[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / dempart / fanfic / jewess / komica / pol3 / truebrit / vichan ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: b93f7749524557c⋯.jpg (163.33 KB, 1600x1325, 64:53, 1874_Wilhelm Truebner, Chr….jpg)

0a6478  No.798005

I am starting to realise that one cannot be Christian yet reject young Earth creationism, Adam and Eve being the literal first humans, Genesis chapter 5, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Joshua 10:12-14, etc. etc. etc. This not being real truly kills the faith and so do dinosaurs. Most Christians pretend it's not a massive problem and hate being reminded of it because they know it is, as I did. I used to do mental gymnastics to convince myself that it's not supposed to all be accepted as literal and almost went the polar-opposite way thinking "maybe modern scientific knowledge is all a lie" and nearly accept AnswersInGenesis' stuff but due to my love for science and intellectual honesty I feel that I need to stop lying to myself and playing dumb.

What I do know is that I am not starting to reject biblical history because the theology doesn't feel right to me and because "I want to sin without feeling guilty". I, without any doubt, accept Christian moral teachings and will surely continue to live my life striving to embrace the seven virtues and avoiding the seven sins. I just honestly have no genuine faith in stuff like the genealogy of Christ and yet it is extremely important to the faith. I will always love Him because He was undoubtedly a good man who did nothing but bring good to the world and continues to this day, His suffering inspires me, St. Paul makes me want it all to be real even more. I believe Christ is the most important human being to have ever existed and that the Christian faith has more value than any other religion. People unironically "need Jesus" as He is synonymous with "Good".

However, I just don't feel that it's true anymore, despite the faith of the apostles and despite all the signs which seem to confirm it. I used to tell myself "even if I found out it's false, I'll still convince myself that it's true because it has to be" but now I realise that it's a sad way of thinking. I love Christ and Christian theology, as well as Scripture which I will be reading all my life, but if the Flood didn't actually happen, it's not the true religion and Heaven and Hell as described in the Bible aren't real which means that even if there is an after-life, which I still believe there is, and that we have been faithful in this one till the end, we may never meet Him. He was a young Earth creationist Himself and if He was wrong about this, then He wasn't God incarnated and thus didn't rise from the dead. As St. Paul said: "…if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1Cor.15:14)

Any thoughts?

PS: atheism is not the issue here

abe76e  No.798008

>due to my love for science and intellectual honesty I feel that I need to stop lying to myself and playing dumb.

Science is Satanic, the Bible is the truth. What it says is true, what is said outside of it is false. Let this guide all of your actions and you will come closer to God than ever before.


5f0202  No.798014

>>798005

>People unironically "need Jesus" as He is synonymous with "Good".

And the newly minted atheist declares Jesus to be the son of God. Why else would you call him synonymous with Good? You're apparently still doing mental gymnastics to defend your love for Christ, who was obviously just a lunatic according to your logic. If that's what you believe, then Christ certainly wasn't good, just insane, or a liar.

Also you haven't defended your reasoning for why Christ was a young earth creationist; as if you could know?


5f0202  No.798016

>>798005

>Broken theology/10

…is my rating


6f8764  No.798018

>>798008

>Science is Satanic

"no".


0a6478  No.798019

File: 8c812513b232690⋯.jpg (82.71 KB, 901x503, 901:503, 4139762_orig.jpg)

>>798008

I'm speaking of formal and natural science. How is it "Satanic"? Why should I reject the findings of chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, paleontology, geology, etc.? Because it's scary? Is mathematics also evil because it's hard and so the computer you're using is "satanic"? This kind of response is embarrassing and just makes me want to roll my eyes.

>What it says is true, what is said outside of it is false.

translation: What it says is true, what is said outside of it scares me because it's troubling for my weak faith so I'll pretend dinosaurs never existed despite physical evidence.

Your response is not intelligent (that's just a respectful euphemism) and it saddens me that you believe one must have this mindset to be closer to God.

PS: did you not read the previous post scriptum?


abe76e  No.798020

>>798018

Your assertion is not helpful and proves nothing. You wish to quarrel, but I know that only fool is quick to quarrel and that is better to be patient than a warrior.

>>798019

>Why should I reject the findings of chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, paleontology, geology, etc.?

Because they are false and the workings of Satan the deceiver. Why do you think these findings are true? Because an atheist told you so? This “science” works to dethrone God and cast Him into the confines of mythology along with Zeus. Beware of false prophets.


0a6478  No.798023

File: a6972725306446c⋯.png (176.95 KB, 500x338, 250:169, the-first-gulp-from-the-gl….png)

>>798014

>And the newly minted atheist declares Jesus to be the son of God. Why else would you call him synonymous with Good?

What do you mean?

>who was obviously just a lunatic according to your logic

That's according to your (mis)understanding of what I said, due to your own logic. If He wasn't truly the Word made flesh, then He simply wanted to bring good to the world, as I said, and successfully did so, facilitated by His knowledge of Scripture which He extensively studied before starting His ministry at 30 years old, after proper preparation. If none of it is true, He wasn't a mere lunatic, He was very intelligent and good-willed.

>>798020

>Because they are false and the workings of Satan

How so?

>Because an atheist told you so?

No.

>This “science” works to dethrone God and cast Him into the confines of mythology along with Zeus.

Science confirms the existence of God though it reveals that humans are not the center of His creation. In other words, science shows us the greatness of the creator of the Universe and dethrones humans whom it humbles.


abe76e  No.798030

>>798023

>How so?

“Science” (notice how you use the word so reverently as if it is God Himself) runs contrary to the Bible, more specifically Biblical cosmology and creation. You need to read up on how the world was truly created by God and liberate your mind from this Satanic deception.

Isaiah 11:12

Revelation 7:12

Job 38:13

Job 9:6

Job 38:4

These verses all make clear that God created the Earth as flat with corners, held up on a foundation of pillars. There is no metaphor here, only what is written. Atheists are instruments of Satan to tempt your fate and lead you astray. Unless you want to end up in a lake of fire with them I advise you seriously begin to understand your Bible and not look for “metaphors”

>No.

If you reject the word of God in favor of glorious “Science” you are not a Christian.

>Science confirms the existence of God though it reveals that humans are not the center of His creation.

Genesis 1:26


684055  No.798031

>>798005

>I am starting to realise that one cannot be Christian yet reject young Earth creationism

Tell that to Saint Augustine. He dedicates a large part of his Confessions to an allegorical interpretation of the creation story, and this was written in the 430s. Your salvation is not contingent on whether or not the creation story was literal, it is dependent on the blood of Christ. This has been recognized for 1600 years now. I don't really remember any passages where Jesus specifically says that it was literal, but even if He did that's not incompatible with old earth creationism. Christ freely admitted that there were things He didn't know during His incarnation, for example the date of the Second Coming. Christ was God, but He was constrained to a human body and brain, and a human brain obviously can't contain an omniscient conscious without constant miraculous intervention. If Christ ever said anything that might not be purely factual, this does not disturb my faith in His deity in the slightest. His ministry, His mighty works, and His ressurection all speak for themselves: Christ was who He said He was, and therefore still is.


0c395c  No.798032

>>798031

Jesus could not lie. Are you accusing the Son of God of being a sinner?


5f0202  No.798033

>>798023

>If He wasn't truly the Word made flesh, then He simply wanted to bring good to the world

If He wasn't the Word made flesh, then what is this "good" you speak of, which comes from outside the world through people? There is none, there is NOTHING outside the world, no God, no good, no truth, no justice. Truth, good and justice are relative, as every atheist will be sure to remind you. So how do you suppose that Christ came to stand for any of these concepts? On what authority do you say He is good? You have none to offer.

>What do you mean?

Mark 10:18, but because you're baiting and trying to stir up an argument which divides this board consistently between creationism and evolutionism, it is of course expected that you have an extremely tenuous grasp on theology in the first place. (Just enough to make people take the bad fruits you are offering, but not good enough to show bona fides)


5f0202  No.798034

>>798032

None of what he said was heretical


0a6478  No.798035

File: 635cb41449bd528⋯.jpg (45.19 KB, 679x524, 679:524, jesus-age-of-universe.jpg)

File: 9929cda6160edf3⋯.jpg (113.7 KB, 1360x765, 16:9, Genealogy of Jesus.jpg)

>>798030

>“Science” (notice how you use the word so reverently as if it is God Himself)

As reverently as when I speak of things that are helpful to humanity.

>runs contrary to the Bible, more specifically Biblical cosmology and creation

>These verses all make clear that God created the Earth as flat with corners, held up on a foundation of pillars. There is no metaphor here, only what is written.

Yes, which is why the biblical accounts are problematic.

>If you reject the word of God in favor of glorious “Science” you are not a Christian.

I said that I am losing my faith so I wouldn't call myself Christian despite wanting Christianity to be true.

>>798031

>He dedicates a large part of his Confessions to an allegorical interpretation of the creation story

Did he say that Genesis chapter 5 is merely allegorical too?

>I don't really remember any passages where Jesus specifically says that it was literal

Pic related. (https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/what-did-jesus-believe-about-creation/)

>even if He did that's not incompatible with old earth creationism

His own genealogy is incompatible with old Earth creationism, pic related also.

>Christ freely admitted that there were things He didn't know during His incarnation

Certainly not concerning the past.

>He was constrained to a human body

Yet according to Scripture He could perform miracles such as walking on water, which would indicate that He wasn't.

>If Christ ever said anything that might not be purely factual, this does not disturb my faith in His deity in the slightest.

But it should because then He wouldn't be the incarnated Logos.


1e714d  No.798036

>>798005

>I am starting to realise that one cannot be Christian yet reject young Earth creationism, Adam and Eve being the literal first humans, Genesis chapter 5, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Joshua 10:12-14, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, I've been coming around to this too. I think only unserious Christians (cafeteria Catholics etc.) can accept evolutionism. If the Biblical creation story isn't literal, then what on Earth is Original Sin? How can there be Original Sin without a literal Adam to eat the literal fruit from the literal tree in the literal garden? And in that case, what did Christ need to save us from? Rejecting literal creation gives you a completely skewed view of Original Sin, and that one error infects everything else. If you think about it, evolutionism and wrong views of Original Sin are really at the heart of modernism and everything terrible that happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II. This is why serious Catholics (the traditionalists) today are hard-core anti-evolutionists (especially the priests). Evolution is really not an incidental issue that can be hand-waved away but a direct attack on the core of Christianity. It undermines everything.


0a6478  No.798042

File: 3fb3fdfd81b5fdb⋯.jpg (235.36 KB, 1502x1127, 1502:1127, antediluvian-ages.jpg)

>>798033

>what is this "good" you speak of, which comes from outside the world through people

An imitation of His genuine innate benevolence.

>On what authority do you say He is good?

I say that He is good based on how Scripture describes Him and I don't need an authority to have a personal opinion, pal.

>Mark 10:18

I would say that I believe in God yet I must humbly admit that I don't know Him. However, to be the architect of the Universe makes Him so great that to attribute a positive adjective to Him is futile. When persons are referred to as being "good", they are not said to be sinless and immaculate, it is simply a way to describe them as being the opposite of an obviously evil person. I'm familiar with this passage btw.

>you're baiting

I'm not.

>you have an extremely tenuous grasp on theology

I would if I rejected young Earth creationism as you do while still claiming to fully believe in Scripture.

>the bad fruits you are offering

Is Genesis chapter 5 a bad fruit? Don't ignore this.


5f0202  No.798049

>>798042

>An imitation of His genuine innate benevolence

This is circular reasoning, Christ is good because you say he's good, you're right, you have a bunch of personal opinions, but what if I don't care about those?

>I don't need an authority to have a personal opinion, pal.

Are we doing theology here or what? Don't give me that bullshit.

>Views on Mark 10:18

It is axiomatic that God is good, don't give me your deistic horseshit about the GAOU. Go join the Freemasons and get lost.

>Good is simply the opposite of evil

If you can't see the problem with this, you're a simpleton. Define "good" or "evil" without begging the question this time.


5f0202  No.798050

>>798042

>Genesis 5

Really? What the hell does Genesis 5 have to do with it? Are we reading the same chapter? It's just a genealogy. I don't see the theological relevance.


1e714d  No.798052

>>798050

The theological relevance would be that the geneaology is wrong if the Earth is billions of years old and Adam and Eve didn't exist.


5f0202  No.798053

>>798042

>However, to be the architect of the Universe makes Him so great that to attribute a positive adjective to Him is futile.

This specific passage tells me that you never understood Christianity. We don't have this impersonal airy fairy Freemasonic Grand Architect, we have a personal, loving, good God that hears our prayers. I don't know this Grand Architect of whom you speak.


5f0202  No.798054

>>798052

So what?


5f0202  No.798055

>>798052

Give me one reason why I should care about a faulty genealogy? Do you think that the Bible is not the product of human hands?


1e714d  No.798058

>>798054

>>798055

So you think the Bible isn't the divinely inspired , inerrant word of God? That the Bible was written purely by human hands and not by human hands directed by the Holy Ghost? If the Bible is wrong in Genesis 5, how do you know it's not wrong about Jesus and salvation?

You see what I mean about the errors that evolutionism introduces into Christianity. It literally caused both of you to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, and once you've done that then you can pretty much make up whatever you want. Suddenly non-Christians are making it into Heaven and homosexuality isn't a sin anymore.


5f0202  No.798059

>>798052

Also, yes Adam and Eve existed, but that doesn't mean that the universe had to be created in 7 days. Read St. Augustine, or Origen. Nobody ever thought that Genesis was to be taken literally until turboprots got a hold of the Bible with their 5 Solas and other depraved innovations.


0a6478  No.798061

File: b24265308dedc2a⋯.jpg (305.62 KB, 800x1096, 100:137, ut artifex ad artificiata.jpg)

>>798049

>This is circular reasoning, Christ is good because you say he's good

Except I said that it's just my personal opinion. Are you being willfully stupid? I never claimed that my personal opinion is an objective fact.

>what if I don't care about those?

You clearly do since it bothers you so much.

>Are we doing theology here or what?

What do you think you're doing? Is Genesis chapter 5 a bad fruit yes or no?

>GAOU

Huh?

>If you can't see the problem with this, you're a simpleton.

Good is the opposite of evil in the same way that cold is the opposite of hot.

>>798050

>I don't see the theological relevance.

t. >>798016

>>798053

>We don't have this impersonal airy fairy Freemasonic Grand Architect

Synonyms of architect: designer, planner, builder, originator, author, creator, instigator, founder, etc. spare me your autism, thank you.

>we have a personal, loving, good God that hears our prayers

When did He create the Universe and when did He create the first humans? Scripture is extremely clear on this, what's your opinion?


487ffb  No.798063

>>798058

Genealogies in the Bible is just meant to illustrate how people were related.


1e714d  No.798064

>>798059

So according to you, when did Adam and Eve exist?


5f0202  No.798065

>>798058

I'm the same poster, anyway, your idea of inerrancy requires literally everything to be perfect, and that's just not realistic given how the Bible came to be. (Something you should look up and think about, btw)

>>798061

>When did He create the Universe and when did He create the first humans? Scripture is extremely clear on this, what's your opinion?

Alright, lay it on me, I'll say that the earth is 4 Billion years old, God's tool for our creation was evolution. Adam and Eve are our earliest ancestors who discovered the knowledge of Good and Evil, which allegorically ended our age of innocence and resulted in our appreciation of our own death and sin.


1e714d  No.798067

>>798065

>and that's just not realistic given how the Bible came to be.

You don't believe it's realistic that the word of God written by the Holy Ghost would be perfect…? I ask you again, if you accept that any part of the Bible is mistaken, how do you know that the gospels aren't mistaken? Or do you even think that there are errors in the gospels?


5f0202  No.798069

>>798067

>What about the gospels?

You have no idea the amount of error even 500 witnesses can occasion. I've studied enough criminal evidence to say that were it not for my experiences of God, I would not believe the Gospel.


0a6478  No.798071

File: 65d975a20d5abf7⋯.jpg (170.09 KB, 900x1600, 9:16, 6809cad926ffb6e672c197230e….jpg)

File: 5604c1b56941cb8⋯.jpg (268.01 KB, 1280x896, 10:7, geological-time-scale.jpg)

File: 8b0566c18cb05b9⋯.png (220.34 KB, 1200x1151, 1200:1151, 1200px-Geologic_Clock_with….png)

File: f8d073a43ed25dd⋯.jpg (1.44 MB, 2424x2145, 808:715, Geological Time Spiral.jpg)

>>798059

>yes Adam and Eve existed

When and does all of humanity come from these two?

>Origen

Heretic.

>Nobody ever thought that Genesis was to be taken literally until turboprots

Wrong.


5f0202  No.798072

>>798067

As for the effect of the Holy Ghost on Scripture, I agree, the Bible is perfect, but I won't consent to the idea that the people who wrote inspired texts were all brilliant mathematicians and biologists too.


5f0202  No.798075

>>798071

>When and does all of humanity come from these two?

It is necessary, from a biological standpoint, that we are all related to only 2 progenitors. If we call first man and first woman Adam and Eve, it is of necessity that we are related to none of their contemporaries.


1e714d  No.798077

>>798069

That's why the inerrancy of scripture is essential to Christianity. You are treating the Bible like it's some kind of secular history book. This destroys faith. And it's your conviction that evolution must be true which causes you to abandon Biblical inerrancy. So we see here clearly manifested just one of the reasons why evolution is poisonous and inimical to Christianity.


5f0202  No.798079

>>798077

On the contrary I would say I'm a faithful Christian. I pray frequently to a trinitarian God and sometimes pray the rosary, I have some difficulty with following biblical morality and I always rue it when I fail. You're just espousing a version of Christian theology that I just don't see as important. That's really all there is to it.


