Jewish holy book PROMOTES idiocracy
(media.scored.co)
Comments (58)
sorted by:
That just proves that the unbelievers ASSUME Christianity is dumb. Thanks for proving the Bible right (for the nth time).
I see no problem here. What is your issue with this?
It's mocking people that ask for basic evidence to substantiate the claims of Jesus resurrecting from the dead. The Jews look for miracles to establish someone as credible in what they claim. The Greeks look for logical argument to verify claims. Paul's argument basically amounts to just believe what he says on blind faith cuz that's what God wants.
It's about pride, specifically in one's intellect.
No it doesn't.
Thanks for playing though.
What does Paul's argument amount to then?
Have you considered analyzing Paul's words and flow and culture without supplying your own assertions that do not come from those sources? It looks like you're asserting one thing without supplying evidence and then shifting the burden of proof for your claim onto someone else who declines to believe it.
Read it.
And what? Somehow arrive at a different conclusion or yours?
If you had a counter-argument, you would've said it. As you don't, you can only run your mouth.
I'm not sure anyone has come up with something stupider, ever.
If you reply without providing a counter argument or something of value to discuss, I'll take that as an admission you're one of those online trolls.
I can use logical arguments to prove the Triune God. Christianity never appeals to blind faith - this is your own retarded idea about it. Do you realize that the Roman empire became Christian and the early Church Fathers were philosophers steeped in the greek tradition? You don't even know how much you don't know.
The Roman empire became Christian through forced conversion. Did you see my post on the Edict of Thessalonica?
Here's a thought. The Gentiles were too pagan to understand who and what Jesus was, so they fashioned him in the image of their Godmen.
Do you know how much you don't know? Such talk is a two-way street. From that text from Paul, sure looks like a promotion of blind faith. Prove your Triune God with logical arguments if you want.
Absolutely false. You got that idea from The DaVinci Code, not history.
You have this exactly backwards. You fail at theology, too.
I got the idea from putting two and two together of the practical implications of and historical ramifications of the Edict of Thessalonica. It's common sense.
So you're saying that the people who lived and interacted with Jesus totally f'd up everything about him, who he was, what he taught and etc, while those who never met him or interacted with him knew him best? If that's the case, then Jesus really screwed them over since he knew their thoughts and all and didn't bother to help them.
You have no idea about any of this. It also sounds like you have absolutely 0 common sense.
And you're not capable of a rational discussion. I put the Gentiles were too pagan to understand who and what Jesus was. You claimed I had that exactly backwards. I'm assuming from that you mean it went that the Jews were too Jewish to understand Jesus.
I think that common argument coming from Christians is ridiculous because Jesus is supposed to have known people's thoughts, and if all the people that lived around him and talked with him just did a complete 180 and bastardized everything he stood for and taught, and had no clue who he was. Then Jesus would've really screwed up.
Prove it wrong then. If it sound like I have 0 common sense, then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide something of substance against what I say right?
So what? Does that change it becoming Christian? Christians were prosecuted and massacred for not participating in pagan rituals. Or do you think the Roman pagan cults weren't forced on people and everyone loved it so much?
Anything to support this claim with?
That's called quote mining. You can cherry pick quotes that affirm your assumptions this way. The correct approach to Scripture is holistic and informed by the tradition of the Church that has produced it.
I use TAG which poses that God is the necessary precondition for knowledge (or any universal abstract concepts) to exist. It's argumentation on the paradigm level, comparing the Christian worldview with other possible worldviews and proving only the Christian one can provide justification and grounding for the laws of logic, truth, meaning, purpose, etc.
We can go through it if you're into philosophy, otherwise I don't see much point because it requires good knowledge of logic, metaphysics and epistemology.
You can tell a tree by the fruits it produces, and the Church you hold in high esteem was producing some really crappy fruit force converting people and killing off the opposition. Obviously not a sacred divine institution. You do realize that all those people who were forced converted brought in all their religious stuff into Christianity right? The idea of Patron Saints is polytheism by another name, same thing as how it worked. Tons of non-Christian holidays, bam now they're Christian. The Roman empire wasn't converted so much to Christianity as Christianity was converted to the Mithraism going on.
