/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10722997]

How do people take this book seriously? There is so much of it that is completely antiquated and based in superstition. Demons, spontaneous healing, virgin birth, water walking, and various other things that are in contradiction to the laws of physics. In addition, there are many dubious and completely incorrect historical claims, that's why no modern historian takes the gospels of the new testament as a literal history.
How do you suspend the knowledge of the modern world to believe this stuff? I suppose you can do so metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, and so on, but then you're reinterpreting the text beyond its original meaning and the meaning established by church founders.
>inb4 fedora memes

[Anonymous No.10723001]

>>10722997
>How do people take this book seriously?
Well, maybe because what's written there is literally the word of god?

[Anonymous No.10723004]

>>10722997
>I suppose you can do so metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, and so on, but then you're reinterpreting the text beyond its original meaning and the meaning established by church founders.
Quite a big assumption there m8

[Anonymous No.10723008]

>>10723001
But the Bible being the word of God is just conjecture.

[Anonymous No.10723013]

>I suppose you can do so metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, and so on
Tada
>you're reinterpreting the text beyond its original meaning
Why are you so sure the original meaning is the literal one?

[Anonymous No.10723015]

>>10723001
If you took the bible literally, you'd have to believe some fucked up and bizzare shit without any evidence.
>>10723004
When the bible says demons, it means demons. How do you reconcile that with the modern world?

[Anonymous No.10723023]

>>10723013
>Why are you so sure the original meaning is the literal one?
Because there are parts of the bible that use literary devices when its authors want to specifically make a distinction between the literal and metaphorical or symbolic. E.g. the parables of Jesus.
Why are you so sure the original meaning isn't literal?

[Anonymous No.10723053]

>>10722997
>he cant walk on water
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.10723071]

>>10723023
That's vague, but granting it still leaves leaves the rest of it (case by case for authors but pretty much the whole old testament) open to metaphoric interpretation or literal interpretations for the retardedly inclined

[Anonymous No.10723133]

>>10722997
>Demons, spontaneous healing, virgin birth, water walking, and various other things that are in contradiction to the laws of physics
If you accept the premise that God exists then the existence of spirits and miracles follows. You should be able to entertain the possibility off all of these things existing without necessarily believing that they do exist. Instead you're caught in circular reasoning, disbelieving in God, thus the existence of spirits and miracles seem ridiculous to you, thus causing you to reject the Bible as evidence for the existence of God, thus rejecting the existence of God, thus rejecting spirits and miracles, etc. Suspend your disbelief and entertain the possibility that God exists.

A miracle is by definition a violation of the laws of physics. How would you know it was an act of God if it didn't do that? So you reject miracles for being miracles? Absurd.

>In addition, there are many dubious and completely incorrect historical claims, that's why no modern historian takes the gospels of the new testament as a literal history.
Our knowledge of history is limited, but would be completely non-existent if we totally rejected wholesale every compilation of texts that happened to contain claims contradicted elsewhere.

>How do you suspend the knowledge of the modern world to believe this stuff?
Our knowledge of the modern world hasn't disproven the existence of God, spirits, or miracles. Supernatural things are beyond the capacity of empirical science to investigate.

>I suppose you can do so metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, and so on, but then you're reinterpreting the text beyond its original meaning and the meaning established by church founders.
The Bible contains metaphor, allegory, and symbols, but the doctrines of spirits and miracles expressed therein are literal, and it would be heresy to, as the "liberal" "Christians" have done, consign such matters to mere abstraction. If you don't want to believe in the supernatural, then why are you interested in a book about the supernatural?

[Anonymous No.10723134]

???????????

Religion is retarded unless you take a leap of faith, which is irrational, and therefore makes you an unreasonable person.

Can we delete religion threads from this board. Fucking cancer.

[Anonymous No.10723138]

>>10723133
>If you accept the premise that God exists then the existence of spirits and miracles follows
Not really. Depends on your definition of God.
>Supernatural things are beyond the capacity of empirical science to investigate.
How convenient for your belief system. Then we have no metric for dismissing anything. It's perfectly valid to believe in green unicorns from the 7th dimension, because why not, they're supernatural.
>The Bible contains metaphor, allegory, and symbols, but the doctrines of spirits and miracles expressed therein are literal, and it would be heresy to, as the "liberal" "Christians" have done, consign such matters to mere abstraction. If you don't want to believe in the supernatural, then why are you interested in a book about the supernatural?
So you live your life walking around believing in bronze age superstitious? Astounding.

