The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Europa Undivided]

Not only do you reject so called useless presuppositions, you reject any presupposition you don't agree with, with the defining factor of course being the certainly unbiased standard of whatever your finite and fleeting cognitive ability (not in an insulting manner, but recognizing the truly limiting nature of our rationality) deems personally understandable.

How nice. You have something in common with eachother.
I see the beginnings of a beautiful friendship.

One isn't open minded.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Well they didn’t forge it because they thought it might be cool to.
“Hey Dionysus, want to forge a first-century fisherman? It’ll be totally epic.”
“Nah sorry man, my mom says I can’t forge epistles anymore.”
“That’s balls, dude. We were maybe gonna write a whole gospel if we had time.”

I don’t reject the metaphysical. I reject useless presuppositions. If you can demonstrate to me a single useful quality that faith has in reality that other methods cannot also attain, we’ll then see what I think of it.

Not only do you reject so called useless presuppositions, you reject any presupposition you don't agree with, with the defining factor of course being the certainly unbiased standard of whatever your finite and fleeting cognitive ability (not in an insulting manner, but recognizing the truly limiting nature of our rationality) deems personally understandable. What you consider to be useful is obviously another reason why you will never accept any of my reasoning. We believe Christianity is useful because it is true and brings us into unification with God. That is why our religion useful, and to dumb it down to comparing religions like they're NGOs providing useful humanitarian services is inherently contradictory to the entire mission of religion.

So what you’re telling me is that there’s nothing inherently useful about it. Tell me, what’s so great about unity with God that I can’t get by doing shrooms?

[Novo Vaticanus]

Are you retarded or something? Go read the ecumenical councils and then come back when you have a grasp of Church history kid.

I have, and it’s uninspiring. I’m sorry you don’t like my conclusions.

"Yeah hur dur i'm gonna neglect the weight of Christian scriptural tradition and pretend that the books in the Bible were just chosen at random"

Clearly certain writings were more important than others because of their relevance to Christian life. Why is it even an issue that the Church chose what She chose when She put together the scriptures? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is your staunch denial of a God.

[Novo Vaticanus]

So what you’re telling me is that there’s nothing inherently useful about it. Tell me, what’s so great about unity with God that I can’t get by doing shrooms?

Exactly that; unity with God. You weren't created by shrooms, and your existence isn't ordered towards them.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Well they didn’t forge it because they thought it might be cool to.
“Hey Dionysus, want to forge a first-century fisherman? It’ll be totally epic.”
“Nah sorry man, my mom says I can’t forge epistles anymore.”
“That’s balls, dude. We were maybe gonna write a whole gospel if we had time.”

I don’t reject the metaphysical. I reject useless presuppositions. If you can demonstrate to me a single useful quality that faith has in reality that other methods cannot also attain, we’ll then see what I think of it.

"Forged" indeed, lmao.

I’m only talking about 2 Peter being forged. If you’d like to delve further into Christ Myth Theory (which I do not necessarily adhere to, but find interesting nonetheless), Richard Carrier has videos on YouTube discussing how it’s more complicated than that lame meme of yours.

[The Grims]

How nice. You have something in common with eachother.
I see the beginnings of a beautiful friendship.

One isn't open minded.

Neither is. They both dismiss all beliefs that are not theirs as useless or false. Great basis for a friendship.

[Europa Undivided]

"Forged" indeed, lmao.

I’m only talking about 2 Peter being forged. If you’d like to delve further into Christ Myth Theory (which I do not necessarily adhere to, but find interesting nonetheless), Richard Carrier has videos on YouTube discussing how it’s more complicated than that lame meme of yours.

I have found such videos lamer than the meme.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

So what you’re telling me is that there’s nothing inherently useful about it. Tell me, what’s so great about unity with God that I can’t get by doing shrooms?

Exactly that; unity with God. You weren't created by shrooms, and your existence isn't ordered towards them.

You can’t know that. The giant shroom monster made me. He told me so.

I have, and it’s uninspiring. I’m sorry you don’t like my conclusions.

"Yeah hur dur i'm gonna neglect the weight of Christian scriptural tradition and pretend that the books in the Bible were just chosen at random"

Clearly certain writings were more important than others because of their relevance to Christian life. Why is it even an issue that the Church chose what She chose when She put together the scriptures? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is your staunch denial of a God.

I don’t deny God. I do not accept the God hypothesis. It’s an issue because it dishonestly presents fallible and political doctrine as divine.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I’m only talking about 2 Peter being forged. If you’d like to delve further into Christ Myth Theory (which I do not necessarily adhere to, but find interesting nonetheless), Richard Carrier has videos on YouTube discussing how it’s more complicated than that lame meme of yours.

I have found such videos lamer than the meme.

That’s unfortunate. Alternatively, if you’re into reading, he has some good books on the subject.

[Novo Vaticanus]

One isn't open minded.

Neither is. They both dismiss all beliefs that are not theirs as useless or false. Great basis for a friendship.

