/lit/ - Literature

Yes.

Yes. Most of us, I suppose, but who knows.

Yep, most of it. I was baptised Catholic and attended an Episcopal church for eight or so years. At the time I took it pretty seriously, and took to reading what I could--mostly skipping Numbers, lists of people, and Psalms.

I was raised protestant. I probably haven't read much of Leviticus or similar, but I've gone through most of the Bible several times. I'm not a believer any longer

I've read parts and went to Cathiloc school for 12 years. Really the first 8 years were a waste, I didn't learn shit about The Bible, but my 4 years in Cathiloc highschool were informative. Right now I plan to tackle it over the summer with the help of Gerome's Biblical Commentary cause really the only way to understand the OT/NT is the way the peoples at that time did.

Yes, reading it made me an atheist.

Yes.

If you want to read it for cultural literacy sort of thing, I'd recommend going through Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Job in the Old Testament, and John, one out of Matthew/Mark/Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and maybe Revelations in the New Testament

>>3273701
Good advice, I think.

Almost, I started back in January and have been going through it slowly. Only Revelation to go.

>>3274137
Yeah, it is reasonable. The thing is that for full literacy you should read all of it. By the time you get to the stage where you can recommend a reading order, you should have read all of it, because you'll be ready.

>>3273701

Why does everyone always forget Isaiah? And there's some interesting history happening in Judges, Chronicles, Kings and Samuel that's worth reading too.

>>3273692

You must be easily swayed

I've read the Tanakh, yes.

Being a Christian, I have indeed. My favorite books are The Gospel of St. Luke, and the Epistle to the Galatians.

Yes. I asked for a new one (NRSV with Apocrypha) for Christmas.

Why do you ask?

>>3274157
Have you read the Christian New Testament for the literary references and such?

Just curious.

>>3274157
>Tanakh
You're incredibly annoying. Are you a baal teshuva or something?

>>3274157
>2012
>only reading half the Bible
shig

>>3274180
If you haven't read the Apocrypha, you should.

Like half of it is just Daniel laughing at authority figures.

Only Genesis and Job.

I'm punching through Ecclesiastes right now.

>>3274252
I am a Baptist, we don't really read it. That said, I have a copy of the Douay Rhiems edition, so I've read some of the Apocryphal books in it. I like Baruch.

>>3274184
Outside of specific verses, no.

>>3274192
No, but it gets confusing when I say Old Testament because that means many things to different denominations.

>>3274194
I read the entire canonized Bible, I don't know what you're talking about.

>>3274362
I'm looking to get back into religion and such. Should I pick yours?

>>3274372
Most definitely.

No yet. Don't know when I'll get to it.

Question: Should I begin with the bible before any other important Christian works like Aquinas etc?

>>3274377
Why?

>>3274400
It will probably help. I read The Divine Comedy before I'd read very much of the Bible, and as I have read more of the Bible I keep thinking "Oh, so *that's* what Dante was referencing there..."

What's the difference between these bibles

Tanakh (bible of jews)
Quran (?)
The Holy Bible (?)

I've heard that Plato, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas have contributed much to The Holy Bible; or is it Theology?

>>3274429
Yeah that's what I think would undoubtedly happen too.

>>3274404
Because it's the right religion. Prove me wrong. :)

>>3274441

Tanakh = Old Testament
Quran = completely different book with some of the same faces
The Holy Bible = Old Testament + New Testament

i started it as a kid.
probably studied passages then, too, with no real conception of what i was reading.
never moved past the first few chapters on my own time. i feel like an ignorant prig now. will really need to get on this. such an incredible influence over the ages.

>>3274461
I would, but Spinoza beat me to it.

>>3274441
The Tanakh is made up of Torah, Writings, and Prophets.

The Holy Bible is the "Old Testament and the New Testament," and depending on which branch, which books are included in the Old Testament can change. For example, Martin Luther thought the Tanakh was the Old Testament while the Catholic Church put in Maccabees (I think?). I guess there's also debate over what the New Testament is too depending on the branch.

The Quran is a complete rewrite of both "Old Testament" and "New Testament" in completely different wording. For example, Muslims think that Lot is a great man and I once asked to one particular Muslim, "If Lot is such a great guy, then how come he slept with his daughters?" The Muslim basically replied, "That's a lie created by Jews!"

I'm in the process of reading The New Testament. Going to read the Old Testament after.