Yes, the Ebionites, the ones who are considered Jewish Christians by Christians today, did not view Jesus as God. It was the Greek converts who started going with that under Pauline theology. The emerging Christians called the followers of Jesus heretics because they believed very different than them. Instead of Christians realizing they had been duped, they assumed they were right and the group that actually was around Jesus was wrong.
Holistic? The texts in the Bible were not written as a holistic setup. They were written as individual stand alone texts. Correct approach? To you maybe, but you and your Church don't have a monopoly on what's considered the correct approach or correct interpretation.
Yes, go through this TAG argument. You brought it up as a flex, so lets see what you have. I'm familiar with philosophy, apologetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Are you?
Where do you get the standard for judging that from? As I already told you, Rome killed its opposition too, yet you brushed it aside.
I'm sorry dude, I can't deal with this gnostic idiocy. I just addressed the Ebonite heresy in the other thread and here you come with the same shit again... I don't see a point in arguing. I made my case.
Like hell you are. I can tell how well versed you are in epistemology based on the arguments you make. You literally believe a 4th c. sect that completely distorts the teachings of the early Church to hold authority over what Jesus was about even though they basically do fanfic of Scripture and reject the tradition itself. Why don't you read what St. Irenaeus wrote about them? Or was he part of the conspiracy to push Christianity on everyone (even though at his time the Church was insignificant and prosecuted by both romans and jews)?
You're mad that Roman emperors became Christian and changed the official religion of the Empire from pagan cults to Christianity. "But they forced them!" Cry me a river. Go read what Nero, Diocletian and Julian did to the Christians who rejected the cults. Oh, but I bet that particular history is made up by the Church and pagan Romans loved their Christian neighbors and brought them blankies and hot cocoa.
You think forced conversions is a good thing? You think killing off your religious opposition is a good thing?
I'm not arguing that Rome is some kind of divine institution like you're arguing that your Church is. Rome sucked, and so does your Church. Christianity became the monster that pagan Rome was, and one-upped them. Christians have this idealized notion that if only Christians rule the world it'll be a utopia. It's like how Communists keep saying real communism hasn't been tried before and get mocked over it. Christians had their chance to show the world how great they were, and they flopped.
You say you can prove your Triune God with logical arguments and talk about TAG and how we can go through it, yet you haven't done any of that yet. You keep backing out. If you really want out of it, ok, don't do it then.
A jew shapes a suggestion to tempt gentiles to claim the suggested by giving creed/credit to it. Miracle implies the jewish sales-pitch for the suggested, which amazes the minds of gentiles into wanting to claim by giving credit.
A jew knows that all perceivable moves through each ones perception and cannot be claimed, nor does it require credit/creed to utilize ones "free" will of choice.
Yes we do filter everything through our perception. Our free will of choice is within the parameters of our perception and thoughts.
Yes vs no implies a conflict of reason against another, and circular logic within self based on ones consent to suggested logos (words). That's infiltration of perception.
Consenting to anything suggested permits infiltrators to set parameters for ones thoughts aka mind-control aka govern-ment.
Holding onto suggested establishes circular thinking, which in return prevents ones perception to think straight, hence from within (life) a line (inception towards death).
Look at how Christianity gets people to consent to their overall notion of God, and then introduces parameters that guides them to arrive at pre-determined conclusions like a mind-control program. It happens in all religions, governments, and other various areas in life.
When you're presented with paradoxical truths, look for how they can both be true at the same time and also different at the same time as well. By uniting what's called a truth with its corresponding opposite, one arrives at a more complete picture than before.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti...consent isn't given to father; son and holy ghost, but to those suggesting IN THE NAME OF (in nomine) which thereby contradicts the first commandment.
God doesn't require consent...God forces adaptation by free will of choice. Others tempt choice into submission by consent.
True vs false tempts one to ignore change. If one applies change to true, then it becomes false and vice versa.
Others suggest "true" and "time" for one to hold onto, while ignoring that only within motion can there be differentiation. If one holds onto anything, then one ignores that everything moves each different thing within apart from one another.
Both "true" and "time" represent measurement aka ones mind artificially TAKING measure of what nature was GIVING. Doing that establishes a contradiction between giving and taking within ones mind.