5f0202  No.798081

>>798077

>You treat it like a secular history book

I daresay that's impossible, secular history (I am a trained historian as well) never makes moral judgements about the actions of persons in history.

I also do not abandon Biblical inerrancy, I just don't think that all people through whom the Holy Spirit speaks are that excellent at doing hard sums to find the age of the universe.


1e714d  No.798083

>>798081

>secular history (I am a trained historian as well) never makes moral judgements about the actions of persons in history.

lmao what

Practically every history book makes moral judgments. I'm talking about real books, not whatever Platonic ideal of the historian you've got inside your head. Are you a college student?

>I also do not abandon Biblical inerrancy,

OK…

> I just don't think that all people through whom the Holy Spirit speaks are that excellent at doing hard sums to find the age of the universe.

So you abandon Biblical inerrancy.


5f0202  No.798087

>>798083

No, you are defining Biblical inerrancy in a way I reject, like a Jew, every letter to you has significance. It's just that whereas a Jew would see the numbers in Genesis 5 and start applying Biblical numerology to it, you've seen the numbers in the same genealogy and trying to make science fit into it.

Really the Jew at this point is more likely to have luck with his endeavor at this point. Good luck convincing the scientific establishment of your groundbreaking ignorance.

>History books make moral judgements

No they do not, least of all now where we have materialist dialectics, determinism and economics ruling the roost with their vacuous concept that history is mainly defined by markets and technology.


0a6478  No.798088

File: 4164ca1eae9566c⋯.jpg (544.36 KB, 1024x752, 64:47, 550318.jpg)

>>798063

Why is Seth said to have fathered Enosh when he had lived exactly 105 years and then dying exactly 807 years later at the age of 912?

>>798065

>I'll say that the earth is 4 Billion years old, God's tool for our creation was evolution. Adam and Eve are our earliest ancestors

See the first image for what Scripture teaches: >>798035

Now tell me, when and how were Adam and Eve born?

>>798075

>it is of necessity that we are related to none of their contemporaries

Contemporaries? Who and when?


1e714d  No.798089

>>798087

>No, you are defining Biblical inerrancy in a way I reject,

You can't define inerrancy to mean "has some minor errors." Inerrant means inerrant.

> Good luck convincing the scientific establishment of your groundbreaking ignorance.

Good luck trying to explain to Jesus why you had more faith in science than in him when he tells you to depart from him.

>No they do not, least of all now where we have materialist dialectics, determinism and economics ruling the roost with their vacuous concept that history is mainly defined by markets and technology.

What a retarded thing to say. It's almost like you don't read books.


5f0202  No.798092

>>798088

>See my image

That's your interpretation mate, I'm not bound by that. Besides, if God created us male and female from the beginning, he took at least 5 days before making us, hence we weren't from the beginning.

Then it could also be that our souls were made from the beginning, and only lately placed into bodies.


b42079  No.798094

>>798065

Before you say evolution(macro) was used tell me where was it observed that a beneficial mutation created new genetic material?

If not macro evolution is a lie.

Evolution requires death and suffering to work

but there wsa no death before the Fall or before the original sin.


1523e0  No.798098

Even if you do believe in Young Earth Creationism, the sources you'll go to on the net are all KJV Onlyists and Masoretic adherents, who don't even follow the actual Church calendar set for the previous 2000 years, which differs by over 1000 years on the "age" of the Earth. Of course, the old Church dates would be Young Earth creationism as well, but there are significant differences in chronology.


5f0202  No.798101

>>798089

>Good luck trying to explain to Jesus why you had more faith in science than in him when he tells you to depart from him.

Nice hellfire nonsense, good to see Protestantism is still going strong somewhere out there. Guess I'll be seeing you where I'm going.

>Inerrant means inerrant

The Holy Spirit never made anyone better at science.

>>798094

Doesn't have to be, it could just be that we weren't aware of sin and death. We certainly sinned before the fall, or Adam and Eve wouldn't have needed to hide themselves. Therefore why not have death before the fall, and just have Adam and Eve ignorant?


1523e0  No.798104

>>798101

Death and decay was created by Satan's fall first. Man and Woman had a choice to not be dragged down to his misery. Not that they originated death. They knew the significance of the Tree of Life and God's warning that they would die if they ate of the other tree.


0a6478  No.798107

File: e5a891fff49ec26⋯.jpg (225.35 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault-1.jpg)

>>798089

>You can't define inerrancy to mean "has some minor errors." Inerrant means inerrant.

this

>>798092

>That's your interpretation

No, it is what Scripture literally teaches and guess what? Christ reaffirmed this teaching!

As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

Matthew 24:37-39

YIKES!!!!!!!!!

…and the man He chose to be in charge of His flock on Earth also did (1 Peter 3:20).

>he took at least 5 days before making us, hence we weren't from the beginning

The 5th of April is at the beginning of the month of April. Do you not see the issue if you believe that the Universe is billions of years old? Is humanity billions of years old?


5f0202  No.798110

>>798107

>Look at me! I win

Sorry to disrupt your attention whoring, but that passage doesn't mean that Noah had to happen historically either. You need to unplug your head from your rear and realize that Jesus was a Jew, talking with other Jews, who knew the same stories. Just because Jesus mentions Noah does not mean that anyone is verifying Noah's historicity as 100% fact.


1523e0  No.798111

It should also be pointed out that the Hebrew never says the "first day" in the early acts of Genesis.

"God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." - Gen 1:5

ONE DAY. Some translations (like the NIV and KJV) put "first day", but it doesn't mean first. It means one. And one day is like a thousand in the Lord's eyes.

The word is "ehad". One. And it isn't like Genesis is using it differently. Just a little bit later, it says man and woman become "one first". Not "first flesh".


1523e0  No.798113

>>798111

Bleh. I meant "one flesh". Brainfart. Apologies.


0a6478  No.798114

>>798092

>it could also be that our souls were made from the beginning, and only lately placed into bodies

Are you kidding me?


5f0202  No.798115

>>798107

>The 5th of April is at the beginning of the month of April. Do you not see the issue if you believe that the Universe is billions of years old? Is humanity billions of years old?

In a word, no. The Bible doesn't give you such a clear cut case. What do you even mean by beginning? Something can have beginnings longer than the actual thing itself.

>>798111

Trips of truth


1523e0  No.798116

The theory that we were souls first is Gnostic and Kabbalah teaching fyi. That we were souls and the garden of Eden was actually in heaven.. and we were kicked out and the "skins" God made are our bodies we have now.

I don't recommend believing that, but it's nothing new.


5f0202  No.798117

>>798114

You haven't disproved it :-P


1523e0  No.798120

Another famous example of "One" from the Torah.

"Shema’ Yisra’el, Adonai ‘Elohenu, Adonai ‘echad" - Deut 6:4

Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE.

Not to say "first day" is a bad translation. But it can be a little interpretative. It very well might be the "first day", but that's not what the Scripture says. And you can still say Scripture is Inerrant, but not necessarily a Translation.


5f0202  No.798121

File: 54f84942a727e8b⋯.webm (225.41 KB, 320x240, 4:3, 54f84942a727e8b20d45231da….webm)

>>798114

Listen, let me summarize this whole thread;

>I just realized that I never had any faith at all because I can't handle contradictions

>Come listen to my autistic Protestant theology about genealogies

>Wait, mine isn't the only interpretation ever?

>Damned papists and heretics!

>Vid related


0749dd  No.798122

The Gospel does not rest or crumble based on the age of the Earth. Pull yourself together.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed never mentions the age of the Earth. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils only state that Adam and Eve were the first couple and we inherit original sin from them, which must be removed with Baptism.

What I mean is that the part of the Genesis creation narrative that is most important is that we have fallen, our nature is disfigured, and we must be saved. The age of the Earth may be a legitimate issue, but it shouldn't be a faith-shattering one. The Trinity and the Incarnation are at the top of the list, the exactitude or implications of the historical narratives in the Bible is rather far down the list in comparison (even if, again, it can remain an important issue).


0a6478  No.798123

File: 340eb1cbff523e3⋯.jpg (149.93 KB, 351x500, 351:500, Noah-and-Flood.jpg)

>>798110

>Look at me! I win

You think I'm happy about Christianity being false? I just want to cry. 1 Corinthians 15:19

>that passage doesn't mean that Noah had to happen historically either

>Just because Jesus mentions Noah does not mean that anyone is verifying Noah's historicity as 100% fact.

The Flood is not 100% fact and my Second Coming will be the same as the Flood.

t. your interpretation of Matthew 24:37-39

Do you not realise that this is what you're saying Christ claimed? That His Second Coming actually happening is not 100% fact? If the Flood happened, so will the Second Coming. Now tell me, did pic related happen (i.e. a global flood exterminating all of humanity except 8 people and 2 animals of each specie as per explicit biblical teaching)? Yes or no?


1523e0  No.798125

It's even more likely that a flood occurred than the details of where the Garden of Eden is. It's attested to by cultures across the whole world. Practically everyone has a flood story.


0a6478  No.798128

File: 99c073c9022d592⋯.jpg (10.23 KB, 500x287, 500:287, 31NNwEKmu7L.jpg)

>>798117

Can a rib be taken from a soul?


1e714d  No.798130

>>798122

The Bible says there were about 6000 years from Adam up to the present, and that God created Adam in his image. Science (evolutionism) claims the first humans originated hundreds of thousands of years ago, and that Adam and Eve, if they existed, were birthed by semi-monkeys. You see the issue here, right? It's not just about the age of the Earth.


68230e  No.798131

I had the same doubts, plus more and stopped believing last week. I'm a cultural Catholic now.


0749dd  No.798134

>>798130

Science does not claim Adam and Eve even existed. Science does not really "claim" anything, it only observes and deduces, without making philosophical speculation about human nature.

I would say that there is a much bigger problem than whether Adam and Eve were made from earth or were born from semi-monkeys, and it is that death existed before humanity, according to science, while the Bible and the Fathers clearly state otherwise.

Nonetheless, we should stick to what the ecumenical councils say, and they say nothing about the age of the Earth. They do say that Adam and Eve were the first couple of humans, that we inherit original sin from them, and that death did not exist before then.

But at the same time, remember that the fall was a cosmic event, that disfigured all of creation and not only human nature. Remember also that Paradise cannot be located on a map now, and if it could, that would mean we could find Jesus, Abraham, and the good thief chilling there. Science tells us what can be observed in this fallen reality, but the Bible tells us the real reality of things, as God sees them and communicates them to us. So, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter what science says or not - it observes a fallen world and therefore makes anti-Chistian conclusions. Not that what it says has to be wrong, but it's irrelevant to us, because we are not of this world.


0a6478  No.798137

File: 5e132ade1db0a4b⋯.jpg (888 KB, 2560x2117, 2560:2117, 91IrO ZpHmL.jpg)

>>798121

>I just realized that I never had any faith at all because I can't handle contradictions

correction: I just realised that if the Flood never happened, then Christianity is false.

>Come listen to my autistic Protestant theology about genealogies

Why is Seth said to have fathered Enosh when he had lived exactly 105 years and then dying exactly 807 years later at the age of 912? Is what Scripture explicitly state as fact "Protestant theology"?

>Wait, mine isn't the only interpretation ever?

Yours is heterodox; it is contrary to apostolic teaching.

>Damned papists and heretics!

I embraced Catholicism. Nice strawmanning though.

>>798125

The question is, did it actually happen? If so, is other cultures' account as valid as the Book of Genesis'? Will you buy a book about it for your children?

>>798131

>cultural Catholic

That would make you an impostor, friend. You don't have to accept that masturbation, pornography, fornication, prostitution, adultery, abortion, sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, transgenderism, suicide, etc. is a-ok now. Catholic moral teaching is still correct.


0a6478  No.798141

>>798134

>Science tells us what can be observed in this fallen reality

>it observes a fallen world

You do realise that the Flood is supposed to have happened after the Fall, right?


4032b2  No.798143

>>798005

Look into Hugh Ross and old earth creationism.

https://www.reasons.org


0749dd  No.798150

>>798141

Yes, and I believe it happened the way the Bible describes it.

But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? The topic is about the age of the earth and the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Simply enough, I do not care what science says. Science is not divine revelation. We don't ask scientists to celebrate the liturgy. The Church Fathers dealt with theology, not with science. It is less that science and the Bible clash, and more that they address two different things, and only one is important for our salvation.


a2133a  No.798152

Do you believe your great ^500,000,000 grandfather was a fish? You look at yourself and think you came from a monkey that came from from a rodent that came from a fish that came from a sponge that came from a cell that came from nothing?


487ffb  No.798153

>>798141

Why do you keep bringing up the flood? Not a single person in this thread has denied that it happened.


1e714d  No.798158

>>798134

>I would say that there is a much bigger problem than whether Adam and Eve were made from earth or were born from semi-monkeys, and it is that death existed before humanity, according to science, while the Bible and the Fathers clearly state otherwise.

>Nonetheless, we should stick to what the ecumenical councils say, and they say nothing about the age of the Earth. They do say that Adam and Eve were the first couple of humans, that we inherit original sin from them, and that death did not exist before then.

Yes, good point. That makes coexistence between Christianity and evolutionism even more untenable.

>Science tells us what can be observed in this fallen reality, but the Bible tells us the real reality of things, as God sees them and communicates them to us. So, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter what science says or not - it observes a fallen world and therefore makes anti-Chistian conclusions. Not that what it says has to be wrong, but it's irrelevant to us, because we are not of this world.

Hmm, interesting point of view. Can you remember where you read about this doctrine?


0a6478  No.798162

File: 7e877adeb82609d⋯.jpg (580.54 KB, 1100x737, 100:67, _4106212_orig.jpg)

>>798143

>Reasons to Believe holds to the position of a universal flood (one that God used to destroy all of humanity) that was not global in geographic extent. Since humanity had not yet spread to cover Earth, the flood did not need to cover the entire globe.

https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2015/09/21/is-a-global-flood-scientifically-possible

For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.

Genesis 6:17

And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth.

Genesis 7:19-23

>>798150

>But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? The topic is about the age of the earth and the historicity of Adam and Eve.

>>798153

>Why do you keep bringing up the flood? Not a single person in this thread has denied that it happened.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/


0749dd  No.798168

>>798158

>Hmm, interesting point of view. Can you remember where you read about this doctrine?

I didn't read about it anywhere, it's my own interpretation, although I found that one article gets close to this: http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/1.2017/Alexander.Khramov.pdf

I also heard that St Maximus the Confessor makes a similar case somewhere - that the reality of the world before the fall is very different from the reality of the world after the fall, and the divine revelation of the scriptures is the only way we can "reach back" into the pre-fallen world, so to speak (and, at the last judgment, the world will return to its original purity).


5f0202  No.798170

>>798137

>Heterodox teaching

I was told that all I needed to get into heaven was faith, works, and the Nicene-Cosmopolitan creed. Nice opinions though, shouldn't you have recognized that Noah's flood is less problematic than a man living 912 years? No animal known to science has ever lived so long.


5f0202  No.798171

If only Moses knew how much grief Genesis would cause the world, he might not have written it.


0a6478  No.798177

>>798170

>I was told that all I needed to get into heaven was faith, works, and the Nicene-Cosmopolitan creed.

You can't claim to have faith yet reject scriptural teachings; you lack faith.

>Shouldn't you have recognized that Noah's flood is less problematic than a man living 912 years? No animal known to science has ever lived so long.

God could make any man live this long, however we know for a fact that the Earth is not 6000 years old. When do you believe Adam was born? Was Enosh his grandson? Was Mahalalel Enosh's grandson? Was Enoch Mahalalel's grandson? Was Lamech Mahalalel's grandson and Noah Mahalalel's son? Do I need to remind you of Christ's genealogy as well? Is Christ's genealogy a lie?


d2b393  No.798192

File: 6a03d0c7deaffdb⋯.png (108.91 KB, 554x439, 554:439, shrug.png)

I know this is an unpopular opinion here, but everything before Abraham is clearly allegory. Just think with your God-given brain, two of every animal couldn't possibly fit on a single boat. Trees and rocks can be dated to before Genesis 1. But just because they didn't literally happen doesn't mean they aren't true. These stories reveal deep truths about the human condition, that's why they're important.


0a6478  No.798197

>>798192

>everything before Abraham is clearly allegory

Since the Flood is an allegory, is Christ's Second Coming also an allegory?

>These stories reveal deep truths about the human condition

What do they say about original sin?


0a6478  No.798200

>>798171

Why are you not addressing >>798123 ?


1e714d  No.798202

>>798192

So there was never actually an Adam who sinned in the Garden of Eden? Then what happens to Original Sin? How did sin enter into the world? And what exactly did Jesus have to save us from?


ac0f43  No.798205

>>798202

>If Adam wasn't literally real then sin doesn't exist

Anon, I…


2d56f2  No.798206

>>798005

>til the whole Alexandrian school was non-christian


0a6478  No.798208

>>798205

When and how did sin enter into the world?


0749dd  No.798209

>>798192

Everything before Abraham is literal, and symbolic, and the symbolic signification is often much more important than the literal, but to call it allegorical is simply an insult to the text.

The Song of Songs is an allegory. The history in the book of Genesis is not. I can only accept that the events portrayed before the Fall are to be understood in a spiritual and "allegorical" way, because the reality of the world was significantly different and beyond our grasp in the way we are now, and even some Fathers accept this (Augustine didn't think the world was created in 6 24-hour days, but rather instantly; John Chrysostom didn't think that Eve was literally taken from a rib of Adam, but that this symbolizes a spiritual reality that we cannot understand now). But after the Fall, things are given times, numbers, and locations.


1e714d  No.798211

>>798205

I don't understand. Do you believe the world was created fallen, or…?


d2b393  No.798212

>>798197

>Since the Flood is an allegory, is Christ's Second Coming also an allegory?

