/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>621484

This, posting books related that people should read to arm themselves.

>>621464

The different ways to talk about transcendance doesn't necessarly exclude themself at all.

Maybe he should say:

"There have been 3000 ways to talk about God so far but yours is the more perfect. The others are incomplete revelations, sometimes experimentations of the human rationnality. But not yours. Yours is a revelation of the more secret mysteries of God"

>>621464

I'm not sure I have it in me to really bother anymore, OP. Fedoras are determined to be fedoras, and fedoras, no matter HOW you argue, will remain fedoras.

You could point out the reality of Christ, that He lived, died, was resurrected, a resurrection that was witnessed by hundreds, thousands, but he'll only refute that with "He was never dead", and then "they lied", and perhaps "it happened two thousand years ago, we can't believe a propagandists' account from thousands of years ago", and you'll counter with the willing deaths of the apostles "for a lie" and the veracity of the New Testament and the long account of evidences of document, but then he'll argue against those, still insisting that "there's lots of copies of Bhagavad Gita / the Koran / Dan Brown novels; they must also be true" and so on and so on. And when four hours have passed, and he's no more a Christian than you are a fedora, you part ways, pray a little for him, but, my experience, you'll never see him turn, at least not because of something you said.

I know, I know, I should have more faith in God, but I just find fedoras are just so determined to BE fedoras that no amount of truth will actually turn them.

I think, in truth, the only REAL thing you ought to do is make sure they know the Gospel, that they understood it (maybe ask them to repeat it back to you), and then walk away, and when they're all like "B-b-but aren't you going to argue with me, so that I might best thee with my whithering ripostes?!" just say "no", thank them, and tell them to live a long and fruitful life. Not even kidding. If they know the Gospel, maybe the Holy Spirit will use that to crack open their hearts.

But, seriously, arguing with fedoras is like pushing the waterfall back up to the top of the cliff.

>>621464

This is definitely one of the poorer arguments out there. He's practically saying that because others attempts have failed in the past, yours can't be correct. (Does anyone remember then name for this fallacy. The "Appeal to Probability" comes to mind)

What's funny is you could literally flip this poor argument on Atheism: I.E. There are numerous ideas of how the universe work, but only yours is actually correct. The others are just made up nonsense. But not Atheism.

If you believe Atheism is correct, then DESPITE incorrect alternative ideas of how the world worked in the past, Atheists themselves believe a "correct" solution could still be found, completely undermining their own poorly put together argument. In short, Ricky Gervais is definitely not one of their brightest if this is chosen as his quotable highlight.

>>622662

>Fedoras are determined to be Fedoras

This is true, as I have determined that Fedora is the superior solution for home use.

>lived, died, and was resurrected…"was never dead"

This is true, Fedora began life as Red Hat, and was reborn as Fedora, and never actually died in the process.

>"it happened two thousand years ago"

This is blatantly false misinformation, it happened in 2003, only 15 years ago.

>"there's lots of copies of Bhagavad Gita / the Koran / Dan Brown novels; they must also be true"

This is also misleading. You can make unlimited copies of digital books, but the books themselves can be broadly categorized as "fiction" (made up stories) and "non-fiction" (allegedly non-made up stories)

>"…so determined to BE fedoras that no amount of truth will actually turn them."

Might be true. I've tried all the major flavors of linux, including Ubuntu, Arch, and Gentoo. I even use two other types of linux presently, CentOS on my servers, and Gentoo on my x200. My family computers, however, are always fedora. (red hat in the 90s.)

>"make sure they know the Gospel"

This is an excellent point. Allow me to make sure that you know the good news as well. There is a better, free, way to run your computer, and it's name is Fedora. You do not have to stay bound to MS Wangblows.

The bad news? If you use apple products, just gas yourself, you are far too stupid to exist.

PS: No, it's not GNU/Linux, you fedora wearing faggot.

Polite sage for obvious reasons

>>622693

>The bad news? If you use apple products, just gas yourself, you are far too stupid to exist.

I'm glad there's topics on this thread everyone can agree with.

>>622713

<RedHat is the cancer that's killing it.

Or, you know, actively developing it and ensuring that it remains the os of choice for actual business servers the world over, for a large number of reasons. Hobby linux distos like arch, gentoo, et al would have a much more difficult time gaining any traction if there wasn't an actual reason to learn linux other than "it's not windows." Red Hat has it's place, just like Ubuntu and the rest. Linux has been Linux since the beginning. Stallman's cult of personality is nothing but a meme. His favorite program, emacs, throws the entire unix philosophy into the garbage can, just like SystemD does. The 'gnu/linux' meme is the digital version of sjws and political correctness.

Mansplanation time is now over, sweetie.

(CentOS is effectively the free version of RHEL)

(Canonical has made several questionable choices in the past, especially in regards to user privacy violations, hence why I don't support them)

(This post was written in Emacs.)

You take your beautiful Jewish-convert wife by the hand and be happy you are raising a family together under Christ

>>622693

I'm unamused.

Haven't you got some Bibles to move to the fiction section of the bookstore?

>there have been nearly 3000 Gods but only yours exist

This is a common pattern of "all religions" are the same. Because Buddhism and Christianity both have a heaven that they must be saying the same message. This is a loaded an gleefully ignorant question without any real knowledge of the theology of Christianity. Just like it's dangerous to get accurate information from television itself, getting your theology information from celebrities is even worse (especially one with such an blatant atheist bias). The Christian God is unique, it doesn't borrow scripture from other religions, it has it's unique account of established history (like the global flood), it has a unique story of God, as well as a unique ultimate creator God.

If one group is saying it's the true way, and the other on is calling them lies, there are ways to confirm this, especially when you have an entire other group like satanism (which has a brand of atheism as well) that is conveniently there. My advice would be don't debate religion with friends or family, it doesn't work and not everyone believes in their belief system because it's true. Work one sharpening your understanding of Theology itself and confirm what is being told. And stop listening to celebrities or television for your theology.