[Anonymous No.10723141]

>>10723015
>If you took the bible literally, you'd have to believe some fucked up and bizzare shit without any evidence.
Obviously you have evidence. The Bible is evidence. It might not be evidence that supports your position, but it's still evidence. Please don't confuse the word evidence with the word proof. That's a very tedious conflation done for very transparent reasons.

>When the bible says demons, it means demons. How do you reconcile that with the modern world?
That demons are still around?

[Anonymous No.10723147]

>>10723141
>Obviously you have evidence. The Bible is evidence.
Circular reasoning.
By the same token, the Queran and the Jewish texts are true, as are other religious texts.
>>10723141
>That demons are still around?
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.10723151]

>>10723134
Everything is a leap of faith regardless, that's what life is. That's not really an argument for faith, but we need to take chances and you already do it all the time.

[Anonymous No.10723164]

>contradiction to the laws of physics
>dubious and completely incorrect historical claims

Welcome to the late 1700's / early 1800's in atheism

[Anonymous No.10723165]

>>10723164
>the classic "Yeah, but, look at you!" argument.

[Anonymous No.10723166]

>>10723151
That's not true. With almost anything in life you can find reliable information, evidence, guides etc. to help you out before you do it.

Religion has this massive gaping hole in its argument called 'evidence for god'. Despite being one of the oldest cultural phenomena in human history, there still hasn't been a single SHRED of evidence for God. Therefore, you need a leap of faith, in which you must throw out the validity of reason before you can do.

[Anonymous No.10723169]

>>10723015
>When the bible says demons, it means demons.
>How do you reconcile that with the modern world?
Demons are archtypes of malevolent emotions we experience.

t. Petersonian scholar

[Anonymous No.10723171]

>>10723165
>argument.
non-argument*

[Anonymous No.10723173]

>>10722997

[Anonymous No.10723181]

>>10723138
>Not really. Depends on your definition of God.
We're talking about God in the context of the Bible. You know we're talking about God in the context of the Bible. We're in the middle of that conversation right now. Don't change the subject, you snake.

>How convenient for your belief system. Then we have no metric for dismissing anything. It's perfectly valid to believe in green unicorns from the 7th dimension, because why not, they're supernatural.
*yaaaaaaaaawn* This is boring. Do you sit around memorizing this shit just to regurgitate it on cue?

Listen. The empirical method cannot disprove supernatural claims. That doesn't mean the claims are valid. It just means that your claim that those claims have been invalidated by the empirical method is invalid. You can toss off as many other absurd supernatural claims as you want, but that doesn't mean any other one in particular has actually been proven wrong empirically. It might interest you to learn that there are non-empirical methods of disproving supernatural claims. Wow, it's almost like there's different fields of knowledge and you can't apply one set of investigative tools to all of them!

>So you live your life walking around believing in bronze age superstitious? Astounding.
I was unaware that eternal truth was a function of the calender. "Your ideas are old! Thus they are wrong!" Retarded argument.

[Anonymous No.10723184]

>>10723147
I don't have to prove anything. You're asking how the Bible can be read as literal truth. You can read it literally and conclude that demons didn't somehow stop existing after the Middle Ages. That's your answer.

[Anonymous No.10723188]

>>10723166
There you go confusing evidence and proof. There's no proof of God. There's evidence. You can take the evidence how you want.

[Anonymous No.10723189]

>>10723184
You made a positive statement about the existence of demons. Now prove it.

[Anonymous No.10723201]

>>10723166
There have been various arguments formulated for the existence of God. There have been numerous testimonies recounting experiences with supernatural spirits revealing God. The Bible contains many such records. You say there's no evidence. That's evidence. Go ahead and dismiss it as unconvincing evidence, but you're dead wrong and likely dishonest in saying that there's no evidence.

[Anonymous No.10723204]

>>10723071
>That's vague
Not really. There are segments in the old testament, where God is telling people, quite literally, how much grain needs to be collected for his worship. How exactly are you going to interpret that metaphorically to reveal some great truth?

[Anonymous No.10723205]

>>10723189
I posed a question. You're autistic, and not as intelligent as you think you are.

[Anonymous No.10723209]

>>10722997
>Demons, spontaneous healing, virgin birth, water walking, and various other things that are in contradiction to the laws of physics.
Here’s how to debunk all religions: look at a miracle. Is it possible for such a thing to occur? If no, then it didn’t occur. If yes, then it wasn’t a miracle.
Wait, just kidding, you’re a retard. Nobody believes virgins can give birth or that people can walk on water, so these things are considered miracles! Are you really so retarded you don’t a miracle is? Eat a cinder block

[Anonymous No.10723213]

>>10723205
>I didn't mean to be retarded!
You're not as wise or as intelligent as you believe, either. Charlatan.