>>3274473
N-n-no he didn't.

>>3274461
That's not how the burden of proof works. You are asserting that something is the case, and so you are the one who must provide convincing evidence.

>>3274500
That's the joke. You can't be this new, can you?

I want to read it just for the contradictions. I'm curious.

>>3274516
If you read the Torah in its original Hebrew alongside with some commentary than those contradictions become misunderstandings. I can't speak for the New Testament though.

>>3274525
You could just say that the contradictions are where one author wanted to make a theological point, and theological truth is more important than historical truth.

>>3274525
>If you read the Torah in its original Hebrew alongside with some commentary than those contradictions become misunderstandings.

You are a prophet. You must be. Because we are incapable of knowing the mind of the Author except through his text that he has given us. Those errors that are not human in nature are divine truths. If you can unravel the divine truths of God's text then good for you. I—personally—do not know the mind of God.

>>3274556
The Torah is perfect. There's no need to be a prophet to know that.

>>3274568
How do you know that?

>>3274582
Well, Psalms 19:8 for example.

>>3274568

Is Genesis metaphorical or historical?

>>3274582
You antisemite, how dare you question the perfect of the torah!

>>3274592
How do you know the entire collection of works which you lump together with the name "Tanakh" is being referenced?
>>3274600
It doesn't work that way.

>>3274593
Both. The Torah tells of historical events, but the only ones that matter and teach us a lesson.

>>3274607
Sorry goy, i meant perfection.

>>3274480
>year 5773
>not fucking your own daughters
faggot

>>3274593
Yes.

>>3274568
The Torah is perfect. Your claim to understand it is your hubris.

>>3274612

Do you believe in a literal six-day creation account?

What about the flood?

>>3274607
Hmm? Well, the Tanakh was canonized by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah over 2400 years ago.

>>3274612
I think anon is asking if the creation story is meant to be a recording of scientific truth. Did God create the world in seven of what humans know as days (periods of time that we now calculate as 24 hours)?

>>3274621
I don't claim to understand it all and no man will ever understand it all, but it doesn't contradict itself. The contradictions referenced are based off poor translations most of the time.

We are supposed to understand what G-d commands us to do, His Mizvot. However, there are certainly hidden truths that we will never understand.

>>3274628
Yes he did.

>>3274629
Yep.

>>3272926
Qur'an > New Testament > Tanakh
Deal with it.

>>3274647
Yes, He did.*

>>3274627
How do you know the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah was correct?

>>3274647

Thanks. I can leave the conversation now.

>modern orthodox
>not being a hasid
you're killing the jewish people

>>3274656
Correct in what? A canonization doesn't mean that those books are divinely authoritative. Everything must go back to Torah and everything else, everything else is commentary. Even what the prophets wrote down cannot add, subtract, or anything in Torah. It can only... how do I say this, restate what is said in Torah. How do I know if the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah was correct in its authority? Well it was an assembly that lasted 200 years that was made up of over 120 scribes, sages, and prophets. This was really a collective assembly that was settled collectively. It is universally accepted to Jews across the world (except maybe the Karaites that popped up around the 7th century, but I'm not too sure on that).

>>3274670
>being a hasid
>believing in kabbalah nonsense

Rabbi Yitzchak ben Sheshet Perfet (The Rivash), 1326-1408; he stated that Kabbalah was "worse than Christianity", as it made God into 10, not just into three.

Most people who are atheists have not read the gospels.

>>3274697
Are you opposed to mysticism in general, or just to polytheism? Is there any form of Jewish mysticism which maintains the unity of God?

>>3274701
Prove it.

>>3274697
>studying the talmud
>believing in ancient babylonian-influenced nonsense

>>3274701
Nearly all haven't studied greek philosophy, and are heavily influenced by michio kaku, carl sagan pop science optimism about technology and superstitious notions of progress.

>>3274642
If you can't appreciate that the Author has left objects that appear to human reason to be contradictions in the text; and, that these are not textual corruptions, then you're not applying God's gifts to the gift he gave you. You aren't capable of distinguishing Divine Traps from Textual Error—more, you aren't capable of distinguishing God's Will in the Text from your own incapacity to Read at the best level of human comprehension.

You lack humility as a reader.

>Well it was an assembly that lasted 200 years that was made up of over 120 scribes, sages, and prophets.

The works of man cannot override the works of God. Give me four hundred years and 240 sages and we'll see what they say.

