2000 years later

Yes?
>your
Generic atheist deflection. He is your lord too

Highway 61 Revisited was a better book than the Bible

ahahahaha woah spook ahahah

>religious people are retarded
>makes posts like

>post le ebin "i don't need to address your post" man
Stirner is a spook, as is this post.

The question isn't whether the Bible is worthy of attention or not but rather whether we should live according to Christian doctrine or not. The answer to the latter is a resounding no.

thats how we know you dont accually know shit about bible

>becuz reddit sed it

nice meme redditman

I read the whole thing, King James. Beautiful book, in every way

>Implying that Christianity is more than just a widespread love cult and that you do not cherrypick events out of billions of people that seem "miraculous"
Go back to Cat in The Hat.
Just because a bunch of peasants wrote nice books, it was a long time ago, and they were one of fucking millions who could have written a great book
Logic beats cherrypicking and simple translation to make it sound beautiful.

>Logic beats cherrypicking
then its illogical to not believe because of events such as noahs ark or adam+eve

events that have no evidence of ever occuring? events that dont even make sense considering current scientific understanding?

they didn't write it, retard. the book is a compilation of stories and ideas who passed through the mind of thousands of circumsized kikes, each generation molding the stories like a diamond in to the most universal and general forms of truth, duh fuckhead.

>bible is literal

>book was written by uneducated shepherds and fishermen
>This book is God's word.
Make up your mind.
There's nothing really inherently beautiful about those sentences, it's just the build-up of culture around them that makes them retroactively beautiful. Otherwise they're quite bland and matter-of-fact statements. They're beautiful because people believe in the bible. Nothing more.

>he doesn't trust the word of God
Go away, heretic.

yeah dude fuck filial piety lmfao its not as though its the bedrock principle of civilization!

Better kill those kids in a cruel and extremely painful way, then. So moral!

you're not worth speaking to, so i won't waste my metaphorical breath.

I guess you have no argument on your side. I mean, of course you don't, you can only claim divine subservience, since you're trying to justify the BRUTAL murder of 42 CHILDREN, justified by petty reasons (calling them "petty" is an euphemism). I understand why you're cowardly running away from this discussion, don't worry.

>Isn't it nice to have a sky daddy who is watching out for you and will always love and forgive you no matter what.

This is just one understanding of God. There are many others of which very much put stress on the responsibility of individuals to themselves and to others, with no guarantee of God's grace if you fuck up and make the wrong choices.

Atheism, however is even worse than what you described. Without the existence of moral purity which God represents notions such as good or bad, right or wrong cannot be coherently constructed and so you can't even make moral arguments like "forgive you no matter what" against anything including religion.

>Atheism, however is even worse than what you described. Without the existence of moral purity which God represents notions such as good or bad, right or wrong cannot be coherently constructed and so you can't even make moral arguments like "forgive you no matter what" against anything including religion.

lol

>Just because a bunch of peasants wrote nice books, it was a long time ago, and they were one of fucking millions who could have written a great book
And nobody has. Millions of people come and go, yet The Bible is forever. It is, and always will be, the greatest book ever written

the quran is better

Speaking of cruel gods, why were the greek gods such dicks? You can rationalize the abrahamic god's actions as part of his grand scheme or something, but the greek gods were always fucking with mortals on a whim.

The Quran is an epileptic mess. There's a reason they have to say "love it or we'll kill you"

But only the KJV has poetic beauty, and that was written by the best poets of the 17th century.

I topkek'd

Exactly,like trans people for example

Greek mythology represents the political and religious upheavals that took place in the ancient Mediterranean. Zeus and Poseidon represent the patriarchal Aryan and Hellenic invaders who overthrew the matriarchal, Druidic cults that lived there.

>God's word
>written by a bunch of uneducated shepherds and fishermen

How could someone so completely and utterly btfo their own argument within two meme arrows?

I-I can control t-this damage user.

Uneducated shepherds can't write books, they were written decades later you ignorant.

...

You christian LARPers are really making me miss the unironic fedora tippers. At least those guys were genuine in their beliefs.

You don't get it, you're supposed to trust those sheperds because OP liked reading the Bible (in English of course) a lot :)

>Robert Graves

The Bible was written over several centuries by dozens of authors. Your entire post is moot.

This. The actual Greek testament is a bit like what would happen if a bunch of niggers and spics got together to write a book. King James is a work of genius, but the original is not.

Daily reminder that Robert Graves was a lunatic and his ideas have no basis in fact. There was never any Europe-wide matriarchal religion.

