/lit/ - Literature

>>6360781
>muh faith
>muh your science is faith

There you go, just summarized every reaponse

>>6360781
Is it only the resurrection that bothers you? There are worse problems, friend.

>real presence of christ in eucharist
>resurrection
>jesus is literally God
>god had to become human then die for our sins to be forgiven

All has to be taken on faith. Aquinas has some neat phillosophy and the medieval mystics were interesting. But ultimately it's just to be taken on faith.

>>6360781
I dunno. I'm not a believer of any religion.

It's a metaphor.

>>6360781
There's no good reason to believe that your mom is not a whore.

>>6360781
Christian here.
If it doesn't work for you, don't sweat it. Move on and use your time and mind for other things.

>>6360781
>when there is no good reason to believe in Jesus' resurrection

Not true. The resurrection is one of the most widely attested to events in antiquity as evidence by the huge proliferation of the Gospels in the centuries following Christ's death. Now I'm sure you'll say "how can you trust the Gospels which were written at least a hundred years after Christ's earthly ministry?" My answer is that Christianity spread prior to the Gospels being written (see Paul) and naturally belief in the resurrection spread with it. The fact that Christianity was able to spread suggests that it is true or otherwise people would have rejected it. Don't play the "they were just superstitious ancients who didn't know any better" card because the resurrection was considered just as ludicrous back then as it is today yet they still believed just as I still believe.

>>6360781
Religion is not supposed to explain itself because it is not science, you act upon it and then you make it true for yourself.

>>6360853
>Not true. The resurrection is one of the most widely attested to events in antiquity as evidence by the huge proliferation of the Gospels in the centuries following Christ's death.

LOL HERE IT COMES TO BIBLICAL SCHOLARS ARE LEGIT HACKERY

LOLOLOL FAGGOT NO ONE SERIOUSLY BELIEVES THAT IN ACADEMIA AND YOUR BELIEFS ARE DELUSIONS

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY IMPLYING THAT WHENEVER A CRACKPOT MAKES AN OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM WE MUST REFUTE HIM OR IT'S TRUE AHAHHAJAJA

Daily reminder that the bible we know today is 1/100th of the sacred texts and was translated and changed and reinterpreted multiple times

>>6360863
Who cares what Academia thinks? The scribes and teachers of the law have always hated Jesus. Feel free to keep on mocking me as it fulfills the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:3).

>>6360863
anon your pills

>>6360781
I'm no expert, but the gospels were written relatively close to Jesus' death. The resurrection was an event that probably seemed ridiculous to the people of the time and being a Christian is probably something that would be looked down upon, so I doubt that Christians were trying to get rich or famous. There are also four sources that all describe the resurrection. Paul/Saul was persecuting Christians before, and then he suddenly became one of its biggest figures. I think one of the apostles died for Christianity. It comes down to whether or not you believe Jesus resurrected or not, but there's enough information that believing it isn't entirely insane.

Can anybody back me up? I'm not sure.

>>6360870
Daily reminder that the texts were written decades after the fact

Daily reminder that WWII vets are repeatedly shown to have the worst memory ever

Daily reminder that Feuerbach was correct

>>6360876
anon your memes

>>6360878
No they weren't. They were written decades after.

Literally study eye witness accuracy. Read about it. The fact anyone takes the gospels as an actual historical account is baffling

>>6360872
Doesn't including a verse like that seem like a good way to seal people further into your sandcult? It makes you look at any criticism or mockery as something you should ignore rather than something you should consider.

>>6360872
Yeah dude, can I have your things cuz you don't need them on this earth?

>>6360884
>The fact anyone takes the gospels as an actual historical account is baffling

1 Cor 1:19

>>6360884
>No they weren't. They were written decades after.
Isn't that pretty close? I mean, one of Alexander the Great's best sources (http://www.livius.org/person/diodorus-of-sicily/)) was written about 300 years after his birth.

>>6360889
*tips fedora*

>>6360886
Anon didn't provide anything to consider; he merely gave me a CAPS LOCK tirade about how Christianity is obviously wrong and anyone who believes in it is a big doody head. There's nothing to discuss with someone like that.

>>6360898
Then explain to me how the gospels are valid sources when they were written decades after Jesus' death.

>>6360889
In the context of that verse, it's just saying "Gods wisdom is way greater than any human knowledge could possibly be".
Not necessarily an attack on intellectualism.

