I will refute any objections you have against Christianity or the Bible right here right now

I will refute any objections you have against Christianity or the Bible right here right now

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm afraid you might be overpromising there.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thoughts and Opinions on 23 20

      I just want to discuss about God's word, I can't keep it to myself

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        See, you think that Christianity is a niche religion that few people have ever heard of, or that people have some stock objections that they only need answered by consulting a list of equally stock, slam-dunk responses. In a way, you are following a script, in the very literal sense of the word "script". Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it is only a script and you are not able to actually answer "any obiections" someone might have.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Let's see if you can do it without quoting the Bible.

          Are you Christian ?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think your image is cute.
            The problem with your question is that it's a sly opening move, but not that sly: if I say "no", then you'll presumably talk to me about god's love, if I answer "yes", then you'll test me on various points of doctrine to determine whether I'm "really" Christian. If I then disagree with some point of doctrine, you bring up the standard verses. The aim of this is to then expose me as a heretic (in so many words), or to get me to agree on enough points of doctrine that I'm forced to agree with you by sufficiently narrowing down the ramge of possible beliefs, and then, hooray, victory achieved. Seemingly sound argumentation, but it implicitly relies on me being a specific type of Christian. What if I, say, question the doctrine of "Biblical inerrancy"? I mean, on what is that based, really? There could have been a historical Jesus and one might believe anything about him, and still think that the Gospels, or the Bible, are just some documents some people wrote about him, or featuring him, and those would be as accurate as anything humans write about anything: maybe accurate, maybe not.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you don't believe the Bible comes from God ?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, in what sense? Do you mean that all books of the Bible have non-human authorship? If we take the Gospel of Luke, for example: in chapter 1, it clearly states that it was written by some unnamed guy for his friend, and that the author had collected various stories people were saying about this Jesus, and that he found these stories to he accurate. If we take this at face-value, then the author of Luke (who also doesn't call himself "Luke", he could have just as well been named "Adam" or "Bill" or "Andrew") has himself written down some account to the best of his ability based on hearsay. That doesn't mean that it's therefore all false, it might even be a fairly accurate account for all we know, but what reason do we have for thinking that the document was authored by supernatural means?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what reason do we have for thinking that the document was authored by supernatural means?

            Well I do believe it for these reasons:

            The accurate prophecies, the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, the fact that people who knew him wrote about it, the fact that already in the first century they knew what writings were inspired of God (like Luke) and what wasn't, the fact that God does intervene in my life

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the fact that Jesus rose from the dead
            >the fact that people who knew him wrote about it
            >The accurate prophecies
            Let us now quote Luke 1:
            >1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a: or "been surely believed"] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
            If you believe this to be accurate: here, the author "admits" that he wasn't an eyewitness, and he never even met Jesus. He himself says that he is simply writing down what eyewitnesses saw, thus the Gospel of Luke, by the author's own words, can at most be a second-hand account.
            But let's suppose that we had actual written eyewitness testimony: eyewitness testimony is famously unreliable. We can even suppose that Jesus actually was who he says he was, even that he fulfilled prophecy, even that he had risen from that dead, and that someone saw that and wrote about it. That still would make their accounts only something that some regular human wrote, not supernatural, or supernaturally accurate. Actually, we could think that witnessing all of that would make the accounts less accurate, since if you saw a guy actually come back from the dead, you'd probably be a bit, you know, overly excited. You know how people are.
            >the fact that already in the first century they knew what writings were inspired of God (like Luke) and what wasn't,
            There might have been a consensus, we can suppose that, but you could have made this same objection to those people: consensus doesn't establish truth.
            >the fact that God does intervene in my life
            Well, you know, that's one of those things.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you believe this to be accurate: here, the author "admits" that he wasn't an eyewitness, and he never even met Jesus. He himself says that he is simply writing down what eyewitnesses saw, thus the Gospel of Luke, by the author's own words, can at most be a second-hand account.

            Luke wasn't one of Jesus' original disciples, however as he said regarding his account of Jesus’ life: “I have traced all things from the start with accuracy.”—Luke 1:3.

            How do we know that some supernatural was involved ? Well because his writing was considered as Sacred Scripture from the beginning by the Christian community !

            Which means that God is the one who inspired Luke to write his gospel. He did not dictate to Luke what ti write, rather he guided Luke to put down the divine message whild allowing him to use hiw own words and expressions

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >“I have traced all things from the start with accuracy.”—Luke 1:3.
            I'm sure he said that, and he really could have put in a good effort, but how could he have known how accurate he really was? Someone can do accurate history today and still be wrong.
            >How do we know that some supernatural was involved ? Well because his writing was considered as Sacred Scripture from the beginning by the Christian community !
            We really do have a gap here. The following could have happened:
            >there is a Christian community
            >some guy is tasked by this Theophilus, whoever that was, to please write down everything that's being talked about
            >some guy writes a book, trying to track down all the various stories, create an understandable narrative
            >people say: "wow, this book is great, let's use this and read from it"
            This could really have happened, without anything supernatural being involved.

            Luke was not one of the Twelve. Rather, he was a traveling companion of Paul. He is only mentioned by name three times in the New Testament.
            We find a minor character in the New Testament unanimously attributed to having a gospel written by him.

            The unanimous attestation of this unlikely author is a strong reason for accepting the traditional view that he penned his gospel.
            Other names, prominent in the New Testament, would have carried more weight with people than this relatively unknown individual. But there is no reason to attribute authorship to him had he not written this work.

