I'm a current PhD student in Biblical Studies. Ask any questions you have about the Bible, ancient Israel...

So yes he is burning

Thanks user

I mean, he most likely raped a woman, according to reports. I don't speculate on the salvation of any individual, but he isn't the best individual to look at when it comes to a model religious person. Maybe if he got more rings.

Is the Chapel of the Ascension foot print the real deal? Thoughts opinions?

predestination doesn't make sense until you realize how unworthy every person is. If it makes you angry, it is because you still see people as being essentially good underneath. This couldn't be further from the truth: we are evil through and through, and it is only through grace that "He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins". It takes honest introspection to identify sin/evil in one's own heart.

With all due respect, hell fucking no. I respect the fact that there is an effort to preserve the historical Jesus. But the majority of the scholarly populace would find this assertion inappropriate. My personal opinion would be that this is a capitalist attempt to gain popularity and economic gain based on a historically significant figure. Shit, give me a slab of clay in the ANE and I'd do the same thing if it made me money.

OP here. The old "giving a rope to dead people" trope. What good is giving a rope to eternal life to humanity that is entirely dead? Those who are dead cannot grab hold of a rope to climb to salvation; thus, there must be a group select to receive life, so that they might understandably grasp the rope and ascend. There are problems and solutions with the perpective. Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

I'll bump this a few more times before I go to bed,

Its legit. Ive been there. And Akeldama; Believed to be where Judas hung himself.

Legitimate question. Why do you believe that the footprint of Christ is legit?

What was Korean jesus's last meal and why was it pure protein?

If it was pure protein, it would have been an animal that chewed the cud.

I actually enjoyed this thread OP, thanks for your thoughts.
I'm not sure if this would fall in the realm of your field, but what do you think of the somewhat edgy but also can't exactly be disproved or proved idea that "we're already living in hell?" Dunno if this is an actual like theory or just something floated around by edgelords I've met both online and in person. It kinda plays into the idea of the universe being played on a loop, I guess, in some ways.

Also, personally I've decided to consider myself agnostic as of a few years ago, and I'm curious about your own personal understanding of religion and how that came to be, if you care to talk about it.

As per your second question, I would argue that all religion was founded upon the question of "what is my relationship to the world?" Some scholars argue that the Jewish religion was founded by a small sect of individuals that escaped Egyptian rule. The "exodus" of God's chosen people was, in this view, reinterpreted by those who escaped, and given meaning in the community .Essentially, the thought is that some people survived escape from Egypt and felt like they needed to attribute their success in liberation to some certain God in the world. The Ancient Near East was notorious for promoting a "my god is greater than your god" mentaility, which seems to suggest that this view is completely validl. Interestingly enough, the Egyptians were fantastic record keepers, and so there is little evidence that the exodus according to the Biblical narrative actually happened to the degree that it did.

>life is suffering
>hell is suffering

Flip them around they still mean the same thing

After all is Jesus God incarnate like some religions claim or is he the son of God?

As per your first question, I haven't met many scholars that entertain this position, but it is most likely due to the fact that biblical studies scholars are funded by prestigious institutions that would lose money if the presupposition was true. That being said, I feel that most scholars would argue a difference, as they would most likely say that the essence of hell would be the absence of God entirely. Given that we still have access to the Bible, there is no significant absence of God, such that it would restrict humanity from heaven. This is outside of my expertise, but I can only imagine that this would be the response to some degree. I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the thread. I love discussing this stuff, regardless of the questions or the reliigious background of the individuals participating.

The distinction was rendered inappropriate by early Christians, particularly at Nicaea. The Nicaean Creed affirms that the Son is of the same substance and essence (english distinction is most clearly defined as "being") as the Father. Modern english linguistics describes the relationship as being of different forms of the whole, but having the entire essence and being of the whole. I can't tell you if the historic Jesus was the son of God. But what I can tell you is the modern (and Ancient, for that matter) Christians understand that Jesus is the same being of God the Father, just in a different mode. There are many positions on the topic, which came to focus at the council of Nicaea.. If you'd like to inquire further, you can look up the positions of the homoousians, the homooisans, and the homoians at the council of Nicaea. If you don't want to google search, ask and I can explain.

