Redpill me on Christianity, why is it the correct religion?

Redpill me on Christianity, why is it the correct religion?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Wx4GZJpL8W0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing–Deutsch_principle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_cleric-scientists).
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's not but we have to pretend it is otherwise people become pic related and start enabling islam, homosex, pedophilia and cuckoldry

>religion
>correct

Just curious because I see Christian threads on this board everyday like

there's no correct religion , religion is about belief , and you believe whatever the fuck you want

Historical trends

Pretty much this, all religion is probably bullshit and was used by elites in our old societies to keep people under their control. Now we must use it as a tool to stop degen behavior.

Cause we built Western Civilization. The best civilization.

Plus, we are literally what it looks like when Jews and non-Jews make a civilization together in peace. The current Jews are actually the Jews who got btfo by us and didn't want any part of our unified world.

There is no 'correct' religion, but Christian values are necessary for western civilization and to stop degeneration

god is dead

>I see Christian threads on this board everyday
Nope, you see crackheads with internet connections shitposting.

Have you seen the alternatives? The real question is which form of Christianity is correct.

It's not, no religion are correct, there are no universal morals/taboos, what is deemed acceptable now and morally right most likely won't be in a few hundred years.

When you die the only kingdom you'll see is two foot wide and six foot deep

> correct religion

Top kek.

Because the singular trait of omnipotence, when logically applied to A L L world religions, will rule out A L L religions except for the "big 3 monotheisms." St. Augustine wrote extensively on this. For example, no one individual in a pantheon can be omnipresent in the space of another member of the same pantheon. Ergo, there can be no omnipresent entities within any given pantheon. Therefore, if no one in the pantheon is omnipresent, then no one is omnipotent. They would all cancel each other out. Thus, no pantheon of gods qualifies as the singular necessary trait of "God." Another example: If a candidate for omnipotence had a beginning at a point in time (such as being born full-bodied from the head of Zeus), then that individual is not omnipotent and therefore ruled out. However, in traditional Christianity (Catholic and Reformed Protestant especially), Jesus was "pre-incarnate," meaning extant prior to his fleshly existence, and existed as the same essential nature of the omnipotence in John chapter 1. When omnipotence is applied with closer scrutiny, Of the three monotheisms above, Islam fails because Allah doesn't know who the faithful are until the end. It's a religion of merit where their deity has limited foreknowledge. Therefore, not omniscient. But if that's true, then Allah is not omnipotent. The final two monotheisms share the same prophesies of a Messiah. Christianity applies each and every Jewish prophesy of Messiah to Jesus of Nazareth, who (it is written) fulfilled every one. The chances of any one man meeting any small number of these is astronomical. But the number of prophesies is very large. Throw in the books written by Dr. Gary Habermas, and you have historical evidence that Jesus died, was buried, and was raised from the dead with a full-body restoration written down within the same generation that knew him. But then again, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Regardless of evidence.

So all the people having genuine discussions about religion on this board are just shitposting?

Didn't really have to take it so far, the problem of Evil is usually sufficient

Bonus: Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

The answer is "no," but not for the reason you'd think. When "God" is replaced with the singular attribute of omnipotence, the phrase reads, "Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big that [said omnipotent being] cannot lift it?" In which case, the question itself is contradictory, but that becomes the fault of the one making the question. A truly omnipotent being cannot "cannot," and therefore the question itself is fallacious. We might feel obligated to answer it, but there's no need because the question itself is in error: Is the being in question really omnipotent or not? If yes, then there's no need to ask. If no, then you're not arguing to an omnipotent being.

Sufficient to what? The Problem of Evil also relates to omnipotence.

A truly omnipotent being is neither beholden to, nor subservient to, a higher "good," regardless of how that moral good is configured. Instead, a truly omnipotent being would be the only standard of good.

Therefore, the question becomes one of human entitlement, "Why have you made me thus?" Quoting from a passage in Romans chapter 9. The thing formed shakes its little fist at the one who is, by his very nature, the only standard of universal good. Not because of some arbitrary declaration of such, nor because of a law higher than omnipotence.