[Anonymous No.10723214]

>>10723188
What evidence? The bible? The one that is full of contradictions? Or are you one of those that cherry picks what's 'true' Christianity and what isn't?

Or do you believe fundamentalism is the way forward for religion?

Your belief system has massive holes. You need to become pedantic about the difference between evidence and proof just to reply to me - and even then you say nothing else of worth.

>>10723201
>arguments
Like what? And don't give me Aquinas, I don't believe any of his arguments are valid.
>testimonies
which differ vastly from each other. My homeless friend Jim sees unicorns under the bridge every night, they must exist, right? If people had genuine supernatural experiences from the same god, we would have seen much more religious unification by now.

>Go ahead and dismiss it as unconvincing evidence, but you're dead wrong and likely dishonest in saying that there's no evidence.
Do you read what you write before you click 'post'? Unconvincing evidence may as well be no evidence.

[Anonymous No.10723218]

>>10723209
t. cherry picker.
The miracles performed by Jesus are supposed to be understood as literal events, which he could perform because of his Godly nature.

[Anonymous No.10723232]

>>10723213
I posed a question. You can go back and see the question mark for yourself. You're demanding that I "prove" a question. I'm asking you to figure it out yourself. That's why I asked.

>>10723214
You don't even understand what evidence is. Evidence doesn't have to be valid or reliable to be evidence. I'd like to see you as a lawyer in a courtroom. "Your honor, Exhibit A, the testimony of the woman across the hall, must be thrown out!" "Why?" "Because I disagree with it!" Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10723237]

ITT: Faggots pretending the entire bible can be interpreted non-literally.
Face it, faggots, some of the bible is complete garbage and cannot be interpreted in any way that isn't literal.

[Anonymous No.10723241]

>>10723232
>You don't even understand what evidence is. Evidence doesn't have to be valid or reliable to be evidence
It does when we are talking about events related to the natural world.

[Anonymous No.10723244]

>>10723218
That’s the point dumbass. They are MIRACLES. The events are supernatural. You were trying to argue that the events in the Bible didn’t happen because they break the laws of physics, or in your own words “Demons, spontaneous healing, virgin birth, water walking, and various other things that are in contradiction to the laws of physics.” Butthat’s the point of them. They are miracles. Nobody saw Christ walk on water and said “oh that’s a normal thing, anyone can do that,” they said “wow, he walks on water. This proves his claim that he is the Son of God incarnate.” What kind of dumbass rejects miracles on the grounds that they break physics? If they followed the laws of physics, they wouldn’t be miracles, they’d be normal events.

[Anonymous No.10723245]

>>10723232
"Your honor, Exhibit A, the testimony of the woman across the hall, should be thrown out because it is vague, full of contradictions, does not make sense with all other evidence presented, and the witness is of unsound mind."

Again, you resort to becoming pedantic instead of making an argument. I fully understand what evidence is, and if you ever set foot in a courtroom you would know that by presenting evidence you are expecting it to be scrutinized in meticulous detail. The bible barely stays valid on a skim-read.

[Anonymous No.10723250]

>>10723237
>ITT: Faggots pretending the entire bible can be interpreted non-literally.
>Face it, faggots, some of the bible is complete garbage and cannot be interpreted in any way that isn't literal.

[Anonymous No.10723254]

>>10723241
>events related to the natural world
Cool tautology.

[Anonymous No.10723256]

>>10723244
Because the point is, why should anyone believe dubious claims that cannot be demonstrated? The son of God you say? Jesus is not the first or the last to claim divine nature. In relatively contemporary times to himself, there were similar charlatans.

[Anonymous No.10723275]

>>10723245
>"Your honor, Exhibit A, the testimony of the woman across the hall, should be thrown out because it is vague, full of contradictions, does not make sense with all other evidence presented, and the witness is of unsound mind."
Hahahahahahaha

Those are not valid motions to exclude testimony in any court in the world. Courts are eager to accept such testimony as evidence. Any judge hearing your motion would would just stare at you for a few seconds and ask you if you're really a lawyer.

>Again, you resort to becoming pedantic instead of making an argument. I fully understand what evidence is, and if you ever set foot in a courtroom you would know that by presenting evidence you are expecting it to be scrutinized in meticulous detail. The bible barely stays valid on a skim-read.

Once again, you think all evidence has to be proof. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You can't even use words correctly. You've never studied rhetoric or logic in your life, yet insist on pontificating what constitutes evidence, but reduce all evidence to proof. You're a fool.