            It was a common literary practice during the time of Christ to preserve the name of the author of a written work. Scrolls with written text on both sides had tags glued to them (called a sittybos in Greek) that insured the preservation of the author’s name. They were attached in such a way that a person could see who authored the scroll without unrolling it. This is similar to the function of the spine on our modern books; one does not have to open the book to find out who wrote it.

            The fact that this happened is clear in that there are no variations in the titles of the gospels. Every source is unanimous that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke penned his gospel, and John wrote his.

            >He is only mentioned by name three times in the New Testament.
            Luke isn't mentioned once in the actual "Gospel of Luke". The work also wasn't titled "The Gospel of Luke" or anything similar; the name "Luke" was added in later. It might have then become tradition, but that only establishes that people believed it later on.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But that's not the mindset of israelites. It never has been

            They don't just pick a book they think is cool and declare it as coming from God.

            They thought the Book of Enoch was cool, but they never considered it as canon.

            But they did consider the gospel written by Luke as canon, because it WAS from God !

            >Why ?
            Life is suffering. No suffering > suffering

            In Paradise there will be no suffering !

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In Paradise there will be no suffering !
            I'm sure that's correct, but in death there also isn't. And dying takes less effort than entering paradise.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They don't just pick a book they think is cool and declare it as coming from God.
            Well, that is quite speculative; we're hitching a lot on what israelites supposedly thought. The Book of Daniel, for instance, was backdated by a good 300-400 years, was originally written in Aramaic, and then some anonymous guy added in some Hebrew sections, and then later on, some other guy or guys added in stories in Greek. We actually know that this happened because they literally added the section in in these languages: the same book contained sections written in multiple languages. Clearly, these people were not uniformly super-uptight about "never changing the sacred texts".
            Here's a nice video about that process:

            ?t=567
            >But they did consider the gospel written by Luke as canon, because it WAS from God !
            How do we know that their consideration was correct? Let's say that they considered it "canon" in some way. On what process would this consideration have been based? Would they have had some "procedure"? Was it gut feeling? They well might have thought that it was the greatest book ever written, but how would that have been anything more than personal opinion?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Book of Daniel, for instance, was backdated by a good 300-400 years, was originally written in Aramaic, and then some anonymous guy added in some Hebrew sections, and then later on, some other guy or guys added in stories in Greek. We actually know that this happened because they literally added the section in in these languages: the same book contained sections written in multiple languages. Clearly, these people were not uniformly super-uptight about "never changing the sacred texts".
            Here's a nice video about that process:

            My friend, your post shows that we KNOW what the book of Daniel originally contained, and we KNOW what has been added.

            Therefore, we can make the difference between what is part of inspired Scripture and what isn't ! So there is no issue here

            >How do we know that their consideration was correct?

            Simple, there were prophets among the church who had the ability to tell what was canon. That's how the books of the NT were established

            What wasn't canon was discarded. You yourself posted earlier that there were many gospels. But only four were divine

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My friend, your post shows that we KNOW what the book of Daniel originally contained, and we KNOW what has been added.
            >Therefore, we can make the difference between what is part of inspired Scripture and what isn't !
            So which part is inspired and which part isn't? Is just the Aramaic part inspired, the Aramaic and Hebrew part, or the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek parts? The Septuagint contained all three (all in Greek). If we just had the Septuagint, then we could not know that there were parts in different languages at all, and we would, by this standard, have to call all three parts "inspired".
            >Simple, there were prophets among the church who had the ability to tell what was canon.
            How do we know that what these prophets said was accurate?
            >You yourself posted earlier that there were many gospels. But only four were divine
            That claims was made by Irenaeus in the 2nd century. Why should I believe Irenaeus? His argument was as follows:
            >The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don’t have any gospels that aren’t full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic.
            https://greatbibleteachers.com/why-are-there-four-gospels/
            Well, that's fairly spurious argumentation, isn't it? "It's obviously true because there are four principal winds".

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I hope I did not dishearten you. Honestly, I just don't understand why you are all so hung up on this Biblical-inerrancy-thing; that's just some claim that Irenaeus started a 150 years later, and he was in France, so I'm not sure what kind of "inside scoop" he's supposed to have had. Then the idea developed with Constantine who wanted to standardize everything, that's 300 years later, then with the Roman Catholic Church over the next roughly 1000 which claimed that the canon was ethically inerrant (so as ethical guidelines, not factually in that obsessive sense), and in the 19th century people got it into their heads that the Bible was factually true down to the letter somehow. This "inerrancy" is a really quite superfluous idea; the Odyssey is not inerrant, yet people don't say that Ancient Greece didn't exist because Homer misplaced one island in the story (or because the story features some fantastical elements beyond the war against Troy having happened).

          • 7 months ago
            JWbot (version 3.4)

            Luke was not one of the Twelve. Rather, he was a traveling companion of Paul. He is only mentioned by name three times in the New Testament.
            We find a minor character in the New Testament unanimously attributed to having a gospel written by him.

            The unanimous attestation of this unlikely author is a strong reason for accepting the traditional view that he penned his gospel.
            Other names, prominent in the New Testament, would have carried more weight with people than this relatively unknown individual. But there is no reason to attribute authorship to him had he not written this work.