>but by God's all-knowing power, not all are saved.
>All-knowing power
Is this mixing omnipotence with omniscience or are you meaning that the all-knowing is "a" power? Like a feature of God's nature.
Also is fore-knowing a better use when it comes to predestination?
"Those he did fore-know he did predestinate" etc

Why do catholucks rip on protestants for "changing the scripture" even though they're the ones who added the deuterocanonical books in the first place?

This is a great differentiation, so good on you to identify it. You will find some that argue that the fore-knowing was an influence on the predestining, although the position isn't widely held (Moise Amyraut and the Amyraldian position). The issue with those that affirm predestination is that they must accept one of two views. On one hand, God knows, in his complete wisdom, who would believe, and therefore allows or gives them the means to believe fully in the Gospel message. This calls into question God's nature, as if he truly desired all to be saved, he would influence all to be in the position to believe. On the other hand, if God merely gives as much as would be sufficient for some to believe, similar questions arise. Why would God not, knowing that the alternative to believing being suffering for eternity in hell, give enough for all to see and believe? There is no simple answer here, but with predestination there are no simple answers to many questions. I tried to provide a general framework that, I believe, answer your questions. If you feel that I've been too abstract, please ask again and I can address certain issues.

It seems to me that religions starts (or at least become important) at the time human began to settle. Some liken this to when human were expelled from the garden.
They no longer could rely on foraging (hunter gatherers) from an abundant supply.
Instead they became subject to the vagaries of climate, theft, war etc on their crops and stock.
So they looked to a "power" beyond (be it a god, spirits or set of spiritual laws) that they could call on or use to bend to their will.
Add to that the consolation of religion in the face of loss and death. Hence the need for a
concept of an after life.
Thoughts on this?

To be fair, both Protestants and Catholics would argue that they are operating on good faith in their construction of their Biblical canon. I will not use fucking Cred Forums to talk shit about either party, as I've had several articles published in which I could have done so. But, what I can say, is that there has been a growing influence in the global West to provide the "correct" way of life, particularly when it comes to widespread systems of thought '(capitalism, democracy, and religion, namely). The benefit that the Protestants have is that there are numerous individuals that can appraoch biblical texts and interpreit them in relationship to their own context. This is good and bad. You have a number of interpretations that take form. Feminist interpretations, womanist interpretations, etc. They all muddle the conversation, but for some, it allows for each indivudal to find a reality that speaks most to them. On the other hand, I respect the Catholic church in the way that it designates certain realities as universally true. The Catholic church says a general "fuck you" to each indivudal who wants the Bible to speak directly to them and only to their people, and argues that the message of the Gospel speaks to all people through the lens of histroy and the Pope, and I think its a valid argument.

I think that responds to this question a decent amount, but I'll respond here as well. In essence, you're right. In the Ancient Near East especially, there was so much war, famine, and whatever else, that every people group had to attribute their victory to a particular god. That was their framework; if they succeded, their god was showing them favor, but if they were overtaken, it was because their god was either a. inferior to their opponents', or b. because their god was dissappointed in them and wanted to show them hardship because of their faults. All it takes is a quick glance at Roman mythology. There was a god for everything; fornication, plentiful harvest, war conflict, and everything in between. Religion, as far as the ANE goes, was based on people groups evaluating their situation in the world and in comparison to their adversaries or neighbors, and attributing it to either their champion god or the gods that they followed and their relationship to these gods.

OP here. I'll give this thread five more minutes, then I'm going to bed. If you have questions, I'm more that willing to provide perspective, buif not, I'm more than willing to go to bed. I'm already decently drunk, so it wouldn't hurt my feelings.

Attached: images (4).jpg (389x292, 14K)

Thanks

My pleasure.

If Jesus was a Jew and Christians hold Jesus as their idol then why should Christians not be Jews instead?

Wrong. It mentions gnashing of teeth etc

Why did you commit your whole life to the research of one, bad fantasy book?