No, Jesus comparing the events of the flood to the apocalypse doesn't mean they both have to be literally true or both be allegory. One can be allegory and the other can be true prophecy.

>What do they say about original sin?

I'm not really qualified to speak on this, but I think Adam and Eve eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for humanity choosing to disobey God and make their own rules about good and evil. That is the sin that leads to all other sins, or original sin.

>>798209

I'm willing to accept that only the events pre-fall are allegory, but is there any explanation for how two of every animal and all the food they needed fit on to one boat?


c1865a  No.798213

>>798019

>>798023

Hes trolling, to make christians look bad. It's a false flag.

No true follower of Christ has any reason to disavow the truth of the world and universe. They are all of His design.


2d56f2  No.798215

>>798209

It's rare to have to say this, but put down your Bible. The Bible is given to preserve the truth held by the Church. If you aim is to have the faith of the Apostles and Fathers, read the Bible like they read it. Literalism was never their focus. Read Irenaeus, On the Apostolic Preaching. It's short and SVS has a good English translation. The typological read was the predominant read in early Christianity.


dc8c07  No.798216

File: 164691e111b1b7a⋯.jpg (67.45 KB, 680x1020, 2:3, 1495990420606.jpg)

>>798005

>This not being real

what is """real""" and how do presume to prove it

even "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" attempts to constrain meaning with fallible language to wishfully purport that a fallible mind is capable of identifying concurrent processes and is not merely beguiled by demons, philosophical or literal. You cannot prove your own existence, and have the gall to doubt God's?

Science can dig up and date as much it wants - in futility. Until the people doing it can affirm their own existence, who can affirm the veracity of their observations? How can you your own? So it is that "logic" has no logical basis; only faith, blind faith, in another false prophet.

Human observation does not derive from reality; it shapes it - truth a lie, history a pliable fiction - the earth planar one era and an interstellar rotundity the next.The physical world has been as lead away from the bible as its inhabitants. Be not misled by particulars of fact; place your faith in the Almighty God and let what He validates be, without concession.

Do not arrive at this conclusion after a wasted decade of atheism and godless philosophy as I have. Knowledge is impossible; eat and be glad.


0749dd  No.798217

>>798212

>but is there any explanation for how two of every animal and all the food they needed fit on to one boat?

I don't know. I can't say I have thought about it. This was a point in history of high crisis and high importance, and the Biblical author was not there to witness it but received it as a revelation from God. Maybe it is better kept a mystery to meditate upon, like how no one has seen the Resurrection, but by faith we know it is true?

>>798215

The Fathers were almost exclusively concerned with typological/symbolic reading, but very few are those who do not also recognize these events as historical and literal. In fact they tend to do so to the detriment of the implications within the scriptures themselves - like understanding the 6 days of creation to be literal 24-hour days, and there to be a simple linear continuity in time from before the fall to after the fall.

Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa tend toward doubting the literal-ness of some parts of the scriptures (usually with the reason that it does not fit the character of God as we know it and must therefore be an allegory). But they're exceptions. Most Fathers, when they feel the need to address the historicity of every part of the Bible, defend it to their last breath (with some exceptions - I'm not aware of any one of them who says that Nabuchednezzar in Judith is really Nabuchednezzar, for example).


0a6478  No.798220

File: 555e75b3509d44e⋯.png (16.29 KB, 589x63, 589:63, sigh.png)

>>798216

>You cannot prove your own existence, and have the gall to doubt God's?

Are you blind?

>Science can dig up and date as much it wants - in futility.

Except it isn't futile and we have learned so much. Why do you hate education?

>truth a lie

Well this sums up your silly post.

>So it is that "logic" has no logical basis

I never said "Christianity must be false because of logic", my argument is not "logic". Stop strawmanning.

>the earth planar one era and an interstellar rotundity the next

This is not a mystery anymore.

>Human observation does not derive from reality; it shapes it

Nonsense.

>place your faith in the Almighty God and let what He validates be

If God Almighty is the one preached about in Scripture, the Earth is 6000 years old and I know that to be false. This doesn't lead to atheism but rather to a simple rejection of Christian theology.

>Do not arrive at this conclusion after a wasted decade of atheism and godless philosophy

I arrive to the conclusion that Adam isn't the first man and that the Flood didn't happen based on the findings of natural science.


0a6478  No.798221

>>798217

>Maybe it is better kept a mystery to meditate upon

Or maybe it should be investigated so we can either confirm whether it is true or find out it didn't actually happen, no? The truth doesn't fear investigation, right? We don't want to be dishonest obscurantists, right?


0749dd  No.798222

>>798221

Investigate it how? Divine revelation and paleontology are not the same subject and do not answer the same questions.

I did not say that it is not true, but that the manner in which it is true may not be something we can answer with words. Although, as far as the date and the gravity of the event are concerned, I 100% side with the scriptures here, if science disagrees then the scientific observation is incorrect. The scriptures put the flood as happening in 3135 BC, and the Fathers never suggest that the flood was not actually a worldwide event, on the contrary (to my knowledge anyway).

I'm ready to be accused of dishonest obscurantism for this. I trust the Word of God more than the observations and judgment of sinners, however.

Not that it's a big deal either way, because the topic of historicity of the Bible literally never comes up in my life. That's not what we should concern ourselves with. It's practically a footnote. God is there, here and now, waiting for our response to His call, and the Holy Spirit will give us full understanding in this way.


d2b393  No.798223

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>798220

>Human observation does not derive from reality; it shapes it

>Nonsense.

Actually, that's true.


5800b1  No.798224

>>798008

shameless idiot


0a6478  No.798228

File: a9506cef8792a5e⋯.jpg (232.87 KB, 1100x730, 110:73, Dinosaurs-Royal-Terrell-Mu….jpg)

>>798222

>if science disagrees then the scientific observation is incorrect

So you don't care about the Scriptures being true or not, you just want to accept them as fact regardless of their veracity.

>The scriptures put the flood as happening in 3135 BC

How old is pic related?

>That's not what we should concern ourselves with.

Except we should, due to the unsettling findings of natural sciences.

>God is there, here and now

Yes, but is the Bible true? Let's find out!


0749dd  No.798235

>>798228

>So you don't care about the Scriptures being true or not, you just want to accept them as fact regardless of their veracity.

We know, from the Holy Spirit inspiring the Church for centuries, that they are true. What scientists observe is their problem.

>How old is pic related?

I don't know, or care, really.

>Except we should, due to the unsettling findings of natural sciences.

Again, natural sciences are not theology. They are not liturgy. They are not sacraments. The Lord did not tell us to be concerned with that. But if they attack the testimony of the Church, do you want to side with them or with Christ? I know Who I want to side with, because we know the world will reject us, but He has conquered the world.


0a6478  No.798244

File: 696de6e43814d6e⋯.jpg (1.38 MB, 1440x960, 3:2, Sauropods.jpg)

>>798235

>What scientists observe is their problem.

If you care about the truth, their findings are a big problem for you actually.

>I don't know, or care, really.

translation: I don't want to know because I'm scared.

Did the Flood happen during Noah's lifetime? Did the Flood not happen only 10 generations after Adam? When was Adam born? How old is the Earth? How old is pic related? I'll tell you, he first appeared about 200 million years ago!

>if they attack the testimony of the Church, do you want to side with them or with Christ?

The question to ask is: if the Earth is proven to be about 4.5 billion years old and the Sun about 4.6 billion years old, how can we trust Scripture?

>w-we know the world will reject us! b-but He has conquered the world!

Anon, I…


0749dd  No.798252

>>798244

>If you care about the truth, their findings are a big problem for you actually.

Jesus Christ is the truth, and we already know Him. Do scientists have a hidden sacrament that we did not receive?

>translation: I don't want to know because I'm scared.

Scared of what? Scared of losing my salvation? But the Church already gives us the means to be saved.

>Did the Flood happen during Noah's lifetime? Did the Flood not happen only 10 generations after Adam? When was Adam born? How old is the Earth? How old is pic related? I'll tell you, he first appeared about 200 million years ago!

>The question to ask is: if the Earth is proven to be about 4.5 billion years old and the Sun about 4.6 billion years old, how can we trust Scripture?

I recommend you read my other posts in this thread.

I'm not going to entertain you if you are going to be rude, however. We are still in the period of Lent.


dc8c07  No.798254

>>798220

I am exercising the full extent of my patience in humouring the idea that this is not trolling.

Science is not infallible so long as it is in the hands of fallible human observers like yourself.

You are fallible because you cannot prove your own existence. A false measuring tool falsifies the science it supports, ergo as all human measurement is false, all science is false.

Your unfounded belief in it is tantamount to faith, and faith dictates reality.

The earth was literally, physically, demonstrably flat. The earth was 6000 years old, was consumed by a flood, was host to Babel, etc.

But without faith in God, it currently, in our subjective reality, is not.

A godless generation has corrupted the past as much as they have the present with their faith in false prophets, and you insist on counting yourself amongst them.

> I know that to be false

You know nothing. You are incapable of knowing anything. You must prove an "I" exists before you dare claim it "knows" anything, and the wisest men dead and alive will bow their heads to hear you speak if you ever can.

>Why do you hate education?

I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

Ecclesiastes 1:17-18


b42079  No.798258

>>798101

>It could just be that we weren't aware of sin and death. We certainly sinned before the fall.

Sorry God said as soon as they eat(sin/fall) they shall die not before. God didn't make it a mystery where we would't be aware he addressed humans directly on the subject.

And yes they started hiding but after eating the fruit.

You only need death before to make evolution work that's all.

Again where was it observed that a beneficial mutation created new genetic material?


0a6478  No.798259

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>798252

>Jesus Christ is the truth

Should all of our scientific findings and technological advancements be discarded?

>Scared of what? Scared of losing my salvation?

Scared that your understanding of reality is false.


5f0202  No.798260

File: 1b3080c31e3d7da⋯.jpeg (91.97 KB, 825x1000, 33:40, Hume.jpeg)

>>798220

You need to read pic related before you go about saying you can prove anything with science. Applied science is merely conjunctions of cause and effect; utterly meaningless and devoid of philosophic content.

Basically you need to read up.

>Doesn't lead to atheism but rather to a simple rejection of Christian theology

Partly, and not enough I would say. Christian theology is ultimately tied up in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, not in the Old Testament. The fact that Biblical literalism is a false theology doesn't mean I reject original sin, or Adam and Eve, or a local flood in the Mesopotamian as the basis of Noah's story.

This is why I have an issue with your dumb idea that I have to believe the world is 6,000 years old or I'm not a Christian. You've pissed me off, especially since traditional theology has always been good enough, even though there are little irreconcilable bits, and always have been, and always will be. Really you literalists are just more Talmudists, it's just that you have a different Talmud; secular science rather than old law books.


5f0202  No.798261

>>798123

>I just want to cry

Then cry, but don't tell me I lack faith


5f0202  No.798264

>>798259

If I have no faith, then you hoped for too much. Sorry, God's just not going to give you a perfect 6,000 year old earth to conform to your expectations. The world is described as flat in Genesis as well, yet you somehow overlooked that too.

Without a degree of holism, there is no potential for rational faith.


b42079  No.798265

>>798259

>Beneficial mutations which creates new genetic material.

Where is this scientific finding?


0a6478  No.798266

File: 94ed4f72d474e3d⋯.jpg (251.81 KB, 960x506, 480:253, 20110528_WOC974_960.jpg)

>>798254

>Science is not infallible

I've never claimed the contrary. We do know for an absolute and irrefutable fact that the Earth is much older than 6000 years old though.

>you cannot prove your own existence

>as all human measurement is false, all science is false

And I'm the troll?

>Your unfounded belief in it is tantamount to faith

>unfounded

Wrong.

>you insist on counting yourself amongst them

I insist on telling you that I am not an atheist and that atheism has nothing to do with doubting Scripture but you keep pretending that I am because it makes your strawmanning easier. Are muslims atheists?

>You know nothing. You are incapable of knowing anything. You must prove an "I" exists before you dare claim it "knows" anything, and the wisest men dead and alive will bow their heads to hear you speak if you ever can.

lol

>the more knowledge, the more grief

And? The Earth is still about 4.5 billion years old, it's sad because it invalidates Scripture but it's still true, sorry. Perhaps your issue is one of humility. Just because we aren't at the center of the Universe and that most of our ancestors are animals doesn't mean that you have to start snorting cocaine and get sodomised by trannies, y'know? Christian morality is still worthy of being embraced.


5f0202  No.798269

>>798266

You're such a shill, I can't believe I wasted a moment on your thread. You even have a little picture of the precambrian period for every evasive post.


dc8c07  No.798270

>>798266

Not biting. Prove you exist.


0a6478  No.798273

File: a90008416bd4ccc⋯.png (932.64 KB, 1134x1600, 567:800, 0-yGirD0WxJIDr6wrX.png)

>>798260

>you go about saying you can prove anything with science

Strawman.

>a local flood

Wrong. >>798162

>your dumb idea that I have to believe the world is 6,000 years old or I'm not a Christian

When do you believe Adam was born? Was Enosh his grandson? Was Mahalalel Enosh's grandson? Was Enoch Mahalalel's grandson? Was Lamech Mahalalel's grandson and Noah Mahalalel's son? Do I need to remind you of Christ's genealogy as well? Is Christ's genealogy a lie?

>>798261

You do lack faith because you are refusing to address the content of the post you've replied to.

>>798264

>God's just not going to give you a perfect 6,000 year old earth to conform to your expectations

If the contents of Scripture are false, then I still don't know God though I believe in His existence.

>The world is described as flat in Genesis as well, yet you somehow overlooked that too.

I haven't overlooked that, I just know it's easier to do mental gymnastics for this issue.

>>798269

Do you want to talk about the Precambrian period?


5f0202  No.798276

File: b356a33019a23a4⋯.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 55.68 KB, 353x334, 353:334, Tips.jpeg)

>>798273

>I haven't overlooked that, I just know it's easier to do mental gymnastics for this issue.

Gotcha, tips fedora

Reporting to Spanish inquisition mod for bait threading


d2b393  No.798278

>>798266

>Just because we aren't at the center of the Universe and that most of our ancestors are animals doesn't mean that you have to start snorting cocaine and get sodomised by trannies, y'know?

We are the center of the universe though, watch >>798223


0a6478  No.798279

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>798276

>Gotcha

Well, do you believe that the Earth is flat since you've stated that you're aware that it is described as such in Scripture?

>tips fedora

There is no fedora to tip. It's not either Christianity or atheism, you brainlet.

>Shut it down!

Sad tbh.

>>798278

>We are the center of the universe though

Except we aren't, watch vid related.


d2b393  No.798280

>>798279

It doesn't matter how big the universe is, it doesn't even matter if it's infinite. It doesn't exist until observed by consciousness.


5f0202  No.798281

File: 94692d70a4828ee⋯.jpg (37.94 KB, 480x361, 480:361, Transparent.jpg)

>>798279

>Shut it down goy!

You are in bad faith! I cannot convince you if you withhold parts of the argument like you admitted to in >>798273

Take your pilpul elsewhere rabbi


0a6478  No.798282

>>798280

We are not at the center of the Universe, anon.

>>798281

>Shut it down goy!

Huh? You're the one who reported me like a child for disagreeing with you.

>if you don't believe all science is wrong, y-you're a rabbi!

Do you want me to filter you?


5f0202  No.798283

>>798282

Filter away Rabbi, this is my last post

[-]


0a6478  No.798284

File: 271e1b5ee18c4fa⋯.png (1.27 MB, 850x556, 425:278, Spinophorosaurus-nigerensi….png)

>>798283

Remember that the truth does not fear investigation.


e7a68e  No.798285

>>798137

>The question is, did it actually happen? If so, is other cultures' account as valid as the Book of Genesis'? Will you buy a book about it for your children?

The truth of the matter isn't about what "culture" handed down. It's enough that they handed down something resembling a deluge happening.

The scripture itself is not just a "cultural" document. It's revelation.


0a6478  No.798289

File: 3815920b5a2deb3⋯.jpg (1.23 MB, 2560x1754, 1280:877, A1TCP6-ONzL.jpg)

>>798285

Ancient cultures share plenty of different myths, is this enough evidence to confirm their veracity? Come on. Also, why did you not answer if you would buy a book about it for your children? Will you look at your child straight in the eyes and tell him to believe that 10 generations after the first human, Noah embarked on the ark at 600 years old with 7 other humans and 2 of each animal specie before a global Flood occured exterminating all but those on the ark?


d2b393  No.798293

File: af1c2bfac340a53⋯.jpg (629.06 KB, 2500x1870, 250:187, redjester.jpg)

>>798282

Modern quantum physics suggests that consciousness is the basis for matter, not the other way around. You claim to be a theist and don't even know this. You've scratched the surface of the natural sciences and think you know better than God. You know nothing. My last post on this thread.


0a6478  No.798305

>>798293

>Modern quantum physics suggests that consciousness is the basis for matter, not the other way around.

How is this relevant with anything I wrote? How do you even define consciousness and matter?

>think you know better than God

How so?

>You know nothing.

I know things, such as the Earth not being 6000 years old. Do you claim to know nothing? Spare me your hypocritical false humility.

>My last post on this thread.

Of course.


27ed34  No.798314

>>798289

I did answer. I told you the scriptures are revelation. That's why I wouldn't buy another book for children. Only an unbeliever thinks sacred text is equal to some other text from culture (and hence, that they're all valid to be used). But if you don't believe it's God word, that's your own problem, sadly. I'm just here to point out that the account of an ancient deluge is attested on a wide scale. Some accounts I think are more similar to scripture than not.. or get elements mixed up (for example, the Gilgamesh story has a Noah character, but this Noah is caught up in a heavenly realm and lives forever. I think it may be mixed up with both the Enoch and Noah stories from the Bible).

