>>3640

So you know enough about everything to make a decision that אֱלוֹהִים cannot exist?

Rather pretentious don't you think?

the bible אֱלוֹהִים yes i dont think exists. iv done extream studying and learnd many things they dont teach in the church couse its contradicting. iv had debates with many people including my own father whose extreamly religouse and has studied the bible for much of his life and smashed any evedence or any of his supporting theorys and rationalizations including every one elses iv debated. i was disowned by my family for this.

they beleaved that its impossible to live a good life without אֱלוֹהִים i beleave diffrently. infact all that is in the piety section if you want more on it. but to say there is no אֱלוֹהִים would be absured to say. i cannot prove that. do i beleave there is one on a scale of 1-10 (1 being i absolutly beleave to 10 i absolutly think there is none) im a 9. i beleave theres mostlikly not a אֱלוֹהִים but there is a chance. its only a theory but theorys can somtimes be true but i doubt on this one.

if youd like to debate on this or want me to show you why just ask in the irreverent bored were im OP. figured id keep it cool on the bible beleavers pages where saying books are false is bannable and also out of respect.

atheist here. can someone please explain to me why your אֱלוֹהִים is the true אֱלוֹהִים and all others are false, and how you can come to this conclusion when there are an infinite number of possible אֱלוֹהִיםs people can come up with and you certainly have not studied all of them.

>>3527
"So this tissue I just blew my nose with is God. Sure buddy."
like I said. lawlocaust at you not being smart enough to understand. a shortbus is you!

>>3575
All hail thee, used tissue, for thou art the holy trinity. Praise the Lawds1!!

Do you not comprehend how inane this notion is? Oh wait it's written in some random book, my bad, it's all good.

>>3617

Uh no. We shouldn't be worshiping man made things. That's what pissed God off against the Israelites.

Anyways, the idea is that God is EVERYWHERE, ALL POWERFUL, ALL LOVING, ALL KNOWING and OTHER FUN STUFF THAT I KEEP CAPITALIZING FOR EMPHASIS. But God being everything? I have issues with worshiping inanimate objects. I have issues with worshiping animals. I have issues worshiping anything that isn't directly God and/or the Trinity. The notion that there's an intermediary of worship and divinity between God that isn't the Trinity is absurd and feels almost gnostic. (I can deal with angels, because they're messengers of God.)

And that is why if your toast/cereal looks like Jesus, just eat it and be thankful to God that you're able to enjoy the right to eat whatever you want whenever you want.

Greater James and John?

Weren't they fishers of men?

>>3563

You're not going to find an answer to that on the internet, as most Christians who do use the internet are more liberally inclined, especially those on any xchan board.

Personally, I'm against gay marriage (as well as about 50% of regular marriages), but if Adam and George want it, go ahead and do it. They're old enough to make the big boy decisions.

>>3563

It took me a long time and a patient friend hammering it into my skull to realize the government's role. Separation of culture and state is the only way to make a state flexible enough to survive the shifts required for optimal culture.
Neither culture nor law can save anyone, but either one being bad can cause problems, and binding the two together means they can't freely adapt.
Charity, for instance, is the individual's job, not the masses'. Welfare makes the recipients ungrateful and the patrons resentful, whereas voluntary giving puts the burden on the individual. Other issues are the same way. We need to not rely so heavily on the government, for the government cannot be capable of the things for which we rely upon it. It can play Robin Hood, but it can't make us generous; it can recognize marriages, but it can't make us love. The individual, the family, the community -- these things can influence the culture and make change for the better. The state can do no such thing.
I wonder if it's because the best states move slowly?