Do you believe the mistranslated and written 80-300 years after it supposedly happened book of lies?

Wow, you're totally right, the depiction of hell is crystal clear! Fuck off, idiot.

I'm getting paid to get my PhD, so I suppose I'm getting my degree mostly because I;m getting paid to. I never claimed to be religious. The field is ripe for conversation, however.

And now the knuckle-draggers have arrived.

Is it financed by private parties or from public money though?

The Gospels explain that Christ came to fulfill and reinvent the law of the Old Testament. Judaism believes, essentially, that the incarnate God has not yet come to the earth. Christians, by default, believe that Jesus Christ was the incarnate God. This belief inherently restricts them from beleiving Jewish tradition.

Rickety cricket! !

what if god had a huge cock that would make you cum every time it penetrates you? would that be possible in heaven?

I respect it as a historical document. The Bible wasn't attempting to be a historical document. I believe it has value. I don't believe the contents literally.

Zoinks Scoob

If god is omniscient, why did he even let Adam and Eve near the tree of knowledge. If he knew they would eat off of the tree whats the point of making them without sin?

Could god create a rock or object that he himself could not move?

If it was consensual, I suppose it would be possible. There would be no procreation though,

Truly so.

A bit of both. There are public donors that provide funding, but there are also private companies (mostly publishers) that provide funding as well.

OP have you read "Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History" by Kurt Andersen?
Following the development of American religion & thought (separating from Reformation/Enlightenment Europe) to a post-factual, conspiracy fascinated, anti-science, nothing is true/ live in your own truth/ ultra-individualistic America.

amazon.com/Fantasyland-America-Haywire-500-Year-History/dp/1400067219

I see constant bashing here, yet atheists and the like always seem oblivious to the notion that their belief system is made up of theories and facts alone whether real or imagined. Cognitive relativism affirms that there is no real truth out there in the world and if there is, we're never going to find it. This means that all of those theories and facts which an atheist clings to cannot and will not ever be truth. Theories and facts indicate that truth does exist. Stuff doesn't evolve to become true one day, it was truth the entire time it was out of sight and difficult to find... It takes courage to admit that your belief system is basically a bunch of lies so it's usually just easier to attack Christianity to get the spotlight on something else. If your belief system is going to constantly evolve and change like misinformation does and truth isn't allowed in that particular world... the only thing left for the atheist to worship and idolize is his/her own mind. A god of their own making.

Two separate arguments here. The second question you ask is disingenuous. It is the same as asking if God could create a square circle; the premises do not make logical sense. By definition, any rock has a set weight, and by definition, God's power would allow him to lift any object. It is the same to say that God can not create a square cirlce; an object with infinite points on the diameter while also having 90 degree angles. The question itself is inconevable, therefore the question does not require a response. As per your first question, scholars would most likely argue one of two positions. The first argument would be that although God knew the outcome, God also knew that he would not be adequately worshipped by followers who had no decision in the matter. Worship by individuals with choice matters more than indivudals who are forced to worship their deity. Another argument would be that God knew the "greater good," Meaning that while God could have created Adam and Eve without sin, it was the greater benefit to create a humanity that was prone to sin but was also afforded to opportunity to turn from sin to Him, and live in eternal communion.

>Christians, by default, believe that Jesus Christ was the incarnate God
Who was a Jew
Does that not mean Judaism is not the one true religion?
If Judaism is not the one true religion, does that not mean God is fallible?
If God is fallible, does that not mean he is not truly God?

Not being a smartass, this whole line of thought represents questions I've had since I was like 8.

I will admit that I haven't. If you provide a summary, I can respond to the general argument.

Was the story of Jesus a rewritten tale of old?