Some of these mixed up versions have a demonic origin to them however. Another Mesopotamian example has a similar story of Eden, but it's almost like a bizarro mirror image. Instead of humans being loved and created in God's image, they're created as mindless slaves to work the garden (and the garden is solely the domain of the gods..not humans). And instead of a serpent deceiving humans, the other story has the serpent as an ally, as Enki, a reptilian trickster god who turns against his own and frees the minds and development of the humans.

Basically, Lucifer is the good guy in this story. Greeks also borrowed something similar, I think (via the Hittites, who were in turn influenced by Mesopotamia) which came to us in the form of Prometheus.. the titan who rebelled against his own and gave man the power of fire.. and hence civilization.

This comes full circle in modern Satanic cults, who hail Satan as their true liberator and call Lucifer the "Lightbringer". The "light" of Lucifer being both literal and figurative. That he is the father of civilization and the ego of man.

So you see why I refuse to simply accept other cultural expressions, even if they borrow elements of the truth. Because they're tantamount to Satanic worship!! This has always been the work of the Trickster. Jesus didn't call him the Father of Lies for nothing. And it's what the whole world will fall for one day, sadly, when the Antichrist comes as a great wonderworker and promoter of "peace". Lucifer will "shine" his light again and make people think humanity is ushering in a bold, new age… until that moment everyone realizes they're screwed and it's too late.


7f4098  No.798322

File: 8253e7945e1ab40⋯.jpg (9.29 KB, 480x360, 4:3, kjv_1.jpg)

>>798264

>The world is described as flat in Genesis as well,

Stop lying about the Word of God.


0a6478  No.798329

>>798314

I'll ask again: ancient cultures share plenty of different myths which resemble each other, is this enough evidence to confirm their veracity?


172003  No.798407

>>798005

>flood

Many scientists actually believe a flood happened now. That’s actually not a good point for sceptics.

Also carbon dating and fossil analysis has been shown to be in error several times. Fossil analysis is completely subjective and it does not prove evolution as a grand narrative. Evolution is a theory.

It is not in science though, but metaphysics that will provide the answers you seek.


b7c824  No.798465

File: b92ad81e688867a⋯.jpg (181.63 KB, 1200x500, 12:5, tend bundy on Relativism a….jpg)

>>798087

>>History books make moral judgements

>

>No they do not, least of all now where we have materialist dialectics, determinism and economics ruling the roost with their vacuous concept that history is mainly defined by markets and technology.

Pretty sure, that's a blatant fallacy of Neutrality there. All Books whether Fiction, History, Biographies, etc. Will all make a Moral Judgement of some kind. Because man wasn't just,spawned from just pure goo, where it didn't have moral Judgements from the beginning. There is no Neutrality we all hold axioms.


2875e7  No.798479

>>798005

>I am starting to realise that one cannot be Christian yet reject young Earth creationism, Adam and Eve being the literal first humans

Not everything walking on two legs is human. The book of genesis makes clear that there were other communities near Adam and Eve, but God didn't consider them to be Man. Today we've broadened the definition so wide that we might as we4ll start calling spider monkeys human


7593ef  No.798517

>>798005

>I am starting to realise that one cannot be Christian yet reject young Earth creationism

God gifted me faith instantly when I fully accepted Genesis as truth. Until then the Bible was just a collection of old stories for me. The second I started believing I recognized the truth in all the remaining books as well.

Genesis is very important to Him.


607533  No.798534

File: cd346148049a35b⋯.jpg (258.73 KB, 1293x1209, 431:403, embryos of vertebrates (co….jpg)

>>798407

>Many scientists

How many, who and how credible are they?

>believe a flood happened

Based on what evidence and when exactly did it happen?

>carbon dating and fossil analysis has been shown to be in error several times

Its reliability is still well established, despite a few errors which can always happen.

>Fossil analysis is completely subjective and it does not prove evolution as a grand narrative. >Evolution is a theory.

So is gravity, please educate yourself: http://www.notjustatheory.com/

>It is not in science though, but metaphysics that will provide the answers you seek.

Metaphysics=/=Bible

As for answers about the natural world, the unsubstantiated biblical claims are dubious in light of modern scientific findings. That's troublesome.

>>798479

>Not everything walking on two legs is human.

Strawman. Not all hominins are recognised as being part of the human genus.

>The book of genesis makes clear that there were other communities near Adam and Eve

Who were the first humans according to Genesis?

>Today we've broadened the definition so wide that we might as we4ll start calling spider monkeys human

Nonsense.

>>798517

>God gifted me faith instantly when I fully accepted Genesis as truth.

>The second I started believing I recognized the truth in all the remaining books as well.

translation: just accept it bro and it'll be true to you :)

VERY not convincing.


dff200  No.798538

Genesis is real, Evolution is a lie. The world is around 6000 years (and will end soon)


607533  No.798547

File: 3cb4ff086ec9afe⋯.jpg (184.96 KB, 1182x451, 1182:451, Staurikosaurus_pricei.jpg)

File: ed4cff0342aeff6⋯.jpeg (67.95 KB, 1000x772, 250:193, image-13-e1478495000894.jpeg)

File: f378349c5c678cb⋯.jpg (197.86 KB, 1049x1400, 1049:1400, aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW….jpg)

File: af6fec8d3f313aa⋯.jpg (251.67 KB, 1024x680, 128:85, 1024px-Göbekli_Tepe,_Urfa.jpg)

>>798538

>The world is around 6000 years

Prove it.

Pic #1 is about 230 million years old

Pic #2: is about 70,000 years old

Pic #3: are nearly 10,000 years old

Pic #4: is more than 10,000 years old

…and these are just a few examples.


f6db3a  No.798554

>>798005

>Dinos

The Bible didn’t touch on it for the most part- maybe they were among the animals that Christ made originally and went extinct for some reason

>mental gymnastics to say that it’s not all literal

You were right on this point- it’s not impossible that they are just metaphors and what-not

>>798538

>Genesis

True

>6000 years old

False. When the Bible said that the Earth was made in 7 days, days in the Bible could have a different meaning than the modern English meaning.


607533  No.798563

>>798554

>among the animals that Christ made originally

When?

>just metaphors

So everything which modern scientific findings refute suddenly becomes "just metaphors", despite orthodox Christian teaching? Is Genesis chapter 5 just a metaphor?


f6db3a  No.798575

>>798563

>when?

The days when God created the animals, of course. Where else could they come from?

>>798563

>metaphors

I’m not 100% saying that they are metaphors- it’s just an idea. I could be completely wrong.

>against orthodox teaching

Well I’m Protestant so I can’t speak on that


607533  No.798584

File: 313a32d4a00bacb⋯.jpg (314.04 KB, 4096x1114, 2048:557, 0hrbtwtve7b21.jpg)

>>798575

>The days when God created the animals

And when was this? Were chicken and dinosaurs created at the same time? The Flood started 1656 years after the first human was created, so I wonder, did Noah, who was 600 years old at the time, bring dinosaurs on the Ark or not?

>I’m Protestant so I can’t speak on that

Orthodox teaching is traditional teaching. Your view is heterodox and the founder of your own sect would disagree with you.


f6db3a  No.798592

>>798584

>when was this?

Do you want a date? It was just when God made them during the 7 days of creation

>The Flood started 1656 years after the first human was created

How do you figure?

>Dinos on ark?

Technically, some animals that were alive back then are still around today, like squirrels and crocodiles. But I get what you’re asking here, and the answer is unknown- just because they were on the ark doesn’t mean that they couldn’t go extinct

>hErEsY!!1!

I really don’t care. I’m worshiping God according to the Bible. We can get into a denominational argument later


607533  No.798597

File: 9855bbcf3583772⋯.png (94.84 KB, 783x479, 783:479, Timeline.png)

File: f9ca328fa7cdc91⋯.jpg (174.89 KB, 1200x627, 400:209, bible-graphic.jpg)

>>798592

>How do you figure?

Pic related.

>squirrels and crocodiles

Squirrels and crocodiles existed 10 generations after the first human? How old is humanity, anon?

>according to the Bible

According to the Bible, Ken Ham is right.


7ebcc1  No.798601

>>798597

Theistic evolution is the path to atheism. Modern day “science” is really just run by big foundations. It’s about who gets the grant money. Change my mind.

Our faith is based on sound metaphysics. The physical sciences are always coming up with new theories. They have desacralised nature.

I mean at least you could’ve been one of those atheists who argues about the problem of evil. Then we could have had an interesting discussion.


607533  No.798607

>>798601

>science bad

Okay, do you agree that the Flood happened 1656 years after the first human was born, as per biblical teaching?

>The physical sciences are always coming up with new theories.

Dishonest. More and more discoveries are made but as for human evolution and the geological timeline of the Earth, foundational knowledge is well established.

>They have desacralised nature.

translation: I'm an obscurantist who is scared of all these scientific findings and their implication.

>you could’ve been one of those atheists who

But I'm not an atheist and my belief in the existence of God is firm.

>the problem of evil

That's babby's first argument. What kills faith in the Bible is the natural sciences.


92e37d  No.798611

>>798023

You just proved that science is a freemasonic attempt to dethrone God and institute man as the supreme being of the universe.


f6db3a  No.798612

>>798597

>>798604

What are you trying to say? What’s your overall point? That science disproves Genesis? If that’s the case, then one of two, or possibly both, things are wrong: a) our interpretation of the Word or b) scientific theories are wrong. The Bible being wrong is impossible


607533  No.798618

File: d83cfba85e84184⋯.jpg (156.58 KB, 2048x1225, 2048:1225, 9sganc1aplm21.jpg)

File: 878420fa9b85a9c⋯.jpg (2.33 MB, 2239x2233, 2239:2233, Galaxies.jpg)

>>798611

>science is a freemasonic attempt to dethrone God

*tips tinfoil hat*

>institute man as the supreme being of the universe

Except science reveals to man that he is a humble creature in this enormous Universe filled with billions of other planets like his. Man's history on Earth is also microscopic.

>>798612

>What are you trying to say?

I answered your question about the Flood happening 1656 years after the birth of the first human by showing you where Scripture claims this and I asked you if squirrels and crocodiles existed 10 generations after Adam. I also asked you how old humanity is. You have answer none of my questions.

>science disproves Genesis?

Well, is the Earth 6000 years old, anon?

>then one of two, or possibly both, things are wrong

It's a mystery to you whether or not the Earth is 6000 years old? You consider it an option?

>our interpretation of the Word

How do you interpret the following?

When Jared had lived a hundred and sixty-two (162) years he became the father of Enoch. Jared lived after the birth of Enoch eight hundred years (800), and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years (962); and he died.

Genesis 5:18-20

Where's the metaphor here?


8835b2  No.798622

>>798005

I've been obsverving this thread for a while a now, and what is the purpose of it??

Was it to seek explanations? because it's clear you've made up your mind.

Was it to "debunk" our religion and show us that we're wrong? If that's so, it isn't coherent with your OP because you want people to follow christianity and yet wants to discredit it.

You making this thread alone ( along with your attitude ) is already a contradiciton with your belief that you want people to follow biblical laws and principals, and yet you seek to… debunk christianity? People like you, non-believers who aknowledge religion and christianity is important to society, are extremely rare. And the people who know that, don't believe, and try to follow biblical law and not be degenerates is even more rare. Why would people care if there's no reward after death? For society? For civilization? For the "common good"? No, they won't care. I even spoke to a christian here that said that he knew degeneracy was bad to society, but still if that if he were an atheist he WOULD be a degenerate and seek pleasure, because there's no point. If life is short and there's no reward to following biblical principals ( I assume you believe the same, as you don't believe you know God ), then we should all drink and party until death comes around. Even the bible knows what are the geberal implications of non-belief:

For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves,

“Short and sorrowful is our life,

and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end,

and no one has been known to return from Hades.

2 Because we were born by mere chance,

and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been;

because the breath in our nostrils is smoke,

and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts.

3 When it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes,

and the spirit will dissolve like empty air.

4 Our name will be forgotten in time

and no one will remember our works;

our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud,

and be scattered like mist

that is chased by the rays of the sun

and overcome by its heat.

5 For our allotted time is the passing of a shadow,

and there is no return from our death,

because it is sealed up and no one turns back.

6 “Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that exist,

and make use of the creation to the full as in youth.

7 Let us take our fill of costly wine and perfumes,

and let no flower of spring pass by us.

8 Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.

9 Let none of us fail to share in our revelry,

everywhere let us leave signs of enjoyment,

because this is our portion, and this our lot. [..]


607533  No.798623

>>798612

>The Bible being wrong is impossible

Pride is your issue.


22e6fd  No.798625

>>798623

That's silly. People who believe in the Bible don't do it out of "pride" issues. It's fear rather (a healthy variety). It's a matter of life and death and beyond.


f6db3a  No.798630

>>798618

>answered none of your questions

Okay, I’ll fix that

>6000 year old earth

I doubt it myself- all the evidence points to it being older. Also a day in the Bible can have a different meaning than the modern English version

>flood happened after 1656 years of humanity on earth?

Yes, you were right on that.

>how old is humanity?

Give or take 6000 years

>squirrels/ crocs

Did they exist 10 gens after Adam. Yes, they did. They also existed before him

>It's a mystery to you whether or not the Earth is 6000 years old? You consider it an option?

What I’m trying to say is that scientific theories aren’t infallible. It can and has been wrong

>metaphors in specific passage

Allow me to rephrase myself- not all of Genesis is 100% a metaphor. In short- I don’t know myself. For now however, I’ll consider it to be explicit for the most part until proven otherwise (which could easily happen)

>>798623

The infallibility of the Bible is a basic Christian belief. You claim to be one, so don’t say that “I’m too prideful” when a) I’m going by basic Christian beliefs and b) you know absolutely nothing about me


607533  No.798634

File: aa2a4e78d49e572⋯.png (3.91 MB, 1292x8757, 1292:8757, The Authenticity of the Ho….png)

File: 617c366a6cb417e⋯.jpg (1.67 MB, 4920x4161, 1640:1387, fornication.jpg)

>>798622

>what is the purpose of it?

I've asked for thoughts in my OP and I'm responding to said thoughts.

>it's clear you've made up your mind

Not quite, I still see Christ performing miracles and rising from the dead as a possibility, mainly due to the faith of the Apostles and the Holy Shroud (I'm actually the OP of its original big thread here).

>you want people to follow christianity

I want people to follow Catholic moral teaching.

>wants to discredit it

It discredits itself in light of modern scientific findings.

>Why would people care if there's no reward after death?

My faith in life after death is as strong as my faith in God. The Christian idea of Heaven and Hell is not the only option however. I could wake up in a lab on a Coruscant-like planet, realising that my entire life was a simulation which lasted 1 hour and that I payed 100$ for, or I could reincarnate as another living being in some other dimension, who knows? The possibilities are endless and you can let your imagination go wild. I must humble myself and state that I cannot claim to know for sure.

>For the "common good"?

Perhaps; see pic#2.

>No, they won't care.

I'm not them and "they" are mostly hypocritical frustrated far-right incels who would fornicate as much as they could, if they in fact could.

>if that if he were an atheist he WOULD be a degenerate and seek pleasure

That's logical because if he were an atheist he would have a godless mind.

>then we should all drink and party until death comes around

That would cause suffering. Are you implying that if you weren't scared of Hell you would run around acting like a cunt? It sounds like you're a hypocrite who's pretending to be a good boy to get his cookie; it says a lot about you and your faith.


74f0a6  No.798637

>>798630

>The infallibility of the Bible is a basic Christian belief.

but it's still wrong. Christians should worship God, not the traditions of men


f6db3a  No.798641

>>798637

But the Bible was influenced directly from God, and what would be the point of Him giving it to us if it was wrong?


607533  No.798651

File: 73373daf152a2bb⋯.jpg (123.68 KB, 778x397, 778:397, create_spread.jpg)

>>798625

You're right, he's probably just scared, hence his stubbornness.

>>798630

>I doubt it myself

Now is the part where I must remind you that you cannot call everything which contradicts modern scientific findings as "just metaphors". Either the Flood happened or its story is just a myth. Either Noah existed 10 generations after the birth of the first human being or he didn't and he is fictitious. Either Christ's genealogy is real or it's fabricated. Either Christ is the incarnated Logos or He isn't. Who is He then? No clue. Was He still good? It seems so. Should we start burning churches and become trannies? No.

>you were right on that

I was right that the Bible teaches this, but is it true? Did the Flood actually happen 1656 years after the birth of the first human?

>Give or take 6000 years

So what do you make of this?

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

>scientific theories

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

>It can and has been wrong

Foundational knowledge is still well established and we know for a fact that humanity is older than 6000 years.

>I’ll consider it to be explicit for the most part

For the most part? So where's the metaphor? Jared having other sons and daughters or him living precisely 962 years? Do you know what a metaphor is?

>You claim to be one

I was one until I realised that I can't be one while claiming that everything refuted by the natural sciences is "just a metaphor" and that centuries ago I'd get tortured to death for teaching modern scientific knowledge. I'd like my children to embrace STEM as I have so I couldn't possibly have them reading books like pic related growing up. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror knowing I'm miseducating them. A real Christian holds Ken Ham's YEC beliefs.


8835b2  No.798661

>>798634

>I've asked for thoughts in my OP and I'm responding to said thoughts.

why? What do you seek to gain from this?

>Not quite, I still see Christ performing miracles and rising from the dead as a possibility, mainly due to the faith of the Apostles and the Holy Shroud (I'm actually the OP of its original big thread here).

well, that's great.

>It discredits itself in light of modern scientific findings.

