Umm biblebros?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    You think that's bad? What about this "gem" from Genesis 19?
    [30] And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
    [31] And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
    [32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
    [33] And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
    [34] And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.
    [35] And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
    [36] Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      i don't get it?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        What's to get? The Bible literally contains incest initiated by daughters.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          And what's the relation of that to the original post? The original post is about covid-19

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who the hell still cares about COVID? It's basically the cold now. May as well make Eisenhower jokes.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Vaxxies still getting sick all the time and making me lol

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fair point. I'm not a vaxxie, nor do I think about vaxxies. Anyone dumb enough to do what Authority tells them to do deserves their fragile immune system.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Really teaches you something about trusting women, huh?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          They grew up in Sodom; the whole point is to show the degeneracy of the inhabitants of that city. It also serves to help you understand the Moabites and Ammonites. Lol at being offended by that. Wait until you get to Zechariah 11, Leviticus 26 or Deuteronomy 28.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ruth was a Moabite, and Jesus is a direct descendant of Ruth. Therefore, the blood of degeneracy runs in Jesus' veins. Enjoy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Read Deuteronomy 23:3-6 and then Ruth 4:18-21. David was the tenth generation of a Moabite and was thus eligible to enter into the congregation of the Lord, i.e. considered clean. Either way, this is nothing new, Jesus has Canaanite blood, too (Rahab). Do you even understand the purpose of the atonement?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      And? Can you really not resolve this on your own? Do you need your hand held?

      Yes. That's extremely important. The Ammonites and the Amorites, if I'm not mistaken, both the tribes descended from those improper unions, play an important role in Biblical history.

      christbros… not like this..

      You do realize that just because we call the queen ant, "the queen," she isn't actually a ruler, right?

      Why am I even following this religion if it is clearly written by men?? Have I been duped? Manipulated? Conned?

      You never were following it, is the obvious answer. Besides, it is not a religion Christians follow, but God, The Man.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        So this is the power of atheists. Incorrect understanding of both biology and Bible scholarship.

        hmmm no response to

        Why am I even following this religion if it is clearly written by men?? Have I been duped? Manipulated? Conned?

        interesting

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          I just got bored, actually. These are all lazy. You guys literally can solve all your supposed dilemmas just by reading Scripture all the way through and taking the time to think as you go along.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you thought The Bible was written by something other than men, then that's your own fault. No one is making the claim that it's written by non-humans in the first place.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            But if they make mistakes, how do you know what is a mistake, and what isn’t? What is an invention, and what is real? What is a metaphor, and what is literal? Even Christians can’t agree on this. What a joke.

          • 4 months ago
            γρηγορεύω

            All that matters is the spiritual truth(s).

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good question. We use sacred tradition, the Magisterium, and Councils.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            if Mary was a virgin then how did Jesus have brothers?
            Why do you call the priest father when Jesus literally said “call no man father” ?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            1. Greek term brother used could mean step-brother, distant relative, friend. There's no evidence that he had biological brothers, but it's more likely the other meanings of brother. We even have the same sort of broad definition today.
            2. Jesus was using hyperbole to criticize the israeli leaders

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            those same criticisms apply to modern catholic leaders. It’s so obvious. I’m going insane

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but Jesus is using hyperbole about not calling anyone father. He's not making a rule to stop calling people father, like when he uses hyperbole about removing your eye or hand. Everyone understood these were hyperbole and not a commandment.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everything is hyperbole when I want it to be
            how convenient

            it's in the bible that a 'brother' is another connected through God. it's why Christians go around saying shit like "brother in Christ"
            moron btw

            then why did Jesus say “who is my mother? And who are my brothers?” as if to highlight that genetic bonds aren’t actually that important as our spiritual bonds? Have you even read the Bible?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
            Have YOU ever read the Bible? LMAO

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            my favorite part of "bible truthers" is that they think the bible was so obviously written in contradictions. As if the people who wrote about Jesus gave him a Virgin mother who never had any children besides him also had genetic brothers. Such a giant plot hole you think is written into the Bible rather than hidden information. Quite comical honestly. Also you're a virgin just not for the reasons Mary was

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible never says she remained a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. Only Catholics do

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            When does the bible say she had other children bucko?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mark 6.3 mentions Jesus' four siblings.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not her biological children.