Allah is, actually.

Mohammad bathes in pork shit while getting fucked in the ass by Ali Baba and his forty thieves.

He is the only one and you know it. You can swim in denial as long as you desire, but eventually you will realise it. I'm praying for that moment.

you are going to hell :)

The New Testament is not a 'book', it's an eyewitness account. (Even says so in the title itself, you idiot.)

>Jesus has an erection while being raped by Roman soldiers

...hot

popularity != excellence

Ezekiel 23:20
>and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

Nahum 3:5
>I am against you,
>says the LORD of hosts,
>and will lift up your skirts over your face;
>and I will let nations look on your nakedness

Deuteronomy 15: 16-17
>But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you’, because he loves you and your household, since he is well off with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his earlobe into the door, and he shall be your slave for ever.

Hosea 1:2
>When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, ‘Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom'

Jeremiah 5:8
>They were well-fed lusty stallions,
>each neighing for his neighbour’s wife.

The book wasn't written by any set of people. Its likely the collection and refinement of story that were told orally before being written down for a long fucking time. Everything in there multilayered with meaning and honestly is a instruction set for how to deal with this life you have been handed.

My point is the only way I think it got to be as good as it is was because its a stone worked on over time for a long time. Until its smooth and near perfect. No other writing comes close because what else is written that way?

Its also why I cant believe the argument that things in the book were changed by single individuals or counsels or whatever. That it was build for the purpose of manipulation. There is no way someone could pull it off and not break it. This has been carried forward longer then can really been understood as a collection of the most important knowledge any person might need. Old testament is the stronger as well.

Good thread

>That it was build for the purpose of manipulation
No one says that about the old testament, but the new testament, which is factually true. You can see it gradually, as each gospel is released.

Imagine being so brainwashed.

I understand this answer from someone with no interest in the philological study of the gospels.

Mark
>At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.

Matthew
>Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

Luke
>But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison. When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened

John
>The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’

This is the Baptism-washing of Jesus.

tendencias21.net/crist/Podemos-fiarnos-de-los-Evangelios-Jesus-y-la-resistencia-antirromana-LVIII_a2288.html

"The reader can observe how a teleological problem, the baptism of a character who is thought without sin, Jesus, is being arranged by the means of a progressive reelaboration of the history, until the Fourth Gospel, which avoids the issue omitting it. His author not only dodges the question, but he puts in the mouth of John The Baptist some words about who is actually Jesus suitables of his theology, that is only conceivable in the subsequents moments of the life of the christian group, the moments in which it was solid the belief in the resurrection of Jesus."

This doesnt seem to prove your point

It doesn't prove my point the fact that they rewrote their own tradition to reflect the ideas that were in vogue at the time when several christian groups were competing to take the leadership the whole community? I don't know what to say.

Every verse of those are pure words. Sorry you're a prissy little faggot who can't take a little sex in his books. Does it give you the vapors, you little faggot? You little sissy faggot who gets all offended when a book tells you what real life is like?

Wait, which guy are you? Are you defending the philological authenticity of the Gospels, or are you discrediting it?

Well sorry, God doesn't communicate with me telepathically, and i guess it is the same for virtually 99% of believers. So i guess it actually matters to analize 'pure words'

I'm

Logic is invalid and illogical. Stop shitposting, child.
Evidence doesn't exist. 'scientific understanding' is an oxymoron. Something not making sense according to arrogant systematization is the greatest measure of its merit.

Morality is a humanist concept. God is beyond morality.
You are the petty one. God is beyond your petty conceptions of morality.

>im so smart ablublu everybody before CURRENT YEAR WAS JUST A DUMB DUM CHRISDEN

It amazes me how many bible-thumping (but not reading!) retards don't understand that the original bible wasn't written in english.

HAHA I SAW THESE VERSES ON /R/EDDIT SO THEYRE BAD HAHA

Stop reducing Christianity to fucking stoicism.

Listen brothers.

The earth is not a ball to which we are glued by the mystical force of "gravity", no.

The earth is flat, just as the ancient peoples believed. Heaven is above you, hell is below you.

The devil first spread the idea of a ball earth revolving around a ball sun in the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian mystery schools. These teachings were passed down to Pythagoras. They were handed down the ages to the occult mystery schools of the European Renaissance, who adopted them as their own. Then the occultists Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, Newton, published the idea and started the "Copernican revolution".

