Why is Christian theology so based/redpilled?
Other urls found in this thread:
desiringgod.org
twitter.com
So this is what prevents christ cucks from offing themselves
Cuck is an alt right term. What's your ip address? I want your uni to know what u post online
>University
Underage pls go back to red*it
unironically, yes.
why do people make posts like this
Yea Forums is a board of truth, inshallah, and verily it shall set ye free.
If you're a faggot, don't worry. Do what Brian Sewell did - acknowledge your disability, but don't act on your compulsion. You're homosex, and whatever happened in your life to fuck you up like that is now in the past, but you can prevent the eternal fire by not acting on the impulses that faggotry goads within you.
Oh now THATS funny. Good luck user
You are given all the info you need to make an informed decision about homosexuality. Choosing to believe liberals because it is convenient and feels good is not the same as being le tricked
I'm going to cum on an excitable young man's face tonight, and when I do, I'm going to make a joke about this comment.
it's going to be incredibly funny when a demon cums molten iron onto your face
Hell is not eternal burning agony, it is nonexistence. This is actually very clear in the original Greek of the New Testament. The Jews didn't even believe in heaven, they more or less felt that all people just went to Sheol, which was a place of eternal sleep and darkness.
The parables of eternal punishment for sin is a metaphor for the pains caused by degenerate behavior during life, and for the self-defeating nature of sin, the cycle of misery created by living an impure and virtueless life.
The concept of Hell as a place of conflagration and suffering is actually Pagan, and was adopted as a way to incorporate pagan ideas into Christianity so as to make it more familiar and understandable to the illiterate snowniggers who they were trying to convert at the time. It derives from Hel's House, the resting place of the wicked in Norse and Saxon mythology, where you can't sleep because the bed refuses to let you, and you can't eat because the fork won't let you, and everyone is angry at you all the time.
But even THIS is just a metaphor for alcoholism, a mortal condition. Think about it. The Biblical Inferno is not ambiguous at all. At the End of Days, all will be returned to life, and the wicked will be immediately destroyed by being cast into a lake of fire, while the righteous will live forever in the kingdom of heaven. That's what the book actually says. The notion of cartoon devils with pitchforks poking you in the ass for eternity is nowhere in any testament. The notion of eternal suffering, again, not in any testament. Christ refers to that which can DESTROY the mortal soul. Not torture for eternity, but Destroy. Capital D, like Hodgson's Night Land.
TL;DR, you go to Hell before you die, afterwards you are just annihilated if you're a faggot. Unironically thank God.
Big if true
that does not sound funny if im being honest with you chap
Christianity is probably the most uncomfortable truth there is.
where's all this stuff in the bible?
I don't like to do the cringey Christian thing where I like cite passage and verse but I'll get it for you. Remember though, it wasn't written in English, and a lot of it is paraphrased because of someone who will not be named, but whose initials are King James. You really have to go back to the Greek to get the proper picture of the NT. Of course, that's assuming that the council of nicea was legitimate but that isn't a road anyone sane wants to go down. You start getting into the apocrypha and pseudoapocrypha of the bible and you might as well just pull a McKenna and hero dose on mushrooms.
No.
Annihilationism is a false doctrine.
Did anyone else lol really hard at this pic?
>typing shorthand on Yea Forums
Faggot confirmed. Return to your containment site or suffer the consequences of me telling your university how gay you are.
Most helpful explanation of Hell I've read on this board.
It actually answers a lot of questions I've had about Abrahamic religion in general, I'm surprised it isn't the official line of every church. The idea of God actually devoting energy, spending even one nanosecond of his time torturing some queer or childkiller or whatever when he could be doing whatever it is that God does is almost hubris in its implications.
Sinners don't matter. Why sustain them for even an instant beyond their judgement?
>where you can't sleep because the bed refuses to let you, and you can't eat because the fork won't let you, and everyone is angry at you all the time.
absolutely Nordic
It's also totally incorrect.
>limiting God
Idolatry.