            Psalm 69:8. The Psalm is about Jesus. We know that because John 2:17 refers to Psalm 69:9.

            Mary is considered the spiritual mother of all mankind.
            >501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."
            >LG 63; cf. Jn 19:26-27; Rom 8:29; Rev 12:17.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mark 15:40 says that James and Joses are the sons of Mary.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Mary Magdalene

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >read this i can't explain anything myself
            nice one buddy!

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just trying to give you a more complete answer. Figures that you took that in the most small-minded, mean-spirited way possible. Oyishners really are the worst.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            doesn't matter, don't care. maybe you can do something other than suck wiener to prove your points

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ranting, raving, seething
            I accept your concession.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >be you
            >prove nothing
            >post random blog articles
            >ignore evidence against you
            >smoke fent
            yeah we got a real winner here

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >vulgarity
            >ad hominem attacks
            >behavior about as non-Christian as one can get
            I already accepted your concession. You don't need to prove repeatedly that you're a complete psychopath. You've already made that clear.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            J-Jesus had siblings!! See here! It says brotherS!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >bearing false witness
            ur going 2 hell bruh

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Everyone saved is the son of Mary. She's literally called the New Eve.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, I gave you the Bible, you gave me your catechism. Which one do you trust?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can't read? The Bible verse are in my post.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jn 19:26-27; Rom 8:29; Rev 12:17.
            And how do these verses prove that Mary didn't have any other biological children? Revelation 12 does not refer to Mary btw; that is clear from the context.

            You're telling me that Mary, a law-abiding israeli woman who offered sacrifices for her purification (Luke 2:21–23; Lev. 12:2–4) was a perpetual virgin who denied her own husband his marital rights (1 Cor. 7:4-5)?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say those verses prove she had no other biological children. Do you have any proof that she did?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            As I mentioned, John 2:17 + Psalm 69:8-9. Jesus is talking about His brethren being His mother's children (meaning those "brothers" mentioned in Mark are not "cousins", but actual brothers). We can spiritualize it, sure, and I'm not dogmatic either way, but then again I did not make her perpetual virginity a dogma that one MUST believe because the Catholic Church says so. The Biblical justification for that simply isn't there. I would like to think that she did in fact remain a virgin, but I have absolutely no grounds for that belief.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What proof do you have that those are referring to her biological children?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mark 6:3:
            3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

            Jesus is called the "son of Mary" and then His brethren are listed. You don't believe these are the sons of Mary, but I then pointed to Psalm 69:8 where Jesus says,
            I am become a stranger unto my brethren,
            and an alien unto my mother’s children.
            Which is consistent with how His brethren reacted to Him in the Gospels. There, the brethren are SPECIFICALLY called His "mother's children" and are thus not just cousins.

            Is that absolute, solid proof? No, and I said I wasn't dogmatic on this issue either way. But it's far better than anything the Catholic church has concocted and forced you to believe.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're using circular reasoning. You made the claim that those verses are referring to her biological children. The only evidence you gave were the verses themselves. That's not proof those are her BIOLOGICAL children.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What evidence do you have that they aren't? You made that claim first. At least I have provided verses from the Bible which, if you're being completely honest with yourself, should at least make you question so-called "infallible" dogma. You provided some BS from a catechism with some irrelevant verses attached to it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now you're moving the goalpost; that was predictable.
            >At least I have provided verses from the Bible which, if you're being completely honest with yourself, should at least make you question so-called "infallible" dogma.
            No, circular reasoning isn't persuasive to me at all. I showed you verses which show Mary being referred to as a mother to others who aren't her biological children. The Greek word for brother that's used in the verses can refer to someone who is not your biological brother. There's verses that refer to hundreds of people being the brother of Jesus, and according to your logic that would mean Mary gave birth to hundreds of children. You made the claim that verses are referring to her biological children. Your evidence for that claim are the verses and nothing else.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not moving any goalposts. You're the one who first made the claim that they are not her biological children and I debated that point afterwards (I'm not the first anon).

