Daily reminder that Sup Forums is a Christian board and no amount of r/atheism invasions will ever change that.
Enjoy arguing with Gaytheists, enjoy watching them squabble and show they have the theological knowledge of a 12 year old. Enjoy them failing again and again. Enjoy this because you are better than them Sup Forums, and you always will be.
Deus Vult.
Other urls found in this thread:
wifewithapurpose.com
twitter.com
Daily reminder. You're actually JIDF and you should kill yourself.
What do Catholics think of the inevitable schism to come?
Don't believe the hype.
There is no great schism.
The majority of Catholics worldwide are loyal to the Vatican. Anyone who isn't has already broken off and joined the Protestants or Orthodox. Or they are isolated to their own independent Churches.
I'd just like to say, although I am a bhuddist, when it comes to Islam:
DEUS LO VULT
I would like to see the church back to itself back in the Middle Ages
Would also like Protestants and orthodox to come home
I have some questions about Buddhism, would you mind if I asked you?
Fire away, can't say how much free time I have though
Is the prime directive of Buddhism to escape suffering by following the 8 fold path?
Life is suffering. The eightfold path is the method of how one comes to accept this suffering, not escape it. It is at the end of acceptance of suffering that you start looking at methods of acheiveing nirvana, which is a state of life in the absence of suffering
Is all of life suffering?
Where does suffering come from?
Suffering IS life, it does not come from life, or anything else for that matter. To live is to suffer.
Although suffering is not exclusively a bad thing, as it is what moulds people into better people
We will gonna need help with the commies i think.
Stay alert with Spain, there will be a nice happening.
lol come home to antichrist...come home to Marxist pope whose sodomite curia parties with boy prostitutes in his backyard...come home to church that has put imprimatur on infidel 19th c. biblical criticism...the only thing Rome is home to is screech owls and jackals
In Christianity,
We believe that suffering comes from freewill and a fallen universe, we don't believe all of life is suffering but there is suffering from what we call sin and living Seperate from God.
Because someone has freewill, they can either choose to serve the poor or to punch someone in the face.
The reason I'm asking these questions is I Gods moral law written in the five precepts.
Are you Protestant or orthodox?
Ok
* see
My brother, rationally arguing with irrational, sexual immoral people is only useful as an example to the rational. I have seen precious little fruits of the spirit come out of efforts to convert or witness to homosexuals (especially lesbians). They cannot be of the Body unless they repent and change behavior. God will work in their life even if they cannot work within the Church on earth. Flee Sexual Immorality.
Interesting. I find there are usually strange correlations between some of the major world religions, like bhuddism, Taoism, Catholicism and Hindu. Makes me question whether there truly is a greater force at play here.
>via ((((9fag.com)))
wew lad
Quick question:
I am agnostic-atheist, and this is directed at atheists.
If the big bang can occur from nothing at a random point in linear time, then isn't it wholly possible a deity of some sort could have the exact same origin, that is, to simply 'plop' randomly in reality?
"white jesus" is basically just a thing in America and/or by proddies though
Christians didn't paint him like that.
I would agree, we hold that we are made in the image and likeness of God, meaning that we have a logical mind, we see a sense of beauty in the world, we create things in the world, and we have an innate sense of right and wrong.
I have heard that some Buddhists have an idea of sin, what is your take on this?
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause, in order to avoid infinite regression, there must of been the uncaused cause, we call the uncaused cause God
So a created being wouldn't be God because it wasn't the uncaused cause
Daily reminder that you are all talk and no action
First, time isn't really a thing in the context of the big bang.
Second, when discussing the idea of matter "spontaneously" manifesting within space, the best idea people have come up with is the separation of matter and anti-matter: that is to say that as matter and anti-matter can collide to disappear from space, there may be mechanics by which space can separate into matter and anti-matter, by a process not altogether known.
But when that occurs, it's not even fully-formed atoms, let alone something as complex as a god-like lifeform. So from what is extrapolated from observations of the universe, no, it's not expected to be possible that a god could spring fully-formed from the void, but there's a lot we don't know.
Well no of course not
God is the uncaused cause
Or as Thomas Aquinas put it
The prime mover
Everything that exists, exists because of God
Less sin, more karmic retribution. Act in a harmonic way, you build good karma. Act in a discordant or destructive way, you build bad karma.