>>3274710
I'm opposed to the silly idea that the Zohar was a secret teaching passed down by Moses and received by G-d, that Ha'Ari HaKodosh was a prophet, et cetera. Does that mean I oppose biblical exegesis beyond the literal level? Of course not, but for the Kabbalah is silly. Some of its really, really basic stuff is just logical statements given a "spiritual" meaning, but beyond it I refuse.

>>3274701
>>3274717
>tfw you realize that the majority is this ignorant and how meaningless it is to have an intellectually stimulating discussion with people on philosophical and non-dogmatic religious topics

>>3274712
Dawkins and his posse mostly criticize the bible for its laws (about slaves, stoning people, etc). Outside of the ten commandments, the content of the Old Testament is not necessarily canonical in a Christian sense; it is the entirety of the Jewish Torah. And all throughout the gospels, what does Jesus do? He speaks against Jewish laws. This all comes to a point when he says in John,

'You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!"

Dawkins never criticizes anything from the New Testament at all; and yet, that is where the Christian gets most of his faith.

But the "Christians" aren't much better than atheists. Churches across the world, praying for Jesus, covered in crosses. Jesus never even asked to me worshiped, he only wanted God to be worshiped.

There are very few people who have successfully read and understood the Bible, and became a real Christian. Why don't you try it?

>>3274715
>studying the Zohar
>believing in some shit made up by Spanish Rabbis
ISHYGDDT

Seriously though, the Talmud is one of the few documents accepted by virtually every Jewish community after the canonization of the Tanakh.

>>3274725
They appear to be contradictions, maybe; but, G-d's Torah is perfect. It's a manifestation that is completely transparent. It does not have a flaw.

>>3274759
>Why don't you try it?
You're making a lot of assumptions about me.

>>3274753
I know that feel.

>>3274762
Why can't there be contradictions in a flawless work? Perhaps the contradictions are intentional to provoke thought in the reader.

Well I'm probably going into the Seminary soon. Does anybody have anything against the Jesuit Order?

>>3274768
The Bible itself is not perfection. It is a perfectly Christian thing to read about things like stonings in the Old Testament and to scoff at it; the bible is a conglomeration of many different human writers, and one does not have to agree that all of them are canonical.

>>3274759
The funny thing about dawkins et al is that they criticise christianity for its morality, even though they are following a secularised christian morality.

>>3274762
On top of that, isn't the burden of proof on you? The original person proposed that the Bible (of which I guess he includes Torah) has contradictions and he uses very poor translations to show this. It would seem like you'd have to prove to me that there are contradictions in the Torah and not turn it around and say, "Why would you believe that there can't be intentional contradictions," without showing me a single example or piece of evidence.

>>3274762
The only thing is, that you can't show me the perfect Torah, because fallible people have been involved in it from the first redaction, and the redaction and assemblage has involved failed textual transmissions. We know that there is a perfect text, but that this text is only represented by the text that exists in our fallibility. (And if you say that you can verify that a particular text is perfect with your fallible mind, then again, you are a prophet and claim to know the mind of God).

>>3274773
Aren't they one of the last orders to uphold the pre vatican 2 ways?

if so, then yes i like them.

I'm probably going into the Seminary soon. Does anybody have anything against the Jesuit Order?

>>3272926
Yep, it is entirely underwhelming to say that it is written by god, supposedly.

>>3274773
I go to a Jesuit private college, they're pretty cool dudes.

>>3274774
What does that have to do with what I said?

You're assuming I'm an angry atheist or something. You're assuming I'm not a Christian now. You're assuming I haven't traced Christianity back and read about the Desert Fathers, studied the historical context in which Jesus spoke, the way he, as a mad prophet, gave back dignity to the oppressed masses.

>>3274786
Oops stupid captcha.

>>3274789
Really? What college if you don't mind me asking?

>>3274772
Show me such contradictions. Is not the burden of proof on you (or whoever posted the picture) to prove that Torah has contradictions that you see as intentional? The truth is that the Torah does not lie to us with two conflicting statements. Are they confusing? Certainly, but are they contradictory, I see no reason to think so. Sure, Rashi might have been stumped on Genesis 1:1, but that doesn't mean that it's a contradiction. Especially when Rambam walked in and resolved Rashi's problem.

>>3274818
I wasn't saying there were contradictions. I was asking how contradictions would make it imperfect if they were attempting to point to a higher truth than historical fact.