            Yes, that's the point. Jesus specifically distinguishes between "brothers" and "brothers" (Mark 3:31-35 and Matthew 12:46-50). That is, those brothers who didn't believe in Him (John 7:5) vs those who did believe in Him (not His biological brothers, but believers). The point here is that it's not your genetic lineage which counts, but your faith. So that argument actually works against you. You only have the meaning of the Greek word to cling onto, but then why would the Doauy Rheims, a Catholic bible, translate Mark 6:3 as "brother" and then go ahead and translate Luke 1:36 as "cousin" if both words refer to "cousins"? And if the word doesn't mean "cousin" or "brother" then who are these people in Mark 6:3? How are they related to Jesus?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're the one who first made the claim that they are not her biological children
            I don't know why you're saying this because you can scroll up the thread and see that this is incorrect. Why would someone bring up that they're not her biological children if someone didn't already say that they are? The people in Mark 6:3 could be his step-brothers from Joseph's previous marriage. I never said they're his cousins.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but I was not the anon making that claim in the first place, so I'm not moving any goalposts. I argued against the point you made, but have never at any point claimed to have infallible proof that they are Mary's biological children. I've said that I'm not dogmatic about this and HOPE that she did remain virgin. Fact is that we don't know. And you don't know if those people are Joseph's children from a previous marriage because it doesn't say so anywhere in the Bible. The problem here is that the Catholic church has made a dogma out of such flimsy evidence and enforced a belief on people about something of which there's no solid proof.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right, we don't know if you're a Protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura. That's one of the reasons I'm not a Protestant. Where do you think the canon of the Bible came from? Catholicism has sacred tradition.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wait a minute, I see your point. I did in fact make that claim (though it wasn't intended as such) and doing so moved the goalpost later on. My apologies. Yes, I believe in Sola Scriptura and would like to discuss it, but it's way too late where I am (Europe). Have to go bed. God bless..

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I probably could've been clearer earlier, as I've been doing other things all day as I checked the thread, so I was rushing some of my posts. Goodnight and god bless.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen for your position, anon.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look up the word "brother" it translates as well to "relative"
            As to Psalm 69
            >You, God, know my folly;
            >my guilt is not hidden from you.
            do you think this is about Jesus?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That part of the Psalm would obviously be referring to David. It's very normal to have multiple applications in the Psalter, even in the same Psalm (Luke 24:44). The Messianic part would be verses 7-9. The disciples make that connection in John 2:17.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >mentions Jesus' siblings
            >are his Apostles
            nice one bro

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, one would hope Jesus' siblings supported his ministry.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Holy quads. Fun fact: the first two chapters of the King James Bible (Genesis 1 and 2) contain 5555 letters

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Psalm 69:8. The Psalm is about Jesus. We know that because John 2:17 refers to Psalm 69:9.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            John 7 starts with his brothers encouraging him to go up to the Feast of Tabernacles.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Matthew 1:25 says Joseph "knew her not until her firstborn son was born" meaning he didn't have sex with her until after Jesus was born. Her being a virgin was only important during her pregnancy with Jesus. She didn't stay a virgin and had children later.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            can you post a screenshot that doesn't take up 1.5 of my screens for two paragraphs? frick me

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            homosexual phoneposter

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's in the bible that a 'brother' is another connected through God. it's why Christians go around saying shit like "brother in Christ"
            moron btw

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do you call the priest father when Jesus literally said “call no man father”
            Tbf, not all Christian sects do this.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are an Amerimutt who doesn't understand the context of Greek words. Paul uses the same word for "brother" (adelphoi) to apply to numbers of followers of Jesus that are obviously too high to refer to Jesus' biological brothers.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Implying a story being in the Bible makes the actions described automatically righteous.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      what the frick?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The point is the wife/mother looked back toward Sodom and Gomorrah and was punished for it. It represents her inability to turn away from the realm of sexual immorality. Likewise her daughters turn into sex freaks because of the sin of their now lost mother. Basically don't give in to temptations unless you want future generations to be screwed up.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      What's wrong with it? Don't you understand it shows how Sodomah was poisoned by sexual inmorality and the damnation it brings? Lot was the only righteous man in that whole city.
      If you wanted to complain about weird israeli morality you should have chose the passages about Jacob israeliteing Essau out of his birthright

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's ok, Esau forgives Jacob in the end and they reconcile. For some reason though, Talmudic exegesis has a really negative (and, to me, unreasonable) take on Esau.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    christbros… not like this..