Attached: Dionysus.jpg (750x500, 63K)

>Cognitive relativism affirms that there is no real truth out there in the world and if there is, we're never going to find it. This means that all of those theories and facts which an atheist clings to cannot and will not ever be truth.
That is only if you believe Cognitive Relativism.
Like for example my existence is a real truth. I think therefore I am kinda shit. Also they are not lies they are the common understand as of now. Many things will change as our understanding grows, something that can not be said for Christianity since the coming of Jesus at least (or if you are catholic then as the pope changes things)

Why do so many White North American of European descent believe in a 2000 year old fable about a dead jewish carpenter whos Mum had an affair, went missing for 30 years, was executed for public nuisance and became a fable with no proof of anything supernatural?

Attached: FB_IMG_1576998319820.jpg (611x481, 30K)

Jesus was a Jew. Judaism, according to the Christian faith, is NOT the true religion, because they did not affirm Christ as the fulfillment of their own traditions and teachings. Therefore your following premises do not require answer. Judaism, in the Christian tradition, is flawed in the fact that it rejects Jesus as their expected messiah. Feel free to ask further questions if you don't find this response adequate.

To a certain degree, yes. The Old Testament was essentially recycled narratives of popular thought. If you're interested in the area, read the Epic of Gilgamesh and compare it to the early Old Testament works. That being said, the narrative of Jesus himself being a messiah was relatively unique. There were other individuals being claimed as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, but they didn't fit the mold that Christ established as a continuation of Jewish thought.,

It gives them meaning, I suppose. This is the surface level response, but I'm studying Biblical Studies, not collective psychology.

>The second question you ask is disingenuous
No it is a very genuine question, if a common one. If God exists outside of the universe and created it surely he could create a Square circle, because only in our reality is that impossible. Also these questions are fundamentally different, the square circle is asking if he could do something not possible based on our understanding. My question is asking if he can use his limitless ability to create something that causes him to reach a limit in his ability, something contradictory but if he can do ANYTHING then surely there must be an answer.

I also never brought up weight specifically, he could have another reason he can not move it for all I know.

Another question is if a serial killer has a mental disorder that lead him to do what he did, is he sent to hell even though his mortal shell was tainted from the start? That isnt exactly fair or righteous to condemn someone for something that was out of their control.

>because they did not affirm Christ as the fulfillment of their own traditions and teachings
My question is not about what 'they' affirm; it is about what He chose. If 'god' chose Judaism and He is infallible then Judaism must be the one true faith.

youtube.com/watch?v=6MzcC-uc_fM

It's part of your journey to become truly educated.

Attached: 1523064845047.jpg (600x600, 30K)

>Gilgamesh

Attached: girugamesh_guy.png (630x374, 93K)

Is masturbation a sin, question for you not other anons.

Other user here, the answer is no.

Also other user, if you are catholic according to the Pope no it isn't. If you are not Catholic I have no idea

Still yet an other user, you should wash your penis more often.

I'll end the conversation here. Many scholars have written on this subject. Logically flawed requests of God's abilities are completely disingenuousl. If you want to argue that there exists a reality in which a parallelogram could have both four sides and an infinite amount of sides, that is your perogrative. The burden of proof would be on you to prove that this reality exists, and then the conversation could be had.

Pretty much sums it up. And don’t get me started on the triforce three in one god bullshit.

Attached: E6E9E566-55AF-449C-846A-87AF113AC2FA.jpg (225x224, 10K)

>The burden of proof would be on you to prove that this reality exists, and then the conversation could be had.
Seems kind ironic for a creationists to tell me this, but sure. What about my second question?

Imagine loving someone. Then Imagine condemning that person to suffer for all eternity.

I hope this response is more palpable. Judaism asserts that a messiah will come, but argues that Jesus is not that messiah. Christianity argues that Judaism is true, but does not accurately identify Christ as the true messiah. So if you are asking whether Judaism is correct in its beliefs up until the denial of Jesus as the messiah, then you would be correct according to Christian belief. I must add that Christ reinvented Jewish tradition. That Jesus picked grain on the Sabbath was nothing small; Christ challenged the legalistic beliefs of Judaism. So if we were to enter God's shoes, it was very much a "yes, but." Yes Judaism was correct in their relationship to God before Christ, but they misunderstood the figure of Christ when it came to the promised Messiah of OT prophecy.