IOW, a universal despot. If that's true, then hating him or resenting him in any way is futile. Furthermore, any mercy he would show would be genuine mercy. A truly omnipotent being owes the created order nothing.

Why would an omnipotent and perfect being 1) Create life (if not by accident) 2)Give a shit about us 3)Being bound by the moral metrics we us 4)Not Chthulu or some sufficiently advanced space faring race who created us as a cattle to farm later (or for fun)?

>homosex and pedophilia

That's Christianity

No

IM(very uneducated)O, Christianity has some very beautiful morals. Love thy neighbor, treat others are you would want to be treated... The parables and stories, like the woman who gave 2 coppers and it was the most valuable contribution because it was all she had... It's really quite lovely.

Let's not forget that at the time Jesus started spreading this word there was significant oppression among the general public. It was not a good time to be a regular citizen. And having an almighty deity, a father figure, who would love you no matter what your walk in life was (especially when so many people told you otherwise)... It's comforting. And at that desperate time when there was nothing but oppression, people needed it. People forget Christianity was once a cult, but the reason it grew into the theological phenomenon it is today is because the initial teachings sparked by Jesus were about love.

Naturally humans had to go and fuck that up over a period of several thousand years, but what else is new.

No it's not, even if you're a Catholic

The pope comes from South America, let that sink in

i personally believe there is a god, its just that he never revealed himself, the world must have come from some where, there must have been something that created the elements of the big bang and created everything we know around

perhaps "God" is just some scientist of a higher dimension or plane of existence and created some sort of sim to see how we react inside. i mean we sort of do the same wth video games

Religions that we have today are too full of inconsistency's to be taken seriously but at least they keep the gullible in check

1) A non-accidentally created being created for the purpose of worship (alone) would not be uncalled for, because anyone giving worship to a truly omnipotent being would only be stating a fact. Remember pride and arrogance is considering oneself higher than one really is. An omnipotent being would simply "be."

However, if worship is done as mere pretense, then omniscience would be aware of it too.

2) Again, an omnipotent being has zero obligation to care about the creation. If the creation falls, then it falls of its own will. However, if the omnipotent judge of the universe gives a shit about anyone, or otherwise shows any mercy, it would be true mercy defined as, "Not getting what you otherwise deserve."

3) God doesn't grade on a curve. God doesn't become "less holy/perfect/omnipotent" just because the finite being decided to. Nor is he obligated to. 4) Cthulhu, according to his pop-Lovecraftian designation, is non-omnipotent and thus begs the question of his own existence, being limited to the form of Cthulhu. This also applies to FSM, who is also limited to form by definition. IOW, you're just bumping the question of creation back a step. See: "Turtles all the way down." An infinite regress of causes fails to answer the initial question of cause.

Wolves in sheep's clothing. The Christian doctrine of Perseverance of Saints counters any example you may be prepared to post. Do I know who they are? No. Do you? Certainly not. However, an omnipotent being would.

How exactly does omnipotence imply goodness and not evil? How do you know the "first cause" is sentient?

Trump became president and had all odds against him and is christian , if that is not proof , and then there is brexit , there is a shift going on and good is going to win in the end

Christianity fundamental thing :
love god,
love your neighbor,
dont steal shit,
dont kill,
dont want what is not yours.

Fundamental values :
Love
compassion
pity
Honor,
Family.

Explots:
A bad-intentioned person can try and make you feel compassion to take advantage or priviledges from you. Since pity and compassion are central values, honor will complete the deal.

Christianity is flawed.

Countermeasures :
No patches available.
Read Nietzsche.

Actual exploiters :
Politicians that use "deamon" as the oposition.
SJW that make you feel guilt of being born.

BONUS: One of the most inspiring atheists in the world, Bertrand Russell, used to be theistic in his younger days. He was leaning towards the Young Hegelians and came to the conclusion that the Ontological Argument was sound.

Later on, he was challenged on this, "Well then who made God?" Which is a reasonable question, and still repeated by those like Ricky Gervais.