>>3563 actualy theres not much of a choice. you eather beleave or you dont. you eather obey his orders or you dont. eather heaven or hell. your realy angry at somthing that shouldnt be together at all. marriag is to OWN a women by the bible standerds. i realy dont beleave in marriag. but true if two gays want to have the title why not let them? but actualy their supporting his words. you to honest with you....study the bible alot more. your arguement is a bad one. me being atheist could tell you right now i could tear you apart on that arguement. here is what you should be argueing. the ten commandments being displayed at goverment places. that is a real arguement. in my opinion i would jump for joy and be more than happy to let them display the ten commandments IF they also include the terrible harsh punishments for breaking them along with it. also churches arnt taxed... althoe they should be but a church for atheist to spread their ideas would be. that dose leave a big question. where dose all that money go thats donated?
>>3604 time to get those words back in your mouth becouse your partialy right. actualy god dose say we are like him and can judge. the devil didnt lie when he said to eav that the fruit would make us like god. god admits it in the bible. but then again it dose alos say that we shouldnt and condradicts itself once again. id leave exact quotes from the bible like i always do but i dont feel like goin thrue stacks of my writings on the bible right now couse im smoking my hookah.

He would've been very short (as people were significantly smaller back then), most likely had the skin of a Middle Easterner, and most decidedly would not have blue eyes, as is always dbiblicalted, since this is not a genetic trait found in Yehuwdim.

So, no, technically it is not enforcing an image of which we have no idea of the validity, but it is instead enforcing an image which we know to be impossible.

I forget why this look became popular (it's been a long time since my last Religion class), though I think it had something to do with certain period artists wanting to dbiblicalt Christ as a European man, so that their own people could associate with him and other peoples could be bragged to. Then the image just stuck as it was propagated by famous artists.

>>3366

I think THIS interpretation of him is made of much win and God.

Yeshua was more middle eastern than white, the VAST majority of churches and those repulsive nativity scenes are showing a false idol, for shame.

>>3558 You realize that up until the Holy Wars, Pagans were actually friend with Christians on a widespread basis, right? Just as not all Christians were good, not all Pagans were bad. The majority of both were harmless. The ones that were killing people off, both the friendly Pagans and Christians had a problem with. Heck, half the rituals from old Pagan and Christian practices are the same, and I'm not referring to the recreated ones, I'm referring to certain ones that survived the Holy Wars.

Like the one found in Italy, which I have a tendency to botch so I'm not even going to try to write it out out of respect. There's the one that Gaelic comes from in Ireland, but I forget the name of that one too. Aside from that, the Pagan beliefs and original Christian word alike were mostly destroyed by the Holy Wars. Christians, Aetheists, and Pagans/Neo Pagans alike should remember this.

And, going back to the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" part in what I believe to be Leviticus, it was referring to the Pagans with little to no respect for the living or the dead, who would sometimes get some of their poisons from diseases cultivated in dead bodies, poison people who didn't agree with them, and were pretty much the Anarchists of the day.

They were often associated with mysterious deaths of religious and political figures alike back then. They were also a main reason why I believe Italy outlawed secret societies, followed by France, and continuing into parts of the colonies that are now America. A shame it stopped there, though that's not a topic for /u/ or christchan in general...

>>3568
>>You realize that up until the Holy Wars, Pagans were actually friend with Christians on a widespread basis, right? Just as not all Christians were good, not all Pagans were bad. The majority of both were harmless. The ones that were killing people off, both the friendly Pagans and Christians had a problem with. Heck, half the rituals from old Pagan and Christian practices are the same, and I'm not referring to the recreated ones, I'm referring to certain ones that survived the Holy Wars.

Yes, I realize that. A lot of those rituals that survived did so because they were ingrained in the culture, or didn't go against the teachings of Christianity very much so that they were left alone or were incorporated (just look at the notion of a devil with horns and tail and hooves, for example). I never remarked on the "wrongness" or "rightness" of Pagan beliefs, only that, to the people writing the Bible and to those deciding what would be placed in the version we have come to accept now, non-Christian religions and beliefs were the "enemy" to Christianity as Democrats are enemies to Republicans and vice versa, nowadays. I wasn't speaking of open hostility as much as I was speaking of competition for dominance among the general population. The Christian leaders wanted more followers and Pagan religions stood in the way, so they did what they could to put those religions down. This involved writing about how certain practices were taboo.

I won't comment on any "mysterious deaths" and secret societies as history is biased on such subjects in favor of the ones who did the outlawing, so anything I proposed would be nothing more than conjecture.