It was a semi-hypothetical question about why it's so important to you to believe there are no contradictions.

>>3274783
Moses did write down the Torah, that is true. However, he was divinely inspired by G-d to write it and the proof behind that is not definitive. It's still a religion, you still have to have faith. However, I won't explain it here, but there is a decent (I'm meh on it) argument for a rational basis for Judaism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA

>>3274829
I'm not saying that there cannot be contradictions in logic, I'm saying that there are no seeable contradictions unless you would like to present them to me. There's a story from our sages about a physics contradiction. In the Holy of Holies (think the center room for the Temple) the dimensions were that of a rectangle with one wall (west wall I think) being 30 cubits. Standing smack in the middle of one of the walls was the ark of the covenant. Now, the wall itself measured 30 cubits, and the ark was about 7 cubits long. So how much space do you think was between ark and both sides of the wall? 15 cubits left and 8 cubits right? 30/7 cubits for each side? Nope, it was 15 cubits each. You see, everyone could see that the Ark took up space, but when they measured the space between each of its long side to the end of the wall, they found out that it took up zero space. It was impossible because their eyes saw one thing and the measuring ruler showed another.

>>3274807
Le Moyne

>>3274834
Thank you, I appreciate greatly your reference to an external work for me to read, and will watch it when I get back from today's work.

Enjoy your religion—I've enjoyed talking with you about it.

>>3274857
23/2, not 30/7. Derp.

>>3274857
Maybe it was an illusion.

>>3274865
Well they did have some funky incense lit up nearby, haha. But the point is that G-d can create a paradox in reality that we could not possibly understand.

>>3274867
I just remembered this episode of "The Sukkah," where someone wants to get their kid into a big Jewish school, so he throws a Sukkot party and invites the vice principle over and one of the shenanigans prone characters brings over 4 huge marijuana pants for the blessing and hours of Jewish music in case the party got crazy.

It's kind of like "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," but Israeli.

>>3274890
Well, the episode was very Israeli like. The show itself is called The League I think.

>>3274400
The Bible is the literary compilation which every Christian denomination is at least partially based on. Yes, read the Bible first.

>>3274516
I actually get asked about contradictions, as a Christian. The thing is that, to me at least, it is worth remembering that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, and that Inspiration is interpreted by different authors within the Bible, which is also why we have at least four canonical gospels that don't repeat the same thing over and over again.

>>3274593
It is both. So is The Revelation of St. John the Divine.

>>3274629
In how much time our God created the world is irrelevant, seeing as the importance lies with the fact that He did create the world.

The flood most definitely happened, and it has been recorded in many different religions, from mine (Christianity) to the Hindu religion, to the spiritual stories of Native American and Australian Aboriginal tribes.

>>3274759
Jesus wanted God to be worshiped, but He also was God, so there you go.

As for the laws thing, a preacher I listened to recently explained it like this: "God the Father gave us Law, God the Spirit gave us the Will and Strength to obey the Law, and God the Son gave us Mercy for our transgressions of the Law."

>>3275062
>some dead Jew on a stick
>G-d
Nope.

>>3275051
Floods definitely happened. This doesn't mean many different religions refer to the same one.

>>3275105
>implying He didn't defeat death
Typical Jew.

>>3274762
>studying the Old Testament
>believing in some poorly edited compilation of nonsense further corrupted via centuries of community transmission.

>B-b-but I'm one of the rational ones guys! Muh Maimodean Neo-Aristotelianism!

I know all about your clan. It doesn't matter.
Whether the choice is Continental relativism (cowardice) or Analytic (compartmentalization), you are pig disgusting.

>>3275121
>lose a race
>"Haha fat ass. You came in last place."
>It was on purpose!
>OH NO, I GOT TROLLED!

I was only pretending to be dead guys, I really came back to life for a few minutes to rise to Heaven. Honest for truth, you can fact check it with um... erhm... hmm... my followers!

>>3275151
It's "MUH RAMBAM," my good sir.

I've read the thing twice, once as a practicing christian and once as an agnostic theist.
I'd say the second time around was more meaningful as I looked at the lessons the bible wishes to teach us and the symbolism used rather than at face value objective fact.
just like the bible should be read

If God is omnipotent how come it took him 6 days to make the world.

Why would God give us free will but punish us for using it "wrong."

