This kills Christian theology to me.

This kills Christian theology to me.

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is a disgrace that Oyish is not split into Oyish and /rel/.
    At least according to https://4stats.io/ , Oyish has similar daily average posts per day as /gif/ , and they're wasted on such inane garbage as religion/anti-religion "debates".
    Even if splitting off /rel/ would take half the traffic, it would still be above Oyish.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Welcome to Oyish - History & Humanities Anonymous ## Mod Mod Icon 11/01/15(Sun)06:36:48 No.27939 Sticky Closed▶

      >This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc. Please use Oyish for discussions of literature. Threads should be about specific topics, and the creation of "general" threads is discouraged.

      Read the fricking sticky. It says this board is dedicated to history AND humanities including religion. And stop spamming every single religion thread with this. You are just taking up bandwidth with your whining. Use the filters, ignore and hide threads you don't like and shut up.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Read the fricking sticky.
        If we'd be to consider the literal meaning of sticky, you might be right. However, all 4 paragraphs of the sticky clearly focus on history.

        3 of them (which you have conveniently omitted) mention only history, and no other "humanities" is even mentioned:
        >For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere. General discussions about international culture should go on Oyish.
        >
        >Oyish is not /misc/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /misc/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
        >
        > When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.

        All other subjects therein are presented and enumerated in context of history. As such, it is apparent, beyond any reasonable doubt, that according to the spirit of the sticky, everything mentioned therein should serve the main focus (history) of this board (/his/), not exist in separation to it.
        Lawmaker who wrote the sticky clearly meant this, any chan-lawyer who passed BAR would agree.

        Thus, all who disagree are literalist pharisees, for the lack of a better term, and should go frick themselves in their arses.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oyish is a board for comics and cartoons. My little pony is a cartoon. Ergo, there need be no /mlp/ board
        Except that’s not how making boards works, you’re being moronic.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Except its more like Oyish and Oyish

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      That means that you don't know Christian theology.

      You're butthurt cause other people think about Christianity more than they think about Mussolini?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >history of christianity itself
        that's ok
        >influence of christianity on historical event
        even better
        >christianity as an element of cultural or geopolitical study
        great
        >philosophy itself, detached from culture/history

        [...]

        >theology, angels, demons, spiritual world
        >>>/x/
        >religious/atheist flame wars

        [...]

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That means that you don't know Christian theology.
        Wdym

        Historically speaking this has not always been all Christians. Not that they never thought it was infallible but they have always written extensively on why they believe the Bible.

        This YouTuber argues that, based on his interactions with those who have "deconstructed", the majority of them seem to come from churches that don't do this, that fit the image.

        >but they have always written extensively on why they believe the Bible
        Which Christians exactly? Chuch fathers or someone else? And what were the reasons? Prophecies being fulfilled?

        >"The Bible is infallible"

        I've never heard this claim before, the Bible comes from the early church and was written by men, it's not the Quran it's just inspired by God

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

        Each premise supports the previous one. What's the problem?

        "Because the Bible tells us so" is circular reasoning

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Church fathers, the Reformers (and counter-Reformers), as well as more modern writers like CS Lewis.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            And what were the reasons?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lewis had a good argument commonly known as "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" - much of what Jesus said makes sense as a way of life, but if you think he's a liar or lunatic because he said he's the Son of God, then it doesn't make sense for you to accept his teachings.

            This article lists Lewis' defenses to some counter-arguments (such as that the claim that the Gospel accounts are made up - given the context it would make no sense to make them up)

            https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/is-c-s-lewiss-liar-lord-or-lunatic-argument-unsound/

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I never liked this argument. Just because some things Jesus said were good, it doesn't mean that all were good or true.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is mainly aimed at those who would call him merely a great moral teacher or who deny his divinity but I think it's a good example of why we should believe the Bible - the Gospels, for instance, do not read like legends as Lewis noted.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also, it wasn't Jesus who wrote the Bible.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Religion is much easier to debate since you don't need to know as much info, it needs it's own board at this point

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just range ban south asia and all the shit religion spam will cease, maybe include Canada too.

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    You wouldn't get it because you're not part of the elect. It's not your fault, so I wouldn't worry about it. At least, not until you're dead, then you can worry about it.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm mentally moronic because Gerd supernaturally lobotomized me
      Weird flex but okay

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Historically speaking this has not always been all Christians. Not that they never thought it was infallible but they have always written extensively on why they believe the Bible.

    This YouTuber argues that, based on his interactions with those who have "deconstructed", the majority of them seem to come from churches that don't do this, that fit the image.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >teenager playing minecraft gives disorganized thoughts on becoming religious as a teenage rebellion
      I don’t have enough ADHD to sit through this

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"The Bible is infallible"

    I've never heard this claim before, the Bible comes from the early church and was written by men, it's not the Quran it's just inspired by God

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Each premise supports the previous one. What's the problem?

  6. 8 months ago
    Ο Σολιταίρ

    The color blue is blue because it's blue

    Truth itself is actually circular in the same way.
    The truth is the truth because it's the truth.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are saying the equivalent of "I'm not gonna give any explanation for your question"

      • 8 months ago
        Ο Σολιταίρ

        I'm just making an illustration.
        There exists, in all realms, the problem of qualia.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There exists, in all realms, the problem of qualia.
          Wdym

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      You and any other sensible person.