            It was a common literary practice during the time of Christ to preserve the name of the author of a written work. Scrolls with written text on both sides had tags glued to them (called a sittybos in Greek) that insured the preservation of the author’s name. They were attached in such a way that a person could see who authored the scroll without unrolling it. This is similar to the function of the spine on our modern books; one does not have to open the book to find out who wrote it.

            The fact that this happened is clear in that there are no variations in the titles of the gospels. Every source is unanimous that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke penned his gospel, and John wrote his.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Now, please do not interpret this is a damnable failure on your part, my point really is about the phrase "any objection", which means "ANY objection". It's like saying: "I can answer EVERY question". Can you really answer literally EVERY question? Doing so would not only require you to be omniscient, but to also make the people you're talking to omniscient.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Can you really answer literally EVERY question?

          Ask away and let's find out

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Certainly. I always enjoy friendly discourse. I don't have "objections" as such, I'm not hostile. I simply like to question the soundness of beliefs for purpose of mutual edification and the hoped-for improvement of understanding. One could say that I simply love wisdom. Like... A lot.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's great !

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thoughts and Opinions on 23 20

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let's see if you can do it without quoting the Bible.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I believe in Jesus but there’s a couple things that bug me. One: where did God come from? Two: how does God hear everyone’s thoughts if they all happen at the same time?

    • 7 months ago
      JWbot (version 3.4)

      >where did God come from?

      "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord Jehovah, "who is and was and who is to come, the Almighty (Revelation 1:8).

      A lot of very smart people have asked this question: Who made God? After all, if everything has a beginning or had a creator, then people think God must have had a bigger God who made that God...and a bigger, bigger God who made that God who made God...then a bigger, bigger, bigger God who made that bigger, bigger God who made the bigger God who made God.

      You see, we could go on and on and on. The only thing that makes sense is if we have the biggest God of all. God—the God of the Bible—is the Creator of everything. Nothing and no one is bigger than He is. He was not created but has always existed. He is the Alpha (beginning) and Omega (end).

      The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In the beginning God was already there and He created all things to teach us more about Him and show us His power, His goodness, and His wisdom.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is embarrassing.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why ?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I feel bad for you as a human.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why ?

    • 7 months ago
      JWbot (version 3.4)

      >how does God hear everyone’s thoughts if they all happen at the same time?

      Jehovah's knowledge is not limited by time or space, and His hearing encompasses everything. The Bible emphasizes Jehovah's omniscience and omnipotence.

      God's hearing everyone's thoughts simultaneously cannot be explained in a human-like manner, as Jehovah's attributes are beyond human comprehension. As Christians, we have to accept these aspects of God's nature as part of our faith, understanding that God's abilities are limitless and go beyond our understanding.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why does God care about what I do to my peepee and why does he want to see me burn in eternal hellfire for it?

    • 7 months ago
      JWbot (version 3.4)

      God is addressed as the Father because of his active interest in human affairs on the earth.
      In the way that a father would take an interest in his children who are dependent on him and as a father, he will respond to humanity, his children, acting in their best interests.

      Hell (hades in greek, sheol in hebrew) is not a place of fiery torment, but rather the symbolic common grave of mankind, a place of unconscious non-existence.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Hell (hades in greek, sheol in hebrew) is not a place of fiery torment, but rather the symbolic common grave of mankind, a place of unconscious non-existence.
        So there's no reason to fear hell?

        • 7 months ago
          JWbot (version 3.4)

          That is correct. The teaching that souls suffer in hell promotes a morbid fear of God.

          By contrast, a person who learns the truth about God and comes to love him will develop a healthy fear of him. “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; prudent are all who live by it,” explains Psalm 111:10.
          This fear of God is, not abject terror, but awe of and profound reverence for the Creator. It engenders in us a healthy fear of displeasing him.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's great, so I can sin all day and the only possible consequences are material and on this earth?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >JWBot
        Haha, I can't believe that someone would either call himself that or deploy an actual bot to answer questions. I love it.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like following Christians threads, it's morbidly intriguing how a person can be so stupid.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why ?

      If you're wrong, how will you give my entire life back?

      When has God ever lied ?

      >JWBot
      Haha, I can't believe that someone would either call himself that or deploy an actual bot to answer questions. I love it.

      Life is full of surprises

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >When has god lied
        Rather oftenly

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          It is impossible for God to lie, he is the embodiment of truth

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ya, well, first problem is you're consulting a book, not a god

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But God reveals himself through this book

            It's one of the two ways we can get to know him

            That's great, so I can sin all day and the only possible consequences are material and on this earth?

            Life is a gift from God, he will take it away from those who refuse to do what is good. That is the punishment, never again being able to enjoy being alive

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Life is a gift from God, he will take it away from those who refuse to do what is good. That is the punishment, never again being able to enjoy being alive
            Well I don't particularly enjoy being alive. I don't dislike it either, but eternal non-existence and no suffering after death seems like a really good deal.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Well I don't particularly enjoy being alive

            Why ?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why ?
            Life is suffering. No suffering > suffering

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But why anon?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because Eve ate the damn apple

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But why?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Either she was curious, she was tempted, or it was God's plan all along. I don't know, you tell me.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yea but why?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a story featuring talking snakes and gardens, I wouldn't take it too literally. You and anyone else is only taking it literally because it happens to be in a book that's regarded as "Scripture"; if you read it in "Aesop's Fables", you'd be able to enjoy it as a nice little tale, like all the other animal-stories in there. The "mythological" meaning is that humanity started out in a state of childlike naivete, but then "ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge". The price for this was suffering, since, dogs and horses and armadillos don't become neurotic wrecks about "the meaning of life" and shit like that, yet it was also arguably a necessary step in broader human evolution.