The problem is that both Russell and the atheists who followed after made a fundamental error in the law of causality. The law of causality is assumed to be the law that states, "Everything must have a cause." That's a lazy way of rendering it that is logically fatal.

The actual law of causality is more formally rendered, "For every effect there is a necessary and antecedent cause."

But an omnipotent being is not an effect. You can say that every atheist who ever asked, "Who made God?" with any seriousness backing the challenge has either (a.) not considered the full implications of a truly omnipotent being, or (b.) made a category error while using a lazy def. of causality.

BTW, law of causality still applies in math and science. It is non-falsifiable, but still math-based. To doubt law of causality is to doubt reason. IOW, to doubt it would be truly irrational.

>How exactly does omnipotence imply goodness and not evil?

Think of it as "the only standard there is." Then, anything "anti-" to that standard counts as evil.

Moreover, one would (in their vastly finite weakness) come to resent this being for existing in the first place. See my statement above. That inner resentment is more a form of envy or hatred that falsely accuses the only universal moral standard for "being" as evil.

But by what standard of good is the finite being judging the omnipotent being? Hm? This shows irrational hubris as well. If an omnipotent being is the only moral game in town, then all accusations to the contrary fail.

>How do you know the "first cause" is sentient?

Because accident, or "chance" is already ruled out. You must have dice before rolling them. Right? If dice do not exist, then there can be no chance. Voltaire said (paraphrasing) that "chance" is just a placeholder for "We don't know." Thus, chance is not an entity. It is literally "no-thing."

The only conclusion then, once everything else in the universe is ruled out (being non-existent at the time) is that it was done on purpose.

Purpose is evidence of sentience. I think it was Leibniz who said something like reason demands a reasoner. Thus logic in the universe necessitates a logic that initiated it.

What a bunch of nice people here.

So much fedora-tipping itt. Wow.

Which of the 33 000 christian denomination are you talking about?

So much this. Without Christianity degeneracy rules unfortunately. The idea of secular morals is a fantasy.

Forgot to add that previous generations up to Gen X & Y were all raised on an arbitrary def. of good and evil like you see in old comic books or old superhero cartoons. "We are the good guys, and those are the bad guys." But then relativism made a real dent in the 90s, and everything became relativistic. The good guys then become whoever has the most people on their side. It's become an arbitrary mob. That's a dangerous thing. And it was starting to slide. That's why you see the current gen. of completely self-centered SJWs. "Good" and "Evil" is whatever the cool kids say it is. No one in that age-group questions it. There is no skepticism and no encouragement of free speech.

A law and order candidate was necessary, and we hope something can still be done before it's too late.

Because it says so in The Bible. If you disagree you're a fat fedora nerd.

Really got my neurons firing. Thanks senpai

That does not really matter , or will god send you to hell when you did the baptism wrong , the jews also had denominations not a word about it in the bible was written

secular morality is a possibility, but instead of shifting over to a rational worldview people just grab marxism and post modernist ideologies and run with it.

law of parsimony shits all over organized religion

It's not. It was created by jews to enable destruction of the goyim. Jesus is a sandnigger god the same as Allah.

No, the problem of Evil has the issue lie in an OMNIBENEVOLENT being. A being which is all loving (which most Abrahamic religions claim their god is) and all powerful would not create a universe that contains pain and suffering.

You have to look further than merely the name above the church door. That's what you're essentially arguing to. Many of the denominations you site there don't even follow their own faith tenets. Most of those don't even know their own doctrinal history. Some just wave a Bible around like some shamanistic fetish.

The simple answer is, of course, "The one that never contradicts or minimizes omnipotence." Some of those truly believe that the god they claim to worship is in their pocket, or amounts to some sort of cosmic vending machine.

Yes, that cuts out most of the names on the list. But a few still remain.

Another, more expanded, term for omnipotence would be, "A high view of God's sovereignty."

>why is it the correct religion?

Neither. Religion is dumb, so is atheism.

"degeneracy"
suppressing human instinct just led to even nastier and worse shit behind closed doors arguably leasing to two world wars

it's the religion of peace

Agreed. Even those Founding Fathers who really weren't all that religious themselves realized (and stated as such), that some form of moral order must exist to ensure order. The relativism of secular morals gets you the "REEEEE" you've been seeing all day today.

