*puts in the fantasy section*

The religion section.

DELETE THIS

It didn't last.

Don't worry he comes back to life after three days
Then dies and comes back 3 more times

Steven dies too, pleb.

this but then again I would feel ashamed in defacing the bible.

>Steven
>v
Johnny B dies

>Hallucinations

Is that what atheists call them?

Damn...

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we humans are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of shitposting. Shitposting is the NEET's prodigious invention to defend himself against the Bible, to ensure that he can continue to be a good person without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless shitposting, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

Come home OP

Raging christfags are as bad if not worse than euphoric fedora tippers

heh...
good idea.
i've got to try that one.

What do you mean by this? I've only read snippets from the Bible due to Sunday School, but this has always been my biggest question.

What could these, humans mind you, have possibly been doing to justify God killing EVERY single one of them besides Noah? Of all the bad things we do every single day, apparently it's nothing compared to what the real fucked up humans were responsible for.

What was it?

...

Why don't you read the book to find out user?

butt fucking

Your heart is in the right place user

What I don't get is that God floods the earth to purge degeneracy and such yet there is still degeneracy and such today.

For someone who is all knowing his solution was shit

>The Bible is very easy to understand
Haha

What a dumb fucking surface level reading
No wonder people keep turning away from religion, they're too thick to understand its language

Did you even watch the movie Noah?

I'm with you, brother. Keep it strong.

youtube.com/watch?v=dDgnD1FQQeQ

Reminds me of a part of The Blood Meridian
"A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to
tend it. "

*puts in the fantasy section*

t. fat fedora tipper

The 200s or BL-BX

*puts in the history section*

That would be retarded. Bible was written as a historical account, whatever your opinion on it, thats it's purpose. With the same logic we can put Tacitus's Annales, or Kievan Tale of Past Years in fiction because they contain a lot of controversial historical inaccuracies

*puts it in the self-help section*

*puts in horror section*

First of all we shouldn't assume the author of Genesis was asserting that a worldwide flood took place. Modern readers may interpret passages in Genesis that describe water covering "the earth" as meaning the entire planet was inundated. But a resident of ancient Mesopotamia may have only understood "the earth" to mean "the land" or the region he knew. In fact, the Hebrew word for "earth" in this passage, eretz, can also mean "land," as in Genesis 41:57, where it says that "all the eretz came to Egypt to buy grain" when a famine struck the region. Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone on the planet went to Egypt to buy grain, just those people who inhabited the region the author was referring to went there.

As far as the story itself goes the author of Genesis may have used popular storytelling devices found in other flood narratives in order to show how the God of the Israelites was superior to pagan deities. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods are afraid of the flood and flee to higher ground, but in Genesis God is in complete control of the disaster and is unaffected by it.

The Epic of Gilgamesh seems to have been derived from an even older story called the Epic of Artrahasis. In this story, a pantheon of gods flood the earth because human beings had become too huberous and noisy. The author of the Genesis account may even have been purposefully subverting this anti-life attitude in his own narrative in which God commands that Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiple." God's decision to send the flood in judgment of sin instead of as a population control measure would be a further subversion of this theme.

>seriously believing the oral traditions of a bronze-aged semi-nomadic warrior peoples

Surely a God would be less ambiguous than this?

The human authors of the bible were not divine stenographers with God dictating every word and turn of phrase. The book had human authors who were writing to a human audience that lived in a specific time and place, so in order to understand the book you must read in from their perspective taking their literary culture and language into consideration. The points that I have made would not have been ambiguous to an audience that lived when and where Genesis was written.

I assume that you wouldn't expect all 3000 year old texts to be unambiguous to modern readers when even many modern books written in the same language as the intended audience are not always clear, but for some reason the bible is held to a different standard.

*puts in the trash*

If I recall correctly, many books in the OT are dictations of a long tradition of oral literature wherein events are altered and embellished to create a captivating and relevant story for an illiterate society, one who's psycho-dynamics and values are vastly different than a literate culture's.

>for some reason the bible is held to a different standard.
I think the Christian interpretation of the Bible is what's held to a different standard, because it's presented as inspired scripture, not just another historical document.

*punches OP in the midsection*

I'm a Catholic so I can only speak on how we view scripture but I don't know of any Christian group that believes the authors were divine stenographers. I'm sure they are out there but they're as irrelevant to a discussion on the bible as Flat Earthers are to a discussion on plate tectonics.

