argument, bro

Aside from everything people have pointed out already, there is a not ignorable group of people that says the Bible is the literal word of God.

>hey guys, I don't understand legends and allegory!!!
>the post

That's partialism, and a heresy.

Actually, the Trinity makes perfect sense under aristotelian ontology and is far from being the most confusing Christian doctrine.

Basically, God has a single, absolutely simple and non-composite divine essence. Father, Son and Ghost are relations within the essence. Since medieval Aristotelian theology doesn't see relations as substances with their own essences, this allows the Godhead to be comprehended as a relational entity. This all ties into John and the idea of God as Love - God is literally love, since the three relations share constant love themselves.
It would be a defect for the Godhead to be imagined as a static, lonely person, and especially in Thomism he isn't a person in any way humans conceive of personhood, but rather the act of Being itself.

Holy shit. So the angels & demons were still battling it out while the ancient egyptians were around? Badass

So the Olympians didn’t actually live on top of mount Olympus?

>People DIED over this shit

People were murdered over it, it's an important distinction.

People die by the powers of the gods - e.g. Zeus' lightning strikes them, Poseidon's earthquakes crush them.

People are murdered by mortals.

youtube.com/watch?v=ojvrFOq5eKU

>implying i follow christian doctrine
muslim bro here
ayy lmao we got a dun retard here, how could ancient egyptians and moses be around while adam and eve weren't

also i am no partialist
i believe the father to be God, the Spirit to be his influence (including angels and daemons) and the guiding force of the Son which is the tool he uses to become the Father again, in that sense they are all God but sequences instead of separate entities

Modalism (i.e. Sabellianism, Noetianism and Patripassianism)
...taught that the three persons of the Trinity as different “modes” of the Godhead. Adherants believed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct personalities, but different modes of God's self-revelation. A typical modalist approach is to regard God as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Spirit in sanctification. In other words, God exists as Father, Son and Spirit in different eras, but never as triune. Stemming from Modalism, Patripassianism believed that the Father suffered as the Son.

monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian Heresies.html

Yeah obviously. It had to mesh with the core beliefs of the people that were the target audience. Here's what I think happened;
Simon bar goria/ Simon of Cyrene/Simon Magus, was an inspiring military commander who led the city of Jerusalem's last defense from the temple.
He lost the battle, was captured, and then crucified as an example of Roman supremacy.
His followers wrapped him in his burial cloth and laid him to rest, and lo and behold, a miracle. His likeness is transferred to the burial shroud, effectively ressurection through an image "painted not with human hands."
Word spreads like wild fire about the miracle and the shroud becomes the focal point of gnosticsm and early Christianity.
The Romans, rightly fearful about this growing religion co-opt it with the help of certain Jewish traitors who doctor the mythos surrounding The Christ, who they now name Jesus. Que the Roman Catholic Church.
You only need to look at the early writings, and the laughable way they tried to assassinate Simon's character to see that something isn't right. Official history claims that after the sacking of the temple, Simon, who had been hiding in the sewers decided to pop up dressed in kingly purple robes to "scare" the Roman sentries, who promptly aressted him and took him to Rome.
I think he did appear out of nowhere, and he did scare the shit out of the Romans, who promptly crucified him to the horror of his followers.
It was imperative for the Roman narrative that the Messiah be anonymous to tamp down on revolutionary sentiment, rather than an inspiring and successful military commander who ultimately sacrificed himself for his people, possibly because he knew retribution would be Swift and horrible if he wasn't recovered. I mean, this is a guy who pissed off the Romans, other Jewish groups, basically everyone. He taunted Roman soldiers naked on the ramparts of the city while seige weapons fired at him. Definitely the guy I want to be my personal savior.

This is fascinating, thank you!

I should add that "official" history on the matters concerning Simon only come from one or two primary sources, all of which were under Roman control, and thus they were compelled to doctor the facts leading up to his death. Why does the church take an ambivalent attitude towards the Shroud? To the point they deliberately botch forensic examination of a relic that effectively proves their religion? Because they are afraid of what people will find out...the identity of the man in the image.

Based snakeposter

I like to tell Christians the snake originally had legs.. because his punishment for the tree of knowledge was crawling on his belly. None of them know it which shows how little they know of their own sacred text.