>>6360897

>>6360896
Except Alexander's life didn't involve bald faced lies. If the claim was that Alexander was 19 feet tall and shot lasers out of his dick, then yes.

There's also archaeological evidence to corroborate the story. Zero is there to corroborate Jesus' faggotry except the bible

>>6360898
>doesn't know the one source theory
>doesn't actually know the historicity of the gospels

Come on fag, stop. Be insufferably smug with your bible study group, not with me. It's badto be a passive-aggressive cunt, you should be genuine

>>6360898
>It ain't gonna through the double movement by itself
I am laughing so hard.

>>6360900
>valid sources
>he things people believe in Jesus the same way they believe the Sun is made of hot gases.

boy i sure love atheism vs religion threads
thank you OP for making /lit/ a better place

>>6360853
>The fact that Christianity was able to spread suggests that it is true or otherwise people would have rejected it
yeah totally

stupid christposters

>>6360878
The latest book (apocalypse) was written within 80 or so years of Jesus' death, John, the aledged writer would have been near to 100 years old. So it's for any antique source considered to be close to the event described.

>>6360900
The Gospels are based on oral stories that were passed down from the time of Christ's ministry until eventually being codified in writing. The first Christians were largely illiterate plebeians who thought Jesus would come back within their life time so it isn't surprising that they didn't write things down. Now here comes the part where you mock me for believing in a religion that appealed to illiterate plebeians.

>>6360901
Indeed, but it is relevant for the professional atheist in this thread who is crowing about how no one with a brain could believe in Christianity.

>>6360901
Nah, it's a simple fact to acknowhedge your limitations.

>>6360905
>There's also archaeological evidence to corroborate the story. Zero is there to corroborate Jesus' faggotry except the bible
What about le shroud of Turin?

>>6360900
Scholars seem to agree that Jesus lived, was crucified, and his body disappeared from his grave, right?

Like, I read that the Jews would have just called bullshit if Jesus' body didn't go anywhere, but instead they posited theories about what his followers did with it.

>>6360918
All you can do is mock.

>>6360922
Yeah, I thought so, too.
I don't know, I'm in no way a Bible scholar, I'm just here for the shitflinging and because I had a discussion about the historicity of Jesus last night.

>>6360833
Me again.

Honestly, if you do not find the Gospels compelling unto themselves, don't waste your time.

Having read a lot of literature and the other primary religious texts of the world (or main portions thereof, regarding Hinduism), I find the Gospels unique and they are expressed in a style that speaks to their authenticity. FWIW, even though they were written down after they were preserved via the oral tradition (which was much stronger back on those days), the 4 Gospels of the same story give us a view into what may have happened, and help mitigate the issues with eyewitness accounts of events.

But, if you do not get this sense when you read them, use your time for something else. Debates like these convince no one. It is always a personal journey.

>>6360924
Shit, I remember what you're talking about. Can anybody here confirm this? I actually remember hearing somewhere that basically everybody can agree that the tomb was empty. If this is true then Christianity just got legit.

>>6360915
Hush, it keeps them occupied and out of other threads, OP might have in fact done us a favour

Hide.

>>6360924
>>6360926
It's such an ideological position it's almost impossible to find a "scientific" answer because people doing research are... well human. It's more or less left to faith for both christians and unbelievers.

>>6360781
Did the writers of the gospels know each other?