But that's like your opinion man. You're not the first person to ask these questions as te theory of evolution has been around for 150+ years. There are multiple articles and books discussing this specific, very important issue of evolution.

>I want people to follow Catholic moral teaching.

As you should.

>My faith in life after death is as strong as my faith in God. The Christian idea of Heaven and Hell is not the only option however. I could wake up in a lab on a Coruscant-like planet, realising that my entire life was a simulation which lasted 1 hour and that I payed 100$ for, or I could reincarnate as another living being in some other dimension, who knows? The possibilities are endless and you can let your imagination go wild. I must humble myself and state that I cannot claim to know for sure.

I was right then. As you can see, you simply don't know if there will be a reward or not, and are simply following biblical laws because of utilitarianism.

>Perhaps; see pic#2.

most people won't care. Most people will still live for themselves and in the seeking of pleasure- that's how most atheists act, and there is no practical difference between deism ( your belief ) and atheism because there is no established moral law, no comfirmed heaven and hell and no reward etc.

>'m not them and "they" are mostly hypocritical frustrated far-right incels who would fornicate as much as they could, if they in fact could.

Yes, you are not them as i made clear in my post, but you are a minority among people, the masses, who simply, won't care. A large portion of religious theists are lukewarm and don't care for living purer lives, and you think it will get any better when people stop believing in heaven and hell: consequence after death in general?

>That's logical because if he were an atheist he would have a godless mind.

how would being a deist change anything? The creator God didn't left us any revelation, nor established objetive moral code( like say, the 10 commandments ), didn't tell us about the afterlife and how to live our lives. It's a free for all.

>That would cause suffering. Are you implying that if you weren't scared of Hell you would run around acting like a cunt? It sounds like you're a hypocrite who's pretending to be a good boy to get his cookie; it says a lot about you and your faith.

Never said that. I am redpilled about moral behavior and would try to live by and teach biblical law personally, i even said that to the guy who talked about being an atheist. "people like you bewilder me" he said. Most people won't care about the long term results of their degeneracy, i strongly believe this.


7f4098  No.798665

>>798651

Perfect example of subverted thinking and the unbiblical conclusions it leads you.


f6db3a  No.798668

>>798651

>did the flood actually happen when it happened?

The Bible is infallible- that’s just something you have to believe as a Christian. If it said it happened when it happened, then it happened when it happened.

>misunderstanding of my opinions on metaphors and other figurative language within Genesis

Okay, I’m going to state my belief on this as clear as possible: some things within Genesis may be metaphors. Other things may not be. I don’t know which are and which aren’t. I do know, however, that the ages of people recorded in the Bible are not figurative language.

>do you know what a metaphor is

No, I’m too stupid to graduate 5th grade- I’ve repeated it for 10 years now. I use the word “metaphor” because a) there are possibly some in Genesis and b) because I’d rather not write out “figurative language” so much

>evolution stuff

Consider the group of scientists that disagree with carbon datings and things related to them. I don’t know who they really are, so look into it for yourself.

>probably stubborn because he’s scared

Look, I know you’re going thru a hard time with your beliefs and that I nor anyone else on this board can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that science doesn’t contradict the Bible. However, don’t be a d*ck.

If you want a professional opinion on this stuff- set up a meeting with an apologetic. They’re professionals in this stuff. I’ve done all I can-I can only give my opinions and answers towards your questions with my knowledge and understanding on the subjects


8835b2  No.798677

>>798668

> set up a meeting with an apologetic.

this. We are only laymen and i think you should do that. Go with an open mind..you know that Christ was good, that God exists..and so on. I think you should close this thread..it has done it's purpose. Good luck, man.


7f4098  No.798680

>>798677

>I think you should close this thread..

Yeah, let's have fewer catholics just coming and attacking the integrity of the Bible on here. Agreed. It is God's word, end of story.


f6db3a  No.798681

>>798651

I’ll be sure to pray for ya anon. Godspeed


607533  No.798688

File: 4b718d3c316d3b2⋯.jpg (2.71 MB, 2400x3026, 1200:1513, Timeline by Harvard scient….jpg)

>>798661

>why? What do you seek to gain from this?

Food for thought which is beneficial to my mind however what you should truly be concerned about is the implication of the modern scientific knowledge we've acquired.

>your opinion

The Earth not being 6000 years old is not my opinion, it is fact and stating this fact, just like the Earth not being flat is not "trying to discredit Christianity". If I were trying to "discredit Christianity" I'd talk about the hypocrisy of many of its believers which is also babby's first argument.

>there is no practical difference between deism ( your belief ) and atheism because there is no established moral law, no comfirmed heaven and hell and no reward etc

I see what you're implying, however the fact that Christianity holds the most valuable moral teachings does not constitute proof of its theology as a whole.

>you think it will get any better when people stop believing in heaven and hell: consequence after death in general?

Should I then LARP as a Christian and encourage others to be faithful Christians? Centuries ago I certainly would, no doubt about it, however nowadays modern scientific knowledge makes it harder for people to be YECs which leads the ones still claiming to be faithful to start picking and choosing which itself then leads them to believe that it's acceptable for a Christian to support the LGBT movement because Christ talked about love and those people waving the innocent-looking rainbow flags keep saying it's all about love and not lust.

>>798665

Care to clarify?


607533  No.798708

File: a7e39d0a3bfa4ec⋯.jpg (139.5 KB, 1196x1600, 299:400, 07e964cc3c650c0aa343f27967….jpg)

>>798668

>If it said it happened when it happened, then it happened when it happened.

And yet:

>>798630

>I doubt it myself- all the evidence points to it being older.

Why the intellectual dishonesty then?

>I do know, however, that the ages of people recorded in the Bible are not figurative language

Good.

>the group of scientists that disagree with carbon datings and things related to them. I don’t know who they really are, so look into it for yourself.

What this leads me to is on conspiracy blogs of little credibility and relevance.

>I nor anyone else on this board can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that science doesn’t contradict the Bible

Because geoscience refutes beyond a shadow of a doubt the Book of Genesis.

>don’t be a d*ck

Are you not scared about your faith being in vain?

>set up a meeting with an apologetic

I've read more than enough stuff by apologists and it's all mental gymnastics while YEC is orthodox and easily debunked.

>>798677

>Go with an open mind.

I have and there is no way around the fact that Scripture teaches that the Earth is about 6000 years old, though it is in reality circa 4.5 billion years old. What am I then to make of Joshua 10:12-14? Perhaps it's not "just metaphors" and the Bible truly teaches that the Earth is like pic related. Perhaps the Bible is not God's Word because the authors of the books didn't have a clue about the world and were thus not actually inspired by God since God is All-Knowing thus cannot be mistaken.

>>798680

>It is God's word, end of story.

The more you care about God's alleged Word the more you look into it and the more you look into it the more your faith in the Bible dies. Truth does not fear investigation.


8835b2  No.798713

>>798688

>Food for thought which is beneficial to my mind however what you should truly be concerned about is the implication of the modern scientific knowledge we've acquired.

Sure but then don't come in saying you want people to be christian and follow christian commandments when you yourself are encouraging people to apostatize.

>he Earth not being 6000 years old is not my opinion, it is fact and stating this fact, just like the Earth not being flat is not "trying to discredit Christianity". If I were trying to "discredit Christianity" I'd talk about the hypocrisy of many of its believers which is also babby's first argument.

You're missing the point. What is your opinion is that you think evolution invalidates christianity, when there are other multiple perspectives on this.

>inb4 mental gymnastics

That is what i mean when i say you made up your mind. "Evolution is true, and therefore, christianity is false, the only valid christian view is young earth american ken ham creationism and everyone who disagrees are doing mental gymnastics"

>I see what you're implying, however the fact that Christianity holds the most valuable moral teachings does not constitute proof of its theology as a whole.

That is not what i implied at all, i said that if you want people to follow christian commandments, then 99% of them needs to actually believe in their religion, not follow some kind of utilitarianism.

>Should I then LARP as a Christian and encourage others to be faithful Christians? Centuries ago I certainly would, no doubt about it, however nowadays modern scientific knowledge makes it harder for people to be YECs which leads the ones still claiming to be faithful to start picking and choosing which itself then leads them to believe that it's acceptable for a Christian to support the LGBT movement because Christ talked about love and those people waving the innocent-looking rainbow flags keep saying it's all about love and not lust.

People need to follow the catholic faith ( which itself, by admission of catholic religious leaders, including the pope, that evolution can reconciled ), and that's it. You're telling me that people not believing in Keh Ham leads to people supporting christian LGBT, which is ludicrous.


9fe2b1  No.798718

>>798708

Just stop spreading lies about what the Bible actually says. That's what I'm telling you to do. The firmament in Genesis 1 is objectively the atmosphere and the sky. That's how you have birds flying IN the open firmament.

Genesis 1:20

>And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

See? If you actually opened the Bible and quoted from it accurately then none of this retarded stuff would have to happen. Just stop spreading these lies endlessly. You are being impossible.

Also, stop doubting the inspiration of the Bible. It's possible you could put a stumblingblock for someone else by this act. Instead investigate the actual word of God first before making ridiculous claims that are easily shown to be malicious lies such as your "dome" image that subvert clear scripture such as Genesis 1:20.

Job 26:7

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

>The more you care about God's alleged Word the more you look into it and the more you look into it the more your faith in the Bible dies.

You apparently have never even once read the Bible, or if in the unlikely event you have, it was not the Authorized one. And you have not even actually quoted any scripture here. This is the kind of thing you'd expect to happen first before launching a full throated attack.

Otherwise all I need to do at that point is quote the right scripture to show how you've been making baseless claims.


7593ef  No.798721

>>798534

>translation: just accept it bro and it'll be true to you :)

>VERY not convincing.

Getting gifted faith is more than just "accepting" something your humanities teacher told you. Faith is not about getting "convinced", it's granted by God.

Once God directly intervenes with your life, you have simply no choice other than acknowledging the truth. And God's interventions manifest in physical reality around you, it's not something only happening in your head, which you can ignore conveniently.


7593ef  No.798723

>>798718

>You apparently have never even once read the Bible

Obviously not, because once you touch His word with an open mind, God starts your journey.

Nonbelievers avoid the Bible for this very reason.


f6db3a  No.798726

>>798708

Ok. I don’t know anymore. Happy? I’ll just go with SOME stuff in Genesis is figurative language- some stuff isn’t. Because at the end of the day, it’s stupid to say that the universe and earth came out of nothing. God creating it makes so much more sense. Congrats- you won a debate with a random dude online. I’m tired of arguing. I give up. However, before I go, tell me what/who YEC is


a9d927  No.798729

>>798005

>my love for science

Science doesn't exist. It's only ever been whatever self-professed scientists want it to be at a given moment. What scientists sell under the label is a mix of technology, philosophy, and history. The technology is very good, the philosophy and history are very bad. Scientists try to get you to conflate the tech with the philosophy and history so that you'll respect them as philosophical authorities, instead of say bishops and priests. It has worked out.

Scientists do natural history by deducing what would need to have been true in the past for their historical model to be correct, and then claiming that it must have been true. Otherwise their historical "theory" would be wrong, and we can't have that. Scientists' models of the past are rooted in philosophical assumptions they can't prove, that they blindly inherited from earlier generations of scientists. There's no justification for accepting their assumptions, no coherent epistemology backing them up. It's why they've convinced you they have this magical power called "science" without which you wouldn't have antibiotics and microwaves, or something. Because technology and history are the same thing.

Scientists claim the age of the universe is whatever it needs to be for their theories to be right. A global flood doesn't line up with their theories, so the flood must be false, otherwise their theories would be wrong. A universe only a few thousand years old would also disprove their theories. So they don't allow the possibility to be considered. It's how they keep people obedient to them.

"The universe needs to be 14 billion years old for my theory to be right, therefore it is 14 billion years old," is how scientists think. But that's not how reality works at all.


607533  No.798733

File: 6931e87da0d600b⋯.gif (241.19 KB, 3166x1646, 1583:823, TDSOYECb-2.gif)

>>798713

>you want people to be christian

Read:

>>798688

>Centuries ago I certainly would, no doubt about it, however nowadays modern scientific knowledge makes it harder for people to be YECs which leads the ones still claiming to be faithful to start picking and choosing which itself then leads them to believe that it's acceptable for a Christian to support the LGBT movement because Christ talked about love and those people waving the innocent-looking rainbow flags keep saying it's all about love and not lust.

>follow christian commandments

Yes.

>you yourself are encouraging people to apostatize

Not accurate.

>you think evolution invalidates christianity

Correct. There is nothing noble about our humble origins and so we cannot possibly be created in God's image. We are (and I used to really hate hearing this in the past because it does attack the last idea I mentioned) in fact merely very intelligent "animals" or mammals.

>there are other multiple perspectives on this

What's your perspective in light of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils ?

>the only valid christian view is young earth american ken ham creationism

You see, "young earth american Ken Ham creationism" or "brainlet creationism" is actually the orthodox Christian view which was the norm prior to the findings of the natural sciences. If you talked about the Earth being billions of years old and that it used to be ruled by "dinosaurs" (which you'd describe) prior to the 19th century you would've been locked up in a mental asylum. Ken Ham looks like an imbecile today, but back then most Christians were Ken Hams.

>everyone who disagrees are doing mental gymnastics

Everyone who pretends that "Jared had lived a hundred and sixty-two (162) years he became the father of Enoch. Jared lived after the birth of Enoch eight hundred years (800), and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years (962); and he died" is just metaphorical is indeed doing mental gymnastics, same as reasons.org which pretends the Flood was not global because it just targeted humans while Scripture clearly states "the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered…And all flesh died that moved upon the earth" >>798162

>You're telling me that people not believing in Keh Ham leads to people supporting christian LGBT, which is ludicrous.

It is not ludicrous because it's exactly what's happening and YEC is common among traditional Catholics.


607533  No.798740

File: 4bad12547d077e7⋯.jpg (99.28 KB, 1102x648, 551:324, ramidus_to_erectus22.jpg)

>>798718

>what the Bible actually says

I haven't focused on Genesis 1-2 because mental gymnastics are too easy to make.

>it was not the Authorized one

I don't read the Bible in english because it's not my language and the original OT text is hebrew, not english so spare me your KJV autism, thank you.

>you have not even actually quoted any scripture here

Read the thread and see this image: >>798273

>all I need to do at that point is quote the right scripture to show how you've been making baseless claims.

Can I get your thoughts on Genesis chapter 5?

>>798721

>"accepting" something your humanities teacher told you

That has little value to me, unlike what my science teachers taught me and the research I've done myself. What do you have a university degree in, anon? Are you aware of the following?

Evolutionary theory remains the only explanation that fully accounts for all the observations, measurements, data, and evidence discovered in the fields of biology, ecology, anatomy, physiology, zoology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. As such, young Earth creationism is dismissed by the academic and the scientific communities. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists … (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) … give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5 per cent of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. For their part, Young Earth Creationists say that the lack of support for their beliefs by the scientific community is due to discrimination and censorship by professional science journals and professional science organizations. This viewpoint was explicitly rejected in the rulings from the 1981 United States District Court case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education as no witness was able to produce any articles that had been refused publication and the judge could not conceive how "a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought". A 1985 study also found that only 18 out of 135,000 submissions to scientific journals advocated creationism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Impact


f6db3a  No.798746

>>798740

Hi it’s me again. Saw creationism so I’d figure I’d drop this. Sorry if irrelevant

https://youtu.be/UjGPHF5A6Po


607533  No.798748

File: 8a23fa7188584c0⋯.jpg (77.46 KB, 700x465, 140:93, YEC.jpg)

>>798726

>I’ll just go with SOME stuff in Genesis is figurative language- some stuff isn’t.

This admission of yours:

>>798668

>I do know, however, that the ages of people recorded in the Bible are not figurative language.

…is very important and I hope you will meditate on it.

>it’s stupid to say that the universe and earth came out of nothing. God creating it makes so much more sense

I agree.

>tell me what/who YEC is

Orthodox Christian belief regarding Creation.

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

>>798729

>Science doesn't exist.

lol

>Scientists' models of the past are rooted in philosophical assumptions they can't prove, that they blindly inherited from earlier generations of scientists.

correction: YEC pseudoscientists' models of the past are rooted in theological beliefs they can't prove, that they blindly inherited from the Bible.

Your entire post: science fake, scientists bad

I suggest you educate yourself on the natural sciences, you will then cringe when reading what you wrote.


607533  No.798749

>>798746

Read:

>>798005

>PS: atheism is not the issue here


f6db3a  No.798753

>>798749

That was for you, not op. (S)he can use it too tho


607533  No.798756

>>798753

But I am OP and after watching the video, all I can say is: how does this give any validity to the Bible? It doesn't.

Theism=/=Christianity


a9d927  No.798758

>>798651

>Foundational knowledge is still well established and we know for a fact that humanity is older than 6000 years.

The blind fideism of the sciencer makes YECs look like epistemic nihilists. You're just repeating a bunch of abstract claims without making an argument in favor of them. "I'm right, it's a fact, scientists aren't wrong here" isn't an argument, it's just performance art where you verbally masturbate all over yourself to feel smart, which is all you're doing in this thread. If you want to argue that scientists can deduce the age of the earth, start by listing the assumptions that go into that deduction and then justifying them. Otherwise you're just a coward who won't make an actual argument for fear it might be refuted.


f6db3a  No.798759

>>798756

>you’re op

Oh. My bad. Something might be up with the ID system. Anyways, you’re correct on the theism thing, but consider this- if not Christianity, then what? Islam? Judaism? Paganism? What puts those over Christianity when many people have claimed to have seen visions of God, angels, saints, etc? Just food for thought before I hit the sack.


607533  No.798762

>>798758

>you think you're smart, huh? where's your thesis?!