[Anonymous No.10723286]

>>10723275
If being THIS pedantic/mad is what it takes to be okay with completely throwing rationality out of the window to believe in a floating sky man then I am glad I don't see things this way.

>You're a fool
Says the guy arguing for religion. Read your posts. Look at how mad you are getting over something that doesn't exist. I'm sorry you have to attack my person to make yourself feel better about it, but your 'evidence' is so weak that it makes sense that these are your only options.

[Anonymous No.10723301]

>>10723256
Yeah but only he rose from the dead. This is why his movement didn’t end when he died. I’m gonna post a quick Bible passage before I continue
>“Men of Israel, pay close attention to what you are about to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and nothing came of it. After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census, and incited people to follow him in revolt. He too was killed, and all who followed him were scattered. So in this case I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking originates with people, it will come to nothing, but if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them, or you may even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:35-39)
Many claimed to be the messiah or even God himself, both before and after Jesus. People like Laozi or Hare Krishna lived very long ago and we have no proof of their existence, they are largely thought to be legendary. Men like Arnold Potter were shown to be frauds when they died. Sabbatai Zevi was proven to be a fraud when he was going to be tested with death, and instead converted to Islam and denounced his messiahship. Jesus is largely considered to be a historical figure, and he did not renounce when confronted with death. After he died, his disciples (not just the 12 apostles, hundreds of his disciples) all claimed to have seen him risen from the dead. Not a single one of them renounced when confronted with death. To this day, nobody has found the remains of Christ, indicating his ascension. Read “Who Moved the Stone” and “Reasonable Faith” to see why Jesus rose from the dead, literally and historically. Yes, even though that breaks the laws of physics

[Anonymous No.10723304]

>>10723286
You've been corrected. The fool insists on his error, but at some level knows he's wrong. You know you'll never misuse the word "evidence" in this way again. You'll think of me when you go to do it again, and you just won't be able to go through with it. My work is done.

[Anonymous No.10723311]

>>10723286
>Look at how mad you are getting over something that doesn't exist.
What’s funny is that religious people do believe God exists. So actually, you’re the one getting mad over something you think doesn’t exist

[Anonymous No.10723322]

>>10723304
Now I'll be even more prepared next time I run in to another one of you and they want to play 'my imaginary friend exists I sweaarr'

[Anonymous No.10723325]

>>10723322
Read your posts. Look at how mad you are getting over something that doesn't exist. I'm sorry you have to attack my person to make yourself feel better about it, but your 'evidence' is so weak that it makes sense that these are your only options.

[Anonymous No.10723335]

Americans are stupid hypocrites
/thread

[Anonymous No.10723363]

>>10723322

not that guy but hey, if you’re gonna be an atheist you should at least become ubermensch, otherwise you’re just a weak and embarrassing person. get redpilled and tyrannize. good luck to you

[Anonymous No.10723386]

>>10723244
>>10723209
>>10723173
hahahahaha le atheism DEMOLISHED once again with fedora / reddit neckbeard. jpg hahahahahah take that atheism xdxdxd

[Anonymous No.10723458]

1. I haven't experienced any supernatural events.
2. Most people don't claim to have witnessed them either.
3. We know due to modern medicine that various substances or mental disorders cause a distorted sense of reality
5. We have also witnessed various events become riddled with ridiculous supernatural claims over a few decades (JFK, 9/11, cult leaders etc.)

6. Therefore, claims of supernatural events made thousands of years ago are even more suspect than contemporary ones
7. In conclusion, it is far more likely such events are made on false testimony or result from hallucinations/disorders, than the possibility of divine intervention.

We could also make an argument that Christianity is a religion entirely based on a purported supernatural historical event, without which it loses its whole foundation, claimed as early as Paul.

fite me

[Anonymous No.10723468]

>>10723386
Faces of atheism is an honest-to-god embarrassment though. You don’t even have to cherrypick, they’re all just ugly people.

[Anonymous No.10723471]

>>10723458
claiming that supernatural experiences are a medical disorder is literally the materialist equivalent of calling out blasphemy. You're looking within your own system for proof that another system is wrong. That's just brainlet tier shit

[Anonymous No.10723472]

>>10723468
When did ad hominem become an acceptable argument for theism? Is this the best apologetics can do?