>For Enlightenment, this ground [for knowledge] becomes equally a fortuitous knowledge of fortuitous events. But the ground of knowledge is the conscious universal, and in its truth is absolute Spirit which, in abstract pure consciousness, or in thought as such, is merely absolute Being, but, qua self-consciousness, is knowledge of itself. Pure insight characterizes this conscious universal, the simple, self-knowing Spirit, equally as a negative of self-consciousness. It is true that pure insight is itself pure mediated, i.e. self-mediated thought, is a pure knowing; but since it is a pure insight, a pure knowing, that does not as yet know itself, i.e. is not aware that it is this pure, mediating movement, the mediation seems to insight, as does everything that is itself insight, to be an ‘other’. In its realization, therefore, it develops this moment which is essential to it; but this moment seems to it to belong to faith and to have the character of something external to pure insight, to be a fortuitous knowledge of narratives of real events, real in the ordinary sense of the word. Here, therefore, it falsely charges religious belief with basing its certainty on some particular historical evidences which, considered as historical evidences, would certainly not guarantee the degree of certainty about their content which is given by newspaper accounts of any happening—further, that its certainty rests on the accidental preservation of these evidences; on the one hand, the preservation by means of paper, and on the other hand, by the skill and honesty of their transference from one piece of paper to another, and lastly, on the correct interpretation of the meaning of dead words and letters. In fact, however, it does not occur to faith to fasten its certainty to such evidences and such fortuitous circumstances. Faith, in its certainty, is an unsophisticated relationship to its absolute object, a pure knowing of it which does not mix up letters, paper, and copyists in its consciousness of absolute Being, and does not bring itself into relation with it by means of things of that kind. On the contrary, this consciousness is the self-mediating ground of its knowledge; it is Spirit itself which bears witness to itself, both in the inwardness of the individual consciousness and through the universal presence in everyone of faith in it. If faith wants to appeal to historical evidences in order to get that kind of foundation, or at least confirmation, of its content that Enlightenment talks about, and seriously thinks and acts as if that were a matter of importance, then it has already let itself be corrupted by the Enlightenment; and its efforts to establish and consolidate itself in such a way are merely evidence it gives of its corruption by the Enlightenment.

>inb4 tl;dr

>>6360936
It's highly unlikely considering that they were not all written at the same time. The Gospel writers were basically playing a game of telephone by compiling the oral stories that they heard which makes the fact the the Gospels agree with each other all the more impressive.

>>6360935
>Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][33][34][35] We have no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[38] The scholarly consensus is that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus indeed existed as a historical figure.
Wikipedia, sue me.

>>6360925
All you can do is hide behind dead men's fervor.

>>6360959
My fervor is from our Lord.

>>6360951
>which makes the fact the the Gospels agree with each other all the more impressive.

Or, you know, purposefully constructed like they were

>>6360955
Wikipedia isn't the best source. I read the article and it's often brought up by other Christians, but I think real books and original sources should be read concerning the subject.

>>6360928
Totally bunk myth by retards.

>>6360925
Yes, mocking is all anyone can ever do, because no position is undeniably certain. You deserve mockery because you believe stupid shit. Quote whatever bible verses you want, impose whatever false narratives you want, doesn't matter. Nothing Christ does matters.

>>6360962
So says the words and ideas you borrow from the dead men. You didn't independently arrive upon all of this, you were taught it or learned it from others, and you agree with those men and reject all of the others arbitrarily. If you could reason it you could arrive at it on your own, without any bible or gospel or endorsement. You simply exist to reinforce the fervor, you are a meme machine, in the same way many exist to breed and carry on the tribe, yet you have chosen an ideological position for this for who knows what reason.

>>6360967
How so?

>>6360925
If you've ever been to undeveloped countries people believe in a lot of stupid stories without reason.

>>6360970
You have my pity. I'm off to services and you will all be in my prayers. Happy Easter and God bless you.

>>6360921
>Indeed, but it is relevant for the professional atheist in this thread who is crowing about how no one with a brain could believe in Christianity.

No one in this thread has said that. You're so fucking delusional that you have to create a story to explain everything.

I don't think you're dumb, your beliefs are dumb and you support them with delusions. And even you know that's true.

>Now here comes the part where you mock me for believing in a religion that appealed to illiterate plebeians.
I mock you for believing lies.

>>6360977
Most stories don't have four closely related and independent sources.

>>6360914
If it's not the same way, then I'll take the sun and ditch the Jesus. Praise Amin ra

>>6360982
They're not independent, but eh.
>Catholics compile bible as an aid to Christian life.
>Other christian sects reject Catholicism as sinful and wrong, yet believe that they somehow compiled a pure, truthful document of faith.

>>6360982
Yes they do. That's when four members of the mafia explain their false incomes and where they were on the night of that murder.

People make shit up constantly. 3 of the gospels were written from one source.

Posture harder, FAGGIT, you guys always claim there's so much "evidence" of the accuracy of the gospels, when there's zero to corroborate anything

>>6360978
Suck my balls nigger, there won't be a twilight of your false idol, Jesus

>>6360935
Yes, history is not science. But because history is not science doesn't mean the least likely explanation, a suspension of what we know about typical human behavior, that they don't spontaneously disappear and come back to life, is on equal ground with more plausible ones, such as that Jesus was a magician playing jokes.