How come God only did godly acts in ancient times?

When is God going to end all the worldly suffering?

If everything has to come from something who made God?

If God created the universe, why did he make all the planets and stars if they're uninhabited.

Why was Whoopi Goldberg cast as God in the Muppet's Christmas Special.

>>3275179
So it's basically like any fiction book. If you liked the Bible I recommend Aseop's Fables.

>>3275229
>If G-d is omnipotent how come it took him 6 days to make the world.
Because He wanted to take 6 days.

>Why would God give us free will but punish us for using it "wrong."
He doesn't punish you with eternal damnation, but he gives us obstacles to overcome so that we become righteous. It's kind of like homework.

>How come G-d only did godly acts in ancient times?
I mean, he talked to prophets for a good while.

>When is G-d going to end all the worldly suffering?
Messianic Age!

>If everything has to come from something who made G-d?
Can't answer that, but that isn't a refutation of G-d's existence. That's kind of a religious philosophy 101 question.

>If G-d created the universe, why did he make all the planets and stars if they're uninhabited.
Who knows, there might be ancient spooky aliens that also received a Torah.

>Why was Whoopi Goldberg cast as G-d in the Muppet's Christmas Special.

Because Christians think think that G-d can be human for some reason.

I quit after chapter 2. The writing is terrible.

>>3275229
Maybe because it's fictional.
Don't ask, "Why do I need God?"
Ask, "Why does God need me?"

>>3275243
So, if God wanted to appear as human, could He?

>>3275246
Sorry, I was texting and I got a few verses for you:
Numbers 23:19
Deuteronomy 4:11-12
1 Samuel 15:29
Are some prominent verses.

http://www.evilbible.com/

I read a pamphlet edition of the gospel of Luke a friend gave me after I expressed an interest in Christianity. It was a kind of 'never turn down a free book' read but that's the only book of the bible I've read cover to cover. Interesting stuff. I could kind of immerse myself in the ideas and the concepts but then I put the pamphlet down and I was an atheist again. The ideas don't stick.

On /lit/'s recommendation I read Tolstoy's The Gospel in Brief which basically argued that the gospels were all you needed out of the Bible but I'm not sure I can justify not having read more of it. It's too bad, really.

>>3275172
He wasn't pretending to be dead. If he was pretending, it wouldn't have meant anything. He died, and resurrected himself, because his sinless blood payed off the debt of sin, and his divinity allowed him to conquer Satan, Death, and everything else.

>>3275280
Sure he did. :)

>>3275246
>>3275264
If The Bible is the word of the God, the Genesis, then, implies anthropomorphism
>Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness

Here's a quote by Spinoza
>When you say that if I deny, that the operations of seeing, hearing, attending, wishing, &c., can be ascribed to God, or that they exist in Him in any eminent fashion, you do not know what sort of God mine is; I suspect that you believe there is no greater perfection than such as can be explained by the aforesaid attributes. I am not astonished; for I believe that, if a triangle could speak, it would say, in like manner, that God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular. Thus each would ascribe to God its own attributes, would assume itself to be like God, and look on everything else as ill-shaped.

>>3275289
>If The Bible is the word of the God, the Genesis, then, implies anthropomorphism
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/238,2093658/What-does-it-mean-that-man-was-created-in-G-ds-image.
html

That was fun.

>>3275229
>If God is omnipotent, how come it took him 6 days to make the world?
Because that's what he felt like doing.

>Why would God give us free will, but punish us for using it wrong?
First, you must understand that mankind is forever destined to be ruled over. God gives us free will, so that we can choose which master to serve, Him, or Evil. We're still expected to choose Him, our Creator, but we don't have to if we would rather have eternal damnation.

>How come God only did godly acts in ancient times?
God does godly acts every day. What do you mean?

>When is God going to end all the worldly suffering?
Only God the Father knows.

>If everything has to come from something who made God?
Eventually, we must come to the recognition that somewhere in the line exists an infinite being. This is God.

>If God created the universe, why did he make all the planets and stars if they're uninhabited?
Who says they're all uninhabited? If they aren't, then perhaps he is also the leader of beings on other worlds. If they are, then that proves how much he has blessed us.

>Why was Whoopi Goldberg cast as God in the Muppet's Christmas Special?
Because whoever did the casting for that show thinks God is an old black woman, apparently.