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      They just had a different definition of bird, so what?

      This is funny though

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Who rules the ants?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody. The "queen" is just an egg layer. It's not like she's making proclamations and edicts.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          You don't know that

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        genetics

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Your mom

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      So this is the power of atheists. Incorrect understanding of both biology and Bible scholarship.

  3. 4 months ago
    γρηγορεύω

    What's the problem?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      They just had a different definition of bird, so what?

      This is funny though

      >God say bat be bird. Science say bat no be bird. Science no wrong. Therefore God wrong. Therefore Christianity no true.
      t. enlightened atheist

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Therefore Christianity no true.
        that's from the hebrew bible tho?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          The God of the israelites and the God of the Christians is the same. The difference is Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah. The israelites believe the Messiah is yet to come.

      • 4 months ago
        γρηγορεύω

        Very enlightening.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >119 up votes
          >710 down votes
          Funny how this quote came to define the reddit atheist community when even they hated it.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wow this is the origin of that? I can't believe the whole r/atheism thing was only in 2013.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Kind of puts the whole thing in question doesn't it?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not making a scientific claim.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        u know the difference between an analytic and a stipulative Definition?

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >that time the Bible said pi = 3 when God could have easily wowed everyone with the advanced knowledge that pi is irrational and close to 3.14
    brothers in God… why must he test us so??

    • 4 months ago
      γρηγορεύω

      If they Bible is the word of God, why doesn't it contain instructions for repairing my car's motor?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The circumference of the inner rim could easily be 3 while the outer rim is pi, if it's built a certain way. Three-dimensional objects aren't wireframes built out of lines and the inner rim will have a smaller circumference. This ratio of pi to 3 could signify the width of the rim as well.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why am I even following this religion if it is clearly written by men?? Have I been duped? Manipulated? Conned?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      you want a religion written by women? try some west coast new age shit i guess?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most new age (and new thought) authors are men.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous
  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >half the messianic prophecies are forced and are talking about an unrelated event
    it’s so over…

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not my problem

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >They are an abomination
    Seems unnecessarily rude

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/
    This blogpost is ultimately about trannies, but the first part addresses this sort of silly anti-Bible argument and shows how dumb it is.

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whoa. Ancient people didn't define animals according to the Linnaean hierarchical classification system? What the frick?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      “Wow! The Bible doesn’t agree with how modern humans subjectively group up animals! This must mean they’re moronic and wrong!”

      >that bats aren't birds is a subjective and modern idea!!!
      The absolute state of christcuckery

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Don't eat bats
    He was fricking right

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe we should have proselytized the Chinese harder.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    How about you shut the frick up and actually understand the concept that faith can only be itself through itself and that overcoming the offense is what makes a Christian a true Christian. I know that people are going to waste their time giving explanations to these inconsistencies and trying to justify them, but again, that's a waste of time. The true believer believes only in faith and in Christ alone and overcomes the offense. Arguing about the offense isn't faith; it involves itself in the realm of the worldly and so is always doomed to fail.

    The Bible is the Truth and the Way and the Light. It isn't science and it never professed to be. It isn't historical because it never professed to be. It is always and only sacred literature that provides access to the Divine and is the Divine.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fideism is bad.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism#Criticism

