/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The historical evidence is compelling. See video.

Physicalism is also provably wrong because of the hard problem of consciousness and infinite regression, so if that is the belief which is replacing your faith then you should reconsider.

Ultimately believing or not is a choice. There is no proof. In fact nothing is provable except for the fact that our own consciousness exist and are having subjective experience. Everything that we presume to be the "real world" is based on the assumption that our senses is giving us information from something external from us and that that information is accurate.

It's a choice, it always was a choice, and if you choose to believe, that is what faith is.

"Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me."

-John 20:29

I'll pray for you, anon.

>naturalism

Literally impossible, which it inherits from materialism.

>Aristotle's theory of forms

You mean Plato's theory of forms? Aristotle argued against the idea of separate and imposed forms, re: third man argument.

His ideas on the metaphysical, however, are so basic as to be implicit in any argument about the immaterial. If you deny the immaterial, your argument is void (since it too is immaterial). You can't just shed intelligibility with a proposition, since then there will be no intelligibility to assert it in the first place. The fact people don't immediately recognize this used to bother me, then I realized there are people who think we live on a flat earth, we didn't land on the moon, and that communism can work. Ignorance seems to be the common state.

>historicity of the Gospels

That is pretty much the only thing anti-Christians don't deny anymore. Atheist scholars even agree on the truth of the empty tomb as historical fact. With everything trying to explain this having a mound of evidence against it, from conspiracy theories to the legend theories to hallucination theories of the empty tomb.

The belief in God is undeniable. You cannot be a rational, logical, or educated person and not know about God. It would have to be willful ignorance. While I agree that the belief in Jesus Christ is not in this same way (since it relies upon you finding historians findings and deductions compelling, as well as accepting eye witness testimony as compelling, which I find in an age of cynicism people can be all over the place on, accepting it sometimes on the flimsiest of pretense, and totally denying it on other times). Which I can only respond with: on the grounds you dismiss Christianity, be careful since being logically coherent would mean you would have to dismiss a vast majority of history which has LESS evidence than it does. To the point pretty much anything older than 150 years is out the window. Since people aren't willing to do that, I just say, check again.

>>261240

I'll try to watch the vid soon, though I must admit I have given up all trust on documentaries and informational videos. Every time I watch one I look things up afterward and find startling ommissions, half-truths and so on. This happened with the Exodus documentary that got recommended around here a while back.

I don't think physicalism is provably wrong just because there are knowledge gaps. Though of course, that is a matter of faith ;)))

I don't deny the metaphysical, I just think the naturalistic explanation for what we can observe occuring within the universes and on Earth are sufficient and more plausible than the religious ones. Especially models of human behaviour, I think the human condition is much better explained by Darwinism than by Christianity. All of our instincts, impulses and constructs are a fitting response to our environment and their strengths and limits reflect their fitness in the conditions we evolved in.

I agree that we cannot have irrefutable proof for anything, and we must always rely on assumptions. I think that while there are certain mysteries that one should not be afraid to humbly concede we may never realize in any belief system, I don't think there's enough evidence for me to "assume" Christianity's truth by default at this point.

Thank you for your prayers, anon.

>>261241

I can't refute that the immaterial exists, and I don't intend to. I may have bitten off more than I can chew.

Here's an example of something I find troubling; transubstantiation.

The bread and wine and transformed literally into the body and blood of Christ. This is a miracle and it is one that is not visibly apparent. The substance is changed but the accident remains.

What evidence is there for the substance of anything? All we have are so-called accidents. The only reason a door is a door is because it's elements are arranged together to form it so. The atoms which compose it may be completely different in 7 years, but it will have the same properties as it did 7 years ago so it is the same door. It is not a door because of some immaterial dooriness - and I'm not referring to human categorization, but it's inherent properties are not shaped by an ideal, only by what exists presently.

>>261250

The body and blood of Christ aren't defined by the structure of atoms. You are trying to reduce God to materialism. You can do that with a door. "Door" is a label to a material thing. God isn't.

What exists presently isn't just the structures of atoms.

>>261250

>transubstantiation

That is Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Not all Christians believe that. And I don't know about the orthodox churches, but Catholics openly state they have no idea how it works and describe it as a divine mystery. So I don't think they would try and offer an explanation.