Can I be Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist at the same time? Because that seems to be what's been happening lately

That's the romans persecuting real christians who would not bow down to the pope.

who drew these?

Even if we were created by some advanced alien race it's just beg the question where those aliens came from, and the answer is God. It's like saying you weren't created by God but your parents, God just set up the parameters leading to your creation.

The source of my own depression is that they never taught us any of this in schools.

They never really taught us the REALLY important stuff about Greece and Rome, like the concept of "Republic," unless maybe you went to private school. They never taught us that there are in fact two kinds of socialism. One is a "fast track" Marxist-Leninist socialist reform (the super-violent one), and the other is a softer long-term Gramsci version called "cultural hegemony."

false
time has no start or end
there was no creation

Not really. Most of the instincts we need to create a harmonious and just society are there ingrained in our psychological makeup. Modern secular societies do a decent job of nurturing and expanding upon them with stuff that doesn't come naturally like tolerance towards opposing (particularly minority) viewpoints, and so on.

The areas where modern secular societies fall short (especially ones in which philosophy is non-existent in education) are in areas relating to the personal drive to be good at heart, as opposed to just giving the appearance of being good. More and more we are seeing societies develop in which people never do good deeds when they know that they will receive nothing in return, or if they will not be recognised, or if it will inconvenience them in any way. Previously, overcoming this lethargy was achieved through fear of hell, or more tame attitudes like the simple belief that we will all be held to account for everything we have done and said in life after we die.
That is now gone in the non-religious parts of our societies, and we are doing a shit job of finding other systems of thought that promote being good at heart in a convincing way. For the most part, we aren't trying to find a replacement system at all.

Try reading the bible, attend a service at a good baptist church. Try to underatand and keep an open heart and the bricks will fall into place by themselves.

>Priests in the back
>Executioner literally wearing a cross
its as violent as Islam

well used to be at least

A good Christian isn't beholden to anyone but God. If someone is susceptible to deceit they're not following God's law as the bible teaches that anything that doesn't come from God directly can be corrupt. The idea of the fallen state teaches people to gather a healthy dose of skepticism.

Steady State theory has been falsified. Seriously. Look it up. That means timespace had a literal beginning. You can't beg the question of existence. That would be irrational and fallacious.

BTW, there are two different definitions of "time" competing with each other. The popular one is Newtonian time, but there are problems with it. The other is Leibniz's definition of time, which is not a thing, but rather the relationship of moving objects relative to one another (that's it). I favor the second, because Occam's razor and all that. youtube.com/watch?v=Wx4GZJpL8W0

It isn't as violent as Islam in the sense that very few acts of bloodshed or torture are supported by the Bible, and so these people in the pics aren't really behaving in accordance with the faith.

but evangelical religion was the bedrock of neoconservativism and was incredibly destructive to the culture of the west

Rationality, debate, and discussion are all vital to religion maintaining it's order. There is, at least in the US, an irrational fear of religious discussion and exploration. This stagnates thought and consolidates the cultural power structures. When the citizenship stops questioning it's own religious values, it allows itself to be misled by religious opportunists.

Megachurches, evangelical, and overly cheerful religious interpretations of Christianity have eroded it's internal value system. There is very little introspection that goes on, which is a key part of religious transformation.

Christianity is judaism for casuals.

Oh, and there is no universally consistent (nor obligatory) scientific method. The Vienna Circle gave it their best try, and then Popper tried to put a Band-Aid on it, but it failed.

All innovation must think outside the box; outside the scientific consensus. Science is not dogma.

Pic related.

^ Woops

because you are niggers

You're so full of shit, and so short sighted, I'm amazed you're still alive.

Saying shit like "relatvism made a real dent in the 90s" doesn't make it true, just because you want it to be true. What a surprise that your made up facts just happen to paint an entire generation with the broad brush of the SJW boogey man.

Blaming the new generation for a perceived fall in standards goes back as far as Aristotle:

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress."