      Then why do tradLARPers claim over and over that their sandshit books give them access to special "objective" knowledge/morality?

      • 8 months ago
        Ο Σολιταίρ

        >why do tradLARPers claim over and over that their sandshit books give them access to special "objective" knowledge/morality?

        idk, I admit that the Bible is circular and it doesn't bother me.
        If something is true it's true because it's true.
        Like how the color blue is blue.
        The Bible to me makes perfect sense; especially in its morality and explanation of human nature.

        I think tradLARPers are insecure people. Insecure people try to be defensive and to "fight" by coming up with novel arguments.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If something is true it's true because it's true.
          Sure, the difference is while 'I heckin' love science!' types and trannies embrace their circularity, you religious types play shell-games to pass your allegorical profundity off as documents containing meaningful truth-value and moral DESCRIPTIONS.

          To me, an objective truth is true independent of human observation. The bible and other books like it do not meet this qualification. That is all there is. Simple as.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Feels strange to relate the truth "Blue is blue" to "the bible is true"

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think his point was just that circular logic isn't necessarily true or false.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Problem is I can make the same claim about the Quran and we get nowhere.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can compare the two;
        Bible mogs Quran.
        Quran is barely literature.
        Basically; you can ask yourself "out of these two, which is more likely to be true"
        and the answer is the Bible.
        That doesn't MAKE the Bible true; but honest examination of what is MOST likely lead me to believe in the Bible.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Apply that to any other religion or claim

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        that's when you compare circular claims to circular claims
        since all claims can be reduced to a circular form

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >since all claims can be reduced to a circular form
          ?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Christians turn into jaden smith when you simply ask them to prove their claims

          • 8 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            you're free to believe whatever you want
            everyone has circular beliefs in one form or the other
            Consider the widespread belief in aliens.
            There is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of aliens (inb4 "muh UFOs") but most people believe in it.
            The belief that "everything came from nothing because before there was something there was nothing" is just as circular as theism.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its generally accepted that all UFO sightings are bullshit. We don't actually know if there is intelligent life out there other than us, and most scientists don't claim there is or isn't other life out there with certainty, which is the entire premise of the Fermi Paradox

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So do you admit your belief in religion is arbitrary then and not based on any reasoning?

          • 8 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            No physical evidence =/= no reasoning
            People who believe in aliens have a lot of decent reasoning. It's just reasoning though, with no evidence.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            No. There is evidence to support the belief. Life exists here, therefore it could exist somewhere else. Meanwhile how much evidence do we have that a god could even exist let alone your specific god. None.

          • 8 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            That's not evidence of alien life existing.
            How are you this dense?
            That's just terrestrial* life.

            >Life exists here, therefore it could exist somewhere else
            literally this is not evidence, it's just rationale.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are so moronic its unbelievable. It is evidence it COULD exist not it does for a certainty exist. There is at least a precedent there (unlike for a god). We are talking about belief here not a statment of a fact.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >”there’s evidence!”
            >no evidence
            >”well there’s at least a precedent”
            Lol

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            It isnt an arbitrary belief like your strawman makes it out to be

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >2000 Years of christian philosophy
            >"IF SOME PEOPLE BELEIVE IN ALIENS THEN GOD IS LE REAL!!!"

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >assumes Christianity is evangelical Norn Irish and American Protestantism

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >a dumb meme kills christian theology for me

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The bible never claims to be the word of god

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      "And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."
      - Revelation 19:9

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        That verse isn't talking about the entire Bible. Nice try though.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
          17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
          - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

          Also, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 and Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.

          >That verse isn't talking about the entire Bible.
          I'm obligated to point out that this is blatantly moving the goalposts of what the post said, but still not a problem.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            1. Paul didn't write Timothy
            2. NT wasn't considered scripture when Timothy was written
            3. Theopneustos means life-giving in context.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are two books in the Bible called 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy, and they were written by Paul the apostle, formerly called Saul.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            They weren't, which is the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholars.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            such as?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your point?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            which Biblical scholars

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're supposed to call them israeli shills, not deny that uncontrovertible fact that most scholars don't consider the pastoral epistles to genuine.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok who

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            such as?

            which Biblical scholars

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok so which scholars then

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's not going to give you the answer, and also wikipedia has a pronounced anti-Christian bias. The original co-founder of the platform, Larry Sanger, has specifically pointed this out as a big disappointment in the way Wikipedia went. When it comes to topics related to Christianity or its history, as well as any topic related to current-day politics, they're going to be biased scholars who are promoted by wikipedia admins as if their views are unadulterated truth.

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Because the Bible tells us so
    yes, that's how historical documents work, if you want to disbelieve them on the basis that they have no other evidence other than their own (corroborated) testimony, then you have to discount every single claim regarding the nature of the world that you yourself have not observed, including such claims from your own parents - which, given that you're a moronic atheist, probably already do

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Bible is not an accurate historical document. The new testament was written decades after the supposed events by unkown authors, contradict one another and also contain supernatural elements that havent been shown to exist. Theres a thing academics who study historical documents use called SOURCE CRITICISM.

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    test

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just do unto others, love your neighbor as yourself, and see the good results of good conduct. Be for real.

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