>>6360974
Because there's no documents that claim such a thing but the gospels, duh.

The original idea was a speculation

>>6360982
>four sources
>independent

Those "four" sources were made from a large variety of different authors, attributed to others for legitimacy, and wrote and took from each other. Do you actually believe the books of the Bible were written by the men who they're named after?

>>6360878
Rich and famous were not their goal, constructing a slave morality that didnt give them cognitive dissonance was

>>6360990
>Casually implying the apostles didn't believe what they were preaching.
You, my friend, are a pseudo-intellectual.

>>6361008
We don't know, WE DONT HAVE THEIR WRITTEN WORDS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

>TFW christfags are BTFO

>>6360919
Most people cant even retell what happened yesterday correctly

>>6361001
So why did the Jews claim that Christians messed with the body, rather than just saying that it never went anywhere to begin with?

>>6361018
They didn't. Made-up.

>>6361014
The whole "Q" horseshite has largely been accepted as horseshite, particularly given those involved admitted part of their goal was to discredit the original texts.

>>6361024
Accepted as horseshite by Christian ""scholars"" oooo, spooky.

Motivations don't matter.

>>6361010
At least seven letters in the Pauline epistles are considered genuine by scholars. I'm not sure why a much later person would add
>Dude no circumcisions LMAO
in the bible.

>>6361029
Yeah, Paul, who never met Christ, I agree.

>/lit/erature
this is a /pol/ thread

As far as I know, any debate of atheism vs theism is at permanent stalemate because on the one hand every piece of scientific evidence ever could have been created by a god and then again the universe could use a creator just to get the ball rolling but on the other hand a self-creating universe isn't any less plausible than a self-creating god. There are great arguments for and against the necessity of a god. Deism seems pretty intellectually palatable.

What I will never understand is the jump from "a god is perhaps arguably necessary" to "this specific Christian god is the one and only." If we call theism vs atheism 50/50, the portion of theism's 50 percent that belongs to Christianity should be 1/infinity, no?

>>6361016
Unless it is the biggest event that ever happened, which you'd try and tell as close as possible.

>>6360781
The Q part isn't necessary, the works clearly reference each other.
>The minor agreements are also, according to the critics, evidence of the non-existence of, or rather the non-necessity for, Q: if Matthew and Luke have passages which are missing in Mark (the "Who is it that struck you?" sentence quoted above is a famous example), this demonstrates only that Matthew is quoting Luke or vice versa.

And this is the commonly held view of modern scholars, I don't know why I have to explain to Christians how their own fucking holy book works, this shit is worse than Hellinismos fags for fucks sake. Go back to the Wiki article you rejected early and scroll down to other hypotheses.

>>6360853
Well said. Jesus could have been another cult leader, but the resurrection, the miracles performed by the Apostles, and the fact that the Roman empire could not extinguish their faith is proof.

>>6361053
Your argument is "a lot of people believed it so it must be true"? Could this not be said of every faith ever?

>>6361049
What about World War II vets? They can't even properly recall the biggest piece of world history since WWI?

>>6361049
So hadith science?

>>6361052
I think you may have fucked up your reply, enlightened atheist.

>>6361056
Obviously not proof, but Muslims etc. were killed if they didn't profess faith, while Christians were killed for it.

>>6361072
So Mormonism is the truest sect?

>>6361049
Retardation

>>6361045
This is every reasonable person's opinion.

>>6361068
That doesn't invalidate anything I said.
>enlightened
No the sad part is I'm pretty fucking dumb myself. I've just been reading the Bible the first time recently and reading up on the book as I read them, and then I come to Christian posturing central of 4chan and have to argue with people who sound like they haven't even read it themselves. I really do appreciate the book especially from a literary perspective, but seeing the followers act so damn stupid is disheartening.

>>6361045
Yes, infinite skepticism can doubt all belief. I'm still an atheist because theism is define by respecting the law of a god, NOT in the belief of existence. L2idealism and Stirner

>>6361083
Within the context of a Christian believer, its far more important that you love Jesus, know the commandments etc. than that you know the complete history of the bible in minute detail.