Sound familiar? Kids these days.


Fact of the matter is, God is not real. Religion exists in virtually every culture in the world, independent of each other, and usually based on the Sun. It's simply human nature to ascribe the unexplainable to an all powerful deity.

I agree with you for the most part but I do think that most people's definition of god would be a conscious form of some sort.

God, as you have described "him" necessarily existing, can still exist as a construct and a clockwork.

I am prone to believe that structures mirror each-other in scale, so if we are conscious then there must be a higher order being who is, but the first cause does not need to be conscious, it only needs to exist outside of linear causality.

It is just another abrahamic religion that was forced onto our ancestors years ago.
If your white, your real religion is one of the ones deemed "pagan", which is an umbrella term for "anything that isnt abrahamic"

>worshiping the King of Kikes
>correct

has Sup Forums really sunk this low?

>It's simply human nature to ascribe the unexplainable to an all powerful deity.
I used to be a cucktheist myself until i didn't realize that consciousness can't be explained in physical terms and that the building block of the universe is not matter nor energy but information.

Because liberals hate it so much they would rather support Islam. If Libs hate it, it must be good.

Not according to Thomas Aquinas. An omnipotent being is the most least complex being, because complexity is made of layers of otherwise finite parts, traits, or attributes.

For example, Hinduism is far more unnecessarily complicated than monotheism.

BTW, you're invoking a guideline/principle/law initially developed by a Roman Catholic monk. It's perfectly compatible with organized religion.

I think the problem is you're arguing against the disorganized examples of organized religion.

Wow, a defender of post-modernism takes a post-modern view of religion. What an enlightened fucking person.

But then what would be the point? How would you even know what love is, if it is all you know? How do you know joy if you've never know sorrow? 'Pain and suffering' are not concepts that are meant to show that God is not omnibenevolent, but rather the opposite. If you know only love, then you know no other feeling and as such cannot appreciate God's love. Everything effectively becomes the same, and you appreciate nothing because there's nothing to appreciate, which ultimately leads to nihilism, as in nothing matters. It comes down to the fact that God is not comparable to any sense of good nor evil, and so would not create a universe that is inherently good, nor evil.

"Anything when taken in access is torture. It is a recipe that demons have perfected" quote related, not from the Bible but from a MTG card that I love for that quote alone.

Also, you were arguing to my post about omnipotence and first cause.

"Religion" is another category entirely.

Why?

Because it's nothing more than what the finite beings do. "Religion" may or may not have anything to do with an actual God in question.

well it was supported by the Vatican, i mean did you see what the Pope allow the Spanish to do during their Inquisition

you dont need the Bible/Quran to do evil shit, back then (and now) people saw what they did as just and that that's what god wanted because they are filthy heathens/sinners

The confusion here is where the "omni" in "omnibenevolent" applies. It's counter-intuitive.

You're assuming that "omnibenevolence" is directed at the creation. If that were true, then the claim would be toward universalism, and then I have no dog in the fight. I am not a universalist. Nor is the one arguing for an omnibenevolent being.

Omnibenevolent is directed to the being in question. A Judeo-Christian God is omnibenevolent in the sense that if God had any mercy toward his creation, then he would take that object of grace with him into eternal omnibenevolence.

Remember, grace means "un-merited favor." No one deserves grace, by definition. Grace is the highest form of love. Both infinite, and unconditional.

To that particular object of grace alone though. There is no moral mandate that everyone living on earth deserves grace. And if it were deserved, then it would no longer be "grace" by definition.

Therefore, some receive omnibenevolence, and some don't.

So then the question is, "What do people get if they don't get omnibenevolence?"

What they justly deserve according to their nature as finite beings. Remember God, being omnipotent, owes us nothing.

To your second point: "Pain and suffering" are arguments that imply conditions that no one justly or fairly deserves.

See my previous post(s) on this. Also, Romans 9. You're shaking your tiny fist at an omnipotent being and calling it a virtue.

Sick buzzwords, neanderthal. I hope your sky daddy gives you a treat tonight while Jamal fucks your wife.