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not fideism. What I'm arguing against is the idea of arguing with people who want to talk about the Bible in a worldly and secular way; picking it apart scientifically and historically. You can introduce rationality into the Bible insofar as you stay within the realm of the Divine like Aquinas did. But what I'm arguing against is the synthetic mixture of the divine and the worldly because the latter has no place there.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ah, I misread what you wrote. You're right. The Bible shouldn't be read as if it were a scientific treatise.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >aieee stop you can't "pick it apart scientifically and historically"
          >heh... I'll just believe it anyway
          Who can give water to the horse that will not drink of its own accord? You are mentally and spiritually limited, and as such the original anon made a dear mistake in trying to reason with you like he would an equal.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who are you? He admitted that he misread what I wrote, for which I forgive him. But who are you? As soon as you start to pick the Bible apart in a scientific and historical manner, you've left the realm of the Divine and of the Bible; now you're playing the role of a detective or a scientist scrutinizing and judging rather than thinking over and accepting. That's all I meant. Don't ever call me a horse.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      I get what you're saying, but that doesn't apply in this case. If the Bible said the Earth is a plain, you could argue that's how we perceive it and it wasn't meant as a scientific description of the actual shape. Saying that the statement is wrong would be nitpicky.
      But calling a mammal a bird, just because it has wings is plain stupid and wrong. You can see that it was a genuine mistake, because every other animal that was listed was actually a bird.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then it's fricking over, heh? It's fricking over then, heh? Look, the inscrutable, miraculous Bible just got something wrong in calling a mammal a bird! That's thousands of years of knowledge, wisdom, and insight all down the drain there. There you go. It's all gone and in vain and all for nothing, heh? But that's what you're saying. Let's toss out all interpretation, the effort of interpreting, the analysis, the scrutiny, the worship; all because in one particular section of this divine, sacred literature, they got one thing wrong. That does it: God doesn't exist. Jesus died in vain because a bat isn't a bird. There we go now.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why are you so insecure lmao, nobody said any of that, you just created all that in your head

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I didn't. See, that was the implication of this thread from the start, and of what most atheists and agnostics say about the Bible. It's really sad, actually; you shouldn't be calling me insecure. The amount of time atheists, agnostics, and irreligious people spend on analyzing the Bible and scrutinizing its inconsistencies, saying God isn't real here, Jesus died for nothing there; the amount of time they spend on that, you'd think they were actually believers or theists themselves. I think atheists, and this is the worst point, atheists spend more time trying to disprove what they don't believe than believers spend trying to prove what they believe exists. That's the fricking horrible part. Believers spend all their time responding to atheists and demons rather than studying the Bible. The only people who actually study the Bible are atheists trying to prove the non-existence of God, meaning any engagement with an atheist is a waste of time because they're allied with Satan alone.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            But no atheist says they don't believe in God BECAUSE of that one verse. It's a clear overreaction from you. Nobody argues that you should give up your faith because a bat is not a bird, they have other arguments. Stuff like this is used because it's funny, not as a main argument against the Bible.
            I'm OP btw, so I know best why I created this thread.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        how is the bible wrong for grouping a bat with other flying animals? lol

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Would you ask that too if they put a dragonfly and a bee in a list of birds?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            you only think it's a list of birds because the translator used the word fowl to describe them. the next lines of the verse ensures your understanding that it is simply about flying creatures

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the next lines of the verse ensures your understanding that it is simply about flying creatures
            Fair enough

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    [insert chad / basedjak meme, le based nord gamer saying "Yes." when presented with the absurd bat passage]

  14. 4 months ago
    γρηγορεύω

    Why hasn't anyone successfully prayed atheism away and ended it yet?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seems that God supports atheism too.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Atheism is internal to Christianity and is the way that the latter develops itself into higher forms.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        That would explain why the Catholic Church hierarchy aids and abets pedophile priests. They obviously don't believe in Hell.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're speaking to me as if I believe in the Church: I don't. I believe in God, Christ, Hegel, and Kierkegaard.

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Bible has mistakes because it was written by people. The Bible wasn't dictated by God, nor was it written by Him. The Bible was written by people that found God and were inspired by God. Obviously they're still people, who make mistakes. Some mistakes in a book full of wisdom doesn't discredit the entire book.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Muslims claim the Koran was written by God and is flawless.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christian fundamentalists think that about the Bible too

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          how can u breathe?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Islam has a completely different concept of their scripture.
        For Christians Jesus is the word of God, for Muslims it's the Quran. So, the equivalent of Jesus in Islam is not Muhammad, but the Quran.
        No Christian believes that the Bible itself is the word of God, but that it's Jesus, he is the word of God's incarnate.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >God's
          *God

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, Christians believe the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God. They believe in its infallibility because although it was written by men, they were acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit, so it might as well have been written by God.
          Jesus being the “word” is just a bad translation of the word Logos. It doesn’t mean Jesus is the “word of God,” instead of the Bible, that doesn’t even make any sense.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >No Christian believes that the Bible itself is the word of God
          Protestants especially in America literally worship "the Bible" to the point that they adopt willfully contradictory teachings about it to justify their worship.