>>261252

I think this is being unfair to him, since he is absolutely right. If you don't believe in transubstantiation, all you have is the accidental qualities (>>261250 good use of the word bud, most people use "incident" but I really like accident, more old school). It's not just that the atoms are arranged in a certain way but the intelligibility contained within it is only as imminent.

For the sake of coherency, it sort of has to be a divine mystery in the sense that, how can it be one thing in every meaningful way, but then ALSO be something else in a meaningful way?

>>261254

It's not hard to understand. Reality is not only materialism. What he says only creates a problem when you try to apply materialism, which is nonsense.

It is a mistery in the sense that we can just try to extrapolate form the material things we know .

Material properties aren't "every meaningful way".

>>261252

Except it's God manifesting materially in a material thing. God isn't material, but Christ's body is. The bread is supposed literally becomes Christ's body, not merely a spiritual incarnation of God.

If God has given material things in the universe essential properties distinct from what is materially observable, then what is their function?

>>261253

You are right. However I think the Orthodox do not even adhere to transubstantiation (they still believe it is really Christ's blood and body, mind) and consider it a divine mystery.

>>261258

I never said it was only materialism. I'd argue almost the exact opposite. But it's the starting point for the acquisition of information in a lot of cases. In this case, if someone doesn't accept the tradition, this is the issue.

>>261259

I think the argument would be thus: the nature of the miracle is exactly that: an overriding presence of the bread itself. Since the universe is clearly ordered in the way you described, it's essential substance being replaced without the qualities being replaced is the express nature of God's will. Since Christ is Lord, if Christ says "this isn't bread" then it isn't bread anymore.

I think that would be coherent from a catholic perspective (and other Christian perspectives as well, just the difference being if that is how you interpret Christ speaking at the last supper, that is: metaphorical vs imposing his divine will).

>>261259

Christ' body isn't defined by a structure of atoms. Christ himself said it was his body and blood, and lost many followers because of it.

In materialism there is nothing beyond structures of atoms. There are no "essential properties", those are just labels we give to things we observe. But if there are things beyond structures of atoms there are no problems.

Keep also in ming that this discussion is under the assumption that we know what material things are, but we don't even know anything about them. Atoms are made from other particles, which are made from other particles, and in the end there is an endless layer. The same happens with forces and in general, everything.

>>261250

> I don't think physicalism is provably wrong just because there are knowledge gaps. Though of course, that is a matter of faith ;)))

There are some gaps that are provably unbridgeable. Namely if there is an infinite series between the effect and the ultimate cause or if there is an effect with no cause. Existence itself suffers from this unbridgeable gap and it breaks the logic and determinism that physicalism is predicated upon.

> I don't deny the metaphysical, I just think the naturalistic explanation for what we can observe occuring within the universes and on Earth are sufficient and more plausible than the religious ones. Especially models of human behaviour, I think the human condition is much better explained by Darwinism than by Christianity. All of our instincts, impulses and constructs are a fitting response to our environment and their strengths and limits reflect their fitness in the conditions we evolved in.

Evolution is not at odds with Christianity. The only occurrences in this universe that I think needs a religious explanation is consciousness, existence itself and Jesus Christ.

> I agree that we cannot have irrefutable proof for anything, and we must always rely on assumptions. I think that while there are certain mysteries that one should not be afraid to humbly concede we may never realize in any belief system, I don't think there's enough evidence for me to "assume" Christianity's truth by default at this point.

Ye of little faith. You had a choice and you've chosen wrong. I hope you'll return to the faith and I implore you to pray.

Consider finally whether or not you shouldn't believe in it even if you don't see any logical reason to believe. As I said, faith is a choice. I know that I choose to believe, and I make that choice because I think Christianity is good for society, makes me a better person, is a European tradition, has a good probability of being right and has terrible consequences if incorrectly rejected.

Watch the video when you have a chance. God bless.

>>261264

Yeah I guess transubstantiaton relies on trust in God in general. I just can't shake the feeling that it is a type of LARPing mentality. "Oh well uh it is this because well we said so lol :)"

A big problem for me is that so much of Christianity focuses on "belief" in and of itself as a virtue. Of course, being able to be brave and humble enough to accept certain tenets of Christianity can be seen as commendable. What I don't get is why it is so much of a virtue to believe in Chrisitanity, since it is clear from the start that there is something inherently unbelievable about Christianity. Why?

Why is almost every miracle performed by priests relegated to the unseen?

Pure coincidence.