The ancient Hermetic principle is "As Above, So Below". This has many applications. One of them is this: what people believe about the heavens above them, well determine what they believe about the earth below them. In other words, how they interpret the sky will correspond with how they interpret their own lives. Our materialist society would be impossible without a materialist cosmology to justify it. A mechanistic Newtonian cosmology justifies a mechanistic view of human life, a mechanistic politics, sociology, and economics. It sounds like a joke, but the idea that the stars are giant balls of gas reflects the modern obsession with fossil fuels / material goods in general. Copernicus wasn't going for a mechanistic religion, by the way; he was a Pythagorean and Heliolator, and hoped that the belief that the sun was at the center of the universe would usher in a return to a sun-worshipping priesthood like those of ancient societies.

The reason why the Devil spreads the idea of the ball earth is that it totally overturns mans relationship to the world. Instead of man being a spiritual being with heaven above him and hell below him; instead he stands on a ball where there are infinitely many ups and downs, where heaven isn't "above" but only "outside" the earth - moral and epistemological relativism, infinitely many points of view.

The bible is the greatest book ever written because it is essentially the canon of unconscious being from the moment of conscious life first appearing

it is unbelievably genius

Pretty sure you have your Old Testament timeline wrong. You reference a "book written 200 years ago," then go on to quote the first line of genesis. I'm incredibly unimpressed. Why would I take anything else you say seriously after that incredible betrayal of scriptural ignorance? I think not.

How is that relevant, moron?

*2000 years ago

Genesis is much older than that

Not that user, but probably because the user is talking about the beauty of the English (King James?!) version, while it's just a loose interpretation, rather than "exactly the way the original was written." Which, of course, makes the OP's premise fairly questionable. Also, in English, the vast majority of Qabalistic wisdom encoded into the text is lost.

The OP is using the English translations as evidence that the apostles were inspired by God. The apostles did not speak English.

Glad I could figure this one out for you! Let me know if anything else has you confused about this or my other post.

>0 B.C +2017
>still believing that god is the simplified brainlet anthropomorphic god and not an abstraction of an unconscious extension of reality

atheism is so fucking boring and one dimensional. Christianity is honestly more developed and atheistic than atheism even pretends to be

The crucifixion of Jesus is the representation of the death of the idea of an anthropomorphic god and that people should give up the idea of a physical contact with the divine and focus on the "holy ghost" or the abstraction of god itself

>loose interpretation
t. retard that doesn't understand scripture
Why does it matter if they did not speak English? You don't seem to understand how Christianity works.
Fuck off, Jungian asshat

>Jungian asshat
rude >:(

>muh rationalizations are actually profound
the only one you're fooling is yourself user

man created god and he has destroyed him and cannot be convinced to walk backwards

>a deist is calling me a fool

wew

why is it a rationalization if the jungian interpretation is to embrace the irrationality of reality

rationalization would end up with a boring form of nihilistic atheism

Christian philosophy is a great tool for in-group cohesion. All that forgiveness and tolerance and shit.

The mistake liberal Christians make is applying it to out-groups. The Church is supposed to decide who's in and who's out.

The mistake all Christians make is trying to justify this logic with physical evidence of Christ's existence.

Yeah that was my point in saying:
>Pretty sure you have your Old Testament timeline wrong
Except I had to amend the post because I left out a zero in the first one.

Are you implying every translation of the bible is a faithful linguistic reproduction of the copy from which it was translated? Would you like an opportunity to disassociate yourself from that assertion?

Nice argument

>jungians try to delude themselves: the post
Fuck off, psychobabble heretic.

Oh man what are you DOING Baptist

t. Catholic

I'm implying that anybody with an actual connection to God (something you lack) can read any translation and comprehend it on a level beyond the translation itself.

Back to /r/eddit.

>"Something you lack"
I actual belong to a spiritual tradition that believes in direct revelation to each and every individual by god(s). Not one that says, "eh, you gotta pay us and we'll tell ya what god said. God doesn't talk to plebians like you!" My god answers my prayers. Does yours?

Furthermore, nice deflection. Your implication was that I don't understand scripture, based on my assertion that with every translation something is lost ( a great example I gave, and you promptly ignored, is the Qabalistic wisdom encoded into the earlier texts). Do you care to address this obviously imprecise accusation, or are you just going to change the subject again?

To illustrate my point, the very first word in the Hebrew Torah, "Berashith," has much meaning in it when written in Hebrew and analyzed in context of Qabalah, but the English of "in the beginning" has led a hell of a lot of people to come to a hell of a lot of silly conclusions. Because meaning was lost in translation.