            The second layer of mythical meaning is personal: the "knowledge of good and evil" refers to sex (hence the gods casting them out: "now they can reproduce... we can't let them reproduce AND be immortal, then they'd be like us!"), and here, there's both the collective knowledge of sex, i.e. the development of sexual mores (and sexual neuroticism), and the personal knowledge of sex, i.e. puberty. Just as the species passes from childhood into puberty, so every human passes from childhood to puberty, and every boy & girl enter the world of sexual anxiety or, as is the case today, PUA, feminism, incelism, etc.

            There's also the natural, historical origin of the story, which possibly lies in some faintly remembering migration from some more fertile area to a drier one, perhaps from the Fertile Crescent or today's Kuwait.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay but why?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you are referring to

            >Well I don't particularly enjoy being alive

            Why ?

            : I am not that anon, but, in general, some people suffer. This experience being not enjoyable (per definition), they would rather not experience it, and since they cannot imagine a state without suffering, they would rather not experience any state at all.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Technically, non-existence and existence are non-comparable. If you don't exist, you don't actively experience a state without suffering. But give the JWs some credit: Charles Taze Russell at least opposed the doctrine of eternal torment. Compared to that, annihilation is really not that bad.
            However, I get it: life really is shit and it REALLY is hard to sell me on it being any kind of "gift". Yet the human capacity to imagine different states of being is fairly limited due to biological factors; we can't really imagine it being possible to feel differently from how we feel currently, even in principle, e.g. if we feel depressed now, then we imagine that eternal existence must be torturous somehow, no matter what anyone says bout nuthin. Given that, I'm not gonna convince you either and I myself would not have been able to be convinced; I can only say that it is possible based on personal experience, and you can choose to believe me or not (there's no "penalty" for disbelieving either, I'm just saying).

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But give the JWs some credit: Charles Taze Russell at least opposed the doctrine of eternal torment.
            You shouldn't trust Russell on any topic. Man was a hack of the highest order. His teachings were so stupid and unfounded that it should bring Americans eternal shame that they were gullible enough to believe this crap. Had Russell lived anywhere else, he would have died in obscurity.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not otherwise approving/disapproving of the man or his ideas, but I also don't approve of "Hitler drank water!"-type arguments.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nonsense, we know for a fact the book has many forgeries

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Life is full of surprises
        Indeed so. And how quickly my words came true:

        See, you think that Christianity is a niche religion that few people have ever heard of, or that people have some stock objections that they only need answered by consulting a list of equally stock, slam-dunk responses. In a way, you are following a script, in the very literal sense of the word "script". Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it is only a script and you are not able to actually answer "any obiections" someone might have.

        >In a way, you are following a script, in the very literal sense of the word "script".
        A bot (using this term neutrally) literally follows a script.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you're wrong, how will you give my entire life back?

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >a guy who doesn't believe in gods but somehow acts like the christian god would want him to despite gaining nothing from it besides following his own instincts

    >a christian guy who argues that without god there can't be any morality and only acts according to god's laws because he wants to go to heaven or is afraid to go hell

    who is the better person?

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus didn't exist.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    If god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, why does evil exist?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You've got one of your omnis wrong, he's omnipresent, not omnibenevolent.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because time exists.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Therefore?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's a hard question to answer, but the idea is roughly this: what we call "time" is an abstracted measure of entropy, or smoothing out of the energy-gradient. An engine running down is a particular example of this, all engines being particular forms of natural processes. A clock, more specifically, is a particular time of engine, one that tries to do the minimum amount of work, namely that of simply showing the increase in entropy.
          What we call "evil" is a subjective experience of judging a state to be sub-optimal ("evil is the privation of good"). By necessity, in a system in which entropy increases will contain states deemed by our nervous systems to be sub-optimal, therefore any system in which entropy increases will contain "evil".
          We as humans are generally only bothered by states we perceive to be grossly evil (bodily pain, hurricanes, murders, the usual stuff), yet these are only special cases: even in a less evil world, e.g. some mythical arcadia, sub-optimal states would still exists ("even in Arcadia, I am", says death in the painting), even if people were perhaps more happy on aggregate there and less wont to ask questions about why evil exists.
          We thus have two answers: the psychological answer, namely as to why the world is actively shit, is that it's the consequence of the laws of physics and specifically including time, as they work out human psychology and game-theory: murder, for instance, happens due to aggression, and aggression is evolutionary advantageous in certain non-cooperative scenarios of resource scarcity. Its occurrence is also increased by various and also largely game-theoretical considerations e.g. economic deprivation causing heightened personal stress, and said economic deprivation being caused by similarly natural, physical factors, inefficiencies in the production of goods, etc.
          You could write out the complete cause of all man-made evils in principle if you wanted to.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          The ontological answer is really that time exists: all sociological problems occur within the framework of the laws of physics (and the laws of thermodynamics, though those are not laws of physics strictly speaking, but statistical laws that hold under certain assumptions). If no sub-optimal states occurred, then as a special case, nothing that would be deemed "evil" by humans would occur either, but this would mean that entropy wouldn't steadily increase, and since time is a measure of entropy, no time in our sense of the word would occur.
          Time existing also means that "the universe is working itself out", which you can roughly imagine as us "being in the process of the world being made right", which then reduces the question to "why isn't the process finished yet?"
          Well, a process is only finished if the last event occurs, otherwise it wouldn't be finished. This might sound a bit weird since we think in terms of time, but imagine this "time" as our (your) consciousness traveling through larger data-structure and perceiving its own traversal of it as its own subjective time. In more mystical language, I suppose, we can think of this is "using having entered the world and going through the process of its salvation", though the concrete words are grounded in tradition and don't matter that much.
          However, the data structure is, well, a structure, meaning the last event can only occur if it is "possible" (in in-world terms), so: because no one has come up with the solution yet. Obviously evil is not just going to poof out of existence magically with no cause, that'd be incoherent.
          So the last event:
          >time ceases
          The cause of that:
          >it becomes possible for time to cease
          The means of that:
          >someone comes up with how that works
          >...
          >PROFIT
          (obviously more than one event is involved, but at a certain coarse granularity, it is about attaining this knowledge that I'm describing right now)
          And then, I don't know, maybe "god's mind" comprehends itself or somesuch.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          I do realize that I, to put it mildly, "jumped over some details" here, but it's the answer to the question of evil, not the answer to "where is the nearest gas-station". I start what feels like fricking dying by even typing stuff like this out, this is not a joke, I can physically barely type because my body is shivering so much, consciousness, running one's nervous system beyond safe specifications, etc. much mystery and so on and so forth, you know it is with experiences like these.