>>261265

How do we know Christ's body isn't defined by that? Why isn't it? Isn't the whole point of God's incarnation that he manifested as a material, human being?

Forgive me if I'm being frustrating and ignorant, anon.

>>261267

>>261266

I think a lot of what Christianity analyzes in the human condition is interesting theologically but can be better understood in a naturalistic perspective with taking natural selection into account.

For instance children suffer higher rates of abuse from step parents + siblings and shit, than from genetic parents. A proposed explanation is that this is because the parents are hostile or more neglectful to offspring that do not spread their genetic material.

>>261272

> For instance children suffer higher rates of abuse from step parents + siblings and shit, than from genetic parents. A proposed explanation is that this is because the parents are hostile or more neglectful to offspring that do not spread their genetic material.

I agree, but I don't see why that is incompatible with Christianity.

>>261267

>>261269

Sorry misclicked before I wrote anything and can't delete.

Well it's not because the priest said so, the reasoning that it's because God said so.

Also, if that is what is hanging you up, you don't have to be catholic. Entire denominations exist because they came to semi-similar conclusions as you did.

I would be careful when listening to people who talk about "belief" and they mean "blind belief". That is something immature or unstudied Christians sort of jump onto because of cultural osmosis and they think that is itself either biblical or advocated by a church. Aside from the miracles of the high church, I would argue just about everything but one specific thing needs to be taken on "blind faith". That is, something which has no evidence or line of reasoning for.

I would argue the exact opposite about there being something inherently unbelievable. In this case, strictly empirically: if it were inherently unbelievable, we wouldn't have a problem of people going on blind faith. Because that would imply they were somehow working against themselves to do it. When the rapid spread and insistence on blind faith implies the exact opposite by it's very definition: there is something inherently believable about it even when lacking sufficient reason for the person. This point is subtle but I hope I make it well: the existence of "blind faith" cannot exist at the same time with something being inherently unbelievable. Since it would work against itself in the case of a neutral position.

I say this as "problem" because I find very little about Christianity to be "blind". Knowledge and existence of God existed before Christ (even biblical, the entire Old testament for example), and can be deduced from absolute first principles in ways that simple are not refutable unless you are willing to paint a picture of the world which becomes incoherent (noted by the litany of knowledge supporting a trancendental prime being we call God that can be arrived at through almost every facet of our faculty, from empiricism a la Bacon, rationalist from Descartes or Liebniz, our ability to grasp knowledge itself from Kant, and so on).

Then for the reliability of the testimonies of the Gospel (And Pauls letters) is strictly academic. There is every standard and reason in the world to believe them to be authentic and true (notably, the most important part being the resurrection, which is also, ironically, the most provable part historically).

The only part that comes in which requires "blind belief" (That is to say, something which you have to accept or reject on it's merit alone and have no supporting evidence for), is that Christ indeed does love you, and if you accept him, will accept you. John 3:16

Which, when you think about it, is something we have to do with really every person. You have to just sort of accept on faith that your parents do indeed love you, and aren't just doing it because they are obligated to by law. Or that your spouse loves you and not just because she wants something else.

And it might seem like, if you accept the premises of logic and reason to know God exist and qualities of God, accept the testimonies of the Gospel's to be true, and believe Jesus was who he indeed claimed to be based on the evidence of the empty tomb, then what person would reject Jesus Christ at that point?

Well lots of people. People reject the needs of other people they know in their daily life who profess to them directly. Because this is the part that you have to accept on a personal level ,and there isn't any real argument for it. I could say "life is better this way or that way", and it might be true, but that is irrelevant to the will within us to accept love and give it.

That is really the only part I would ever consider "blind faith".

You have to be willing to open up for it's own sake on that.

>>261280

Nobody cares about genes. People just use to love less those that are less related to them.

>>261282

It's not a conscious care for the genes, that's the point. It's a byproduct of the fact that caring for those more related to you is a common trait because it increases the chance of survival.

+ propagation of genes with that trait

>>261280

>blind faith in evolution

Actually that is exactly what is often asked of people. As a systems physicist I highly doubt people have gone through the literature studying the macroscopic effect individual actors in a system can create through (seemingly) uncoordinated actions. In the way that knowledge is gained, that is (from gathering information with an account). It is actually exactly blind faith when we ask the lay person to believe in almost everything by an expert of various fields, since it relies on them trusting the authenticity of the persons skills in that field that what they are saying is not incorrect, or a fabrication.