          Hell they don't even worship just the Bible as much as they worship a specific version of the Bible authorized by some sodomite in England.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            American Bible worship is pretty strange, it definitely feels blasphemous at times. They worship the Law and base their faith just as much on the Old Testament as the personhood of Jesus. They’re basically israeli, hence why they act the way they do.

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    “Wow! The Bible doesn’t agree with how modern humans subjectively group up animals! This must mean they’re moronic and wrong!”

  17. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whats the original hebrew say?

  18. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God wrote the perfect book for us to understand everything
    >Noooo stop misunderstanding the book it's just uhhhhhh misinterpreted/mistranslated, etc
    Do Christchads really?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Mistranslation is the far bigger issue. You’ll have people arguing for decades over the saying “blessed are the meek” when the same word Praeis is used later in Matthew and translated as “humble.”
      You can be as skeptical as you want whenever Christians give wildly abstract interpretations of every verse you throw at them, but the mistranslation problem is way more important if we’re going to argue about what the text actually means.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not an issue if the Holy Spirit is guiding into all truth (John 16:13).

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          So there is no such thing as misinterpretation of Jesus’s teachings because of the Holy Spirit? Who’s to say what’s in accordance with the Holy Spirit and what isn’t?
          Stupid idea. The Scofield Bible was made with the express purpose of turning American Christians into zionists. I don’t think the Holy Spirit had much of a hand in that.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Who’s to say what’s in accordance with the Holy Spirit and what isn’t?
            The Holy Spirit is to say, obviously. It's not up to any of us, but God. Didn't I just tell you? God is real, so this is entirely possible and indeed happens. In Luke it says this:

            "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
            For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
            If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
            Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
            If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"
            - Luke 11:9-13.

            So then, you might very well have not because you ask not, or because you "ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." It's as simple as that.

            >The Scofield Bible was made with the express purpose of turning American Christians into zionists. I don’t think the Holy Spirit had much of a hand in that.
            You'd probably be surprised how many people are too concerned with what others are doing rather than focusing on their own walk, and they never seek guidance from God at all, while seeking the truth as such, studying and praying. In some cases their whole lives perhaps they never do this. It really is that direct, I believe.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Mistranslation is the far bigger issue.
        If the Bible is to be believed this issue was caused by God himself with the Tower of Babel.

  19. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fish have fins, therefore whales are fish
    Birds have wings, therefore bats are birds
    Simple as

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Penguins have fins,
      therefore penguins are fish
      Flying fish have wings,
      therefore flying fish are birds
      Simple as

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, penguins are birds and flying fish are fish. Can't you just tell? Maybe you're losing connection to The Divine Logos

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          You said having fins is what makes an animal a fish, and having wings is what makes it a bird. Can't you just tell? Maybe you're losing connection to the meaning of your own words

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Define chair, you can't find a definition to include every instance. Natural science is silly in this way, as it serves no purpose to narrow down the categories to extreme to make the system fit, since the point of the categories are for regular people anyway. At some point one must chalk it down to intutition, as we have always done, continue to do still even with our scientific categories and always will

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Define chair
            "A chair is a type of seat, typically designed for one person and consisting of one or more legs, a flat or slightly angled seat and a back-rest."
            >you can't find a definition to include every instance. Natural science is silly in this way
            The only silly one is you. An animal that has lungs is not a fish, even if it has fins and an animal that doesn't lay eggs is not a bird, even it has wings. Every 4 year old understand this.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Taxonomy isn't universal, moron.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, show me a system where a whale is a fish and a bat is a bird

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Greg's taxonomy.

            Birds: turkey, chicken, swift, robin, bat
            Fish: tuna, carp, swordfish, seahorse, whale

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What in the name of frick is Greg's taxonomy? Any resources with his reasoning?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm Greg. Taxonomy is an invention. I invented Greg's taxonomy. Modern taxonomy was invented by Carl Linnaeus. Nothing wrong with modern taxonomy, but the point is that it's not something that existed before Linnaeus invented it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your taxonomy has no basis in reality. A taxonomy can't be arbitrary, it has to follow a system. And there is no system in calling a whale a fish. It would be like calling otters ducks.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Any invention can be arbitrary. I just invented an arbitrary taxonomy. You literally saw it

            Greg's taxonomy.