>>3569 I meant no offense, but it's a topic most parts of Christianity not only don't talk about, but in my experience of a very diversely Christian and now also Muslim city, neither side talks about the Holy Wars when asked about it. Also, most Pagans, because of misinterpretation of the bible, need to hide from the majority of the populace here. And by hide, I mean that when little Raul, little Johnny, and little Tyrone get a bit out of hand and someone gets carved up like a thanksgiving turkey in the process, the Catholics who generally control the media, and also about 70% of the wealth in this town because of about 3 different families who are also Catholic, make a witch-hunt against Pagan, Aethiest, and Neo-Pagan groups out of it. I actually admire Christchan for not being like this, though through Pavlovian conditioning, I still resent the majority of Christianity.

And you're right about history being biased. Though humanity as a whole probably will never be ready for the entire truth about the Holy Wars and why it came to be, unless such times come upon humanity again. Different sub-cultures of humanity who believe they have abilities most humans don't have very similar stories on who was in the Holy Wars, which is not only intriguing sociologically speaking, but implausible statistically speaking, because these sub-cultures choose not to interact with each other for various reasons that generally (in their opinions) would result in WWIII if everything was made public... Come to think of it, that could cause global Anarchy if the right person/people were to say it on a newscast.

after seven days, he was quite tired, so God said
"let there be a day, just for picnics, and white bread"
he gathered up so people he had made
created blankets and laid back in the shade

>>3510 He said "if he was omnipotent?"

OMNIPOTENT

Long story short:

Seven days made mathematical and astronomical sense to ancient peoples. System was adopted by the Jewish which then transferred over to Christianity. A story gets created to explain why that system is in place, with a special day reserved for religious observance.
Voila.

>>Somewhere in there you made a point that telling a Christian they're wrong is telling them all they've ever known was a lie.
I'm quoting you instead of the other post because trying to pull something quotable out of that hurts my brain. Anyway.
In my experience, that's only true for people who believe in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. Because that book is the basis for their faith, if you were to tell them that the Earth is a lot older than 4,000 years, they'd try and come up with an excuse to fit the problem, like carbon-dating and dinosaur fossils being put there to purposely test your faith or something like that, because if they believe the Bible is literal and came straight from God, then to prove something in it wrong is to prove God wrong, which would in turn make everything they believe into a "lie."
Which is silly, because what the Bible tells you to do and how to behave and the people therein contradict themselves a great many number of times.

Yes, there's yet more options than in what dreams may come in the afterlife. Sure, if you believe strongly enough in any sort of heaven, it exists. The less individualistic it is, the smaller and less rewarding though. There's reincarnation, there's just journeying through the collective imaginings, there's hell, but they didn't mention things like Limbo and Purgatory. Limbo, a land of those trying to redeem themselves, and Purgatory, a land of those entirely lost after death. With Aetheism, if you don't believe there's an afterlife, there isn't. There's also the journeys you can go on where creatures OTHER than humanity live, and since you're no longer bound to life with your body, you're free to do that. Most likely, if you think about any work of fiction with an entirely different world, it exists after death. This includes the good and bad. The only thing that really is hard to explain, and beg my pardon if you consider this blasphemy, are the non-human beings that sometimes show up here where we live. Some would call them demons, but not all have bad intent. Just as humans have a light side and a dark side, so do the other creatures that visit here. They just happen not to create mile wide craters with their fights.

The afterlife boils down to one thing: belief. Belief is not necessary. Either way, you are judged in the afterlife. Christians like to think that would be at the gates of Heaven. I've yet to find someone going there FIRST. So far, it's 3-0 and Hell in the lead, or at least the firey pathway that Christians think is Hell. It's more just a realm of judgement and crossroads. The other parts in Dante's Inferno? Now those, on the other hand, are punishments.

well seems that all my posts are deleated for asking for reasonablility. same with the ones i posted earlyer on this. just give up on this site couse any answer that might come from any opinion other than a christians will be targeted and deleated

Is that the representation of the beast?

I believe it is a picture from a DnD creature called a Gnoll. Kinda a human-shaped jackal, beast man. Not a symbol of the beast...
Furry is a subculture,
half people enjoying a shape and concept of animal-people;
the other half, well lets say they are called fur-verts for a reason.