[Anonymous No.10723501]

>>10723472
It’s not an argument, and it’s not meant to be an argument. It’s just always important to remind atheists that they are nothing more then repulsive jokes

[Anonymous No.10724995]

>>10723501
>>10723468
I thought that was a thing invented by /pol/? I don't know what the fuck faces of atheism is

I'm a decent 7/10 Anon, don't make assumptions

[Anonymous No.10725072]

>>10723204
>instructions for deeply symbolic rituals
>How exactly are you going to interpret that metaphorically

[Anonymous No.10725432]

>>10722997
>Demons, spontaneous healing, virgin birth, water walking, and various other things that are in contradiction to the laws of physics.
If those things didn’t contradict physics, they wouldn’t really be worth writing about. If those things could naturally happen then they wouldn’t ve miracles. The whole point was that those things are impossible.

[Anonymous No.10725534]

>>10723015
Don't take the bible literally, it's the word of God, written by men, and very little of what man writes is to be taken literally. There are many genres in the bible.

[Anonymous No.10726219]

To all fellow Christians in this thread

Proverbs 26:4

If you argue with this retard you'll become a retard.

[Anonymous No.10726357]

>>10723386

Take it in whatever form you want, being neckbeard memes or what have you, but either way, Atheism and Post-Modernism is in truth an ideological parasite that is killing western civilization. Christian Europe literally conquered the world for glory, gold and God, Atheism brought us diversity, perversion and ruin.

[Anonymous No.10726921]

>>10723181
>dawkinite btfo for the millionth time
mfw

[Anonymous No.10727001]

>>10724995
Faces of atheism was a thing by r/atheism where they put captions over photos of themselves to…… I don’t know why. If you google faces of atheism you can find them

[Anonymous No.10728378]

>>10722997
Because it’s old and old people dedicated time to it. Next question.

[Anonymous No.10728425]

What kind of evidence are we looking for to validate that God exists? Is the existence of the universe and everything in it not enough?

Without God, how do you overcome the the impossibility of combining faith with the rational and logical?

[Anonymous No.10728475]

>>10722997
>How do people take this book seriously?
Because it's one of the most influential books ever written. Because it is the object of an extraordinary literary and cultural history extending back to bronze age cultures. You don't need to be religious to appreciate it or comprehend its impact on the world. Indeed, maybe you can know it better if you are not religious.

But maybe one of the worst things is that average people tend to only view it through the lens of religion. And whether or not they believe in religion. That's a very reductive way to look at a text like the bible.

[Anonymous No.10728517]

>>10723256
What's your theory on how Rome went from being the empire that killed Christ to having Christian churches in Rome itself within 20 years of the crucifixion? That is pretty compelling historical evidence that people must have seen some serious shit to get them to convert to following a convicted and executed criminal of the Empire so rapidly

[Anonymous No.10728554]

>>10723133
>>10723138
>>10723141
>>10723181
>>10723214
>>10723275
People who reply like this are cancerous, self absorbed spergs. Learn to rebut without copious quoting you absolute angolards

[Anonymous No.10728563]

>>10728554
>People who reply like this are cancerous, self absorbed spergs. Learn to rebut without copious quoting you absolute angolards
No.

[Anonymous No.10728565]

>>10723209
I cringe at people who still don't understand that Darwin's "fittest" only means "most adaptable"

[Anonymous No.10728569]

>>10723472
It isn't an ad hominem. It's an insult.

[Anonymous No.10728577]

>>10728475

The mistake that you are making is to defend an artefact "because it was always there", "because muh history". This is the fallacy which complements historical revisionism.

[Anonymous No.10728692]

>>10728577
Those "defenses" are facts. And they are perfectly adequate responses to why the bible should be taken seriously.

Fact: the bible is one of the most influential books ever written.

Fact: the bible was created through the synthesis of a variety of folklore, wisdom, poetry, etc. drawn from various bronze age cultures.

My argument is simply that this gives it literary value independent of the religions organised around it (and its variations).

If mere description and recognition of the bible's enormous and indisputable influence throughout literary history, and history in general, "complements" historical revisionism then really I can't begin to imagine what you must think historical revisionism is.

It almost seems like reality upsets you to the point that you feel the need to project your own censorial impulse on me. Because with statements like ""because it was always there" and "muh history" it is you that stumbles, trembling with autistic hatred, toward historical revisionism.

[Anonymous No.10728956]

Renè Girard

>Girard's fundamental ideas, which he had developed throughout his career and provided the foundation for his thinking, were that desire is mimetic (i.e. all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.

[Anonymous No.10730573]

>>10728956
This is a fascinating idea. The Bible does have ancient wisdom for sure. I do pity fanatical atheists who can't see beyond their hatred of religion for a bit to see how insightful books like Ecclesiastes and Job are.