But why does God violate this rule, and occupies the space of 'uncaused cause'? I know he's described as that which nothing greater can be conceived, but simply occupy that mindset without further scrutiny is something I simply can't do. When I see a God described by Christian theologians or philosophers, I see individuals attempting to correct a plothole in their sacred text. Don't interpret that as an insult, I just mean that I find the whole 'God is the exception' rule to be jarring. At most, if someone where to offer definitive proof of a God of sorts, I'd likely only be a deist anyway. The foundations of the Abrahamic faiths seem very rickety to me.
I stopped masterbating on the 14th of this month, but I still rub my dick and look at porn. Also, I've had non-penetrative gay sex before.
Do I just keep on NoFap and get baptised? Do I have to give up porn? Women are just cute and beautiful, you know?
So, whilst near impossible, it isn't outside possibility that something as complex as an all-powerful deity could've been formed prior to the 'big bang'?
I don't think 'the prime mover' was developed as an idea by Aquinas, I think it was Aristotle.
How does one remove bad karma?
Is there a process that one can work it off some way?
I'm not a Buddhist, but I don't it's possible to 'remove' bad karma, you just have to do enough 'good karma' acts to balance it out. If you did 50 bad acts, you'd have to do 50 good acts to have balanced karma. You can unbalance it in favour of good, but that has some kind of repercussion or something, an unbalanced soul/spirit or whatnot.
You simply suffer through the reprocussions of your own choices. Good karma can help assuage some of the bad karma, but always, in some way, you will feel the suffering you inflicted on the world. It doesn't even have to be in this lifetime, and you might also still be working off bad karma. It's a bitch like that.
God wasn't formed though- that's the whole point. To claim God was formed fails to answer the question of contingent reality and simply carries on the infinite regression of contingent realities.
So either: God is non-contingent / self-explanatory / existence is necessary
OR
There is no non-contingent reality and we cannot possibly explain the existence of contingent realities.
This is actually a decent take on it. Thank you kind Britbong
For the sake of the cosmological argument, what ever was the uncaused cause is what we call God.
After someone accepts this argument, we move into further logical arguments that show a more personal nature to the prime mover, then we move on to Christianity from there, it's kind of a progression
I'm not arguing God of the gaps, but using logical arguments to lead you to an understanding of God and his will twords humanity
I could have been mistaken, Aquinas was a fan of Aristotle, as many other Christians were,
Prior to? No, that would be pretty impossible under any mainstream theorizing. The big bang wouldn't necessarily have been an instant occurrence, as is artistically depicted. It's more likely to have been a buildup and condensation of matter, to the point which the density becomes so strong as to "reverse", ejecting matter with explosive force, much like a supernova. Before the big bang, it's unknown whether space would have even contained stars, and therefore any matter more complex than hydrogen. The big bang may have been the first instance of atomic synthesis.
But post-big-bang, prior-humanity, it's absolutely -possible- to see the birth of extraterrestrial, god-like life, in terms of intelligence and capacity for nurturing the creation of life and even planets. But it doesn't support any means of supernaturalism, as is commonly attributed to a capital-g God.
That's why I'm agnostic. Either we live in one reality or another, it really does come down to something as simple as a coinflip. God's being defies logic, but the implication being that God is so powerful that he could will himself into being even prior to his own existence makes my head hurt, but is entirely possible if you don't place a limit on the amount of power he holds (which is no limit, as he is omnipotent) I see religion as an attempt at an explanation for reality, and in my eyes both sides of the issue are totally legitimate. Swap out God for the Big Bang or vice verser. Also, 'formed' was a bad choice of words on my part, apologies.
In Christianity
We have a concept known as sin.
Sin is a transgression against God's moral law, we believe that sin leads us to become Seperate from God, and eventually everyone will be judged for their sins, and those who sin, will be cast away from God's sight into an outer darkness were being without God will lead to an eternal suffering compared to burning.