Are you that intellectually lazy that you need me to give you a course on cosmology, biology, geology, paleontology, etc. and justify every single explanation of each concept? How about you educate yourself and then prove the entire international scientific community wrong with your own research and get your Nobel Prizes? You're the coward, not me. Your whole pitiful non-argument is "it's all a conspiracy!", that is miserably pathetic and you should be embarrassed of yourself. The worst part is that you actually think your desperate yowling while in the fetal position is a noble defence of the Christian faith.

How old is humanity, anon? And what evidence do you have to support your claim?


607533  No.798763

>>798688

>if not Christianity, then what? Islam? Judaism? Paganism? What puts those over Christianity

I've never put those on the same level or above Christianity, in fact, I said that:

>>798005

>the Christian faith has more value than any other religion

…and also:

>>798688

>The fact that Christianity holds the most valuable moral teachings does not constitute proof of its theology as a whole.


a9d927  No.798764

>>798748

>>Science doesn't exist.

>lol

Where's the lie? It's not like we don't have decades of literature in the History and Philosophy of Science, demonstrating the nonexistence of any Scientific Method, the reality and insolubility of the Demarcation Problem, as well as Confirmation Holism, the Underdetermination of Scientific Theory, the Graveyard of Theories, etc.

The Demarcation Problem by itself disproves the existence of science. Either you know what science is or you don't. If you know what science is, you know what it isn't (what's different from what it is), you have your demarcation. But the demarcation problem has no solution, so there is no demarcation between science and non-science. Not having a demarcation between science and non-science, you don't know what it is (if you did you'd have a demarcation), but you claim to know what science is. Which is a contradiction, and contradictions can't exist.

Furthermore everything that exists is either one thing, or something else. So everything that exists is either science or non-science. But there is no demarcation between science and non-science. So science cannot be something that exists.

>Your entire post: science fake, scientists bad

Of course you don't make an argument against anything I wrote but just resort to vague rhetorical abstractions. But reality is in the details, fantasy in the abstract. You imply what I wrote was "cringe" but don't make an argument as to why. You're just throwing around feelings unjustified by any argument or philosophy. That's not a path to truth.


a9d927  No.798766

Note how the coward >>798762 still refuses to make an argument,

>How old is humanity, anon? And what evidence do you have to support your claim?

Really don't play along with his masturbatory performance art, we don't exist to make him feel smart about himself.

The best part of all this is the evaluative, nondescriptive language he's using. "intellectually lazy" "pitiful non-argument" " desperate yowling while in the fetal position", just typing out phrases that evoke bad feelings, to what? Make me feel bad? Make himself feel good? Just more feelings without any coherence or justification. Typical fedora trash.


607533  No.798777

File: f835cc390d1459f⋯.jpg (162.81 KB, 990x743, 990:743, 28322.jpg)

>>798764

>blablablabla science not real blablablablabla

If you think I won't notice you're baiting me to have a useless philosophical debate on the philosophy of science and all its sub-concepts you're vomiting while attempting to confuse me and escape from real issues such as Genesis and its implications in light of astronomy, geoscience and biology, think again. Nice try though, this may work with someone else who loves to argue endlessly.

I'm focusing on the natural sciences here. Do you know what they are?

Now let's forget this boring philosophy and tell me, how old is humanity and what evidence do you have to support your claim?

>Of course you don't make an argument against anything I wrote

I won't have a philosophical debate with you, sorry.

>You imply what I wrote was "cringe" but don't make an argument as to why.

Because you don't know a thing about the natural sciences and so you're resorting to the philosphy of science to save face while believing I won't notice.

>You're just throwing around feelings unjustified by any argument or philosophy.

>or philosophy

lol

>truth

You care about truth? How old is the Earth and how do you justify your answer, anon?

>>798766

>>How old is humanity, anon? And what evidence do you have to support your claim?

>R-Really don't play along with his m-masturbatory p-performance art (??), we d-don't exist to make him feel s-smart about himself!

How old is humanity, anon? And what evidence do you have to support your claim?


af822a  No.798785

>>798547

>Pic #1 is about 230 million years old

>Pic #2: is about 70,000 years old

>Pic #3: are nearly 10,000 years old

>Pic #4: is more than 10,000 years old

PROVE IT


7593ef  No.798786

>>798740

>Evolutionary theory remains the only explanation

And I just ask God, the creator, what is true. Doesn't mean I don't need science.

>>798740

>99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution

Science isn't a voting system. 99.9 % of researchers can be wrong. Isn't even unusual, as scientific breakthroughs often turn the major opinion.


a9d927  No.798790

The coward continues >>798777 asking me to make arguments ("how old is the Earth") while making excuses for his own lack of doing so. He applies feeling-words like "useless" to discussing philosophy of science, when all his beloved "science" is inseparable from philosophy. Scientists's "theories" are full of ontological and epistemological claims, ontology and epistemology are branches of philosophy. If the ontology and epistemology are wrong, the claims about reality and the claims of what is known are wrong as well.

>Now let's forget this boring philosophy

He says this philosophy is "boring", which makes it automatically true. "Boring" and therefore bad, because boring is a bad feeling. As for justifying why it's "boring", or what that has to do with the truth, he's got nothing. But whether it's boring or not is irrelevant, what matters is if it's true.

>I won't have a philosophical debate with you, sorry.

He refuses to debate the philosophy underlying his "science" because he's a coward who knows he'll lose.

>I'm focusing on the natural sciences here. Do you know what they are?

Words used to represent feelings, indexing things on the basis of social construction and what was most useful for scientists to have people think was "natural science" at a given time, really just a mix of philosophy, technology, and history, treated as if they were the same thing.

>I won't have a philosophical debate with you, sorry.

The coward thinks his refusal to play ball is equal to his victory. Well he's not having a debate at all, just hurling claims at people with some insults thrown in.

>R-Really don't play along with his m-masturbatory p-performance art (??), we d-don't exist to make him feel s-smart about himself!

Adding stuttering, >implying I am flustered or something. Though no stuttering was in my post, and it's all his invention, more projection of feelings, without any reason or justification behind it. The hollowness of the scientific mind.


6e0ab1  No.798796

Truth can't contradict truth. If evolution is true all it would mean is the YEC interpretation off Genesis is wrong.

The problem here is that you have no faith.


607533  No.798812

File: 0fe4db65b259428⋯.jpg (1.09 MB, 1510x1600, 151:160, noah and the spinosaurs.jpg)

>>798785

https://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens212/radiometric_dating.htm

>>798786

>maybe 99.99% of actual expert researchers are wrong about everything and those who don't do any actual research are right

Maybe I'm a woman, despite my XY chromosomes.

>>798790

How old is the Earth and what evidence do you have to support your claim, o philosopher?

>>798796

>If evolution is true all it would mean is the YEC interpretation off Genesis is wrong.

How would you interpret Genesis chapter 5?


f6db3a  No.798946

>>798005

So anon, correct me if I’m wrong, but your main grievances with Genesis are

>earth’s age

>humanity’s age

You say science contradicts all of these. Am I correct in saying that you believe this?


8835b2  No.798949

>>798733

>Not accurate.

I know you don't want to, but you are indirectly doing this without noticing..you come to this christian board, tells them their religion is wrong, mocks them to feel intelectually superior, and you don't think you are being subversive?

>You see, "young earth american Ken Ham creationism" or "brainlet creationism" is actually the orthodox Christian view which was the norm prior to the findings of the natural sciences. If you talked about the Earth being billions of years old and that it used to be ruled by "dinosaurs" (which you'd describe) prior to the 19th century you would've been locked up in a mental asylum. Ken Ham looks like an imbecile today, but back then most Christians were Ken Hams.

There have been other views of genesis in church history, not exactly as you've described it, yes. But other christian authors have discussed genesis in different ways as well.

>It is not ludicrous because it's exactly what's happening and YEC is common among traditional Catholics.

Sorry but let's agree to disagree. In my opinion either people apostatize (you) or they don't. They don't suddenly start to justify homosexuality because evolution is real and still calls themselves christians. People twist the gospel for other reasons, but i don't believe it's because of evolurtion.

Regarding the other stuff you've asked me, it's useless asking me, i'm not a apologist nor do i have a formed opinion regarding this, and i'm agnostic regarding darwinian evolution.


9db571  No.799003

>>798005

OPs presuppositions are insulting.

>Most Christians pretend

You think my faith hasn’t been tested anon? Your faith in impartial science is nauseating.


7df0dd  No.799013

>>798812

Scientific consensus has been wrong before. Don’t try some weak argument from authority. Don’t try to pretend big science is impartial.


7df0dd  No.799015

>>798812

And in Ancient Greece 99.99 percent of “experts” thought the world was eternal. Darwinism has become a religion in modern society. If you reject it they cry heretic.


7df0dd  No.799020

File: 969d4ca03352e80⋯.jpeg (92.5 KB, 400x523, 400:523, 227E40B6-91BE-4B09-826D-9….jpeg)

>>798708

>let’s just ground everything on whatever scientific theory/fad is in fashion

>throw metaphysics and the transcendental argument out because that isn’t “science” durr

>the Bible isn’t historical because Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris say so

>Ken Ham weak adhom argument

t. fedora


2e6aab  No.799024

I think the question we should be asking here if OP grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant American family, because even a high Prot European wouldn't be this autisticc over Genesis.


607533  No.799096

File: 279e355b3282b91⋯.jpg (212.04 KB, 700x1241, 700:1241, c2728836ee5e32ac68b040c6c5….jpg)

>>798946

Correct.

>>798949

>you come to this christian board

I've been here for years.

>tells them their religion is wrong

Inaccurate, as I've stated that Catholic moral teaching is right.

>There have been other views of genesis in church history

Many were heterodox thus heretical while YEC remains the orthodox view.

>other christian authors have discussed genesis in different ways as well

Many simply do mental gymnastics and/or are blatantly wrong, ex: >>798162

>They don't suddenly start to justify homosexuality because evolution is real and still calls themselves christians.

This happens because nowadays it is obvious to most educated people (americans excluded, pic related) that the Earth is not 6000 years old. So how do they react when they read Genesis chapter 5? "*gasp* oooookay…well this is surely just metaphorical, r-right? I don't actually HAVE to believe this…" and so once this happens, other disturbing and "intolerant" passages receive the same treatment and you now have lesbian bishops.

>>799003

Most Christians do in fact pretend modern scientific findings are not a massive problem for the faith. Others acknowledge that it's problematic and call science fake, like the YEC pseudo-philosopher in this thread.

>>799013

>Scientific consensus has been wrong before.

For the umpteenth time, today foundational knowledge is well established.

>>799015

>in Ancient Greece

Yeah.

>>799015

>Darwinism

Evolution=/=Darwinism

Biology=/=Darwinism

>>799020

>the Bible isn’t historical because Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris say so

Your post is stupid and your random quoting does not even deserve a reply, I'll however repeat once again that atheism is not the issue and I don't even listen to atheist discourse on the Bible.

>>799024

I don't have a protestant background.


7f4098  No.799100

>>798740

>I haven't focused on Genesis 1-2

Then why are you posting abject falsehoods about Genesis 1-2? You have been posting flat earth dome pictures in here. So then why are you now claiming not to even focus on it??

>I don't read the Bible in english because it's not my language and the original OT text is hebrew, not english so spare me your KJV autism, thank you.

There is equivalents in other languages. You're not getting off the hook.

>Can I get your thoughts on Genesis chapter 5?

It's all literal. There is no problem with this. The only problem is in the head of a person who has been brainwashed by subversives to think a certain way such as flat-earth dome memes, flood geology, and the pitiful day-age theorists.


7f4098  No.799101

>>799100

I should add, the pitiful day-age theorists who ignore Exodus 20:11. Of the three, they most clearly undermine and subvert scripture. Which is saying a lot.


ebfa07  No.799102

>>799096

Any list in which Iceland (a country with a eugenics program) tops is probably a list you want to be near the bottom on.


607533  No.799105

File: e70aace09602371⋯.jpg (382.59 KB, 750x894, 125:149, 3a410f229f919e9c4182750eee….jpg)

File: 545872abf6d562f⋯.jpg (923.47 KB, 1194x1600, 597:800, noah's ark.jpg)

>>799100

>abject falsehoods

Wrong, your interpretation simply differs from what can be understood reading the chapters.

>There is equivalents in other languages.

What do you mean?

>It's all literal. There is no problem with this.

Okay, so pic #2 truly happened when Noah was 600 years old, 10 generations after Adam, i.e. 1656 years after the birth of the first human?


7f4098  No.799111

>>799105

>Wrong, your interpretation simply differs from what can be understood reading the chapters.

2 Peter 1:20

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

>What do you mean?

There are equivalent Bibles to the received text. So you can't worm out of things just by claiming you don't understand English. It's just not that simple. It's just not that easy.

>Okay, so pic #2 truly happened

Is that picture inspired scripture? Didn't think so. Sorry but it won't be so easy here.

>happened when Noah was 600 years old, 10 generations after Adam, i.e. 1656 years after the birth of the first human?

What Genesis actually says happened did happen (Not what people say Genesis says; what Genesis says). All the timelines given there are accurate to the number of years. There's no reason to doubt any of these things. The only problem you run into is assuming there is some contradiction of evidence here. But that's only if you try to rationalize flat earth theology, flood geology or day-age theory, which I understand are prominent, but you shouldn't just allow these manmade doctrines mislead you when Scripture doesn't agree with them. You have to go back to the source here, and I'm trying to give you some benefit of the doubt here but it's hard when you keep posting retarded dome earth with disc-shaped surface images.


607533  No.799112

File: 9edd254d750411a⋯.jpg (486.14 KB, 900x600, 3:2, 55113-2.jpg)

>>799111

>2 Peter 1:20

We're not talking about prophecy here.

>There are equivalent Bibles to the received text

Such as?

>Is that picture inspired scripture?

What kind of question is that? It explains what the text plainly states.

>All the timelines given there are accurate to the number of years.

Then answer my question with a simple yes or no: did pic related happen when Noah was 600 years old, 10 generations after Adam, i.e. 1656 years after the birth of the first human?

>assuming there is some contradiction of evidence here

I don't assume there is, I know there is, in light of (disconcerting) modern scientific findings.

>flood geology

How would you define it?


7f4098  No.799113

File: f1bd07e6fd6544c⋯.png (126.94 KB, 960x832, 15:13, dbeeb1046.png)

>>799112

>We're not talking about prophecy here.

Read the next verse. Of course we are. And so there is only one truth, there is one Spirit-led interpretation of prophecy. It is not private interpretation.

>Such as?

Pic related for a few examples. Though I know the Reina-valera you want the version of it before 1960, since I'm pretty sure the 2010 is pozzed also.


7f4098  No.799116

>>799112

>What kind of question is that? It explains what the text plainly states.

No it doesn't.

>did pic related happen when Noah was 600 years old, 10 generations after Adam, i.e. 1656 years after the birth of the first human?

That picture is not what the Bible says happened. You asked a loaded question which would presume that picture is what scripture says but I disagree. Also that picture is also different from the other picture, so again you keep on asking different questions.

>I don't assume there is, I know there is, in light of (disconcerting) modern scientific findings.

You can't even point out what contradiction there is. So far, no scripture from you. Just silly pictures that I don't waste time with.


607533  No.799119

File: dbae4fddf5e46ce⋯.png (550.22 KB, 1889x1689, 1889:1689, 92adcbc2cc87ea15c67c567382….png)

>>799113

>Read the next verse.

I meant that by discussing Genesis 1-2 we're not talking about prophecy.

>Pic related for a few examples.

I was just humouring you. I don't believe the KJV has any authority and I won't ever take a protestant Bible seriously because verses are deliberately mistranslated and 7 books are lacking. Pic related is a thread I made a while ago.

>>799116

>No it doesn't.

Except it does, look closely and read the words.

>You asked a loaded question

Does Genesis not describe Noah as being 600 years old when the Flood happened, i.e. 1656 years after the birth of the first human? Did you read Genesis?

>You can't even point out what contradiction there is. So far, no scripture from you.

Read the thread.

>silly pictures

What's silly about showing pairs of animals of different species brought together on a big boat by a 600 year old Noah? Are you calling Scripture silly? tsk tsk tsk


7f4098  No.799122

>>799119

So you were insincere anyway. I return to my original post that we need less spiteful haters attacking the true Scripture. Attacking the truth as you are.


607533  No.799123

>>799122

I'm still waiting for your definition of "flood geology".


f6db3a  No.799125

>>799096

>age of earth

I reread Genesis 1, and it said that the earth was made in 6 days, which we all know is the creationism story. However, as I’ve said before, days in the Bible may not be 24 hours. And to a certain extent, I’ve noticed that the Bible and science kinda match up. From Wikipedia, it says,” The succeeding eon is the Phanerozoic, divided into three eras: the Palaeozoic, an era of arthropods, fishes, and the first life on land; the Mesozoic, which spanned the rise, reign, and climactic extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs; and the Cenozoic, which saw the rise of mammals. Recognizable humans emerged at most 2 million years ago”. It matches up with the Bible- first came water/ land life, then the extinction of certain animals and the balancing out of climate (this wasn’t explicitly stated in the Bible but it could have easily happened), and then finally humans. The earth technically could be millions of years old- the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that day meant 24 hours

>human life

Here’s where there’s a big contradiction. Human life existed for 1656 years before the flood, and eons after, but science says that it existed for 2 million years. I don’t know what to tell you at this point, seeing as the Bible seems straight forward in terms of lineage. You can look into it more if you want- I may myself


7f4098  No.799126

>>799123

Too much respect for the truth of what God says to continue this conversation, anon.


607533  No.799146

File: f42a76ca3b8fcf5⋯.jpg (114.66 KB, 897x650, 69:50, chart.jpg)

>>799125

>the Bible and science kinda match up

They really don't and, sadly, no reconciliation is possible; pic related.