I am Catholic, and I expected more toxic responses. Guess Im too used to Cred Forums

What happens to people in the space station when the world ends

I'm not a creationist. I'm a PhD student in Biblical Studies. I am not advocating for any religion or faith. I am merely reciting what scholars in the field would argue. That being said, thank you for the assumption. As per your second question, there are multiple beliefs. The conservative side would argue that a serial killer or mentally ill individual would have had enough resources (the Bible, namely) or would have been impacted by these resources (fate of the unevangelized) such that they would have not needed further assistance. The most liberal of perspectives would argue that these individuals would die and approach the pearly gates and meet God in person, and would be given the opportunity to reevaluate their lives in front of God and be given the opportunity to repent.

Yes, I did assume and I retract my statement, but that raises another question. Why are you getting a PHD in Biblical studies if you are not Christian?

'Cause Christian bitches take it in the ass before marriage
Did no one teach you this

Sorry, OP here. I went to make some food. Masturbation can be seen in two ways. Some would argue that the sole reason for semen in general would be to procreate, and there would be a punishment for forcing a sexual response when there is no immediate need for procreation. The other response would be that, yes, while one may not be directly seeking to create more humans, as long as one doesn't "lust", the act is not sinful. The most common defense of this position is masturbation over one's wife or husband, in which you have already entered into a marriage covenant with that person, and therefore it is not sinful to pleasure onesself over that person.

but what do you plan to use your PHD you put all this time into for besides some God Fearing ass?

>you have already entered into a marriage covenant with that person, and therefore it is not sinful to pleasure onesself over that person.
Still doesn't result in procreation. Why does it matter that it's now a two person crime?

It is a common response I get on Cred Forums, so no hard feelings. The assumption is always that I am releigious. To answer your question, there are several answers. First, and most importantly, there are people paying me a decent amount of money to obtain this degree. I'm in debt because of student loans, and given the opportunity to make money while becoming more qualified for future positions, I'd be stupid to not accept that money. Secondly, and more importantly, I have the desire to teach at some point in my life. If I were to ever teach Biblical Studies or ANE Studies, all I would want to do as a professor would be to challenge every students' belief system that walked into my class. If you were atheistic, I would want you to realize the other perspective. If you were Christian, I would want you to realize how Christianity was largely copy-pasted from other religious groups at the time. The PhD is convenient because I am getting paid to acheieve the degree. But the depth of knowledge is important because, regardless of what anybody believes in my classroom, I want them to know why the believe what they believe. If I turn religious individuals atheist, or the opposite, I don't care.

I agree with you, the distinction isn't significant. The thrust of the argument is that lustful feelings are natural. We are creatures of the earth, and we all feel these impulses. Fucking monkeys jack themselves off and dogs hump bushes to get off. The difference is that humans are ordered, by God's decree, to honor their spouses. Masturbating to one's loved one isn't disobeying this command. You're conflating the two points I put forward, however. If you reread my post, you'd find that I give the most conservative and most liberal response. To point out flaws in one conidering the strengths of the other displays a misunderstanding of their position against one another.

How long would it take to read?

The Bible? A few days, if you read it as a novel. It isn't that comprehensive if you read it front-to-back though.

>The Bible itself doesn't provide a clear framework for one position over the other.

The Bible clearly support the existence of free will

Correct. It also supports the existence of predestination. I've already read the backflips that scholars go through to explain away the alternative verses. John 6:44, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:11.

what is your background? i mean, biblical studies is not a common choice

So what if Im single and am not married? Is my only option to just get married then? If so that sounds so illogical because Im tired of feeling so guilty and the only logical option for me is to stop masturbating which becomes unbearable after a couple weeks.

You may not believe me if I told you. I was accepted into a top 5 university for chemical engineering. I loved chemistry and calculus, but I was fucking horrible at physics. I had an introductory religious studies course which i found interesting, and so like a stupid fucking college freshman, i switched degree paths. I would have already made 180k+ if I just stuck it out in engineering.

Best way to read it?
What reading do need?
Is it really worth it?