Because sins lead people to become slaves to their sinful desires, and without the good things like love, joy, and hope
They will be left to an eternity of being consumed by burning passions
Ah, alright. Despite my beliefs, I'm more familiar with religion than I am the scientific explanation. The thing about the buildup and condensation of matter, that happens over a period of time, right? Then that implies time existed prior to the universe, and if matter itself can come from 'nothing' so to speak, then wouldn't it be entirely possible for a deity to come from 'nothing' as well? Even a supernatural one? An interesting thing to note, in the Greek translation of the bible, omnipotent translates into 'almighty' I.E. a capacity for power rather than power without limit. The God you describe can be entirely possible whilst not being supernatural as well.
>If the big bang can occur from nothing at a random point in linear time
Well, that's not what really happened.
The idea that time is some rigid, unchanging constant that exists seperate from the universe and that the universe was created at some point "in" time is outdated. What we know now is that time is part of the universe and time itself was created in the big bang. Same thing with space. Space isn't a rigid structure that the big bang expanded "into". It was an expansion of space itself created in the big bang.
I don't understand it as much as scientists do, but my intuitive sort of thinking goes like this: you just have to ask yourself what space is. It's a concept we have because something can be somewhere and something else can be further away. If all energy occupied the same point as it did in the big bang, then the concept of space is meaningless. Same thing with time. What is time? Something was over here, and now its over there. So without space, you can't have time. There was no space-time before the big bang.
So what really happened was that there was a whole lot of energy, and that energy started expanding away from itself creating space time.
I don't think anyone really knows where this energy came from. Also, the big bang wasn't "caused" by anything. The whole concept of causation doesn't make sense without space-time. So no one knows why the universe sort of bootstrapped itself into existence.
Maybe there is some supernatural force at play. We just have to wait and see if science can answer it, if there even is an answer.
Logic transcends the mind of God,
Logic is conceptual yet absolute,
From the mind, yet universal.
Therefore I say that logic comes from a universal mind
There won't be any fucking schism, you're not obligated to eat shit if the pope said he ate shit this morning and he fells better. You just have to acknowledge his word and keep following the word of God as much as you can.
I don't think eating poo is falls under ex cathedra
I don't know why, but I've always held the simple belief that time has always simply 'been', that the universe is contained within reality and reality itself predates the universe and not vice verser. It's my own logic, probably a shitty brand at that, that in order to explain the suddenness of the Big Bang or God, an unfathomable amount of time had passed before either came to be. There is the idea that God has always been, similar to how I view time, but I place God and the Big Bang on the same pedestal of creation. I don't view God as atemporal because then that'd mean he could see the entirety of time before him and every human action that will ever be committed, therefore violating freewill as it means our actions are predetermined. God occupies the same timeline as us and to remain omnibenevolant he places a limit upon himself to not know for certain what will occur (similar to how he does not meddle in human affairs or stop atrocities because it violates freewill. He knows every possible action and consequence, but does not know which action a person will take of the possible choices.) I veered a little off, but according to science if something as big as the Big Bang theory can spontaniously occur, by that logic as can God... right?
Best daily thread desu.
>the inevitable schism to come
Already happened.
Pre-big-bang time -would- have existed, yes, but at the point of the big bang, that effectively gets reset. Time is an abstraction of motion: even if you have matter, without motion there is no way to measure time. So when the big bang occurs, assumed to encapsulate all matter in the proto-cosmos, that's as far back as we can ever hope to measure in relative time.
Again, anything that "comes from nothing" is subatomic: you'll never see an actual atom, let alone a molecule, or even the simplest cell appear in any way spontaneously. It's a phenomenon that's still expected to be occurring today: simple matter popping in and out of space, but with all the active matter already in the universe, there's no way for it to have a significant effect.
>although I am a bhuddist
enjoy hell
But that's the view God is atemporal I.E. existing outside of linear time. Aquinas believed God to be as you say, but God as a transcendent being violates our freewill and violates the notion of God being able to pass judgement. God is omnibenevolent, he is all good. In order to maintain this, he limits himself into two ways: 1. Limits his interaction with humanity as not to violate freewill 2. Limits his omniscience to not look at every fork in the road an individual will take, as it infers actions as predetermined and therefore violates freewill. These limitations are of a benevolent God. God must act according to logic, as to act outside it means he would not be able to keep to the main triad of attributes that define him. If he acted outside logic, a- I just realised I might have misread what you said and typing all this was for moot. I thought you described God as transcendent and now spaghetti is falling out of my pockets. Sorry!