>>3275295
>http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/238,2093658/What-does-it-mean-that-man-was-created-in-G-ds-im
age.
>html

Ok, cool, it sounds great - really; but why doesn't it say so in The Bible, explicitly? How does one (the Rabbi on the site you linked) extrapolate "according to our likeness" into "he only gave us `some` of his qualities, e.g. the ability of an abstract thought". Also, why is there a need to call and refer to God as Him; and not It?

>>3275295
Why do you type G-d

instead of god/yahewh/jehovah ?

>>3275295
>thinks Genesis isn't a remainder of pagan henotheistic Hebrews

>>3275330
why do you keep a space between the sentence and the question mark?

>>3275335
Its an error in my typing rather than a conscious decision unlike specifically typing g-d.

>>3275321
The Torah is a very complicated set of books, but it does say that G-d is not human (look at the verses to one of my previous posts) and the rest can be made by logical connections. I mean, it's not like these commentators just made conclusions with pieces of information contrived out of thin air and if they did, then it's pointed out as such. I don't know much about Spinoza, but look at some of the commentary on Torah and the arguments they make. The Torah isn't just a book that straight up tells us what to believe, it's a book with themes and lessons. That's what the word "torah" actually means, "lesson."

>>3275321
>Also, why is there a need to call and refer to God as Him; and not It?
That's something specific with the English language.

>>3275289
>>3275321
Have a look at Locke's first treatise. The made in God's image is a key point in that.

>>3275342
>>3275345
>>3275350
Thanks

>>3275334
>believes in the documentary hypothesis
I got this great book called "Who Really Wrote the Bible." Not the one by that Hassidic Jew, but the one. It actually engages with that subject quite a bit in a fairly nonbiased way.

>>3275330
I type G-d mostly out of habit. I could type "God," but the thing is we're not suppose to destroy G-d's name on a paper. So this is a way getting around that. You're not writing G-d's name when you're writing "G-d." That way you can throw away the paper when you're done with it.

>yahweh/jehovah
First of all, I try to avoid spelling out the tetragrammatron whenever possible and we don't know how to pronounce it, so it's kind of a false statement to say that G-d's name is "Yahweh."

>>3275364
Why take the English word God as a name, and not its substitution G-d?

>>3275364
Thanks for answering that

>>3275369
G-d is the English word for well... the Abrahamic G-d. It's not a god, it's the G-d. Kind of like one of G-d's names is "El Shaddai," means "God Almighty." This was a naming convention created around 2000 years ago.

>>3275378
Brain farting all over that sentence. I need to stop focusing on buying weed.

>>3275384
>I need to stop focusing on buying weed.
Smoke some weed.

>>3275388
I wish, man. I got money in the bank and my dealer (in this small town) isn't buying until next week. That means I'm dry for another 7 days.

>>3275369
God and Yahweh refer specifically to the entity that we would call "God", whereas "G-d" and "YHWH" refer to the names that refer to God and Yahweh, respectively. In other words, saying "G-d" or "YHWH" refers to God more indirectly. Or at least that's tradition.

But I agree. Clearly "God" and "G-d" both refer to the same entity, and so both are the names for the same entity. When we say "G-d" we clearly mean to refer to God, not a word. For example, we wouldn't accurately say "the word God is the master of the universe," or, "God consists of three letters."

>>3275399
God is the English word for not just any god, but the God. G-d, is an intentional censor of the word "God," to make it easier to refer to that specific word without having to worry what to do with the paper it is written on.

>>3275384
>Openly admitting that your mind has gone to pot
>>3275405
You just sit back and leave the thinking to us.

>>3275411
>Openly admitting that your mind has gone to pot
My mind has gone to pot in between posts, but it leaks.

>You just sit back and leave the thinking to us
Yes, please teach me about my religion and my commandments.

>>3275378
>English … a naming convention created around 2000 years ago.

>>3275420
It's for all languages though. So instead of writing "Dios," you might write "D-os," or something for Spanish.

>>3275425
Actually it just means that you're a fuckstick who is too immature to refer to YHWH by an appropriate allusion and who wishes to claim that their particularly invisible sky father is the unmoved mover of Spinoza.

Stick to devotion, you're way to limited to move into philosophical theology.

>>3275433
You're kind of an asshole.

>>3275442
I'm guessing 50% of that post referred to the content of the post and 50% of it referred to the fact it's Modern.

>>3275442
Only "kind of"?