Attached: 3df.png (680x412, 608K)

You speak like your God wrote this. It didn't, it was written by humans, a long time after it all supposedly happened, that is why it contradicts its self left, right and centre. It's a collection of stories from other religions that have been changed through out time to suit the authors agendas.

Sorry
What I mean to say is what reading level do I need

As long as he said sorry, all will be good.

What is the earliest evidence that anything in the Bible actually happened? Is there evidence that Jesus was a real person?

If the reason that you are masturbating is for physical pleasure and/or satisfaction, then I would assume most scholars would argue that the adequate Christian reading would inform you that the spiritually healthy thing to do would be to abstain from your own physical desires. Honestly, saying that you can't resist jacking yourself off seems to contradict many of the popular Christian writers that advocate for celibacy until marriage. I can't give you personald advice. Live how you want to live. But you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian scholar who advocates you jerking it to porn or your thoughts. If you have a more specific question feel free to ask. I don't know much on the topic though.

thanks. see that the narrative, at least of the OT, is that your actions are not ignored; in the sense that there are evil and good people - it solely depends on your choice if you side with G-d or ignore his existence. one can prosper and be a sinner nonethless - predestined to riches in this regard (and vice versa), but the message is that to achieve the maximum chances of ones success is to worship G-d free willingly

If I'm being completely honest, there isn't a good completely comprehensive text you should own to read the BIble. As close as you can get would be biblical commentaries, but all of them argue for and hold certain perspectives about biblical texts. If you navigate to books.google or google's scholar window, you can find a decent amount of commentaries that have a decent percentage of the text free to read. Commentaries are the way to go, however. Look in your area for a Christian or Catholic Uni, and you can find a library where you can rent or read commentaries locally. Commentaries typically provide both perspectives on interpretation and the author's preference for interpretation, which gives you a healthy amount of skepticism.

am i going to hell for being athiest

no need to regret user, you did good. Bible is better

Thats refreshing. Thank you for your time.

I mean, you won't find hardly any reputable scholars that would argue that Jesus Christ of Nazareth didn't exist. Surely you will find plenty of individuals that will argue that Jesus wasn't the messiah, but Jesus was almost certainly a historical figure. Whether you believe the stories is another story. The oldest attribution I can think of at this moment would be the Goddio cup, which names Jesus as a magician.

Ehh I guess I'll try the commentaries
I was actually referring more were in the bible I should start and where to go from there

Stop bringing reason in to the thread, this is about Christianity.

It's really boring, loads of begatting.

Traditional Christian thought would say yes. Some liberal Christians would argue that God accepts all to the pearly gates and gives them one final opportunity to accept him as Lord and savior, but that is not the majority perspective.

Fucking bless anyone who read through the Psalms as a narrative.

Wow. Just wow.

I did like the bit about killing larks over fast flowing water to cure leprosy, it's in Leviticus I think. I don't think that that works, maybe I just need Faith.. ...

>Psalms as a narrative
Why would you? Isn't it poetry?

Ah, I'm sorry I misunderstood. There are two sections that I'd recommend for first readers (or interested readers). The first would be from the Christian perspective, and it would be the Gospel of John. John's gospel is interested in nothing else other than arguing that Jesus is the son of God. For Christians, John's gospel provides the framework for much of modern Christian thought. Other than this, I would say the book of Genesis is a good place to start, just because it shows how the Jews believe their origins began. These books are extremely self interested; Genesis argues that God was behind existence, and doesn't provide much explanation for our own existence. Similarly, John's gospel argues that Jesus is the incarnate God, but doens't argue much for the fact other than saying it over and over in metaphor or in literal prose. If you are interested in the Christian/Jewish perspective, however, these would be great places to start.

Am I more spiritually a jew because I gave up reading the bible before I made it to the new testament?

There is no record of Mr J Christ of Nazareth, and the Romans fuckin loved keeping records. There are plenty of scholars who think that he never existed, and that he is an amalgamation of different people that may have been about at the time. 300 prophets or messiahs were crucified around the time of Christ, none on record where him.

Am I going for hell for hating Jews?