I'm not religious, but from an outsiders perspective, the current Pope seems God awful. He doesn't seem very 'leader of Christianity', more akin to a progressivist trying to make Christianity more mainstream for whatever reason.
Our king has been and always will be YESHUA, not the Pope. Popes are human and fallible but Jesus is the son of YHWH.
God's foreknowledge of events, does not violate the fact that we choose to do right and wrong
God knowing that the damned would reject him, doesn't change the fact that the damned rejected him of their own volition.
Why God create someone knowing they would go to hell is another question.
But if there isn't free will, there cannot be true love
I think it's just as simple as "concepts like time, space, creation, destruction, decay, entropy, change ect, are all just products of our universe and only exist within the universe; God is something apart from the universe; therefore, these rules can't be used to describe God"
I mean, if God would need to be created, that would mean that God is subject to the laws of the universe he made. The creator would be bound by his creation, which is preposterous.
Also, on the point of God's omnipotence and free will, that is theological subject of interest that stretches back to the Church fathers, and even before that.
Many doctors of the Church and other theologeans have put forth a variety of answers. Reformer doctors like John Calvin believed we have no free will, and God has already predetermined who will be saved. Which sort of negates God's benevolence a bit. I think the Catholic Church's stance on the subject is: God is omnipotent, he does no the future and everything that will happen, but our free will does play a role in our salvation. How it does it only known to God.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of mysteries in this faith, and that turns many people off. But even if you don't know everything, you just have to keep on living your life. Same goes with science as well.
Christ commissioned Peter my friend
Matthew 16
Actually it says in the Bible that Jesus had a "ruddy" complexion. In Hebrew, that means He was a red-head. How many red-heads look like the guy on the left?
Checkmate ignoramus.
Do you have a verse for that?
Matthew 16 talks about the ROCK of realization the Jesus was the Messiah, the very thing Peter (which means "pebble" in Aramaic) realized.
Tell me this. What is the rock upon which the church was built?:
1) Peter
or
2) Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God.
I will let you read that passage again and do some soul searching. It's obvious what Jesus was saying - Peter, you are a pebble, but upon this rock (I am the Messiah) I will build mu church.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you, but nice try,
Read the last chapter of John, Jesus asks Peter to feed his sheep,
They all speak to the truth of human nature and the possibility of the divine. Though each ends up being shaped by the culture it arose in. Christianity being much more European than Buddhism is, though Buddhist ideals have many similarities to the monastic orders. That could be because the monks and Buddhists are both of the same personality or spirituality
God is not necessarily real in the material or even a divine sense. But he is present in most people's lives in my opinion. Idk about others but I follow closely to the way the Humanists thought of the relationship between Man andy God, as one of Man having God inside him and God being manifested in man. That man is a form of divine spark of thought that god either created or that he is the divine spark within us all.
I'm going to bed soon, but my advice to you, if you wish to know the truth, is to pray to God daily, pray that he gives you the gift of faith and brings you to an understanding
Do this once a day until God does
Not concerned.
I believe in God and think the Big Bang might have happened. It's not "believe in God OR the BB." The BB theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic priest. Also the BB in itself does not explain the existence of contingent things, since it starts with the assumption that energy / matter ALREADY existed, and does not provide an explanation for it's existence.
I just can't comprehend the amount of faith required to believe in /r/atheism. Sure, it's easy to pick on the different denominations, and the imperfect, mortal interpretations of men. But beyond agnosticism, to outright atheism, it's the most outlandish concept I've ever come across. I mean, every other idea or concept, religious or not, is plausible, if your realize we are always operating with mortal tools of understanding. But justifying atheism is the only thing I can't grasp.
Ok, hear me out.
Here is a description of David:
And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome. And the LORD said, “Arise, anoint him, for this is he.”
It is clear that David was a red-head.
Now Jesus was later identified as a descendant of David. This is not a new idea as well. MANY paintings depict Jesus and Mary as having red hair.
Finally, in the apocryphal Lentulus letter Christ is described as having had a reddish complexion, just like David.
There is one more verse but I cant find it - it is in the NT.... shoot..