"Look at me I'm a centrist, they're BOTH closed minded! give me internet points!1!! ecks dee!"

Go back to reddit, boomer.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

One isn't open minded.

Neither is. They both dismiss all beliefs that are not theirs as useless or false. Great basis for a friendship.

Christianity is false by the evidence. I do not hold a belief on the God hypothesis overall.

[Hakons]

Things are true that are true, not what I think of them, as my personal opinion has no sway on what is true.



I have plenty of reasons, and frankly what an internet random thinks of these reasons as being good or not has absolutely no sway on if these reasons are actually good or not.

You and I both know that if you had legitimate evidence, you would have presented it instead of circular reasoning. Don’t play the “personal revelation” card, you’re talking to a former “prophet”.

Once again, you're idea of "legitimate evidence" is arcanely twisted to invalidate all religious evidence. Not letting religious people use the religious reasons for why they're religious is stupid and an act of bad faith. Obviously you have a religious past, so you should at least understand that your standards aren't going to float well in Christian circles, and that perhaps you reject religion because you excluded by your own fallible and finite rationality anything that provides evidence for religion.

As for why I believe, I don't have a single aspect, but a combination of things. As when Moses asked Who was speaking, and God replied "I AM," my belief simply IS. It exists, thanks be to God, and may I believe it for eternity. Why I have my faith when so many others have lost theirs, I know not, but I have faith that I will know when all things are revealed. I've never been a fan of apologetics, as this brief discussion as shown, since at some point faith is needed for belief, and pretending using non religious reasoning will create religion in someone is a fool's game. The Logos, God, is the Truth. This, for whatever reason, has always been evident within my soul, and may it be for all men forever.

[Novo Vaticanus]

You can’t know that. The giant shroom monster made me. He told me so.


I don’t deny God. I do not accept the God hypothesis. It’s an issue because it dishonestly presents fallible and political doctrine as divine.

The difference between God and a shroom monster is that you can't logically deduce that a shroom monster must exist.

>inb4 "But muh proof of god"

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

You and I both know that if you had legitimate evidence, you would have presented it instead of circular reasoning. Don’t play the “personal revelation” card, you’re talking to a former “prophet”.

Once again, you're idea of "legitimate evidence" is arcanely twisted to invalidate all religious evidence. Not letting religious people use the religious reasons for why they're religious is stupid and an act of bad faith. Obviously you have a religious past, so you should at least understand that your standards aren't going to float well in Christian circles, and that perhaps you reject religion because you excluded by your own fallible and finite rationality anything that provides evidence for religion.

As for why I believe, I don't have a single aspect, but a combination of things. As when Moses asked Who was speaking, and God replied "I AM," my belief simply IS. It exists, thanks be to God, and may I believe it for eternity. Why I have my faith when so many others have lost theirs, I know not, but I have faith that I will know when all things are revealed. I've never been a fan of apologetics, as this brief discussion as shown, since at some point faith is needed for belief, and pretending using non religious reasoning will create religion in someone is a fool's game. The Logos, God, is the Truth. This, for whatever reason, has always been evident within my soul, and may it be for all men forever.

How can we observe that religious evidence is true? Cut it with the theological jargon. Furthermore, I have a legitimate belief in the Shroom Monster. Are our beliefs equally valid? If not, why not?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

You can’t know that. The giant shroom monster made me. He told me so.


I don’t deny God. I do not accept the God hypothesis. It’s an issue because it dishonestly presents fallible and political doctrine as divine.

The difference between God and a shroom monster is that you can't logically deduce that a shroom monster must exist.

>inb4 "But muh proof of god"

And can you with God?

[Hakons]

Not only do you reject so called useless presuppositions, you reject any presupposition you don't agree with, with the defining factor of course being the certainly unbiased standard of whatever your finite and fleeting cognitive ability (not in an insulting manner, but recognizing the truly limiting nature of our rationality) deems personally understandable. What you consider to be useful is obviously another reason why you will never accept any of my reasoning. We believe Christianity is useful because it is true and brings us into unification with God. That is why our religion useful, and to dumb it down to comparing religions like they're NGOs providing useful humanitarian services is inherently contradictory to the entire mission of religion.

So what you’re telling me is that there’s nothing inherently useful about it. Tell me, what’s so great about unity with God that I can’t get by doing shrooms?

That's ... not remotely what I was saying. Whatever the heck you get out shrooms of course wouldn't compare to the immeasurable peace, contentedness, and virtue that God gives to His faithful in this life. This is before we get to the benefits of eternity with God, in which the bliss is truly without comprehension (and the other side of the eternal life is certainly less blissful but still without comprehension).

[Novo Vaticanus]

The difference between God and a shroom monster is that you can't logically deduce that a shroom monster must exist.

>inb4 "But muh proof of god"

And can you with God?