And as someone who see's a self-selective process as both true and biblical (not just compatible but I believe there is scripture to suggest that this is exactly what God did in several parts of the OT: resolving a system through self-selection), I would argue there is something inherently believable about natural-selection as well! Because there is a truth factor to it and that human's have an instinct to this element in information. I must first though, point out, that in common vernacular "evolution" has come to mean several different elements of an overall field in what it comes to explain. Here I strictly defend the mathematical process of natural selection (that is, the force exerted on the choices of individual actors of a system by elements present in the acting environment, causing a higher level of order within the system because of it. That is, imposed).

I would also heavily separate the mechanistic aspect of something with the teleological aspect of it. Since the mechanical nature of something is subservient. In this case, part of me wanting something better for my children is that I love them and believe we are meant to do good things for our children. Mechanistically helping them is then initiated because of that. The ramifications of "better" of the human condition correlating to better health, and possession of "me"ness (thus, genetic health). In the same way I gravity is mechanically how I throw a ball through the air into a hoop, but winning the game is the actual action/cause. We can describe the entire event kinetically, but that doesn't mean we ascribe to the motion the cause of itself.

But back to the point because I think it is an important one, the genesis of blind faith has to be strictly because something in inherently believable.

>>261280

>>261286

Let us construct a system here then. Let us take a proposition A and B. Proposition A will be inherently believable. Proposition B will be inherently unbelievable. "Inherent" here is used to denote an ontological weight. And three possible situations regarding evidence. Evidence here being used to denote an argument in a logical form from first principles or from empirical data.

If proposition A is stated with no supporting evidence, on the balance it will still be believable because it is inherently believable (this is our system "identity" in this case).

If proposition A is stated with supporting evidence, then it will be extremely believable because it is both intuitive (inherently believable) as well as supported. To form a counter position would take blind faith of a high degree (since it would go against intuition and evidence).

If proposition A is stated with counter evidence, then it could (and depending on the person, would) still be believable based on the weight of the counter evidence versus the "Face value" of it's inherent believability. An example might be "the world is flat". Since everything looks flat, and from the day you are born has always looked flat, there is an inherent intuitiveness to this. Thus in the face of counter-evidence (say, relative angle of star measurements, which may not make sense or matter to someone), you would have to counter with "blind faith", since you have no supporting evidence and are presented with counter-evidence. My original postulate.

If proposition B is stated with no supporting evidence, on the balance it would not be believable because it is inherently unbelievable (This systems "identity" again).

If proposition B is stated with supporting evidence, then it will be on the weight of the evidence against the inherent unbelievablity of it which determines if it is accepted. In this case, accepting it means to accept the evidence over it's inherently intuitiveness. But to disavow it must be done in spite of the evidence, thus it would take a blind faith in order to reject B. One would have to assert a blind faith, that is, a preference, over any evidence.

If proposition B is stated with counter evidence, then it is highly likely no one will accept it since it has counter evidence as well as being inherently unbelievable. Again, the blind faith element would be accepting it over the intuition and evidence against it.

In this case then, as shown, the assertion of Christianity from someone who lacks evidence or argument is blind faith only because the belief is inherently believable. To argue otherwise would be a sort "heads I win, tails you lose" logical bind. If it is inherently unbelievable, it's only because it is true according to the facts and this is what convinces me (thus for a rationalist position: true). To argue it is inherently believable was my original position.

Also thanks for sticking around so long, I have immensely enjoyed our interaction. While I enjoy this discussion greatly before I have to head off to work, my underlying goal is that I really want you to come to accept Christ and His sacrifice as a reality, and I have a sneaking suspicion we are cut from similar cloth in terms of the way we process the world (just a gut feeling, one might say something I'm taking on blind faith, hah). These were questions I worked out on my path to accepting Christ, and my sincere goal is do the same here for you if this is how it is.

>>261283

Nobody cares or even thinks about any of those things. You are trying to shoehorn a genetical fantasy you just made up. Reality is really simple and in front of you: people give more attention to their own children because they are their children, which they must take care of and they ones they have brought to the world.

>>261232

>They are recorded some decades after the fact

So? I remember events I witnessed decades ago well enough to write a terse summary of them. AD 70 is only forty years after the Crucifixion. That's just half a lifetime.