            Birds: turkey, chicken, swift, robin, bat
            Fish: tuna, carp, swordfish, seahorse, whale

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            In my taxonomy you're an ape

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you. So you follow the scientific classification of hominids.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hominids are not apes. What kind of fricking moron am I even talking to here?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            moron

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >At some point one must chalk it down to intutition, as we have always done
            Your intuition tells you that the whale looks more like A than like B? What kind of fricked up intuition do you have?

  20. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    all of those animals most likely had some major parasite or disease factor that made them dangerous to eat
    remember morons, we just had a global pandemic blamed on a Chinese person eating a bat. go make an apologetic for that, morons

  21. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not literature

  22. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    for those that really want answers about most things Bible, these seem good links
    https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
    https://www.newadvent.org/summa/

  23. 4 months ago
    I rape atheists in the ass

    Atheists make threads like this because they're probably troons, gays, sodomites, Blacks, israelites, or all of the above (likely) and the Bible clearly forbids their lifestyle. So, instead of just living in hell (outside of God's grace) they have to try and make Christianity wrong somehow. Ignore threads like this unless you're just going to troll them.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      You worship a God who set up reality so that "the path to hell is wide and most travel it while the path to Heaven is narrow and few find it". Such a God is manifestly evil on balance.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        because that's how you read it with your skeptic bias.
        >13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
        not controlling your urges is more difficult; especially as society degrades further and further with more and more people of your kind. this is a choice of man, not god. in a world of free will, love is a choice and genuine. the downside to this is the manifestation of hedonism and materialism to lead man astray.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Where do man's urges come from? Where did this "world of free will" come from? Why is it that the structure of reality is such that most people go astray and only few find the path? This is, by definition, a structural problem with reality which would fall squarely on the shoulders of God, not on men who were made so weak and find themselves in circumstances stacked against them.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't rely on your own understanding. That's a mistake.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, so total subservience to authority. Like a slave, you must not think, or reason, or understand. Only obey. This is the fate of the noble creature we know as man? This is ends for the ultimate design of our race? Nay. Lift your eyes above this abjection. Stand on your own feet and proclaim you will use your will to forge the best path you can, with compassion and wisdom, as best as you are capable of. Reach upwards, do not accept your place as a slave in the dirt. Do not let preachers poison your mind with shame that you do not deserve, with blame that you are blameless for. Nature made things bleak, but Nature has gifted us with the small glimmer, the tiniest hope that we can lift ourselves above the lowly stamp of our origin. Reject the false idols of religion, forge your own path in solidarity with your fellow man to carve out an existence worth having in the cold and uncaring universe. Anything less is to squander one of the most precious opportunities to ever exist.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not what I said. You built a straw man.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            All they had to do was not eat from a single frickin' tree. Smfh senpai.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you really define hell as "outside of God's grace" you're not a real Christian either, you fricking soft watered-down nugay.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If you really define hell as "outside of God's grace" you're not a real Christian either, you fricking soft watered-down nugay.

        To live outside of God's grace is to be in Hell. You're not understanding anything, you just want to be mad at someone for how much you ruin your own life.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, so there is no real hell where people burn? It only means outside of God's grace?
          Then you're a new age watered-down soi christian.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes traditionally Hell means severe punishments for sins and lack of salvation. Christians were creative in their ideas of torture but it all came back to showing loyalty by being approving of punishment. Spreading progressive images of Hell would probably get you maimed or killed during most of Christian history.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >fell for the artistic depictions of hell being literal meme
            You probably think Satan is literally a red winged demon too lol. Nowhere in all of the OT/NT does it describe hell as how you or many Christians believe it to be.

            I want to insult your intelligence, but I won't. You show a clear lack in understanding of your own religion.

  24. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Moby Dick say whale is fish
    >but reddit say whale is mammal
    >book bad

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think that MD implies that whales lay eggs, he knew they were mammals, he probably just thought that a mammal could also be a fish.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Moby-Dick is a work of fiction, anon.

  25. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A BAT IS NOT A BIOLOGICAL FOWL, GOD IS NOT REAL
    stunning argument, 'tismo

  26. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    modern scientific classifications are completely arbitrary anon. the idea that "a thing has to meet this exact criteria to be a bird, and if if it means this other criteria its something else" was non existent in ancient times

  27. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

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