I however really appreciate and wish to thank you for your brave consideration to investigate that which you consider to be the truth and its apparent issues without rejecting the latter a priori.

>>799126

If you respected the truth you wouldn't be scared to defend it.


23d4d9  No.799159

File: 911dfe900fcb49e⋯.jpg (1017.44 KB, 2863x1830, 2863:1830, John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Go….jpg)

You can teach the dull and reason with the wise, but I am increasingly convinced, that of the former who believe they are the latter, there is no helping. The gap in intelligence between understanding basic science and understanding basic philosophy is all it takes to send someone to hell, and aggrieve you with your inability to prevent it.

>>798305

>>Modern quantum physics suggests that consciousness is the basis for matter, not the other way around.

>How is this relevant with anything I wrote? How do you even define consciousness and matter?

How many times do you need the same thing written down for you in different words before you engage with it in earnest? Is there any counter-argument you won't ignore?

>And I'm the troll?

>Wrong.

>lol

What thought goes into these words? Are you capable of thinking before typing? Can you be engaged with on a dialectic level? Do dead men need to walk before you learn to read? Using list upon list of empty words to obfuscate the fact that you repeatedly refuse to answer to your antithesis, and ignoring the question entirely >>798270 when this scheming, duplicitous tactic is no longer available; Is this really all you can do?

>it's still true, sorry. Perhaps your issue is one of humility.

Is discourse really so far beyond your understanding? Is the idea that your ideas require validation; questions warrant your answers, so incomprehensible? Why then, have you started this thread? To flaunt the extent of your Dunning-Kruger; your sheer inability to grasp even a concept such as irony? Just for that? Or is this a joke to you?

>Christian morality is still worthy of being embraced.

How are you capable of holding beliefs without any sort of basis for them? Christian morality without Christ? Science without Logic? What thought process do you follow? Do you think at all?

I have repeatedly attempted to reason with you, as others have, but you don't want dissenting voices. You've made your conclusion and you want people to agree. You're too afraid to abandon God on your own and need to drag down others with you. If you have lead astray even one of His flock with this travesty of a thread then may you be held accountable for it; until then I can only pray you grow to listen, to read and to accept God and His scripture, and not the imitations of false prophets.


8835b2  No.799161

>>799096

>I've been here for years.

not my point. My point is that you are in a christian board telling people that their religion is false, but sprinkle it by saying "oh by the way, i'm a theist who believes god created the universe but abandoned it, never speaking a word once again,leaving no commandments, no way to tell us how to live the best life and what is good or wrong, but everyone should follow christianity as if it was true because they are good according to my subjective conscience".

>Inaccurate, as I've stated that Catholic moral teaching is right.

10 iq post. tigga you told people over 10 times that christianity is false. You ARE indirectly encouraging to apostatize, and when people apostatize, most people stop following catholic moral law because there is little point ( in most people's heads) to do that, and i don't blame them.

Nor responding any further because all you do is misunderstand my posts and there little for me to gain with debating a person who can't debate and misses the point thousands of times.


607533  No.799162

File: bc1a6c81fec682d⋯.png (44.71 KB, 933x555, 311:185, adam-to-noah-genealogy_ori….png)

>>799159

>Is there any counter-argument you won't ignore?

Which counter-arguments have I ignored? What I noticed ITT is that plenty of my questions were left unanswered such as the one you're replying to with new questions of your own, so I'll ask again: how do you even define consciousness and matter?

>And I'm the troll?

>Wrong.

>lol

What's with this random out-of-context quoting of 3 random short replies taken from the thousands of words I've written ITT? Can you be anymore dishonest?

>ignoring the question entirely >>798270

You want me to prove I exist? Are you a solipsist? How is this fruitful to a discussion about the veracity of Genesis? I will not engage in a philosophical debate with you to get away from the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that a global Flood occured 1656 years after the birth of the first human, deal with it.

>Is this really all you can do?

Is desperately trying to bait me into engaging in a philosophical debate all you can do? Do you not realise how pathetic this looks?

>questions warrant your answers

Ask me any non-philosophical question and I will answer, got it?

>Why then, have you started this thread?

Read:

>>798688

>Food for thought which is beneficial to my mind however what you should truly be concerned about is the implication of the modern scientific knowledge we've acquired.

Now, for the umpteenth time: how old is the Earth and what evidence do you have to support your claim?


607533  No.799184

File: 09d46473883217e⋯.jpg (351.47 KB, 1200x1047, 400:349, Edward_Hicks,_American_-_N….jpg)

>>799161

>i'm a theist who believes god created the universe but abandoned it

I don't believe that God has abandoned the Universe, I just don't believe that man is its center.

>according to my subjective conscience

Yes.

>10 iq post

How so? You're claiming that I see Christianity as WRONG while I answer that it isn't WRONG because I believe its moral teachings are RIGHT. Claiming that Christianity's moral teachings are RIGHT does not mean that its entire theology is right nor does claiming that its theology is wrong imply that everything about the faith is wrong and that churches should be burned. Have you taken an IQ test?

>You ARE indirectly encouraging to apostatize, and when people apostatize, most people stop following catholic moral law because there is little point ( in most people's heads) to do that, and i don't blame them.

Read:

>>798688

>Should I then LARP as a Christian and encourage others to be faithful Christians? Centuries ago I certainly would, no doubt about it, however nowadays modern scientific knowledge makes it harder for people to be YECs which leads the ones still claiming to be faithful to start picking and choosing which itself then leads them to believe that it's acceptable for a Christian to support the LGBT movement because Christ talked about love and those people waving the innocent-looking rainbow flags keep saying it's all about love and not lust.

>>799096

>This happens because nowadays it is obvious to most educated people (americans excluded, pic related) that the Earth is not 6000 years old. So how do they react when they read Genesis chapter 5? "*gasp* oooookay…well this is surely just metaphorical, r-right? I don't actually HAVE to believe this…" and so once this happens, other disturbing and "intolerant" passages receive the same treatment and you now have lesbian bishops.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Also, I've just skimmed through your posts ITT and I notice that you have not tried to defend any of the claims of Genesis and that your posts amount to: "yeah but people will stop being good if you tell them that it's wrong".

So let me ask you, do you accept the biblical teaching that Noah was 600 years old when, 1656 years after the birth of the first human, a global Flood occured during which Noah and 7 other people as well as 2 animals of each specie were spared because they were all brought on a big boat?

Let's forget the question of morality for a second and consider whether or not biblical writings are actually correct. If we come to the understanding that they aren't, let us then calmly ponder where do we go from there and come to a wise solution instead of immediately burning churches.

>>799172

It isn't but I'd rather be muslim than atheist.

https://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran


607533  No.799189

>>799159

>lead astray

I am pointing out what the Bible teaches and what has been orthodox belief for millennia. If simply telling people to read Genesis chapter 5 and pointing out that Genesis 1 teaches that first came birds and later came land animals kills their faith…well, they should've read their dusty Bible earlier.


607533  No.799196

File: 52acfe8213cb040⋯.png (418.74 KB, 679x2150, 679:2150, Islam:Christianity Compari….png)

>>799191

Muhammad obtained sexual pleasure by thrusting his penis between Aisha's pre-pubescent thighs and had her wash sperm off his clothes. Why should I believe that the Almighty Creator of the Universe appointed such an execrable pig as His holy messenger?


607533  No.799197

>>799194

>happened in iraq and levant flood basin, does not have to be global based on the quran

https://quran.com/71/26


607533  No.799205

>>799198

I'm not an atheist, habibi. Also, child molesters deserve no respect.


5f0202  No.799245

File: f0519599d3b30a3⋯.jpeg (93.11 KB, 1091x791, 1091:791, StJeromeWriting.jpeg)

>>798005

Anon, I've considered what you had to say, and I have proof you're wrong, do with it what you will.

Inerrancy should mean less than infallibility, but theologians mixed the terms around so that infallibility means that there is no falsehood so far as faith, practice, and the history the Bible presents. Inerrancy (what you profess) is that no word of the Bible can be false.

Both these views I'm afraid, have their roots in a 30 year old controversy within radical Protestantism. Unsurprisingly this is the Protestant answer to Papal infallibility; the religious crisis of the west has resulted in a need to shore up the truth-claims of religious authority, so whereas the Protestants appeal more to the Bible, the Catholics reassert the importance of their living tradition. Arguably, this route of defiance is insufficiently humble, gets Christians in a lot of trouble and only deepens the depravity of our age by tearing apart the religion through a series of conflicts it will never win.

The truth of the matter, is that I don't think this has anything much to do with the purpose of scripture, or the nature of God. God did not write scripture directly, or even dictate it, He merely revealed Himself and allowed the talents of the individuals who produced the work to operate. God is also infinitely humble and simple, so His revelation is based around simple themes, was written by simple people, to be understood by simple people. Is it true? Of course, but it is not safe from reductionism. The Bible is there to remind us of these simple themes, which are the necessities of living in the world. Like a father's wisdom, the Bible is easily able to be rejected, its pages will yield if you want to tear them up and you can scorn and fault the prophets and call them ancient rustics, but there are costs to doing so.

In short, there is an absurdity in what you are asking. You have shown thorough knowledge of the Bible but no knowledge of its sense, nor any love of its rusticity. I would argue that all the Bible ever had to offer was love. My faith rests on this, not on the generations of Noah.

In short therefore, have you really had a faith crisis? Shouldn't you call it instead a faith realization? Would faith in Christ be faith anymore if you could be that certain?


607533  No.799259

File: 7774b39ea431611⋯.jpg (649.88 KB, 1600x1317, 1600:1317, hans_holbein_the_younger_-….jpg)

>>799245

I understand what you wrote and it is beautifully said.

Look at pic related however; this is what the Christian faith is all about. Read what this other anon wrote:

>>798036

>…what did Christ need to save us from? Rejecting literal creation gives you a completely skewed view of Original Sin. . .Evolution is really not an incidental issue that can be hand-waved away but a direct attack on the core of Christianity. It undermines everything.

>>798052

>the geneaology is wrong if the Earth is billions of years old and Adam and Eve didn't exist

>>798058

>If the Bible is wrong in Genesis 5, how do you know it's not wrong about Jesus and salvation?

>>798130

>The Bible says there were about 6000 years from Adam up to the present, and that God created Adam in his image. Science (evolutionism) claims the first humans originated hundreds of thousands of years ago, and that Adam and Eve, if they existed, were birthed by semi-monkeys. You see the issue here, right? It's not just about the age of the Earth.

>>798202

>So there was never actually an Adam who sinned in the Garden of Eden? Then what happens to Original Sin? How did sin enter into the world? And what exactly did Jesus have to save us from?

We're talking about the very foundation of the Christian faith here. Without the first human being committing the first sin, there would be no death in the world, i.e. human beings would not die.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

CCC 390

I've been focusing on the Flood to highlight the issue of geology because we know that the Earth is circa 4.5 billion years old and this very fact leads us directly to the other main issue which is biology and the evolution of life on Earth. This chart illustrates the problem very well: >>799146

Our modern scientific findings directly contradict the account of Creation and even if we call everything a metaphor, we cannot dismiss the reality of original sin, as it is taught in Scripture, and how Christ comes into the picture. If Adam did not actually exist then Christ is not the New Adam. Adam is not merely an idea or a symbol, just like Christ is neither of these but rather God incarnate as per biblical teaching. If Adam did not exist and commit the first sin then God would've never had the need to actually incarnate on Earth to atone for said sin. Hence my questions: How old is the Earth? How old is humanity? Are we truly made in God's image? Is humanity really the centre of the Universe?

Remember the following:

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned — sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:12-21

If Christianity were a work of art whose subject is the human condition, it would truly be a masterpiece but is it actually the true religion? Are you certain that by embracing the faith you've figured it all out? Do you really know the creator of the Universe and does He really care about your humble self?


5f0202  No.799271

>>799259

>If Christianity were a work of art whose subject is the human condition, it would truly be a masterpiece but is it actually the true religion? Are you certain that by embracing the faith you've figured it all out? Do you really know the creator of the Universe and does He really care about your humble self?

I will try my best to answer all 3, because this is really the center of the issue.

>Is it actually the true religion?

This is rather easy to dismiss because the way you've framed the question then there are no true religions. All Abrahamism would be wrong, that's a given, but also Eastern religions; all of them say things which contradict science if you insist on being a stickler for scientific accuracy. This is elementary, Sam Harris tier stuff.

>Are you certain that by embracing the faith that you've got it all figured out?

This is worth noting, because the answer is yes and no. I don't have it all figured out, but the Bible has certain merits that I think exceed any other thing to believe in. It would be contrary to humility to say that I had it all figured out, but that same compassion and humility which the Bible extols from Genesis to Revelation is a better starting point for figuring stuff out than anything said since.

>Do you really know the Creator of the universe, and does He really care about your humble self?

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I don't think it matters particularly. Whatever God chooses is best; if He chose to not grant us an afterlife, and to ignore us, then that would be good. Really even throwing us all into hell would be a good act so long as God does it. All hail the King. There is a subjective element too, because I have known this inexplicable goodness and have sought out religious truth in many other places before I turned to Christianity, all were lacking in comparison.

Really the argument that produced your question here relies on a purely human notion of big things meaning more importance anyway. I cannot consent to the idea that God is obliged to view it the same way.

As for your other objections, I think in many ways Christianity's story is getting in the west to be a bit like the tree and the young boy, who first sits in it's shade, but as he grows older he takes leaves, then branches, then the trunk at last to make a boat. The tree obliges in everything, even when the boy comes at last as an old man and asks merely for a stump to sit on. As I said before; Christianity is a simple, rustic thing. It did not ask to be made into the basis for thousands of philosophical theories, and taken apart by over-analysis piece by piece by ungrateful mortals who would take any lesson from it except the lesson of love, until now when it seems that the only thing left of the true vine is a stump. This is the tragedy


5f0202  No.799273

>>799259

Also about original sin; it is an obvious fact that all people sin, and other religions are not blind to this fact either. Whether we should say "original sin" or something else as a way of denoting this propensity is an ancient controversy. This doesn't need a leap of faith just because it's unpopular in secular circles to mention sin.


607533  No.799275

>>799271

Anon, that last part of my post is negligible. Why did you focus on that and ignored 95% of what I wrote?


5f0202  No.799276

>>799275

Because 95% of what you wrote is negligible.


5f0202  No.799278

>>799275

You've made up your mind already; scientific consistency or bust, so you've chosen bust. It's your hardness of heart.

Now I've done my best to make atonement for blustering in here earlier, but there's truly little anyone can do for you. You're not pleased with Christianity, you've made it self evident. Well, go in peace. Only you can change your mind.


607533  No.799286

>>799276

>Genesis being refuted by archeology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. is negligible

You're confirming what I wrote in my first post:

>>798005

>Most Christians pretend it's not a massive problem

>>799278

>scientific consistency or bust

It's not just scientific inconsistency, it's also its implications which pop the balloon. Genesis is NOT negligible; it is not supposed to be viewed by a Christian as a collection of useless jewish scribblings which we can simply discard because "we've got the New Testament now".

>there's truly little anyone can do for you

Someone could actually try to defend Genesis and yet this is not happening. Someone could try to argue about the true meaning of the original hebrew words, provide some numerological hypothesis, introduce a new symbolic interpretation of Original Sin without denying human evolution, try to provide some geological evidence for the Flood, etc. etc. None of this is happening and I'm disappointed. Most of you are also scared to answer the simple question: how old are the Earth and humanity? So don't give me this nonsense about hardness of heart and the Truth™ when you have your tail between your legs.


5f0202  No.799292

>>799286

Do you want a symbolic interpretation? Fine. I heard a while ago that when our ancestors had become modern humans (homo sapiens) they spent a million years naked. Well even if that's not precisely true, don't you ever wonder what made our ancestors actually put on clothes? Surely there had to be a point of realization, an end of innocence. I don't have the answer to what truly happened, but the narrative of the fall is definitely how we experienced it on the receiving end. Something we did made us realize that we were sinners, and that we were going to die. Children today have the same realization. At the age of 2-3 children don't consider clothing necessary, but sometime around age 4 they stop this and put on clothes, while also they first realize what death means for them.

You have to remember, as I said, that the writers of the Bible, however inspired, were limited by their experiences. What "stood out" to them about their origins, probably has nothing in common with how a biologist would view it. These ordinary people would have equated the need children feel to wear clothes after age 3 and their awakening to death, and use this to say "so it must have been with the first man and woman." Then there is the snake, and the Bible is redolent with the idea of children and their relationship to snakes (being killed, commonly enough back then). Thus the image of the redeemed world put forward by the prophets is that of children playing with wild animals and putting their finger in the cockatrice's den (Isaiah 11:8). So this symbology is the symbolism of death swallowed up in victory. Snakes which normally kill children, and which "killed" Adam and Eve, will symbolically become harmless in the restored world.

Apples are a common enough symbol for temptation, even the Brothers Grimm has one in Snow White, and there too Snow White is to innocent to see the danger. Go figure.

Even Cain and Abel shows marks of an ancient conflict between pastoralism and farming. It is not accidental that Abel is a pastoralist and the historical Israelites are farmers.

I'm hesitant to speak of this because of how little I know, but surely Genesis is not so easily downplayed if you take a symbolical approach. Even the flood represents chaos, i.e. the result of sins, which sweeps away good and evil alike because of the miasma it produces. So this theme iterates throughout the Bible and even now. Sin is a destructive force, like a flood, and it drowns/eats up everything outside the Ark/The Ark of the Covenant/Or Jesus Christ, depending on the era. To you get it?