I think there's some confusion around the term "inspired scripture." It's merely the belief that scripture is free from error in what the ancient authors asserted, not what they wrote. In other words you could say that God inspired the authors to write these books and protected them from making errors in what they assert.

For example the author of Genesis did not understand some of the scientific truths we know today (just as we don't understand scientific truths humans will come to learn in the future). But any lack of knowledge on the part of the ancient author would not constitute an error in his text because the author is not asserting a scientific description of the world, but a popular one. They described and dealt with things in a more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time. Just like ancient people who spoke of "the sun goeth forth in his might," we describe what we observe with expressions that are useful. After all, we too speak of the sun "rising" and "setting" even though the sun does not move in an orbit that "rises" over the earth. We call this the "language of appearances" because it describes the world as it appears to our senses. These descriptions are true, but they are not literal in nature. When skeptics mock scriptural passages that describe human beings "thinking in their hearts" they demonstrate an unwillingness to allow the text to be as flexible as modern expressions.

You're not wrong but it doesn't lessen my point faggot

Yeah I've heard all that apologetics before, I never said divine stenographer. What I'm saying is that the text isn't held to a higher standard, and that's why people question it! Do you think people hold The Iliad to a lower standard for example? Contemporary readers try and understand what the original author was saying in the context he was writing in. That doesn't change the issue of inspiration. A lot of the ancient Greeks thought Homer was inspired by the Muses and that Homer's writing was above criticism in terms of its inspiration. Yet, modern readers will be very skeptical of its inspiration, and question events and morals in it. There's no extra concession for other ancient writings that the Bible doesn't get.

When I say that you're holding the bible to a different standard I'm referring to your comment that "surely a God would be less ambiguous than this." In saying this you are holding the bible to a different standard because you would never reasonable expect a similarly aged text to unambiguous to modern readers. I'm merely asking you to treat the bible the same as you would any other ancient text. Whether or not a person believes it is divinely inspired is irrelevant to historical criticism.

Belongs in history. Next to the history books that said Hitler gas millions of jews or did anything wrong than get impatient with military tactics. Just incorrect depictions of history.

I'm not that user, I only talked about the inspiration.

the philosophy one

its clearly just a tale of a flood like the world back then was smaller

I see. But if it weren't God dictating the words as such; how can we be sure and confident that it is indeed the holy book? If this is based on sentences in that very same book, you encounter a paradox, no?

This is actually a massive problem for protestants. Since protestants teach that the bible alone is their ultimate authority, each book of the bible has a cloud of suspicion hanging over it because the bible does not have an infallible table of contents that lists the books that are divinely inspired and, therefore, should be included in it. If, as Luther taught and protestants believe, that the Catholic church was wrong about the deuterocanonicals, it is reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church may have made other errors, that perhaps other books should be rejected from the bible.

Catholics on the other the other hand have Sacred Tradition. We believe the successors of the apostles, or the popes and bishops who inherited the apostles' spiritual authority, are able to authoritatively declare the bible to be the word of god. This is not a circular argument, in which an inspired bible is used to prove the church's authority and the church's authority is used to prove that the bible is inspired. Instead, as Karl Keating would say, it is a "spiral argument," in which the bible is assumed to be a merely human document that records the creation of the divinely instituted church. This church then had the authority to pronounce which human writings also had God as their author.

Is there any evidence that points to the fact that Ancient Greeks and Romans took their myths literally, isntead of figuratively?

This seems to be a massive flaw in christianity, and I, since im a massive ignorant, don't really know if the pre-protestant era had a literal/fundamental view (I assume it did) of the Bible and if so when did that begin?

>selectively interpreting scripture

This is why people turning away from religion, because once you start doing stupid shit like that, the text gets even more incoherent than it already is.

>We believe the successors of the apostles
These successors being appointed how?

I don't know much about Rome or Greek history but I do know that historians like Tacitus and Herodotus recorded miracles in their history.