>where you can't sleep because the bed refuses to let you, and you can't eat because the fork won't let you, and everyone is angry at you all the time.
God messed up when he allowed the Norse to lose.
>One expression of the Eastern teaching is that hell and heaven are dimensions of God's intensifying presence, as this presence is experienced either as torment or as paradise depending on the spiritual state of a person dwelling with God. For one who hates God and by extension hates himself as God's image-bearer, to be encompassed by the divine presence could only result in unspeakable anguish.
Is the Orthodox idea of Hell the most based?
Why is Christian theology so resentful? This shit reads like a bullied teen's revenge fantasy. Slave morality.
Why?
>god is bound by time
>god has to "spend" energy accordingly
Absolute heresy.
There's nothing resentful about god's nature. You might mean cosmology.
>burn in hell for all eternity because you fucked Chad
Who are you quoting?
Christian theologians.
Not even. St Paul was literally a murderer of early Christians. He at least was responsible for some deaths if he didn't actually do the dirty work himself, and he is one of the greatest saints. Oh but we're cucks because of that, though. We're either cucks or slaves, depending on what aspect you're attacking. Or if you're pagan or muslim, we're evil oppressors. There's no consistency, and the irony is that you're the one who's resentful. There's no such things as an atheist, you either love god, or you resent him for creating you.
I like to imagine that Lucius Malfoy and William Tavington were actually the same person because they were both played by Jason Isaacs. Imagine getting an off-hand line about how he went to America once and some muggle stabbed him in the chest with a flag.
"He looked exactly like Mel Gibson. Exactly."
God is dead. I am of this life, not the next.
>God is dead.
[citation needed]
>I am of this life, not the next.
Yeah I know, that's the problem
God literally cucked Joseph. Joseph was the first cuckold ever..... Its part of the reason western men are obsessed with cuckoldry.
I embrace the totality of being. You deny it.
God died for the pity of man.
>This is actually very clear in the original Greek
which you haven't read poseur
No wonder Sewell was such a bitter little man
Well for starters among the early Church Fathers who broached the topic of the ultimate fate of the damned the majority clearly expressed the orthodox view of an eternal, literal Hell and elaborated on this doctrine beyond the passages in the Bible that point to it. The major exception is Origen who instead taught universal reconciliation not annihilationism. Annihilationism was indeed discussed in brief by three of the early Church Fathers, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Ireneus, but it wasn't until the fourth century when the doctrine was rigorously formulated and strenuously advocated, by Arnobius, and it was later denied by the Ecunemical Councils and didn't resurface until groups like the Seventh Day Adventists well after the Reformation, not even being adopted by the Medieval heresies. So eternal Hell was the majority view among the earliest Christian theologians almost a thousand years before the evangelization of the Nordics and centuries before the evangelization of the Germanics. So not only is his claim that the early Christians unanimously denied Hell false according to their own writings, but his claim that they derived this doctrine from a Pagan source in order to appeal to potential Nordic converts is absurdly anachronistic.
If you post/lurk on Yea Forums you're not really a Christian.
Jesus wasn't conceived of by sex, and Joseph never planned to connsumate his marriage with Mary because he was too old and a widdower. He only married her to financially support her.
Jesus Christ was counted among the wicked
>fag accusing other people of being bitter little man
oh the burning irony.
>god cucked Joseph by sending him a saviour
>implying god doesn't personally form every child in their mothers womb anyway
Doesn't matter what the small print says. Most people think Joseph was a cuck and I maintain that Christianity is at least partially responsible for the fascination with cuckoldry in western men
This matches my own experience
Most people are ignorant so you probably shouldn't base your opinions on theirs.
Maybe if he got his dick sucked once in a while he wouldn't have wasted so much of his life spreading narcisistic vitriol
Its not opinion...its effect I'm interested in.
Then you've fallen for the appeal to consequences fallacy and can't think logically.