5f0202  No.799295

>>799286

This is what I mean about the Bible being simple. Viewing this as a contest of archaeology, paleontology, physics, biology, and so on against God's word, is to have mistaken the simple faith and wisdom that produced the Bible in the first place as being science. The faith in the Bible is always "tomorrow it will be better than today," "sinners will get their comeuppance" and "My fruitless labours here on earth will be redeemed by God."

It is the triumph of pure rustic simplicity over the people who think that they know something.


607533  No.799318

File: ddf44ab4c4c2cc1⋯.png (635.16 KB, 731x733, 731:733, 1 2T1PMKskIZ1_KKbkCUN1HA.png)

File: eb9c5fde861e07e⋯.jpg (282.53 KB, 1423x2110, 1423:2110, 8bfb4b25bd63b12c241d629e61….jpg)

>>799292

I appreciate your effort. Are you Catholic btw? I am asking this because rejecting that the Original Sin's origin is one, i.e. from the first man who is Adam, is heresy and so interpreting it as originating from humanity's collective realisation, albeit gradual and not initially widespread, of the effect of its disobediance to the laws of creation and immorality, is incompatible with Catholic theology which emphasises the stain of sin between transmitted by Adam and through Adam's direct posterity. The Council of Trent was very clear on the question: http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm

As for the Flood, there is also a clear link between the appearance of the dove holding the olive branch in Genesis 8:11 which symbolises a new beginning for mankind following the subsiding of the waters and the dove identified as the Holy Spirit in the Gospels which descended on Christ following His baptism. You would probably enjoy the chapters 26 and 27 of Book XV from St. Augustine's City of God: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

This is also a good read:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_days_church_fathers.pdf

>>799295

>Viewing this as a contest of archaeology, paleontology, physics, biology, and so on against God's word

It's more about wondering how much of it is actually historical in light of modern scientific findings and how Original Sin should thus be understood, as well as Christ's ministry. Was He really whom He claimed to be? As I wrote here:

>>798023

>If He wasn't truly the Word made flesh, then He simply wanted to bring good to the world, as I said, and successfully did so, facilitated by His knowledge of Scripture which He extensively studied before starting His ministry at 30 years old, after proper preparation. If none of it is true, He wasn't a mere lunatic, He was very intelligent and good-willed.

I am well aware of all the prophecies he fulfilled: https://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

But if He lacked divinity, could His wisdom not have made Him successfully accomplish this? As for His miracles, did He really perform them? Did He really rise from the dead? If so, who was He and where did He come from if He still wasn't the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? These are valid questions to ask because sin and death being introduced to humanity by 1 man only, Adam, and him being the first man is orthodox Christian teaching though with our modern knowledge of biology and human DNA, as that other anon said earlier ITT, Adam and Eve would have been "birthed by semi-monkeys". Weren't we supposed to be made in God's image? How can we then descend from beasts and how can bonobos be our closest living relatives?! Should we consider baptising them?!


607533  No.799322

File: 4598a60e4a8fb59⋯.webm (2.52 MB, 640x352, 20:11, Holy Shroud.webm)

I do still believe Christ performed miracles and rose from the dead but if Adam did not exist and death was not introduced to mankind through his sin, then there must be more to Christ's story though it remains the greatest ever told.


5f0202  No.799333

>>799318

>Made in God's image, no?

Yes, but what? Not our bodies, our minds are the image of God, this is how I've understood it, and it seems genuinely more rational. God the Father doesn't have a body after all.

>Adam and Eve not being our first parents is heresy

I'm well aware that this is the case, by my reasoning they were, since the Genesis account has other people in it though, such as the woman randomly injected into the narrative to be Cain's wife, I have to suggest that this might be a case where some tolerances have to be allowed for. I'm not Catholic, just a filthy High-Anglican Caesaropapist, but I suggest lightening up on this. Surely we can fit more into one conceptual space than one narrative? I think the story in Genesis 1 is hugely important to understanding God (of course it was written by God-inspired people, for people to be inspired by God).

>The Incarnation's origins

I have to think that the Incarnation Himself had every intention to conform to the culture into which He was born so as to educate them without hassle. He didn't see a need to tell us we're monkeys, hell being monkeys would be an upgrade.

>Christ's origins

As unknowable as the contents of a black hole is my thinking; so many normal assumptions have to get thrown out in order to understand something even as innocuous as the Holy Family if you really think, for instance, of what Mary's relationship to her son means for her status, like Catholic Mariology tries to elucidate. So the Incarnation is sort of like a theological singularity, everything He touches changes inwardly (at least).

Overall I love it, and I love God, because this story, it's mere existence, shows you that the simple people, the common weal, has a serious leg up. All those fancy intellectuals who think that they are saying something "new" are invariably spouting words put in their mouths by Moses, Christ and Paul. This is a great glory to God. Can you imagine how awful it would be if the money men and lawyers were the really eloquent ones and the impoverished had to use their words to express themselves? We'd all be so winnie the poohed it's beyond imagining.

Anyway, glad I came back and mended fences.


5f0202  No.799336

>>799318

>Was He the Word made flesh?

As I tried to argue earlier, the Word itself being made flesh does not imply that the Genesis narrative has been externally validated. The Word Himself just omitted to tell His contemporaries about Charles Darwin. This fact motivates me to regard Charles Darwin as generally an unimportant development.

Darwin doesn't change the landscape, just makes it interesting. Take care to remember that morality doesn't evolve & its rules transcend species barriers.


607533  No.799345

File: f1897cb30a11db0⋯.jpeg (32.7 KB, 388x325, 388:325, F6A089A8-CF82-4E59-A38D-7….jpeg)

>>799333

>God the Father doesn't have a body after all.

I didn’t imply this.

>I have to think that the Incarnation Himself had every intention to conform to the culture into which He was born so as to educate them without hassle. He didn't see a need to tell us we're monkeys, hell being monkeys would be an upgrade.

Please clarify and elaborate what you mean.

>>Christ's origins

>As unknowable as the contents of a black hole is my thinking

Yet Scripture is very clear on this. Christ is supposed to be the Lamb of God and the New Adam.

>everything He touches changes inwardly

Look up fetal microchimerism, pic related.

>>799336

>The Word Himself just omitted to tell His contemporaries about Charles Darwin.

Biology=/=Darwin

The issue with Genesis is not one of silence but rather one of contradiction with just about every scientific field. Genesis 1 isn’t simply “silent on dinosaurs”, its narrative is refuted by everything we have discovered concerning the development of the Universe, Earth and its living creatures; see this graph >>799146

I still wonder what kind of crazy mental gymnastics can be performed to get around the fact that Genesis explicitly states that birds came before land animals. Surely that is wrong and so how can we still claim that it is the Word of God with such an error which makes the entire Creation narrative crumble? Perhaps it isn’t the Word of God and perhaps Adam never existed yet sin and death is supposed to have infected mankind because of him, as taught in Genesis whose veracity is dubious. Original Sin can only be real if Adam committed it. Christ can only be the New Adam if the first one is real.


5f0202  No.799348

>>799345

>Please clarify and elaborate

Man you're persistent with the whole Genesis 1 thing. The trouble is that I've only gotten to accepting the whole mess with Genesis recently. I would say its the hardest part of Christianity to gulp down, especially nowadays, where even soft-sciences like evolutionary-psychology are taking a second look at Genesis and then screwing it all up.

You see, as weird as Genesis is, as unscientific as it is, it is there for a reason, and that reason is stage-setting. If you read through Numbers to 4 Kings, the creation story is unified with the history. The same themes crop up in the historical sections that crop up in the creation story, that crop up in Christ's ministry, right the way to Revelations.

Why would Christ contradict these earlier scriptures during his earthly ministry? Instead He spoke frequently of Jonah even, a story which sounds about as likely as pink unicorns falling from the sky. What He omitted to say has a reason of its own; He could have demonstrated with ease, that He was the Messiah at any time He wished, yet He only ever did so to comparatively few witnesses. The way He lived His life speaks with perfect ease for His intentions, He wanted to re-inject morality into a creation which was going badly off the rails by redeeming it as He promised.

Calling us monkeys would be easier fare than calling us vipers and hypocrites. Christ had the knowledge to upset the cart and liberate the Jews from the Pharisees with a few strokes; He could have told us we are from monkeys and that the Pharisees were completely illegitimate like Voltaire would have done, but the end result of blasting those older scriptures would have caved in the moral framework of the society to which He was preaching.

And ignore the comment about black holes, just needless soliloquy on my part. Cool stuff with the microchimerism. I wonder if that's how women outlive men.


5f0202  No.799349

>>799345

And technically, calling us vipers is not wrong, cause both us and vipers are from the same sea sponge somewhere down the line.


e7f2c8  No.799361

Catholic arrogance and deceit has led you to this place and you're too unwilling to examine what the true Scripture actually says so that's the end of the line until something happens about that condescension and self-absorbed conceit. But this is an excellent example of what all this does, it makes you become non-Christian. By rejecting the inspiration of real Scripture. Just like the Pharisees did. Because they had to favor themselves. That's what ultimately happens when you add fallible manmade doctrines and elevate your own fallible tradition over Scripture, you become a pharisee who is full of pride and self-centered.

>Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

>For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

>And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

>For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

>Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

- Mark 7:7-13


25514f  No.799363

Honestly, I was indifferent to evolution but this thread is strongly pushing me toward Young Earth Creationism, with eveything that implies.


5f0202  No.799384

>>799361

>Rationalizations are doctrine

Anon I…


5f0202  No.799388

>>799363

>>799361

For clarification, theories are theories and I don't consider them at all to be on the level of scripture. Nevertheless YEC is non-viable for a number of reasons; you don't even need evolution, simple geology, as well as phenomena like the cosmic background radiation basically make it inevitable for one to concede that deep time is a thing. Also Young Earth Creationism is itself a man-made tradition, despite the attempts to shore it up as having a history in the church, the holy fathers didn't universally accept any position.

Really I'd advise everyone to at least follow suit and not evangelize this or that theory of the world's origins. Unless you want more meme denominations.


172003  No.799450

>>799096

Scientific consensus is always being overturned. As Christians we don't base our worldview on what is the fad at the moment. Perhaps scientists in 200 years will have computers and machines that will tell us evolution is correct. It doesn't matter how "well founded" or "established" your theory is, any honest scientist will tell you they NEVER claim to "prove" anything, only cast doubt upon theories they deem unacceptable. However we aren't critiquing our own faith within this scientific method and do you know why we aren't? Because when we enter debate we hold certain presuppositions that are not scientifically provable, such as the scientific method itself. If you apply the scientific method to the scientific method, you will find there is no reason for us to believe that our only epistemological starting point is the scientific method. The scientific method begins with observation, it assumes that the world around us is discernable through our own perception. However there are a lot of reasons to question our five senses. We can only see certain spectrums of light. We can only hear certain kinds of sounds. Scientists are now saying theres this dark matter thats there even though we cannot observe it, its just based on their specific formulas pertaining to the universe's size. Any scientific proof begins with the assumption that matter exists, whether that is stated or not. It begins with the assumption that we can trust our senses.

That's not me saying scientific method is terrible, it is what it is. A method, a protocol. But metaphysics is a higher study. Your blind faith in the scientific method to solve all issues comes from medieval nominalism, and the logical outcome is what Hume believed. That you cannot really come to any conclusions about the world that are objective. That's why your position is called naive empiricism, because its assuming that this world isn't some kind of grand illusion. It's taking naive observation at it's face value. It's throwing out what you cannot understand (metaphysics) and labelling it as "obscurantist". Nope, that's not a testament to your intellegence, you're complacency with naive empiricism is just a testament to your lack of insight into more foundational matters and presuppositions. Not trying to insult you here it's just you lash out at those not operating within your empiricist position.

You really have an attitude problem fundamentally friend, and before you can even acknowledge our position you need that fixed. I will pray for you.


172003  No.799453

>>799450

*tell us that evolution is INcorrect. That's what I meant. I'm on a bad keyboard.


c59d6e  No.799472

>>799453

Where have any of you observed new genetic material being created from beneficial mutations?

If you didn't evolution where a species turns into another one is a lie.>799453


d07731  No.799475

>>799363

>Honestly, I was indifferent to evolution but this thread is strongly pushing me toward Young Earth Creationism, with eveything that implies.

Seriously, go for it!

Understanding the truth of Genesis not only put strong faith into my heart (and converted me into a Christian on the spot), but also got me a direct connection to the Lord and insight into His plan.

Genesis is one key to His kingdom.


3a4f04  No.799547

>Adam and Eve being the literal first humans

>The people from Genesis 1:26 is a non-archetypical Adam in genesis 2:7

How do you explain the discontinuity in the first chapters of Genesis?


168ca4  No.799655

>>799361

>Catholic arrogance and deceit

?


f6db3a  No.799927

>>798005

Op chances are that you’ve already looked into this, but just in case you haven’t: https://answersingenesis.org/


f6a58c  No.799950

>>799472

New IP here, I'm arguing against evolution and scientism. I agree with you. I just made a typo on my post here. >>799450

I meant to say that scientists could in a hundred years overturn their consensus again with more advanced technology. That's why these current scientific theories are not to be taken as a serious challenge to faith.


2aa7a8  No.802242

>>798005

Who cares what you think the Bible says? The Bible is interpreted in light of tradition by the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church.

You are just suffering the modern disease of thinking you can know it all. Submit to the Church and be humble.


f4e093  No.804233

>>802242

>interpreted in light of tradition

and that interpretation = Adam and Eve are the first human beings and the Flood happened

do you believe that, Mr. Humble?


fdafcf  No.804246

>>804233

are you the OP? you're still here? just asking.


0c1327  No.804412

File: c20818deafb22a9⋯.png (460.56 KB, 674x666, 337:333, hm.png)

>>798641

I was taught that a good chunk of the Old Testament isn't divinely inspired, it's a transcription of the jewish oral tradition that predates writing; apocryphal. Also that it's included in the bible to serve as context for the New Testament. If you don't know what Jesus' contemporaries believed, you cannot appreciate what was done or why, by anyone in the New Testament.

You're getting hung up on the story that was told to people because it was the story their ancestors told, and you've somehow lost sight of the fact that YOU are expressly told those people believing and reciting that story are not any sort of authority you should be paying attention to.


3083e3  No.804420

>>804412

Yes, many OT books are boring and creepy, but then there's books like Jeremiah.

The reason God made Abraham and the other Jews so gross is to keep us from worshiping the people Jesus was born into. We're supposed to worship Jesus.


5dcaef  No.804443

File: 638373bf7d5332b⋯.jpg (10.81 KB, 283x381, 283:381, 49209716_1964525430335174_….jpg)


9cb84d  No.804457

>>798254

>You are fallible because you cannot prove your own existence.

What are you on about?


194bb3  No.804538

>>804246

Yes and I’m still wondering what kinds of crazy mental gymnastics I could do to save my faith in the Church because I know with certainty that no Flood happened, that Genesis 5 is nonsense, that birds didn’t come before land animals, that the first man certainly isn’t Adam and so that humans didn’t start dying because of his sin. Since the first Adam isn’t real then Christ cannot be the new Adam and so I wonder: who is He? I have no clue but I still believe He was good hearted, performed miracles and rose from the dead so I will still always respect Him, the Church He founded along with its moral teachings and the Bible.

I want to believe but I just can’t and if it’s all true then I hope I won’t be tortured for all eternity because biology, geology, cosmology, etc. and everything that I can learn from the world I live in thoroughly refutes Genesis and the concept of original sin which is essential to Christ’s role as the Redeemer. When all the evidence and research makes it abundantly clear that 2+2=4, it isn’t an issue of lack of humility or hardened heart if I just can’t believe a book which claims that the answer is 5 with literally 0 (zero) evidence. Believing in a flat Earth is as window-licking retarded as believing in young-Earth creationism and if you don’t believe in the latter, then Adam never existed, “original sin” is a meme and Christ simply fulfilled prophecies due to His studying and knowledge of Scripture which means that He wasn’t really the promised Messiah. As for the paranormal aspects, it’s all an interesting mystery like many others…

You can talk about your love of Christ all you want, how He is the good shepherd, how much He gives you hope for salvation, helps you fight against evil and enables you to go through suffering, etc. etc. but if you don’t also genuinely believe humans started dying because of a man named Adam who lived to be 930 years old and that we don’t share DNA with apes, then your faith is in vain.


fdafcf  No.804549

>>804538

There were some things that he didn't have control over though. He could, say, appear riding a donkey at jerusalem, or say some certain things, but he could not control other people's actions like people casting lots upon his garments, him being persecuted, and being born in Nazareth through a certain family, etc.

Not that i'm "refuting" you, just some things to ponder. Who was Jesus really? How could he perform miracles and be wrong at the same time? just some things to think about, and i would like you to not answer me as that would be frankly pointless as i'm not trying to debate you.


c4ac8a  No.804562

>>804457

You cannot prove through science that you as an observer are experiencing real sensations and not illusion. You have to prove that through logic.


c4ac8a  No.804563

>>804549

The whole “God is bad because he doesn’t take away my free will” line of argument is not an argument.


ac844d  No.804573

>>804549

>like people casting lots upon his garments

It could be argued that not every detail in the New Testament is completely accurate.

>him being persecuted

It would've been a miracle if He weren't.

>being born in Nazareth through a certain family

His alleged genealogy is not very credible, see pic #2 >>798035


825975  No.804587

Was God using special relativity to create the world in 6 days from his perspective but many from ours?


2cf233  No.804601

>>804587

I guess that is one way you could think about it, but the main thing to understand is that time is still a creation of God. Thus, the laws of time do not apply the same to God.


827d9b  No.804622

>>804587

That's silly and crypto-naturalist


4eb680  No.804653


168ca4  No.807917


f27bbb  No.807968




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / dempart / fanfic / jewess / komica / pol3 / truebrit / vichan ]