>presumably through oral history

Anthropologist/archeologist here. Oral histories are MUCH more robust than literature-centric societies give them credit for, and are capable of preserving narratives for millenia, let alone decades. The illiterate natives where I live have oral histories about natural disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes that happened many centuries before contact with Europeans that have recently been verified by geological evidence, for example. Oral societies had highly developed social mechanisms in place for memorizing and passing on knowledge through the spoken word. When you're reciting a story verbatim that you've heard a hundred times before and there's forty people standing around you eager to jump in and correct any slipup, you tend to be pretty accurate. They took these things very seriously. The idea that written sources are inherently more reliable probably originated in ancient Sumer as a way to discredit nearby nomadic societies.

>mostly build upon the works of each other

If I remember correctly, at least one of the gospels (probably John) was evidently composed completely independently of the others, and the other three only have in common that they used a hypothetical "Sayings of Jesus" document for accurate quotations. Only one appears to be "based on" another and is told from a slightly different perspective.

sup Garrett

>>261314

dunno who that is mate :<

>>261330

>You're not thinking about the words "because they are their children." Surely you must realize this value didn't originate in and of itself?

I do, which is why I have not finished my sentence there

>>261330

Yes, I agree about the subjectivity. And I am glad you noticed that because it is exactly the idea left unexplored in that evaluation. The fact you noticed it without it being said only furthers my confidence in you. But this is also why I explored all the possible permutations. And as I said, the "Head Win, Tails Lose", sometimes I use the analogy of gears intertwined. When one moves, the other has to move with it. In this case, the point I wanted to emphasize was the exact applicability of the evidence itself, regardless of the persons intuition. In both cases, it demonstrated the same thing. The persons lack of inherent believability with Christianity resolves to the same situation.

Which leads me to pointing out, you understand my argument exactly right. The blind faith exist in spite of the evidence rather than alongside it.

Though I wouldn't say "relies on" at all, since the evidence is applicable regardless of the persons subjective feelings of intuition on Christianity itself. This evidence then, being what it relies on. Since it would be evidence all the same if they thought it was inherently believable or not. Which is what you will find at the core of many writings of the church fathers who reference the Gospels as "four pillars to rest on". These testimonies are central because we don't expect Christians to take it on blind faith. Paul references this in his letters about being able to defend and give reasons for what we believe. Not deny reason and tell people "just go for it" haha. The point was not to assert a new level of control, but to free people with the good news.

Which I'd also like to address the oral history thing real quickly before I move onto Kierkegaards "Leap of faith" idea that people bring up sometimes.

Oral history was very different in the ancient (and specifically jewish) communities of the time. It was not simply a game of telephone but one in which people trained for their entire lives the same we train most people in the 1st world to be able to read. They would memorize to exact details using methods and techniques which memory experts still use today. It's actually worth investigating for it's own sake. The short amount of time was not simply one persons trying to remember their lifetime, it would have been meticulously detailed in it's oral record.

>>261330

>>261360

Now the Gospel of Matthew has a special quality about it. It was written specifically for a Hebrew audience. Included in this is also phraseology and vernacular which would only mean something to a jew at the time. In translating books of the old testament, there are many phrases which are translated in a way which scholars feel it is implying, but will often be pointed out to be a "best guess" because it will be a term which is clearly a phrase or idiom (like slang) which we just don't get. Like a historian three thousand years from now reading archives of an online forum and wonder why humans from our era keep calling things "cool" which temperature clearly has no relevance to the conversation.

Thus, there are many accounts in Matthew, which when hard translated, will often be a far different description of a similar event in the other synoptic Gospels. For example, the man who is outside the tomb is described as an entirely different entity within Matthew. If he meant this literally or if it is the result of a Hebrew turn-of-phrase, is still under heavy dispute, but considering the events lining up with other eye-witness accounts, of which the other ones line up almost identically, it wouldn't be out of place to assume some of these things were exactly that.

We see this again in other very important events. In this case, Christ last words. Matthew recorded Christ say "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?). This is widespread and erroneously interpreted, mostly through cultural osmosis of non-scholars trying to interpret it.