Of course it is. But modern Christian thought is obsessed with taking an english translation, most likely the product of several iterations of linguistic tradition, as complete truth and projecting it as universal fact. The number of scholars even who cite the psalms as universal truths is absurd.

Why are all the post about Christianity being bollox or not or why is Islam the religion of peace?. There are plenty more religions that are utter tosh as well, look at Rastatfari, that shit is pure loopy.

I wouldn't say so, unless you object to the fact that Christ was the messiah of the OT prophecy. Jewish roots are deep, but the stark differentiation is the acknowledgement of Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Christian tradition would argue that any hate is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

How does free will exist in a world where every decision we make is totally based on concrete past events that are etched into our memories? The only things that guide our decision making is our genetics and our memories.

If everything is cause and effect since the big bang or whenever god made the universe does that not mean that everything is already predetermined in a cause and effect chain?

And them there is thise islanders that worship the Duke of Edinburgh. Loopy as fuck.

I literally don't understand your question. I'm decently drunk, so maybe its my fault, but if you could clarify that would be sweet.

If god is omnipotent and all knowing how can free will be real?

How bad is homosexuality actually and why?

Not in America, the Christians there hate anything that is not them

they are asking why we fixate on weird things in popular religions and why we dont do the same for unpopular ones

So I understand your question, and it is extremely valid. There are scientific studies that have been made that ask individuals to pick a number one through ten, and brain scanning can identify the number they will choose before the subject even knows their own decision. The basic response would be that even though the human brain has predispositions towards certain decisions, there is always the decision to be made by the human being. There is no outside force being exherted, even though culture and context does have some influence on the decision.

As allegory I find Genesis 3 fascinating.
The human refusal to admit wrong, mistakes, failure etc.
The blame shifting (It was the woman you gave me she made me do it)
The lying (or another strategy we employ) to protect appearance of innocence (She made me do it when, while she was "deceived", he knew exactly what he was doing)
The nakedness we all feel (the day we find out that shit is not something to paint with and we try to hide that we all shit).
The desire to "become like god"
There is more but it is so long since I read it.

Josephus would take issue with that.

Matthew 27:24 - When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this innocent person: see ye to it.

27:25 - Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Constantly ripping apart the same religions and going over the same ground again and again is boring, can't you talk bollox about other religions? Or do you just specialise in Christianity?. You seem to know your stuff, well, be able to recite it (literally) chapter and verse and seem to hold the current therorys as truths. I'm really stoned so we are both at a disadvantage. Regardless of your beliefs you sound like a decent person, shit sorry this is 4 Han so I have to call you a christfag or some thing...enjoy it mate, see you at the gates.

If this is the question, thjen I'd assume it was a result of mere popular thought. Zoroastriansim was pretty influential in the global East, but was largely abandoned because it provided less of a concrete influence on the lives of each indiviudal in their lives. Basically, a very abstract interpretation of the world may make more sense, but people like to entertain the idea of their life meaning more in the grand scheme of things moreso than they do assuming that their life really doesn't mean anything. I think that is why most mainstream religions have a concept of the afterlife. Humanity likes to think that their actions have some impacty on the greater scheme of the world.

To not hate evil is contrary to Christian teaching.

Attached: destroy evil.jpg (640x960, 106K)

Yeah, that'll do.

Bugger, I forgot about him. Sorry J.

Because OP is doing a PhD in Biblical Studies and that has set the general field of discussion.

It really has been a pleasure, but unfortunately I specialize in a select few religions. Christianity, Judiasm, and some certain ANE religions would be the only ones I feel qualified to talk about. I'd love to extend the conversation, but I don't feel i can represent their views accurately or adequately. I look forward to the gates my friend. I'll vouch for you, although I'm not sure my voice will mean much if we're there together.

What about quantum randomness and wave functions? every particle that makes up everything has a degree of randomness to its movement, and these things make up everything. Does this not mean that everything from our thoughts that are made up from neurons which are made of particles to our movements which are made from muscles and from them particles to everything else just randomness?