>>6361068
Nice attempt at insulting, faggot

>>6360853

you have to remember that the only thing widely attested was the disappearance of Jesus' body, and that in ancient times, even otherwise inquiring, analytical minds believed oral stories that were widespread enough (see: Pliny, Herodotus, Hippocrates, Aristotle etc).

>The fact that Christianity was able to spread suggests that it is true or otherwise people would have rejected it

Your failure to comprehend social history is appalling, my friend.

>>6360925

>All you can do is mock.

and all you can do is call criticism mockery. I tip my wreath of thorns to you

>>6361093
>Atheism is rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism; i.e. the rejection of belief that there is even one deity.
Being a hipster about word meaning is just sad.

>>6361098
>Complains about my insult
>Literally just calls me a faggot

>>6361096
I hate Jesus and would laugh at the sight of Christians being burned over a pile of embered bibles.

>>6361105
I'm saying you suck at insulting, not that it's wrong; also, I don't have to be afraid of hypocrisy because I'm a heretic. That's your standard, christ-dick-sucker

>>6361072
Muslims were oppressed early on and killed by the Pagans. Therefore Islam is the truth.

>>6361096
>minute detail

Basic knowledge on the formation and structure of the books and who wrote them is something you can learn in half an hour. That's not a waste of time if you're taking the words of those books as your faith. Others can teach you Christianity without a bible and you can practice it without a Bible but someone had to read and understand the book to teach it to you in the first place, and if you're going to make such a big stake as religion then you should be the one doing the teaching yourself.

>>6361099
>his body disappeared
>therefore he is the one true only begotten son of god, the incarnation of the Logos and died for our sins

ok...

>>6361107
>I don't have to be afraid of hypocrisy because I'm a heretic
>I don't have morals because I'm an atheist
Horse shoe theory in action, eh?

>>6361102
Belief in the nonexistence of an idea is a contradiction. God is an idea, he's explicitly immaterial to most Christians. The debate of his existence only matters to the British empiricists

>>6361116
"I have a theory for that"

Lamo

>>6361111
I'm a Catholic m8. Bible is a helpful aid to religious life, but so is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and so is mass, and so is my parish priest. The Church came before the bible, anon.

>>6361121
Well, you agree with Jack Chick on morality.

>>6361132
I do. 100%. I am a god. That kid will be someone great, too

>>6361072
What the fuck, look into the early inception of the Islamic movement in Mecca, they were a heavily persecuted minority, only saved from getting killed off immediately because Mohammed had an influential friend at the time.
They were driven out of Mecca and were followed by Meccan Arabs all the way to Medina because they wanted to kill them.
They were jobless and bordering on extinction in Medina because they could no longer engage n the trade that sustained their survival in Mecca previously.
People sacrificed their comfortable lives to join a cult-leader that drove them out of their homelands and pissed off the rest of Arabia.

Mohammed's prophetic visions were actually well-documented, and it's very likely Mohammed actually believed to be some sort of prophet because he was schizo/epileptic.

The Islamic canon is much more believable than the Christian one, which says almost nothing.

>>6361144
Muhammad also rolled into villages and forced people to convert. I wonder how those people in Muhammad's crew starving in Medina would have been treated by their brethren if they abandoned the faith? I'm seeing a head rolling down the street.

>>6361143
>I was just pretending to be retarded.

>>6361157
That was after he had moved to Medina and defeated the Meccans, the argument is how did Jesus accumulate such a mass-following if he didn't perform any real palpable magic?
The counter-argument is: Mohammed did the same so there must be another reason.

Also there was only one incident of Mohmamed murdering people of another tribe AFAIK, and they were Jewish men.

>>6361026
>Motivations don't matter.
You're adorable.

>>6361162
What? When did I contradict myself?

>>6361044
yep

>>6361168
And you're... FEDORABLE!! :-)

Its absurdity exacerbates its truth.

>>6361169
Assuming you're not literally 12, you were being facetious here.
>>6361143

>>6361178
When will this meme-philosopher leave, the Richard Dawkins of neo-/lit/ (Dawkins made some proper contributions but he's liked for petty reasons)

>>6361182
No, I'm serious.

>>6360853
>The fact that Christianity was able to spread suggests that it is true or otherwise people would have rejected it

>If everyone believed it, that means it must be true!