Jews, being of the oral tradition, and the Bible was not yet codified, they didn't number scripture or anything like that. When referencing something, it was referred to by the first line of the recitation. In this case, Christ was referencing Psalm 22. http://biblehub.com/nlt/psalms/22.htm

This being recorded would have been instantly clear to the Jew who was part of the oral tradition. It would have been no different than someone just saying to us "Psalm 22", hearing the first line would have been the proper way to reference it. In this case, Christ was pointing out the psalm, because the description in the pslam was about to literally happen to him (more prophecy being fulfilled). Since it describes a physical act that was almost exactly what was going on (the only difference was that this was written down 1500 years earlier before any of this stuff existed, at current dating values by experts). Even some of the more poetic things were actually physical events ("My heart is like wax". A horrible part of crossing someone after flaying them was the abdominal pressure which would be building up as fluid starts to form around the heart in the pericardium, if I recall. Christ's heart would have literally been being squeezed by the pressure to the point it would be fighting to beat) I wasn't expecting to feel tears well up writing that; it's sort of horrible to think about though. Forgive me for this interjection "I can count my bones", emaciated to the point that He could literally see and count all His bones.

You get the picture.There are plenty of other aspects recorded which prove the historicity of the witness simply because it wouldn't have made sense otherwise. like the "Water spilled out" after the stabbing, this exact fluid would have been released, very little blood would have came out if stabbed in that specific spot. This happens all the time today when a human torso undergoes violent shock and starts collecting fluid in the chest cavity. Like after a car crash.

This is a bit of a digression at this point.

But I hope I made that point clear. Many people have pointed out that the events afterwards which are only depicted in Matthew have significance in that they seem to portray events listed either in prophecy or as having already happened. A very likely possibility which many argue for is that these were references to some tradition (now we would just call it scripture, but for them oral tradition) which had some specific meaning to the Hebrew audience which wouldn't make sense otherwise.

>>261330

>>261361

Now, about Kierkegaard "Leap to faith". This is probably one of those things which gets grabbed by culture and twisted enough that the original context is lost. Much like "Carpe diem" or "I think, therefore I am" (Horrible out of context), or "E=MCC" (It does not exist like that except as a purely reduced form under specific and ideal conditions). I use an Einstein reference because it will help in the following explanation.

When Kierkegaard was dealing with formulating his own epistemology, he was well acquainted with the works of philosophers who had come before him, and the challenges they posed. Hegel for instance, with his phenomenology possibly laid the groundwork for things (since he did not discount information which a person had through what he called "faith/instinct" roughly translated). He also had to deal with Kant who very much influenced his line of thinking, often calling the question of origin of information itself.

To make this already long and rambling series of post shorter, we can cut straight to the chase: Kierkegaard sought to upend the traditional view of philosophical development of starting from first principles and moving outwards, testing each step with doubt (something made methodologically clear by Descartes, and on a personal note something which I would argue is perfectly viable and indeed, worth doing), he proposed backwards operation: operate as though it is true, and use the results to prove the assumption. The irony here being that this is an almost scientific way of approaching things.

Which is why I brought up the old Jew of physics fame. One of the fundamental parts of his theory was that our universe existed as a plenum. Which had been "dismissed" as a serious idea for hundreds of years. He did this without any real evidence so that he could expand his model and see what the results were. The results were the most modern form of physics that exist right now (sorta). It would be only a few years ago that we have actual evidence to support that he was correct.

But by assuming it was true, he was able to then work backwards from it to show why it to be true with information derived from the assumption in the first place. It was impossible to start out at nothing, and work towards his ideas. He had to start at the end, assuming it to be true, and then work backwards from there. The results speak for themselves.

>>261330

>>261362

In this same way, Kierkegaard believed in a philosophical possibility where action be brought first. The result was him becoming the first (and in my opinion,either greatest or second greatest) existentialist. As the philosophers prime question for thousands of years was "what is the good life?" (as in, what ought to do), the existentialist started with "what is the authentic life?". In this case, Kierkegaard recognized our inherent place in this world and decided that looking outwards and at our place in the world drew attention away from the simple fact of the matter that you were in the world and were doing something. This being where you can find faith ("in doing").

By focusing on the self and the actions, we are able to then bring about the actuality desired in the first place, in an authentic way. Where as if we tried to derive the information for the action first, we would be paralyzed into inaction, and fail to ever do anything authentic as the world forced us either one way or another. Thus the "leap to faith". It was not a blind motion but a conscience one, of asserting the agency of the self in pursuit of authentic existence. And in the same way that the proof of space-time can't be derived until you assume space-time to be true, Kierkegaard argued that the reason for faith as we call it (the acceptance of Christ), won't make imminent or personal sense until one does it. Hence, the authentic life.