Is it not possible for one to hold onto anything while also being aware that everything moves each different thing within apart from one another?
What do you suggest then in regards to "true" and "time" and managing the giving and taking within ones mind?
All of these are good things and must be pursued by all. Use your free will of choice to choose those. Those are great.
Things implies a summation of partials (one) within whole (all). Things can never be all, because all separates things from one another.
Summation (synthesis) contradicts separation (analysis).
Being implies moved from inception towards death...pursue aka pro (forward) sequi (to follow) implies towards death.
Nature inspires being to resist origin...others suggest artificial outcomes (carrot) to tempt a being to pursue natural outcome (stick).
Your (possession) contradicts free (potential). It ain't yours...FREE implies within dominance; WILL (want) implies within need; OF implies out of; within; in response to, and CHOICE implies within balance.
If one takes a good/great apple into possession, then the apple becomes bad/worse faster.
Possession destroys potential (life) during procession (inception towards death). Potential needs to resist wanted possession.
Nope.
Well duh. Irrelevant.
"Oh wow look shiny object." Yeah, not impressed. Yawn. Hot is the opposite of cold. So what.
I said be. Not beING.
"OHHHHH SCARY OHHH SO SCARY, HE IS CLAIMING A WORD WILL KILL ME!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!1!1!1!11!"
You claim that a bunch of words somehow mean death. Fake news. Even if they did, so what? You're so scared of puny words.
Is this bad or good?
Your (possession) contradicts free (potential).
False.
By you saying this quote, you are implying your worldview implies FWOC has limits. So your belief implies that FOWC is.... NOT all that free.
Irrelevant. No one said anything about apples but you.
No it doesn't. You possess plenty of things already. Nothing is destroyed. What a dumb belief.
Because why?
Do you see how all aspects of life are filled with mediocre slop right now? Youtube is now turning into a dumbed down version of kid's AI TikTok. Tiktok, Instagram and Chat GPT dumbs down the brain and nobody will do a shit against it.
The slightest implications of questioning the narrative of things or innuendos of actions that are heavily contrary to the Jewish moral narrative will get you stoned by the cancel mob.
Even back then the Jews destroyed most of Roman technology and whatever that is preservered were done by runaway Gnostics in the Byzantine Empire and scholars in Arabia and Egypt saving the books from their libraries to Jewish death squads, which the Catholics steal credit for.
It is not coincidence; it is by Jewish heavenly mandates that all intelligent people must die for people who will happily become pets of the Jewish elite as repentance for their Original Sin of existence.
Maybe we shouldn’t have let jews conquer Christian society, then, huh?
The people who burned the books, you mean?
We have hard evidence to the contrary.
Just cohencidence.
Jewish, yeah. Not Christian.
I think you misunderstand God here. He is not the one degradating things, it is the devils and they use Jews just as they would anyone, moreso if they can strike nerves and it seems they've been at it awhile..
What if God giving (inception) and taking (death) allows each thing (life) within to elevate and degrade?
God implies singularity; devils and jews implies plurality...only ones singular free will of choice can shape a plurality while ignoring singularity.
Devil aka dia (across) ballein (to throw) implies a separation, as does each chosen one establishing apartheid among gentiles.
Maybe if the God is called Pistis Sophia or it's the Protestant God.
But it definitely is not Baal-El.
The Biblical God. Not familiar with the named deities.
Don't know Sophia.
Protestants believe in the Most High God Yahweh.
Baal originally meant lord, master, husband, before it was profaned and El means god but El Elyon means the Most High God.
Sophia/sophy - "to know". Ones perception within all perceivable implies Sophia. A jew utilizes pistis (persuasion) to distract from sophia (knowledge) with intelligo (understanding).
And who runs youtube? Bunch of pagan jeets.
Crypto jews.
Or more accurately, they do not believe in any god, they only do as they were told.
Also the UN is like 70% jeets. All of them believe in Judaism and the Noahide laws.
Try again with something a human being will believe.
Muh interpretation.
Protestants should take note - this is where Sola Scriptura can lead to.
Found the illiterate Vatican II Catholic
Nice try but I'm Orthodox. RC is fake and gay and Vatican II proves it beyond doubt.