>Christian tradition would argue that any hate is contrary to......
Hate? Possibly.
But a lot of thought has gone into the idea of a just (morally acceptable) war.
Also Jesus said he came to set a sword among families. What does that men?

Thank you for this. I feel the need to stretch my field of expertise, but I am not qualified in most cases.

on the face of it - of course. then there is divine intervention

Happens all the time - poor bastard.
He never gets invited to parties any more.

The other individual who responded to you has the general gist of the argument, but yes, I would imagine the randomness would be facilitated by divine intervention.

Cite 1 paper, peer-reviewed, that proves god

Disingenuous. I'm not here for that. Read the rest of the thread, fuckface.

>that proves god
Yeah, I'm sure that is not how it works.

If Jesus was born in the middle east and had brown skin then who tf is this nigga?

Attached: jesus.jpg (412x599, 24K)

How's it feel knowing that what you've done is the equivalent of spending your life studying Sauron?

what is the thesis of your phd? what r u going to do afterwards?

and, given that these studies lean towards christian faith as it cannot be entirely analytical and unbiased, do you feel shame?

Juj, no, shithead

Just war is a hot topic. The essential argument comes down to minimizaiton of hurt. Even that isn't really cut it. The setting sword among families was, as far as I understand it, a command to separate those of the world and those of the faith. Setting families against one another doesn't restrict entrace into heaven, but does assume some sense of divine intervention into the general flow of existance.

that might be God

The man who let the Galaxy nearly fall to authoritarian rule all because he was not strong enough in his beliefs to finish off vader when he had the chance,

>If god is omnipotent and all knowing

What makes you think he would care about you just because he knows who you are.

>how can free will be real

Take a deep breath.
Hold that breath.
Count to 5.
Release that breath.
Your freewill let you take that breath and decide to hold it and to let it go thus proving free-will exists.

U think its not? What a fag. R your parents blood related?

It feels nice, considering the fact that people are paying me to study a guy who is conflated with Sauron.

Did Jesus forgive Judas?

It wasnt free will allowing him to take and hold that breath

Not sure what your first point has to do with omnipotence.

As for your second point it could have always been predetermined. I'm going to assume you aren't the OP because that was a pretty low IQ response.

Historical analysis of sacrificial mammals. Particularly what the significance of the mammals used in sacrifice had on the greater culture in the ANE, regarldess of religion. I love what I study, but there are no jobs in teaching at the moment. I'd love to teach, but realistically I can see myself seeking out an editing position at either a publisher or being and independent editor. I don't feel shame at all. The people making a living off these topics know that their jobs depend on people believing what they say, and therefore as long as there are people to believe their words, there is the need for people who have similar background but will hold them to a higher standard.

So it's about money and maybe community for you? You don't actually believe the myths you've willfully indoctrinated yourself with as though they are literal?

OP here. I want to honestly thank you all for the questions you have asked and I want you all to believe that the questions you have are valid and worth considering. The Christian church does a very poor job of answering hard questions, and I hope I can step into that space for whoever needs it. If you'd like to ask further questions, my discord is Parkland#8518, and I invite all of you to ask any questions you might have. Its 5am here, and I need sleep. Peace out y'all, and best wishes for you.

Really It was freewill, because even though I told him to hold it for a 5 count he did not do a 5 count.

Not op but omnipotence is a shit-tier argument for or against god because an all powerful deity could obviously create something outside of his direct control if he so willed it.

peace out
it was a good thread

Thanks dude.
Better thread that the usual crap

Yes but Christian theology explicitly claims god is omnipotent

Last comment from me. I have not indoctrinated myself to any narrative in the bible. I approach every text with a critical and skeptical lens. When I read any text, I am more interested in what the culture has to say about the narrative than what the literal text has to say. I do not take what the majority of the Bible has to say as Literal, and I would assume most other scholars would also hold my position. You are right. I care for my well being, I care for the community tha comprises biblical studies, but I am aware of what the Bible says as much as I am aware of what culture sats about the climate in which the Bible was writen.

I try to make threads every sunday night. If not, I will always respond on discord Parkland#8518. Cheers y'all.