*their existence, my bad.
Jesus asked them all to do all He taught. I am confident one day you will realize how silly this all is. Thank goodness it is not a salvational issue.
I think ruddy actually refers to the red tint of one's flesh? And not their hair color.
Also, Revelation 1: 13-16 describes his hair as white as snow, or another translation can read “burning in a furnace” which would indicate red, like a flame. Psalm 45: 2-3 tells us Jesus is”fairer than the children of men” indicating he was lighter than the general population. Jesus could be blond or red-head.
I mean why would David or Christ have red hair? What near-eastern people have you ever seen with red hair? (Relocated European Jews don't count)
This is clearly just "NO JESUS WAS A WHITE MAN LIKE ME NOT A NIGGER!!!1" and that's perfectly understandable seeing as we are naturally tribal creatures and can easily identify with those who look like us.
But still, I don't think the Christ was a ginger.
It actually refers to both - but you are exactly right, ruddy complexions have red hair and red skin (reddish skin).
Daily reminder that /lol/ is a copy paste shitpost board and everything here is a work of fiction and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Also, and I do not ascribe to them AT ALL (Islam is shit), but it is interesting that according to Islamic accounts Jesus was a red head as well. Supposedly Muhammad was taken up to heaven by the angel Gabriel (Jibra’il), where he saw Jesus as well as other people Muslims believe to be prophets. Most versions of this account tell us that “Jesus had curly hair and a reddish complexion.”
>Gaytheists
You again. How many times do I have to tell you. "Gaytheist" means a gay person that worships a god. Good job insulting yourself, retard.
Tons of people from Egypt had red hair. Hundreds of mummies have been found with red hair:
Really? Revelation 1: 13-16 describes His hair as white as snow, or another translation can read “burning in a furnace” which would indicate red, like a flame. Psalm 45: 2-3 tells us Jesus is”fairer than the children of men” indicating he was lighter than the general population. Jesus could be blond or red-head.
>being christian
>not following the old aryan religion spoken of in the vedas
>being you
You use rational thought every day to live, yet in the contemplation of faith, you suspend it. Inexcusable.
No you believe in the "multiverse" instead of the finely tuned constants of the universe. You do know there is exactly ZERO evidence for the multiverse...
>Protestants hoping for a habbening with Catholics
Do they look up at us because they're too fragmented and weak to do anything noteworthy themselves?
That's not true, the parsimonious explanation for quantum mechanics directly implies the existence of many universes.
Not that I'd expect a christfag to know what quantum mechanics is, heh.
>not an argument
Implies? I am still waiting for the evidence of these other universes.
I'll wait.
Until then, you have to deal with constants that even Richard Dawkins takes fright when asked about because they seem intentionally finely tuned.
The evidence is overwhelmingly and massively in the court of "faith in God." It is actually the only reasonably logical thing at this point until proven otherwise.
Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?
That's right, implies. Because the same models that (accurately) predict quantum mechanics also directly asserts the existence of the split worlds; the two cannot be separated unless you assume extra nonsense.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewers head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them.
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
Good bait
Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?
Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?Physical, tangible, observable evidence retard, DO YOU HAVE IT?
DEUS VULT
GOTT MIT UNS
>hurrrrrrrrrr
Yes you assclown, you observe it every time you perform the light slit experiment.
I cheated on my wife and got a divorce and can't figure out why I am miserable, but fuck it, life is meaningless... - Dan Harmon
Sooooooo funny. His life, and yours if you fall in to the same quagmire of moral relativism.
Nobody cares. Christianity is rapidly sinking into irrelevance. I might even live to see the day when it is confined to museums and history textbooks just like Zoroastrianism is today, and is no longer a belief system that any significant number or caliber of people actually adhere to. The world is moving on without you.
I have done that experiment and never saw any multiverse - only the finely tuned one that I live in. Which multiverse do you live in?
In my universe that experiment only shows the wave-like behavior of matter intrinsic to the modern theory of atomic structure and particle physics.
It's funny how I have taken several courses on quantum mechanics at under-grad and graduate level, and you seem to have only ever flipped through a popular mechanics
Your retard is showing...
Atheism is the fastest shrinking religious belief in the world.