Maximum kek, just when i got bored of christposting, something this stupid comes and blow my mind. 10/10 bait

>>6360934
No it is pointless and gives christfag to wank over their opinions. Hell this is sort of thread (whereby someone ask a question they can fucking google or ask a priest and all the christfags start a sort of Socrates dialogue about it) is so common that i am starting to feel this is all done on purpose

the scientific method is of little concern when we are discussing the resurrection of the son of god who died for the salvation of mankind

even mary magdalene didn't believe it at first

>>6361166
>I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

Gee, I wonder why so many converted.

>>6361178
*tips fedora*

>>6361186
>philosopher who has been famous since the 1800s
>le epic meme!

Kill yourself.

>>6361192
Jesus man, you're embarrassing yourself.
>Lol, I don't even care bro, just gonna post memes

>>6361045
>this specific Christian god is the one and only

While I agree with most of what you said, it's worth clarifying it's the Judeo/Christian God. Jesus was Jewish and He said He didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it. Of course, Judaism rejects this. The larger point is it's the same God. And, many Christians believe that Christ's life and sacrifice applied to everyone ever, not just believers in Him. FWIW.

>>6361193
Christ posters post troll threads 24/7. They are the worst posters of /lit/

>>6361196

*tips fedora*

>>6361196
Except he had no power in Mecca you retard, he was an outcast, a schizophrenic merchant and still got people to follow him into rebelling against 99% of the Arab population.
They were living on the edge because if Mohammed's friend had died it would have been over for Muslims immediately.

>>6361203
You've already embarrassed yourself, court jester, I have no use for your humor anymore.

>2015
>actually attempting to humiliate a Stirnerfag

I own who I am because I'm not bound to your rules. You, on the other hand, need to turn the other cheek so I can dick slap you. Dance, court jester, dance, you obedient dog.

>this thread
you're all retarded

>>6361212
You may not be bound to my rules, but I would say having to always act like you're some edgy Sherlock Holmes would be pretty restricting as well.

>>6361218
Fuck you I scored a B on my IQ test, 81

>>6360816
underrated post

>>6361223
Freedom is a spook. Read Stirner.

I'm comfortable being bound to who I am, because I'm bound to me. You, on the other hand, the "Christian", is bound by name to Christ. Your name literally means "slave of Christ".

>>6361207
I am actually fine christian threads, but i loathe christposting

>bait threads attacking atheism all the time
>calling people heretics and post heresy reaction pictures, actually amazed at how of it there is
>Shitpost on pagan, gnosticism and just today satanism threads with the above

Christfags here aren't for Christianity more so than they are against everything else. They are like the mulism immigrants in Europe, instead of being the 'religion of peace' they claim to be here all along (4chan is a christian website maymay) and shitting on everyone else.

>>6361233
If freedom is a spook, why do you flaunt your supposed freedom over me?

>>6361235
Yeah, and it's a self contradictory thing that they so it too, which is why I enjoy slapping them around so much. They are incredibly obnoxious and I wish the janitors would ban them for the lulz

>>6360781
>intellectual suicide
this post would be intellectual suicide if it were posted on an intellectual forum.

>>6361238
Because I have power. Christianity demands you relinquish your power. Again, read Stirner.

>implying I even need to be self-consistent anyway

>>6361239
>For the lulz
Is this a legitimate troll?
Just like the supposed 'christ-fags' in other threads, retards.

>>6361247
No, I'm serious, and your attempts at shaming me out of discussion are f.u.n.n.y.

>>6360781
Read René Girard and you'll understand. Unless you're a jew that is

>>6361239
>lulz
what a gay-ass post

>>6360781
It's like no one has seen the movie that solves this very quandary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc5s1ZKNmcc

>>6361244
Well, you need to be self-consistent in an argument.
What distinction did this 19th century philosopher that you have made your god draw between power and freedom?

>>6360900
God overseen everything. Its his word

Little by little we subtract
Faith and fallacy from fact
The illusory from the true
And starve upon the residue.

>>6361260
>what a gay-ass post
What a gay ass-post

>>6361239
We have janitors?

>doing it for free
>on one of the smallest board on 4chan

lel

I probably would shitpost in threads like this but i am not skilled in the art of trolling

One way to derail threads is to start a denomination war

>>6361251
Sorry friend, I just haven't heard 'for the lulz' since I was an early teen browsing Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's certainly not within the vocabulary of the average 4chan poster.