  11. 7 months ago
    Radiochan

    Why should I believe the Gospels to be true when they contradict each other on multiple occasions, not least the genealogy of Jesus?

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    LARA
    I LOVE YOU
    COME BACK TO Oyish

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bro tell your elders we need to go back to the way things worked before the invention of ipads
    No electronics allowed inside the kingdom hall
    Take down the TVs

    I believe in you

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Refute divine hiddenness. That is, say there is someone who honestly looks at the evidence and comes to the honest conclusion that there is no god. If God was perfect and loving. A non-resistant non-believer. If he is loving and wants a relationship with them, wouldn't he give some kind of definitive, inarguable proof of his existence so the nonresistant person can make that choice?
    >in b4 he does
    Clearly he doesn't. The mere existence of nonresistant nonbelievers prove this. As a perfect being, he could easily manifest the true knowledge of God into all beings but choses not to. Why? All it does is damn people who would have chosen to serve God had they known. Are we just supposed to flip a coin and hope for the best?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Faith without works is dead
      That's a two way street, fren

      The fact that you ask yourself to know of God is sign enough
      Just know that the harder you knock on God's door, the dimmer the lights get

      Read Ecclesiastes from start to finish
      Which is around 20 to 30 pages

      Meditate and look for opportunities to grow closer to God
      God blesses everyone who is in search of Him
      Just takes sometime and openness of mind to new ways of life
      Or in your case, new thoughts of life

  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who wrote the book of Job

  16. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are JWs aware of how dishonest and robotic they sound?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You will submit to Ariana Grande or Taylor Swift like a good cult member

      You can select who you want to worship
      I picked Ariana Grande myself

  17. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    They really bought another century for the scam with this recent bullshit, didn't they?

  18. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'll bite.
    I have seriously considered converting but have got a number of reservations.

    Why do good non-believers go to hell? If your response is just the default original sin can only be cleansed by baptism, the whole religion seems a bit exploitative, using the threat of a terrible thing that has never been proven to exist to swell church attendance. It also makes God look super vindictive and jealous, if he truly was all good, why would he care. If your response is just God's inscrutable plan, the fact that he only sent Christ after thousands of years of recorded history where most people would have had no chance at salvation and even afterwards, before missionaries got to wherever they lived there would have been no chance at salvation.

    Also, I've met and known many Christians who, if there was a hell, should probably go for what they've done, as well as many Muslims and agnostics who, if heaven exists, should go there for their generosity and kindness.

    I've got other reservations that, as an evolutionary biologist, I'm not gonna discuss with you people because I've seen your high school level understanding of science, but the sending otherwise good people to hell for not joining your particular denomination is probably the biggest one. I don't know if I want to go to heaven if some of the best people I have known will be burning in hell.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      you're replying to a jehova's witness
      https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/is-hell-real/

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      JWs don't believe in Hell (I'm not myself a JW), they believe that non-believers will be annihilated and that's it. The idea of Hell comes from Zoroastrianism, as does the idea of this "Satan" who really is Ahriman from Zoroastrianism. His name being "Lucifer" comes from Isaiah (a blatant misreading of Isaiah, like, it's so blatant, it's ridiculous; just read Isaiah 14, also this guy exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_of_Cagliari).
      As to why the idea is promoted: well, it's a pretty easy way of controlling people, isn't it? "Don't do exactly as we say, you'll get tortured". This Heaven & Hell mythology started developing around the 3rd century, and then came into full swing around the 13th.
      >I've got other reservations that, as an evolutionary biologist, I'm not gonna discuss with you people because I've seen your high school level understanding of science
      Let us say in all fairness that, while some people certainly thought that Genesis was literal history and that people also could not have known about things like DNA or evolution by natural selection, this whole Creationism-thing mostly comes from the 19th century, as a reaction to modernist attacks on religion. As an evolutionary biologist, you'll perhaps be amenable to the hypothesis (claim; funnily, even scientists use the word "hypothesis" incorrectly: a hypothesis is an axiom relative to a theory, with a theory being the deductive closure over the axiom-set, and not necessarily some "random-ass guess") that humans thinking has markedly degenerated, but not just among the religious, but the wider population. The kind of "debate" that one witnesses nowadays would get one disbarred from, most religious discussions of yesteryear. In a sense, people have largely lost the ability to think correctly, largely due to the loss of certain modes of thinking, e.g. the ability to correctly understand what a hypothetical is - hence people "take everything literally". But they literally do.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well, I like the whole no Hell thing more than the traditional Christian doctrine, but still, annihilation versus salvation seems to just be a less harsh version of the same carrot and stick. I think if anything I am most amenable to the idea that there are many different ways to God, but I don't know of a sect that holds that doctrine.