A side note: this ends up having strong scriptural parallels, with references to the interaction we have with the Holy Spirit. At times compelling us to act in a particular way (with patience, mercy, etc), or empowering us in others (When Christ tells us to have faith that we will know what to say). Not to mention even older philosophers, such as Aristotle, who argued God's direct connection to a person was through the inherent "activeness" of their very being. That by being at all (that is, existing) we exist connected to God because God facilitates movement (since action itself is contingent, why it's sometimes called "agent causation").

I really hope I didn't ramble too much. Just got lunch so going to head out again. I didn't proof read. I apologize for that.

Are you Catholic?

have you never seen gods hand? ever almost die?

The disciples were like you too, they didnt believe at first fully, just bless god and he will bless you.thank him for everything and he will give you as much as he thinks you can handle. Too much too soon turns one gnostic.

>>261433

>scholarly consensus

Citation requiered.

>half century later

irrelevant for so many reasons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCp-ayAp7fE

>unknown people, based on unknown sources

incorrect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l0Say2wMw0

>in a different language

irrelevant (Matthew was a tax collector who would have been fully capable of transcription)

>contradict each other massively

Nope, try again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQmodO2quW0

>clear signs of material added

citation needed

>invent a character barnabas

citation needed

>this means its all made up

Do you spend most of your time being stupid on purpose, or is it something that can't be helped? I linked youtube videos because asking you to read something scholarly would be asking way too much.

>>261435

Great, it's that time of the night. Time to bail out.

>>261232

Here OP, do make sure to use a parallel bible with several translations.

Step 1: Read Jeremiah 8:8

This paragraph states that the whole bible is a fucking lie.

Step 2: Read Romans 4:15

This paragraph states that when there is no law (because it has been turned into a lie) there is no transgression.

Step 3: Pray so you get help

>>261550

So you use the Bible to prove the Bible isn't true and then that you won't be judged according to the standards in the Bible because of what it said in the Bible?

>>261550

I didn't know there was a level of prottie beyond Bible-alone

>>261579

I merely use the bible to prove the bible cannot be trusted, if a book states that its contents are a lie, you cannot trust it.

And you certainly aren't going to put up with its bullshit to prevent breaking laws which you don't know if are true (and the book states they aren't).

As for not being judged, it is common sense, you don't have the law, you are more excused than ever, a just God cannot judge you based on how you didn't follow tenets you didn't know.

Oh, and btw, pretending to follow the bible after reading that paragraph can only be the notion of a deluded person or a child of the evil one.

>>261610

I am interested then, anon. You speak a lot like a typical Christian, like making references to the "evil one," so where do you get your religious knowledge if even the scriptures can't be trusted?

Islam?

Also, as someone who doesn't believe, even Jeremiah 8:8 doesn't necessarily seem self-referential to me.

>>261612

I speak from experience, I've followed many religions and in all of them I found the same guy behind, a rather evil individual.

It comes back from being promised heaven in dreams, seeing some supernatural bullshit and trying to figure things out.

Simply put, you aren't going to figure things out by yourself, better ask the true god for help.

Also bear in mind that falsehoods will persecute you and everyone will try to fool you, EVEN with miracles, if you ask for a miracle, DO make sure it's absolutely something proper of a god.

And be very sure about it. Go crazy there.

>>261616

And for reference, disregard the bible as a source on what a god can do.

Also, anybody saying you're tempting god lies, a god that doesn't want to be tested is a false god that doesn't want to be found out.

DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE.

>>261617

>DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE

You've separated from her now, but you will reunite with your old nihilism soon. You are faltering and death hungrily awaits your surrender for it comes soon.

>>261617

>>261718

trust yourself least of all

>>261718

No, actually I'm completely sure of God now, seeming how I'm 100% innocent because:

a) No sin, since when there is no law, there is no transgression

b) Demonized and as for such innocent by default, I don't control my actions.

Jeremiah 8:8 and Romans 4:15 really.

>>261745

>No, actually I'm completely sure of God now, seeming how I'm 100% innocent because

The comfort of liberation never lasts.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/jer8-8.html

You had better hope you're actually smarter than all the other Christian scholars who came to different conclusions about those verses. You're playing with your eternal soul.