I'm not a staunch atheist, moreso casually agnostic atheist, but I simply see no reason to believe the Christian God exists. I wish he did, in many ways. I wish this universe were created by an omnibenevolent personality, to whom I could always feel solace in knowing myself looked after by. But one glance at nature, and I see clearly that omnibenevolence is not a likely feature of this being, if the creation should reflect the Creator. Nature is cruelest of environments, and indifferent to it too. Every creature survives only by the life of another creature, and this exchange is scarcely painless (as it could theoretically have been), but excruciatingly and unimaginably painful to the lifeforms in question. Humans were once under such a system, but have gradually moved ourselves out from it since then, now being merely spectators to this carnival of carnage. Yet people still die by the hands of these wild beasts, should they mistakenly enter their territories. People who go on vacation, riding a tiny boat through a placid lake, unaware of the alligator stalking it from below the surface, and only aware of it once the animal has already pulled the victim out and into the water, where they'll never be seen again. The rest of us, who are lucky enough to never suffer such an end, are still the recipients of innumerable physical deformities, which we ourselves cannot be responsible for either creating or contracting. No apologist I've so far seen has offered any satisfactory answer to why these realities exist. Christians point to the appearance of design and say "Look, a design requires a designer! It's God!", but when shown the marvelous design of the alligator's jaws, the lion's teeth, or the parasite's operations - all of which can, have and continue to kill humans, regardless of how supposedly-special we are in God's eyes - they're silent. They point to the Cambrian Explosion, claiming God made all those lifeforms, and guided any subsequent evolution, while not observing the patterns of behavior found of these lifeforms, and what that may suggest as to the nature of said Deity. Can we at the very least say, that if there is a God, omnibenevolence is not an attribute of it? Can it not be admitted that it's only "partially good", instead of completely, and even an imperfect designer rather than a perfect one? Yet such reasoning is impossible for a Christian, who can be presented an innumerable list of hardships and flaws within nature and still argue for an all-loving and flawless designer behind it. They'll recourse to Genesis, claiming that "things were not always this way, creation was once perfect and then later degenerated into the present state". Yet I'm not so sure such a story can be taken literally (when exactly did this event occur, in history?), and if it can, it would seem to indicate God himself to be the one who created all evil).
I don't hate your God. I simply, and sadly, don't believe he exists. I wish he did, though.
>Christian accusing others of being bitter little men
oh the burning ressentiment
>this guys face when he wakes up dead and it turns out islams right
The idea that universal reconciliation is possible due to free will but won't happen due to individual choice is just a retarded way of denying the fact that people have definite natures and their behaviors result from these. It is literally just as stupid as some sects of Buddhism performing rituals to teach carnivores not to eat meat and cleanse their meat-eating karma so they don't go to Naraka or whatever. Gnosticism at least has the balls to say some people just aren't people, it doesn't hide behind fanciful and elaborate metaphor that is also wrong.
>I wish he did, though
Never gonna make it. You are still a preacher of death, a denier of life, a Socratean decay.
O life, once more! Yea! Yea unto you, life! Once more!
Nice post user, I enjoyed reading it very much. About God, maybe he is not omnipotent, or maybe there is some purpose to suffering that we just can't understand properly, the way that a child doesn't understand that it has to do something it doesn't like, but which is beneficial to it. Perhaps in heaven we will be as adults to our childlike selves now, and understand the purpose of our suffering.
Also I'm not Christian so the above is not speaking for the consensus on the Christian God.
so christcuckery is literal in the cuckery sense, fascinating
Why are Christians so bitter, hateful and spiteful when Jesus taught love and compassion? If the people that call themselves Christians can't even adhere to Christ's most basic teachings and principals then maybe he really did die on the cross for nothing.
Please don't respond by trying to rationalize it. You can't.
>fag accusing others of spreading narcissistic vitriol
kek the irony of your post
have sex
have Will
>things kill people
>"wtf God doesn't exist now!"
brainletism at its finest and its surprising to see a retard agreeing with such drivel and madness
>I simply, and sadly, don't believe he exists. I wish he did, though
No you don't, because that would mean you have to accept responsibility for your actions. You are living in a fairy tale world with no consequences. You can't even say that the hardships of life are even bad without a scale to judge them on, only that they are painful. So you're telling me pain is evil? Is child birth evil? Is a man sacrificing his life for his brother evil? Pain ain't evil, you're just a pussy.