        I don't know if human thinking has changed all that much, I think that due to the internet we are just exposed to a lot more idiots than before. I'm sure there were idiots in Montaigne's, or Aquinas' time, but they just didn't write books and are thus unknown.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not advocating for JWs specifically, I'm just trying to neutrally state information to the best of my knowledge, I should say. Though since you alluded to the notion of orthodoxy (mandatory orthodoxy, specifically): that idea enters the picture post-Constantine, with the ecumenical councils, when "what one believes" arose as a political issue. Over time, this ossified into a sort of thought-control where one "had to think the right things", as if one expected some theology-test post-death about whether Christ was 2/3 God or 3/3 God or what the distinction of nature vs. essence was, or somesuch bullshit. This is clearly ecclesiastical politics masquerading as theology, just like how Anselm's theology is, in reality, late medieval feudal politics, but applied to theology. Anselm was the guy who came up with the idea of "an offence against an infinite god requiring infinite punishment" - obviously an extrapolation of the real-world politics of offences against the (earthly) lord being punished more harshly than offences against fellow serfs about which the authorities did not care that much. Humans always like to do this, it's the same in China with the "celestial bureaucracy", mirroring the Imperial court, clearly. While one can hold ideas that are maybe more correct than others, the idea of God™ asked one for the correct church membership card before handing out a multiple choice questionnaire is patently absurd.
          >I don't know if human thinking has changed all that much, I think that due to the internet we are just exposed to a lot more idiots than before.
          That's the common belief, but if this were a universal phenomenon, how would anyone notice? Consider that we have categories like the "offensive belief", "forbidden comparison", "forbidden clustering of words" ("X mentions Y in the same sentence as Z!!!"), the "forbidden hypothesis", etc. None of these are logically sound, yet are even scientists immune from such prejudices?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree fairly broadly, and the approach to orthodoxy is one I considered taking if I converted. I would be baptised and attend service at a given denomination but privately continue to develop personal philosophies which may not be canon. However I'm worried that that might go against the parable of the sower, and I also don't want to be dishonest when it comes to faith. I also am generally unsure what denomination to convert to, although Latvian Lutheran and Orthodox are leading candidates as those are the religions of my grandparents. I like the big, traditional churches for their history and rituals, especially the Great Lent, but they also seem to focus more on the damnation of heathens and heretics than I am really comfortable with.

            To your second point, scientists are not impervious to any kind of prejudice and, outside of their field of study, are just as ignorant and biased as the next guy. I also can't pretend that I know what you mean by your list of fallacies, but how do you know that they are recent phenomena?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            > However I'm worried that that might go against the parable of the sower
            Well, if you ask me, that parable is about one's words finding listeners who'll apply them fruitfully and according to their best judgment, not about who can follow some pre-packaged doctrine the most, but that's just me. In fact:
            >But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
            This would be more in line with just swallowing whatever blindly, without any real understanding or foundation, so precisely the opposite of trying to develop some personal philosophy.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Internet has had deleterious effects, certainly, but if e.g. quantum mechanics had not been discovered already in the last century, I highly doubt it would or could be discovered now, and the same goes for general relativity. Officially, scientific method, hypothesis-testing, and all of that good stuff, but we all know that that's not true. For years, everyone bullshitted his own measurements of the mass of the electron to not deviate too much from what had been originally (and incorrectly) measured, if memory serves. And likewise, they had Semmelweis incarcerated for suggesting that soap was not strong enough a disinfectant for doctors. He shortly thereafter beaten to death. Let us not overly romanticize human cognition and wisdom here.
          But beyond that, you can judge for yourself - this not being my field of expertise - how openly one may investigate hypotheses in e.g. evolutionary biology, what with the LPU plague, the impact factors (originally, a citation was just a reference, not some Reddit upvote determinant of whether to grant tenure), and the bundling of journals by the triumvirate of Springer, Elsevier & McGill, who bought them all up and are now forcing universities to buy a bunch of useless ones as a package deal. Could or would someone publish something like Origin of Species today, or would anyone rationally split the results up into 50 different papers to juice one's impact factor, since it's numerically more advantageous to crank out a bunch of small and less-cited papers than one large, impactful one? And we might ask ourselves what effect such factors have on the quality of scientific research, hence the quality of knowledge of scientists - who also have to do a frickload of admin-busywork and write grant applications all the time.
          But more to the point, I really do wonder whether there also isn't some more immediate competency crisis brought on by, I don't know, BPA or teflon, maybe, analogous to population-wide lead poisoning.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, I'm extremely hesitant to debate science on this forum, but that's not really how impact factor works, at least in ecology and evolutionary biology. If you were able to publish one huge paper with a thesis of the same caliber as the origin of species, the smart move would be to publish it completely, on the front page of Nature or Science, and then let the scientific community go wild. Also career-wise, it would secure your name as a celebrated Nobel-material researcher far more than a million publications in, say, the Journal of Chelonian Conservation.