Dude, of course. Coupled with an unbiased look at the historical context of the life of Christ and of the Apostles, there's no way in hell that God doesn't exist. He must.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

So what you’re telling me is that there’s nothing inherently useful about it. Tell me, what’s so great about unity with God that I can’t get by doing shrooms?

That's ... not remotely what I was saying. Whatever the heck you get out shrooms of course wouldn't compare to the immeasurable peace, contentedness, and virtue that God gives to His faithful in this life. This is before we get to the benefits of eternity with God, in which the bliss is truly without comprehension (and the other side of the eternal life is certainly less blissful but still without comprehension).

I’m more at peace, content, and virtuous than half the Christians I know. What’s God doing wrong?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

And can you with God?

Dude, of course. Coupled with an unbiased look at the historical context of the life of Christ and of the Apostles, there's no way in hell that God doesn't exist. He must.

Demonstrate:
-How we know what the life of Christ was like
-How we know what the life of the apostles was like
-How that proves God
-How you can claim to believe in a sky father and still be unbiased

[Highever]

You would have to elaborate on that. Obviously pagan traditions had elements like resurrected figures, water washing ceremonies, and sacrificial ceremonies, but you would actually have to substantiate your claim that the Resurrection and the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist are somehow inspired by paganism. You can't just point to similar traits and say one is directly inspired and influenced by the other.

One can wonder why the resurrection of Jesus is deemed special and conclusive proof of the validity of Christianity, while the resurrection of pagans is not seen as proof their faith was correct.

Well one is "magic" and thus heretical and evil while the other is a "miracle" even though it is the same exact thing and therefore it is okay.

[Hakons]

Once again, you're idea of "legitimate evidence" is arcanely twisted to invalidate all religious evidence. Not letting religious people use the religious reasons for why they're religious is stupid and an act of bad faith. Obviously you have a religious past, so you should at least understand that your standards aren't going to float well in Christian circles, and that perhaps you reject religion because you excluded by your own fallible and finite rationality anything that provides evidence for religion.

As for why I believe, I don't have a single aspect, but a combination of things. As when Moses asked Who was speaking, and God replied "I AM," my belief simply IS. It exists, thanks be to God, and may I believe it for eternity. Why I have my faith when so many others have lost theirs, I know not, but I have faith that I will know when all things are revealed. I've never been a fan of apologetics, as this brief discussion as shown, since at some point faith is needed for belief, and pretending using non religious reasoning will create religion in someone is a fool's game. The Logos, God, is the Truth. This, for whatever reason, has always been evident within my soul, and may it be for all men forever.

How can we observe that religious evidence is true? Cut it with the theological jargon. Furthermore, I have a legitimate belief in the Shroom Monster. Are our beliefs equally valid? If not, why not?

Cut it with the theological jargon? Are you not seeing exactly why this conversation is useless and stupid? How can I cut out the theological from what is inherently theological?

You don't actually believe in the Shroom Monster. You're using this fake supposition as an argumentative measure, but you also blatantly lied in doing so, which doesn't make your claim very compelling in my book. Next, this so called Shroom Monster just appeared in your head, while God has appeared in quite a lot of heads since the very beginning of human existence.

[Highever]

And can you with God?

Dude, of course. Coupled with an unbiased look at the historical context of the life of Christ and of the Apostles, there's no way in hell that God doesn't exist. He must.

The fact that a prophet and cult (which is what early Christianity was, this is not a derogatory use of the term) existed does not equate to proof in what that prophet is saying.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

How can we observe that religious evidence is true? Cut it with the theological jargon. Furthermore, I have a legitimate belief in the Shroom Monster. Are our beliefs equally valid? If not, why not?

Cut it with the theological jargon? Are you not seeing exactly why this conversation is useless and stupid? How can I cut out the theological from what is inherently theological?

You don't actually believe in the Shroom Monster. You're using this fake supposition as an argumentative measure, but you also blatantly lied in doing so, which doesn't make your claim very compelling in my book. Next, this so called Shroom Monster just appeared in your head, while God has appeared in quite a lot of heads since the very beginning of human existence.

Ah, an appeal to popularity. A commonly shared delusion is still a delusion. Someone should write a book on delusions involving God. Regardless, do you ever notice that it’s always a God they already know? I never got a vision of Zalmoxis, it was always Jesus.

[Hakons]

That's ... not remotely what I was saying. Whatever the heck you get out shrooms of course wouldn't compare to the immeasurable peace, contentedness, and virtue that God gives to His faithful in this life. This is before we get to the benefits of eternity with God, in which the bliss is truly without comprehension (and the other side of the eternal life is certainly less blissful but still without comprehension).

I’m more at peace, content, and virtuous than half the Christians I know. What’s God doing wrong?

Apparently not leading you to humbleness. How can one be virtuous without believing in the Standard of Virtue, God?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I’m more at peace, content, and virtuous than half the Christians I know. What’s God doing wrong?

Apparently not leading you to humbleness. How can one be virtuous without believing in the Standard of Virtue, God?

Philosophy, namedly. Your God sucks.