Christ was a free spirit. Jewish asceticism and Greek Socratean decay was superimposed over the man. Thank that dumb fag Paul for the slave revolt.
Jesus constantly rebukes people throughout the gospel.
hahaha
Sounds kind of like Gurdjieff/4th Way
the amount of non sequiturs in religious threads is eerie
Good post. I sadly and ironically feel many Christians would honor Christian virtues better if they were not Christian. To have to defend your beliefs so frequently and forcefully, to have to argue against brigades of atheists - it seems to take a toll on them, making them bitter and hostile towards anyone they perceive as an "outgroup" to them. Must be tough being them, quite honestly. I wouldn't be able to live like that, on constant defence of my deepest beliefs.
Not an argument.
Thanks.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
I'm a Christian and the only place I ever interact with atheists is on the internet. I don't think they exist in real life. I live in Asia.
the people on the other side seem pretty bitter too, tribalism has that effect on everyone
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.
>You can't even say that the hardships of life are even bad without a scale to judge them on, only that they are painful. So you're telling me pain is evil? Is child birth evil? Is a man sacrificing his life for his brother evil?
Answer me
Jesus was not a bitter, hateful, spiteful person and he explicitly discouraged his followers from being like that. He preached compassion, love, empathy and kindness.
I cannot fathom how so many people describe themselves as Christian and yet conduct their lives in decidedly unchristian ways. What's the point of apparently committing yourself to a faith but consistently eschewing the fundamentals?
because people don't generally discuss religion or politics in real life, and christians in US are not being persecuted, they're the majority, if they want to they can stay on forum boards dedicated to Christianity or within their social network groups on facebook or whatever, if you go to Yea Forums of course there are going to be atheists, it's hardly an excuse for their behavior
explain the fig tree and the money lenders then
I was unironically considering Christianity until those incidents
You don't get out much, the percentage of Christians in Asia is around 10%.
sometimes true love requires you to be hateful
The scale I judge them on is a human scale - your God is the speculation, human judgements are not. Please don't go Frank Turek on me. It's like saying "mathematical truths aren't real, unless God is". Nope, not the case. By that logic, prove to me what Good even means? Why is God decidely Good, except by your faulty human judgement?
If inflicting pain on another person is evil according to Christianity, then the very creation of pain in the first place must be infinitely more evil - and that action would have to be imputed to your God.
Child birth is a simple example of something your God could easily make less painful, but doesn't. A man sacrificing his life has no relation to anything I said, being a willful action and one that can theoretically occur without unintentional hardships like pain involved.
>to have to argue against brigades of atheists
Consider the fact that until only very recently in the history of civilization the mere possibility of publicly being an "atheist" was even possible.
Also, the constant defense of your deepest beliefs is what makes your beliefs stronger. An open discourse rather than the intellectual death via arbitrary infallible law. At the very worst it will sharpen your argumentation.
Christcucks are the theological equivalent of
>uh uh you're the redditor
No one here is atheist. Everyone follows folk religion except Buddhists and Christians who make up like 15% of the population each.
Christcucks are so weak that they get Stockholm syndrome as the occupying force. Pyrrhic victory due to weak hearts.
Have you ever read the sermon on the mount in the book of Matthew?
>hates Jews only if they're not Jewish enough
>Christians vote Republican they're all frothing at the mouth Nazis about to explode with hate I'm literally shaking so bitter and hostile and judgemental someone please protect me its like the Handmaids Tale why are the othering me?