Still, though, I love Christianity. I don't believe in anything personally, but the symbolism and architecture from early Christianity was amazing, and early Christian monks were really cool. It's my favorite religion for a lot of reasons. I grew up Protestant from a Kansas Baptist mother, and an English immigrant father, and between Kansas and the UK I've found myself in a lot of churches and cathedrals and I appreciate each one.

People die for a lot of reasons. If you're interested in the Bible it is a good read. Think of it like Gilgamesh, or the epic of Odysseus, and it's really quite interesting, especially when examining the historical societal impact of abrahamic belief to now.

Have you ever read any of the apochryphal texts? They were the ones left out of the Bible when it was finalized and perverted into the Roman Catholic Church. Specifically the acts of Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas, which many argue could be the source material for John, Luke, and Paul. It comes from an early (70-80ad) gnostic group and is said to be written from the point of view of the resurrected Christ. Gnosticsm in general is fascinating to me, and anything from the first century is almost always a great read steeped in allegory and metaphor.

Of course, the gnostics were considered the original heresy, even though I'm pretty sure it was the other way around in real life, and by the 2nd or 3rd century we're all but stamped out. All their stuff deals with a deeply esoteric understanding of the soul, and how to prepare it for the next life through Christ's teachings. I'm the poster of the above tirade about the shroud of Turin and how I think the identity of Jesus Christ is none other than Simon Magus, who in the cannonical Bible is the original heretic. Either way, this stuff really gets my juices flowing.

Attached: 65cbkul61ln01.gif (267x200, 1.96M)

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-25 at 7.21.22 PM.png (1548x1636, 1.15M)

>implying that doesn't work for snakes

Same. I like the christian architecture and mythology and whatnot. And I do appreciate the influence it’s had on western values for better or worse.

But the fact that people take obviously fantastical stories as cosmic truth is beyond retardation.

Ok, New Testament then friend. Simple fact is, that Roman Catholicism was created as a means of social control, plain and simple. Was there really a Christ? Yes, obviously. The early gnostic texts, and the shroud prove that a man was killed "much in the same way as Christ," and was *resurrected* in the form of a miraculous likeness that appeared on his burial shroud.
Does that invalidate the churches core teachings? Not really, but the context of the original words have been twisted and distorted into a wholy new message.

>A=D
>B=D
>C=D
>A=/=B
>B=/=C
>A=/=C
Nigger....

>Apple=Fruit
>Banana=Fruit
>OP=Fruit
>Apple=/=Banana
el negro...

I have, they're great.

Christianity is extremely deep. Delving into without being a christcuck is beautiful.

Better minds vs worse minds what else is new?

I've never read the bible. Is it worth a read? I've always been tempted to read the major religious texts to better understand where religious folk come from.

I find it extremely strange that the trinity is one of the things people tried so hard to maintain and clung onto it like there was no tomorrow. It literally changes nothing. It's like focusing on how many branches were on the burning bush. I always saw it as one of those things you can't just explain with a neat little diagram and the number three. Literally who cares. Worship God. If Jesus was God, then great. But don't worship Jesus. Catholics are pretty weird with what they care about or not.

I always saw it as archetypal... Father/Son/and spirit fulfilling their roles that make up facets of what God is supposedly.

But it doesn't matter when people try to make it a real story. It's not a real story. It's obviously a mythos and a huge portion of the population doesn't get that.

Catholics also have a ton of traditions not in the Bible they explain away as "it was tradition passed down" while their pope rides through cities in a bulletproof box and a bunch of Cardinals wave smoke around and they pray to idols and call their preists "father" - Catholicism doesn't make a whole lot of sense whether you read the Bible or not.

>Open Bible
>Chapter 1
>Talking snake with legs
>people DIED over this shit

ftfy

Brainletfag here
Who wrote the NT though? Wasnt it Catholics?

Jews.

Yeah it's a bit fucking ridiculous to think how people killed billions over middle eastern fables a thousand years ago and a good chunk of conflict has been over what bs middle eastern fairy tales are the correct one.

Religion is the one reason to kill someone I'll never understand.

The Roman government wrote the NT, or at the very very least, sponsored the church fathers who wrote it. Which is really kind of a misnomer, because the NT wasn't written so much as compiled. The founders of the Roman Catholic Church gathered the stories and anecdotes that THEY wanted in the "cannon" and dismissed everything else as heresy which was punishable by very painful death.
Bottom line is that the church was formed as the Roman government's propaganda wing.

Good, that means it's worked.

I hate that animation, it doesn't even understand the heresies it speaks of.