            More broadly I can assure you that there are many exceedingly bright people working in evolutionary biology today, although because of the somewhat labyrinthian nature of academia, there is very little chance you'll ever encounter them or any of their work. I assume the same is true for other fields of science.

            The one big change I think that happened somewhat recently in science was compartmentalization. I don't really know what the cutting edge of organic chemistry is like, beyond where it immediately intersects with my research. This contrasts to some of the great scientists of old, who were true, across-the-board polymaths who could draw in aspects of many diverse fields of research. I don't think what you are lamenting is the result of a decline in human cognition, but rather how research is structured today.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you were able to publish one huge paper with a thesis of the same caliber as the origin of species, the smart move would be to publish it completely, on the front page of Nature or Science, and then let the scientific community go wild.
            If that's how it is, I'll defer to your expertise, as said. It's just something I've often heard bemoaned, mostly in the context of an alleged "publish or perish"-culture.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are right that some researchers do take this approach, and publications are often held up as a representation of how good you are as a scientist, but at least in my field (I think it definitely is different in other fields) it's better to have a few hefty papers than a bunch of flotsam, and I think those who take your approach are limiting themselves both intellectually and also career-wise.

            This mentality is also not universal, a friend of mine relayed a story where a German researcher said something to the effect of "He published two papers this year? One of them must be shit."

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Though I notice that, you became very guarded, as if I was gonna pull out the flat Earth or Young Earth Creationism or my proof for |N|=|R|, or some other idea of that sort. This reaction is line with my suspicion that we actually live in a kind of dark age during which the knowledgeable have a sort of siege mentality, similar to monks who guarded scraps of Roman knowledge post-473 in monasteries. Such a reaction would be more plausible if we assumed that, without trying to argue the details of how, which I myself do not know, cognition had declined significantly in the wider population, which would then cause people to advance those kinds of ideas.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I still don't think that's necessarily a sign of cognitive decline, just a product of the anti-empiricist, my truth is just as valid as your truth hubris that comes as a result of the information age. People can now get facts from anywhere, but they aren't any smarter than before so end up believing a bunch of lies posted by bad actors.

            There do still exist people who are intelligent and who think about things in a rational, empirical manner, they are just drowned out by the same masses of idiots who in ages prior would not have been given a platform to voice their opinions.

            My guarded nature does not come from the fact that I am worried that this information will be lost, as the monks were after the fall of Rome, more that I am tired of debating evolution with people who don't even understand basic Mendelian genetics.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My guarded nature does not come from the fact that I am worried that this information will be lost, as the monks were after the fall of Rome, more that I am tired of debating evolution with people who don't even understand basic Mendelian genetics.
            Fair enough, I know what that feels like. I like talking to flat Earthers, but they at least have funny graphics and experiments (experiments which are all wrong, but at least they have them). They'd never abandon their beliefs, even if they were taken up via rocket to mid-Earth orbit - if that happened, they'd either just deny reality outright, or suffer from some sort of collapse, I think, since - I think - the belief doesn't so much have to do with the shape of the Earth, but rather serves the psychological function of combating a feeling of personal insignificancy. In this respect, the belief in Creationism is pretty similar, though evolution is easier to deny since it's not that immediately obvious that it happens day-to-day.
            If I had to guess what's going on with people: the human brain always had its deficiencies, specifically in the way the amygdala shuts down thinking, but it's also come to suffer from memetic viruses and informational overload. The informational overload is simpler to explain: people just can't deal with all the shit with which they get bombarded: "epidemic in China" (assuming one doesn't live in China), "mine collapse in Argentina", "every crime every committed around the world", newsfeeds, TikTok, etc.
            The memetic viruses are informational phenomena that lock the brain in via interaction with the amygdala (mostly, but also with PFC-involvement), like the Hell-meme:
            >causes fear
            >unverifiable
            >unavoidable
            >unclear criteria for going there
            >disbelieving it lands you there
            Isn't that awfully convenient. A little logic-trickery that comes to nest inside the brain like informational HIV. Hell is the prototypical example, but there's all kinds of secular variants, preying upon guilt.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not the anon you’re responding to, but I once got through to a flat earther. I pointed out that if there really is a flat edge to the world, do you really think our profit obsessed culture would be able to avoid building amusement parks all over the edge where you could bungee jump into the void? They’d make a mint.