Except atheists and theists don't truly discourse in any real sense - they merely spit at eachother endlessly, and this spit sometimes sounds like language. There is no dialogue between them, only a monologue made out of sheer enmity. They truly do hate eachother, however much a Christian might feign a denial of this fact. And it's quite sad to see, at this point. I've browsed the atheist versus theist section of Youtube enough to recognize what a waste of an enterprise it is, where what could have been a rational meeting-ground has permanently devolved into a total warzone by this time. Neither party grows from the endeavor, in any sense - intellectually or personally - though I give the upper-hand to the atheists, whose positions are of course superior to their opponents. Still ultimately a lost cause, though.
No one likes a poser any kid in high school could tell you that
Why are Protestants so lame? There are like 3 Prottys worth reading
No one told me that because I was never a poser.
It's funny how Nietzschefags are exactly the same.
>buncha greek pagans thinking they can understand a jewish religion
If you want to accept Christ you'll leave Plato by the door
Virtually no Christians believe in annihilationism. It's a very niche and modern interpretation of the scriptures.
nope
That's your mind on Protestantism.
It's the only interpretation of the scripture that actually makes sense, the only reason the non-annihilationist theory is so popular is because of literal fanfiction written by an embittered Italian guy 1500 years later.
The majority of plebs not understanding basic concepts isn't an argument against the concepts themselves, it's an argument to educate them.
Cite literally one peer reviewed article that states anything like that.
Imagine God, the creator of all existence, necessarily having the quality of never allowing HUMANS to suffer. Where does the Bible even mention this?
The good is that which tends to existence, and God gives existence to all things. Alligators, humans, bacteria, volcanoes...God does not discriminate. Haven’t you ever killed a living thing? Why are you so much more important than it? Do you complain when it suffers?
God is loving to us, and without suffering, this truth is not known. Does the rich child who never is wanting love his parents and recognize their love as great the average child, who experiences suffering, and understands the gifts that his parents offer him out of love? So without suffering, God is not perceived to be loving by anyone, and no one can love God.
Both good and evil exist. Why do you complain? They are both necessary for Truth to exist. Do you complain when authors create suffering in their stories? Not only that, but without suffering, some forms of good would not even exist. Sacrifice, courage, bravery, would be nothing without hardship or suffering.
Tell me, how could it have all been any other way? What is the alternative? What does a world made by a perfect God look like? Please design it and tell us!
The Church Fathers were not all Greek nor were they all Gentiles. None of them were pagan. Neoplatonism didn't become a major influence on Christianity until Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries, and even then the systems are largely compatible. Christianity is not Jewish.
>Tell me, how could it have all been any other way? What is the alternative? What does a world made by a perfect God look like? Please design it and tell us!
w/out pediatric oncology
Don’t you see the slippery slope?
>The scale I judge them on is a human scale
Then you're literally what you hate.
>your God is the speculation, human judgements are not.
What is with leftard atheist and lack of self-awareness itt? ffs its clear that you've never even glance at the first page of the bible in your life. For fuck sake your entire argument is literally
>hurr durr there is pain
>hurr durr God is evil
brainletism at its finest I tell you
That's not Christcucks, that's just pure cuckery. The Muslim of Christchurch said the same shit to the shooter
>What does a world made by a perfect God look like? Please design it and tell us!
look man i'm not really a "detail guy" but it would definitely have 100% no suffering and everything would be good and everything I feel would be correct. oh and btw i jack off to loli hentai like three times a day but that's just sort of a side thing haha it has no bearing on my hypothetical ability to be infinitely just.
looks like a sizeable portion of the anons in this thread need to read hume
You asked for an alternative. It's my opinion that a "better" universe is indeed possible, while it's your opinion that we are living in a universe designed by a perfect god.
The problems don't arise there as much as they arise with an omniscient and omnipotent god and creating sick and ordering to be well, pettily threatening and punishing his own creations.
As Hitchens said, "Of course I have free will, I have no choice".
How do you think God became omniscient, and how do you think His omnipotence is displayed? Only by actualizing all forms of existence, good, evil, and in-between. What do you think God’s motives are? Do you really think He created the world just for us and not Himself?
They’re not. Where are you getting this interpretation?