>>3272926
No, Mr. Op; I have not read any of the bible. Obtaining one here is rather difficult.

>>3275378
>"El Shaddai,"
Why don't you write e-l shaddai? Wouldn't that also be correct given your retarded zealousness? Also, please begin every post with bs"d or b"h.

>>3275364
>God
I am now printing out your post and stepping on it repeatedly.

>>3275463
You could write "El Sh-ddai" I guess. People don't usually use that phrase though. I'm not going to begin every post with B"H though. That's kind of more of a letter opener.

>>3275468
Well you'll be the one printing it, not I. That's why it's okay to type it on the net.

>>3275473
>removing the first a in Shaddai
>not putting a hyphen in between e and l
hebrew, do you even etc.

>>3275494
Yeah, "el" is a generic word for any god. "El Shaddai," specifically means "God Almighty."

>>3275501
I won't feel comfortable unless you also start putting a hyphen in between the e and l. God is getting offended.

>>3275515
No He isn't. It's a sign of respect, but I certainly don't have to do it over the net. I've pointed out that it's just habit online. Do you have some kind of problem with me and my faith or something?

>>3275515
I know! Let's start replacing the word "God" exclusively with emoji icons!

😇 loves you!

>>3275515
>Do you have some kind of problem with me and my faith or something?

>On 4chan.

I'm not that guy, but trolling you would be too deliciously easy.
You need to calm down guy. My advice. This entire website thrives on people getting mad over dumb shit like religion.

>>3275529
Oops, meant to link
>>3275517

>>3275524
That's cute, but no thank you.

>>3275529
He just seems generally butthurt. It's almost as if he cut his ass on some broken glass or something. If he's in mental pain, I'll just dip out of this thread seeing as its original purpose is long gone.

>>3275517
>problem with me and my faith
Advertising that you're a member of a religion with a trip comes across as annoying. I'd feel the same if an atheist did it. Also you just seem annoying as a person.

>>3275524
Better!

>>3275544
This is a thread about religious books and the title gives insight about who I am and thus it adds some depth to what I'm saying. There's no particular reason to trip outside of this thread, and it looks like you're got the grumps. Adio~

>>3275544
It's almost scary how brainwashed he is.

>>3275548
>Adio
>not using a plural
God, so annoying. I find it hard to believe you're not a baal teshuva or a convert.

>>3275524
🙏

>>3275553
>brainwashed
He has the zeal of the convert, definitely. I'd say it's likely he's either a jew who was raised secular and is now trying to be more religious, or a convert. Both are incredibly annoying groups.

I meant "Addio~"

>>3275558
In the other posts in which I've seen him, he's had extreme trouble thinking critically about what others have said and usually starts spitting dogma. It's very frustrating and usually derails the thread on some ill-reasoned tangent.

>>3272926
Yes.

>>3275548
Wait a minute... you're not the only Bible-reading person on this thread, but you don't see me tripping as IndependentBaptistChristian, now do you?

The entire Bible is the exact word of God. It's perfect because it says it is. Much like I'm perfect because I say I am.

Am I doing it right?

>>3275656
No, because no Christian who would say that would ever find their way to this board.

>>3275659
I know Modern's not a Christian, but how did he get here, then?

you know what I'm fucking tired of people on this fucking board doing
coming here with their petty little egos acting like no one's ever had a debate about religion on 4chan before

or for that matter, whether stupid teenage little boys shit is art or not. fuckin like. who watches the watchmen. how about that chucklefucks

>>3275524
I LOVE YOU JESUS CHRIST

JESUS CHRIST I LOVE YOU YES I DO

>>3275677
Well, no one watches us. We're also the smartest and most cultured board on 4chan, so we don't need to be watched. We're just that good.

>>3275753
✝✞✟🎉🌈

>>3275779
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥💀💀💀💀💥💥💢👹👹👹👹👹👹👺👺👹👹💢
💀💀💀💥💥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

i did in school.

God God God, Jehova, Yahweh, Bob, JHVH1 what fucking ever. Dude can suck a dick. God is't his name, there's no pagan jew-magic you'll accidentally cast by saying or typing Gee Oh fucking Dee in God-Damned modern fucking english.

>>3272926
>not to get a religious debate, but let's discuss the most prominent and controversial theological text in the history of human civilization

>>3275662
Jew physics.

>>3275607
see
>>3274516

>>3275607
Do you have a link or a higher resolution?