So you take the word of anyone committing any atrocity at face value?

That's nothing but poor skepticism.

Remember that "No True Scotsman" applies in any case without an objective standard of behavior. In this case, it would be the New Testament as read exegetically.

This applies even if you believe both the Bible and Christianity are myths. "If this man is a Christian as he claims, he would not violate the NT law of loving your enemy." Even, "let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector," make such a victim a candidate for food, clothing, "going the extra mile," and proselytizing, not torture.

> keeping and making all the constant progress trough 2000 years

All religions have their point of exclusion. That is, within their own systematic theology. Even a religion that is as inclusive as the Baha'i faith would be ignorant of the point of exclusion in each of the religions they claim to welcome.

> building block of the universe is not matter nor energy but information.

Literally what? What evidence do you have for such a claim?

Science was at one time unable to explain a great many things that religion explained away as "God". God made the world in 7 days? No, it was the Big Bang (which the Catholic church recognises). Humans are descendants of God's Adam and Eve? No, we're the product of evolution (which the Catholic church recognises). We could go on for a while, here.

One day science will be able to explain what life is and how it comes about, and in rigorous detail, and the churches will have to back peddle even further.

It's your tradition. Always go with and defend your time honoured traditions. It worked for the West for 1,500 years. And now our societies have gone secular suddenly degeneracy and jews and muslims everywhere. That's not a coincidence.

I wouldn't know. Faith is a gift I've yet to receive

goto africa
walk into the desert
keep going and you will get your answer

...

What you're pointing to is a form of Moralism that is often confused as Christianity.

I was there in the 80s when Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority did their thing. Dominionism is the heir of 80s Moralism. Both really look like Christianity, but contradict even the words of Christ, "My Kingdom is not of this Earth."

So then what are you doing by trying to establish a proxy throne; one you're too small to climb into? You're confusing everyone else, that's what you're doing. It's muddied the word "Evangelical" in ways where it's unrecognizable. An Evangelican Christian doesn't tell someone to be moral and follow all these rules before becoming a Christian. The Bible says repentance and surrender to Christ turn on the same hinge. Thus, it's heresy to try to moralize yourself into the Kingdom.

But yes, it was incredibly destructive. I agree with all the rest of what you wrote otherwise. God does approve the homage of reason over self-imposed ignorance.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing–Deutsch_principle
The Big Bang was discovered by Lemaitre (a jesuit priest). Christianism has always encouraged scientific progress, despite atheist memeology (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_cleric-scientists).

I'm a Deist, which means i don't believe in any supersitious crap (including the Bible) but i recognize the scientific limits of materialism and the consequences of pushing atheism down the masses throats.
I will revert to cucktheism if you can show me one single compelling explanation of consciousness and information in purely physical terms. Until then keep drinking Bill Nye le science guy's koolaid and STFU

Grace, by definition, is not earned.

"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness." - Romans 4 quoting Gen 15:6

^ This was before Moses. Before circumcision. Therefore, you've got it backward. "And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

Am I saying the law of Moses does not apply? Absolutely not. The law still applies. But if you think you can "do the law," then you're following the merit system and not belief, which God accounted to Abraham as righteousness. His works confirm that belief, "God will provide the lamb for the sacrifice."

Not praising k e k just after trump was elected. dont you guys fear the ultimate manifestation of chaos ?

>christianism encouraged scientific progress
top meme

women don't understand honor and loyalty, the only way you can make them respect lifelong marriage is through religion

Nice meme graph, it means literally nothing, you saved it straight out of reddit without even opening it

the dark ages were probably super dank and comfy af, but we will never know. you're spreading "le dark ages were terrible" meme

...

I even checked your wiki page with catholic scientists. Literally all of them are from the renaissance period and after.

Really makes you think huh?

>Redpill me on Christianity, why is it the correct religion?
This man is a thinker.

QUESTION TO RELIGIONFAGS
How do you know you follow a correct religion? What if Islam or Judaism are right and you're wronng and you will still go to hell for being heretics?

No, that's people, not christianity.