>as Hitchens said
>How do you think God became omniscient, and how do you think His omnipotence is displayed?
Loaded question. You have to prove the premise first.
>by actualizing all forms
And your actualization of all existence could be attributed to virtually any fathomable form of godhead including a purely secular pantheistic type.
>Do you really think He
You're unwittingly claiming to know the mind of god yourself, which is one of the most dangerous and intellectually entropic things a person can do.
>jelly you haven't any witty theist rhetoricians to quote
>And your actualization of all existence could be attributed to virtually any fathomable form of godhead including a purely secular pantheistic type
If something else creates you, you are not you. What would result is a universe of beings who are not us, and thus have no relevance to us.
>You're unwittingly claiming to know the mind of god yourself, which is one of the most dangerous and intellectually entropic things a person can do
Attempting to disprove a negative is not “claiming to know the mind of God”. If anything, you’re claiming to know the mind of God to argue against this point with this.
>You have to prove the premise first.
The premise is assumed in this discussion about suffering and evil.
>And your actualization of all existence could be attributed to virtually any fathomable form of godhead including a purely secular pantheistic type.
So you agree with my point, then?
>You're unwittingly claiming to know the mind of god yourself, which is one of the most dangerous and intellectually entropic things a person can do.
The Bible clearly states on many occasions that God creates for His glory.
>Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary (furthering concepts greater than themselves), great minds are concerned with the ordinary. (God is in a sense ordinary in that He exists everywhere, so he is in this way ordinary.)
(Pascal, 1600s)
>the only reason the non-annihilationist theory is so popular is because of literal fanfiction written by an embittered Italian guy 1500 years later
then why did the church fathers affirm the eternity of the soul
You (or I) don't have enough information to make a claim on the nature of existence. Or as I believe, and Alan Watts said, "you don't come into the universe you come out of it, as an apple tree apples, the universe peoples."
I'm merely alluding to the insanity and risk of truly claiming to know the motives of god; the implications. My ignorance of god's will is hardly a claim to know his will.
what a fucking fag you are holy shit.
>The Bible clearly states on many occasions that God creates for His glory.
When convenient for you and your arguments and
based on your own interpretation. After all, what is literal, metaphor, analogy in the Bible? Who's god?
>You (or I) don't have enough information to make a claim on the nature of existence. Or as I believe, and Alan Watts said, "you don't come into the universe you come out of it, as an apple tree apples, the universe peoples”
Then we get information, which is the whole point of this conversation. Yours is an incredibly defeatist mentality. Also, stop using quotes as crutches.
>I'm merely alluding to the insanity and risk of truly claiming to know the motives of god; the implications. My ignorance of god's will is hardly a claim to know his will
Is it wrong to attempt to figure them out?
That’s what the Holy Spirit are for and preachers are supposed to be for. After all, there is still some meaning in postmodern art, no matter how deep one must dig to find it.
I'd say the fact that you had to use the parenthesis sort of kills the mood (and seeming irony) of the quote.
Reminds me of another quote though:
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
WE BOAST IN OUR WEAKNESS
Are you seriously trying to doubt the claim that the Bible suggests God created the world for His glory? Did you really have nothing else to say?
There are so many verses, I’ll just link this article
desiringgod.org
My defeatist mentality is as much as I can make it a perpetually open discourse. I am open to all possibilities; whereas a theist already has all the answers.
I'm trying to say that when pressed with a particularly hard to swallow Bible passage (I won't insult your intelligence by drudging one up) it's common for the theist to explain it through context, metaphor, nuance, analogy etc.
In other words it's open for interpretation. Where do you draw the dividing line that says this is literal and this is not? Hence, the accounts on glory are equally as open for interpretation. To deny this is only something a biblical literalist can do, logically.
And we aren't talking about fiction here. We are talking about a religion and a Bible that literally claim to encapsulate the meaning of the universe. Religion's moral prerogative's lead to a natural state of people's subjective opinions on god and his intentions etc which, from an already evil (I stress the word) book, and human naivety, are, demonstrably dangerous.