Whether or not the early Jews or Christians believed the stories like the creation account in Genesis was literal history is ultimately irrelevant because we're not limited to saying that every story in the bible is either literal history or poetic fictions. They could instead be nonliteral accounts of actual historical events. Think about how a parent might explain to his child that babies "come from a seed daddies give to mommys that grow inside the mommys tummy." That's a true explanation, but it shouldn't be taken literally since it was accommodated for a childs level of understanding. Likewise, the stories in Genesis are true but consist of nonliteral language that comes down (or condescends) to the level of understanding found in the audience that first heard these stories.

Book of Enoch and other texts of the Apocrypha tell us that humanity had been corrupted and interbred by Angels who had descended from Heaven, creating the race of Nephilim, giving rise to human vice, warfare and technology and bringing God's wrath upon the Earth.

>interpret scripture to be LGBT friendly
>Dies even faster
Happens every time.

I honestly don't know what all it takes to become a priest. That's all it is though, priests ordaining more priests. Catholics have a historical claim that this succession goes back from the original 12 apostles to modern day.

Because God made the covenant with Noah to never destroy the world again and later sent Jesus as an alternative means of purifying the Earth.

How this adds up with all the fundies screaming about the apocalypse is anyone's guess.

How did this co-author relationship between God and the human authors manifest itself?

I would break your fucking hand you piece of shit

I see, thanks for your responses. I'm largerly unread when it comes to these believes; so I thank you again. This historical claim is I presume validated by outside sources from the church, no? As if it were not, I and you too I'm sure, would see an error in that as well.

I have no idea and I'm not sure anyone would know. I can assume and imagine but that's all.

Nigger the entirety of organized Christianity is based on selective interpretation of Scripture, Jeshua of Nazarath was a radical who instructed his followers to disown their material property and devote their life to proselytizing the masses.

>who instructed his followers to disown their material property
He didn't actually do this senpai.

>start reading the Bible expecting to be spiritually enriched
>its nothing but random stories about jewish farmers fucking their sisters

See this is why I respect the Catholics - your religion and traditions are wacky bullshit, but you tied up every loose end and formalized every possible element of your theology; there's none of that interpretive song and dance shit that lets protestants avoid uncomfortable questions

>literally directly told people to do this
>one of the most widely discussed and debated passages of the Gospels
>'durr nuh uh'
This is why people typecast the religious as braindead.

Well, miracles do happen. A simple analogy is a buzzer shot hit by a pro basketball player when he was down 40points and hits it to close and win the game. Pretty miraculous. Although, if afterwards you take the stories written about the event, and take them literally, then you've fucked up.

Yeah, it's irrelevant, but I just doubt they did. I'd just thought I could trace the beginning of this mental illness that is, taking stories literally instead of figuratively.

>you dare question the Almighty

I'm sure some protestants would dispute but I don't know by what basis they would. Aside from that as far as I know it's not a controversial claim. The disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox church isn't so much over succession but rather the supremacy of Peter's successor. They don't actually deny that the pope is Peter's successor.

It isn't like this was exclusive to Catholics, Anglicans had this as well, Anglican theory is definitely underrated.

Try Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth.

>a miracle is just something uncommon that happens as a result of coincidence
NO you absolute fucking mongoloid
What the literal shit are you talking about, miracles are displays of direct Divine Intervention, phenomena that COULD NOT HAPPEN naturally. Otherwise there's no fucking point to their existence.

Never read much on Anglican theology honestly

I was about to do that :^)
Also
*puts into the autism chart*

I appreciate your quality posts

I used to roll Prince Albert tobacco my grandfather left in his old 1950 Plymouth, in pages I tore from a bible i stole from the church I played guitar for every sunday.

I bet your grandpa continues sucking on rods, but the different kind, in hell!

We fucking call those miracles. They shouldn't happen, but they did. Goddamnit you're a worthless shit. Why are you arguing with me over semantics. You obviously can't tell me what I wanted to know so fuck you.

>They shouldn't happen, but they did.
By what fucking criteria "should" a ball falling in a hoop "not happen"?
Are you just stupid?
There is no 'should' you moron. Things either CAN happen as per the basic laws of reality, or CANNOT. When something which CANNOT happen per natural laws evidently DOES, this is a miracle. To label anything else as such just devalues the power of God.

he's still alive

I'll make sure this changes soon

as long as you do the same for me. But you wont pussy. My grandfather and I will just fuck your mother. Shit we may turn you dad gay just for the hell of it. Bring it on dick lick. Sucking rods is nothing new, just ask your faggot father.