            I think the root problem isn’t so much feelings of inferiority and information overload, but some kind of processing error as to which pieces of information are acceptable and which ones get rejected, but forming this very strong loop where only information that reinforces the overall belief structure is credible. And about the only way to make any progress is top it ramifications of one part of the belief structure against other parts to show inconsistency. That’s why an argument to human greed and elites exploiting the masses worked when much more intuitive and empirically demonstrable one’s failed.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I once got through to a flat earther
            Amazing.
            What you say does make sense, though maybe I'm also not talking to a representative sample of flat Earthers, but the "online" ones. It might also depend on how shocking the argument you make is - any "experienced" flat Earther would have told you straight away that there's far more money to be made in keeping the world population docile or that the elites are ideologically committed to enslaving/deceiving humanity more than they are to profit, for example, and then also painting NASA in villainous terms.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even without the explicit threat of torture, you can have structurally similar memes that lead to degenerate mental states, generally by exploiting either fear or guilt: we all those people who always want to be "more moral" somehow, to the point of absurdity and even beyond. We can speculate that guilt-activation becomes locked-in, but who knows.
            In fact, I would claim that orthodoxy in the pathological sense of the term is itself one of these memes:
            >you must believe X
            >X contains "you must never question X"
            We see the self-reference there, similar to the liar's paradox and its variants. Why should it be forbidden to think anything? What's it to anyone what thoughts I have in my head? This has little to do with "pleasing god"; it really is a virus that has evolved to protect itself via this pretty simple mechanism that yet, over time, can completely derange the mind, since it forms a fixed point around which the rest of the mind then is forced to rotate: if some provably incorrect claim is forced to be accepted as true, then not only can no evidence dislodge it (as would be the case with non-pathological beliefs), but increasingly elaborate coping mechanisms must develop to explain any and all evidence away, see above in this thread about the fabled "Biblical inerrancy", that being just one example. Over time, this deranges the structure of the mind more and more.
            Such memes don't all pertain to religion, there's more than enough examples of "unquestionable beliefs", in all spheres of life.

  19. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why God choose to create a world he knows will have stuff he doesn't like in it?
    Totality of reality was already perfect

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      In human terms: the torah ("law") is a collection of human judgments issued by priests, as is fairly obvious in the case of Deuteronomy ("2nd law") and Leviticus (a code of behavior for a sect of priests). Much of it likely comes from Zoroastrianism, like the thing with the dietary laws: in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda, the good god, creates the neat categories into which e.g. the cow falls, since it "chews the cud and has hooves", but then Ahriman comes along and confuses things by creating e.g. the pig, which also has hooves but does not chew the cud. Though one should mention that they found pig-bones in Jerusalem, so it's up to you to decide in how far ordinary people cared about these high-falutin' laws that some priests made up.
      In ontological terms, i.e. "why is there something rather than nothing", I can reduce the question to: "why do I exist?" (but asked from your perspective; it's obviously not relevant to YOU why I exist), and, well, who knows.

  20. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    What will happen to the JWs when the last of the olds die?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      What happened to Christianity after Luka 9:27 and Matthew 16:27-28? It's been 2000 years. Unless I'm now about to hear some truly astounding new information about human longevity, or perhaps some reinterpretation of what happened to those listening at the time (probably what was meant, i.e. some of those people "did not taste death", only from the perspective of external observers), it seems that people will make up some more or less believable explanation and just keep going. The same way people predict Revelation coming true every 20 or so years, or Daniel. They just make up whatever, it doesn't matter. Yet we should not hold JWs to some uniquely high standards; they're not doing anything more intellectually faulty than what the wider parent religion does.

  21. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are the Gospel authors and Paul so stone-ignorant about them current facts of life that should be obvious to them? For a brief overview, why does Mark think you would go via Sidon to get from Tyre to Galilee? Why does he not know the local rulers were “tetrarchs” and not kings? Why does Luke think that people had to go to ancestral homes to answer Roman censuses? Why does Matthew think the Pharisees had a problem with faith healing on the Sabbath, a position only banned by the Sadducees; did he mix the two sects up? Why does John think that the priests going to Pilate’s house would render them ineligible to eat the pesach, was there a dead body lying around he forgot to mention? Why does he mis-translate “Gabbatha” as a stone pavement and not elevation; surely a Judean native would know Aramaic.(and you know, not call it Hebrew when it isn’t)
    Why does Paul conflate israeli beliefs in purity vs impurity with their views on sin when the israelites held them to be separate concepts. Why does he think the Mosiatic Law requires animal sacrifice and blood for remission of sin when flour offerings were accepted for the poor? Why does he lean so hard on Jesus as the lamb sin offering but also the paschal offering when these were two very different sacrifices for very different purposes.

    Because it certainly seems to me like the founders of Christianity were a bunch of Greek dudes with only the foggiest idea of what early 1st century Jude’s was like. Not natives of the region and certainly not divinely inspired people.

  22. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christianity is being used as a tool to substantiate rampant nationalism and violence. Like a lot of things this is mostly an issue of people and not of the thing itself, but can you really divorce the two? Significant parts of the bible have been meticulously mistranslated in the past to support such things.

  23. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Elohim said to Abraham, “Don’t call your wife by the name Sarai anymore. Instead, her name is Sarah [Princess]. I will bless her, and I will also give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she will become a mother of nations, and kings will come from her.” Immediately, Abraham bowed with his face touching the ground. He laughed as he thought to himself, “Can a son be born to a hundred-year-old man? Can Sarah, a ninety-year-old woman, have a child?” Then Abraham said to Elohim, “Why not let Ishmael be my heir?”

    Elohim replied, “No! Your wife Sarah will give you a son, and you will name him Isaac [He Laughs]. I will make an everlasting promise to him and his descendants. I have heard your request about Ishmael. Yes, I will bless him, make him fertile, and increase the number of his descendants. He will be the father of 12 princes, and I will make him a great nation. But I will make my promise to Isaac. Sarah will give birth to him at this time next year.” When Elohim finished speaking with Abraham, he left him.

  24. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Same, i totally support judeo christan ideologies...

  25. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    just wanted to say that JW are a cult that destroyed a part of my family
    worst religious group I have ever interacted with

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *