/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Orthodox posters: why does nobody take us seriously and call us larpers?

Also Orthodox posters: this post >>657075

>>657114

>they can't decide on anything without some bishop getting offended by the other bishop's teachings

Seems they decided on a lot :)

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

>>657114

Thank you for proving my point. Id rather have a college of Bishops disagree on things than have one Supreme Pope do consistently wicked and evil things.

>>657108

>he doesn't know that the Patriarch of Moscow called for a holy war in 2016.

Sure wish the mods would do something about all of these off-topic posts.

>thread calling for the defense of Christianity against atheism

>immediately descends into denominational infighting

Diversity is our strength.

Anyway, atheists are fools, a dwindling minority busy aborting and sodomizing themselves out of existence. There's no need to defend Christianity from them. They're impotent and futile. They can't even have let alone raise children. The only time atheists ever posed a threat to Christendom was in the 20th century with Marxism. Marxists managed to take over much of the world and kill Christians by the tens of millions, but that gong show eventually withered and died, and atheists scattered to the wind, and in the grand scheme of things they accomplished nothing. Atheists today have absolutely nothing to come at us with. They have no ideas anymore. They have no unity. They've fallen back into cancerous, self-destructive, unsustainable liberalism and will grow increasing irrelevant except in moral backwaters about to be eclipsed by the crescent moon like Sweden. New Atheism imploded spectacularly. Whatever great enemy that Satan decides to erect in the 21st and 22nd centuries, it will certainly not be atheist in character. That horse simply isn't running any races anymore. Good riddance.

>>657064

Posting some vids from a former Atheist:

God, Science, and Atheism

>>657148

Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

>>657149

>>657150

>>657108

>Orthodox posters: why does nobody take us seriously and call us larpers?

No Orthodox poster ever said that.

>>657114

>Most things in Orthodoxy are not canon since they can't decide on anything without some bishop getting offended by the other bishop's teachings.

The bishops will agree whenever the Holy Spirit deems it necessary to guide them to it.

>>657157

I'm not even Apostolic. The thread is almost completely unrelated to the OP.

OP here, I cannot believe the Orthobros and Catholics found a way to somehow derail this thread to INFIGHTING. We should all unite as Christendom to fight enemies who don't even understand the Lord and savior we love.

>>657064

Well,

>atheism doesn't exist, like the concept of absolute zero it's only theoretical

>anyone who professes to be an atheist is a liar, they do have a god

>it just happens to be money, sex, or things

>Atheists tend to fall into categories that show their origin and reasons for godlessness

>dead-cat atheists, pain exists atheists, I'm so smart atheists

>where are the men who've actually studied and did so fully and decided that they did not believe?

>did such men ever exist?

>atheism and morals, enough said

>the resurrection vs Watergate

>12 men were beaten, tortured, and suffered and all of them were killed and yet none of them changed their position that Christ rose from the dead

>VS

>12 men formed a cabal and South to lie to world

>within two weeks they folded on one another

>No torture, no suffering,

There's more points, but I've literally just woke up. Will post more later.

>>657171

Amen, dude. I'm so tired of watching these pissing matches between denominations. Its very prideful.

>>657157

>applauding the great falling away

anon…don't do it bro

>>657262

>Parts one and two

Wasting your time even asking this. The point anon made was that religion was (and is and ever will be) the status quo for mankind, and anything else is a deviation.

You are almost coming as this from the "What if people with schizophrenia are the true realists, and everyone else is insane, man!?" angle.

>>theism and morals, enough said

If you are implying that because theists are/can be immoral in spite of a belief in absolute or objective morality, then you aren't doing it right. This would be akin to saying that because someone breaks the law, then no laws exist anywhere, which is self-defeating.

Our contention is that atheists still have not satisfactorily answered where they get their morals from.

>that last part

Too vague to even get into. Pick something more concrete and then we'll try again.

As a matter of fact people in the atheistic, materialistic, progressive West are utterly miserable. Trying to remove God and cultural roots, and trying to replace it with technology and consumer goods has done nothing for them but make them despondent, naive and suicidal. If you live a life of boredom, frustration and despair, and with nothing to show for it, no kids, no great achievements, then what is the point in living for an additional 20-40 years?

Also

>atheism = smarts, prayer = dumb

top lel. Atheists are just as herd-minded as religious people. You need only look and see how atheism has utterly failed to produce the utopian fruits it once believed that it could (let alone teaching people to """think"""), and has also absolutely failed to provide the hard and fast answers that absolutist systems like Christianity and Islam offer. (As it turns out, most people aren't too keen on being told that they are accidents of circumstance and whose existence is really futile.)

At least prayer, as an intellectual/voluntary act, provides comfort to the individual. Atheism offers nothing in response to it except retail therapy and cognitive dissonance.

>>657292

Are you a Christian? I can't really tell, but I wanted to ask you something.

>>657312

I am a Christian (different ID as I'm on a different computer).

What would you like to ask?

>>657313

>If you live a life of boredom, frustration and despair, and with nothing to show for it, no kids, no great achievements, then what is the point in living for an additional 20-40 years?

If I have no kids and no great achievements in life but have great faith in Christ, is such life "okay"? God wouldn't see me as a failure, right?

I'm kind of struggling a lot.

>>657292

Sorry that you wrote all that, but my copied and altered post was just to show the ridiculousness of >>657181. I don't literally mean most of what I said. Guess I should have clarified it as sarcasm. I was trying to make it sound equal parts ridiculous and similar yet opposite.

I didn't mean any of the first, second, or third section (though maybe a case could be made for the third).

Responding to your response to the last part:

Not sure what you think atheism is, but in reality it's just a lack of a belief in god(s). There's nothing else necessarily attached. No utopia, no ideals, no correct governing system. Just a disbelief.

Why is it bad that it doesn't provide fast absolutist answers?

>most people aren't too keen on being told that they are accidents of circumstance and whose existence is really futile

They aren't told that and they don't have to necessarily think that to be an atheist. I'm a materialist "Darwinian" atheist and I find more than enough meaning in my own life to justify my existence.

>At least prayer, as an intellectual/voluntary act, provides comfort to the individual.

As do drugs… Why can't rational thought provide enough comfort?

>>657314

>If I have no kids and no great achievements in life but have great faith in Christ, is such life "okay"? God wouldn't see me as a failure, right?

Absolutely not. The Lord isn't a judge of persons. He won't judge you more harshly or love you any less because you haven't found a cure for cancer or had dozens of children. What matters is your devotion to Him, and your persistence in that devotion. When Our Lord was born, he was visited by the wise men and the shepherds, which is to say the very learned and accomplished, and the simple and the outcast. Do you think that it mattered to Him? What matters is that they came to Him and adored Him, and that is as true today for you as it was then for them. Think also of the ways that you contribute to the lives of others, as a witness to the faith, and how you, through whatever weaknesses or strengths you have, can help to bring the Gospel to them by your example.

If you keep going along this path your life won't be "OK", it will be perfect.

>I'm kind of struggling a lot.

Never, ever, ever give up. The struggle is real and there are many points in life which will test us, but we must never submit to them.

Pray for strength and the will to keep going, and also for Him to show you His plan for you. Don't pray for your burden to be lightened, but for broader shoulders to bear it upon. God bless you!

>>657318

Thank you so much. God bless you.

>>657315

I guessed that, don't worry about it.

>Not sure what you think atheism is, but in reality it's just a lack of a belief in god(s). There's nothing else necessarily attached. No utopia, no ideals, no correct governing system. Just a disbelief.

I know. Part of the issue is that people like to pretend that it has all of these features and more.

>Why is it bad that it doesn't provide fast absolutist answers?

Because as we are coming to find out, relativism is corrosive.

>They aren't told that and they don't have to necessarily think that to be an atheist.

That's true, and I was being heavy handed.

>I'm a materialist "Darwinian" atheist and I find more than enough meaning in my own life to justify my existence.

But you gave yourself that meaning, it is yours, no one else's. This might be enough for some people but for most it means an utter detachment from their environment, and as social creatures, it is insufficient. A lot of theists and secularists (without a trace of self-reflection or irony) mock the idea of "You're just religious because your family is" and for many this will likely be true, and they won't be as devoted as someone who has actually looked into what their faith really means, but the point is that your parents saw faith as something worthy enough to be given to you as a precious gift. If nothing else, it is a connection to your family, to your culture, it is a tradition to belong to even if, as I say, you just end up being a Sunday Catholic.

You don't get this same involvement if you just give yourself meaning. Giving yourself meaning just seems like a Munchausen trilemma, of trying to pull yourself out of quicksand by pulling your by pulling your hair.

Now, in your life you will probably meet others who gave themselves that meaning, and you can form a relationship based on it, but you both came to it convergently, and not as something that was "given" you. You made it, for you, and he/she made it for him/herself. Religion (by literal definition) is social, other-minded and transcendent. It is shared. Existentialism cannot be shared by its very nature.

>As do drugs… Why can't rational thought provide enough comfort?

Drugs are a bad example, given their mind-altering, destructive and ultimately unfulfilling nature. In fact, comparing it to materialism might not be such a bad parallel after all.

I personally can't answer "why" it isn't enough other than to say that, from what I observe and read about society around me, it is simply not enough. Rational thought which is not grafted onto or into a larger metaphysical framework seems to be a dead-end for most people. Without God or something like It, you simply end up with depressive realism.

>Because In much wisdom there is much indignation: and he that addeth knowledge, addeth also labour. (Eccl. 1:18)

>>657319

God bless you too, anon.

>>657325

>Because as we are coming to find out, relativism is corrosive.

Relativism can be negative for society in some cases, which is why we generally evolved to agree with common goals and rules, but I don't see how unchangeable absolutist beliefs are any better than complete relativism. What if you are wrong about those "absolutes"? You could never admit it in an absolutist ideology. At least if you are somewhat relatavistic you can form new ideas and morals, improving yourself as time goes along and we gain a better understanding of things.

>This might be enough for some people but for most it means an utter detachment from their environment, and as social creatures, it is insufficient.

By my own life I meant all of my experiences, including social experiences.

>the point is that your parents saw faith as something worthy enough to be given to you as a precious gift

Because their parents did so as well, ad infinitum? I know from experience the feeling of being part of something larger than just myself, and having that to rely on in tough times, and I'm not saying that all people can function just fine without that reliance, but a lot of people can, but are too indoctrinated to even have an objective view of the evidence.

> in your life you will probably meet others who gave themselves that meaning, and you can form a relationship based on it, but you both came to it convergently, and not as something that was "given" you. You made it, for you, and he/she made it for him/herself. Religion (by literal definition) is social, other-minded and transcendent. It is shared. Existentialism cannot be shared by its very nature.

But it can. It can't be directly shared, but it can be indirectly shared. Enough to satisfy myself and millions of others. Other people give my life meaning too. I agree that I can't solely give myself meaning.

You seem to be saying that you need some divine 100% personal link to other people to truly have meaning, but meaning is what makes a person satisfied and truly happy, and for me and millions of others a 100% personal divine link isn't required.

Yeah, I admit drugs were a bad example on my part.

>Rational thought which is not grafted onto or into a larger metaphysical framework seems to be a dead-end for most people. Without God or something like It, you simply end up with depressive realism.

I personally think most people have that opinion because they have no objective stance on the subject. They can't really put themselves into an atheists shoes without denying their own religion. I think so because I and almost every other post-christian atheist I know held the same opinions.

Again, I'm sure some people need to have religion as a crutch, but I doubt a majority of people.

>>657412

>Relativism can be negative for society in some cases, which is why we generally evolved to agree with common goals and rules, but I don't see how unchangeable absolutist beliefs are any better than complete relativism. What if you are wrong about those "absolutes"? You could never admit it in an absolutist ideology.

As much as I might risk sinking my own argument, right and wrong aren't intrinsically important for absolutism. Take the moral absolutism of the Salafists and Wahhabbis, for example.

I'd also argue relativism is inherently destructive. Uncertainty about an issue is one thing. Refusing to accept that there can be certainty is another. The latter is the position we find ourselves in, when most of the cultural elite in the West simply do not accept moral "nationalism" (ie. "these are our peculiar, inherited customs, and we are happy with them and will defend them") let alone supremacism ("our way is the right, the best and the only way"). This stagnation and cowardice is where aggressive absolutist values (whether political or religious) step into the void.

>At least if you are somewhat relatavistic you can form new ideas and morals, improving yourself as time goes along and we gain a better understanding of things.

Morals are eternal though, and the "March of Time" doesn't change that. To paraphase Chesterton, an idea being true 1,000 years ago but not today is just as ridiculous as saying it was true on Sunday but not on Thursday, or at lunch time but not at supper. I would also not call this relativism but simply organic change.

>By my own life I meant all of my experiences, including social experiences.

I know, but it's still yours. This can't translate to another person.

>Because their parents did so as well, ad infinitum?

Yes, ad infinitum. Never underestimate the importance of that lineage. Deep roots are a good thing, and most important to note is that tradition, like roots, grow and develop, but slowly and organically, but never alter substance (i.e. morals).

>I know from experience the feeling of being part of something larger than just myself, and having that to rely on in tough times, and I'm not saying that all people can function just fine without that reliance, but a lot of people can, but are too indoctrinated to even have an objective view of the evidence.

Sure. There will be people who will flout convention. Even in Europe 800 years ago when the Papacy was it its zenith in terms of power and influence, there would still have been atheists.

>But it can. It can't be directly shared, but it can be indirectly shared. Enough to satisfy myself and millions of others. Other people give my life meaning too. I agree that I can't solely give myself meaning.

But religion can be *directly* shared by others, which is its drawing point. It is a shared inheritance, whether you were born to it or came to it at the end of your life. This is why I made the distinction that you could meet someone who believes what you do, but you both provided that for yourself, based on direct personal and interpersonal experience. If I meet another Catholic, we are on no uncertain terms as to what our shared meaning in life is. Even if I never met another Catholic, our direct personal meaning would be the same.

>You seem to be saying that you need some divine 100% personal link to other people to truly have meaning, but meaning is what makes a person satisfied and truly happy, and for me and millions of others a 100% personal divine link isn't required.

I'm not saying that a divine personal link is the only meaning, just that it's the most valid and enduring. If you die, your meaning dies with you, regardless of whether you have kids or not, and the wheel has to be reinvented for them. If I die, my kids receive the faith as an inheritance.

>I personally think most people have that opinion because they have no objective stance on the subject. They can't really put themselves into an atheists shoes without denying their own religion. I think so because I and almost every other post-christian atheist I know held the same opinions.

Speaking as a post-atheist Christian I think I might know whereof I speak on this, because that is the conclusion that I came to. It wasn't even a reference to how Christians see atheists but, from personal experience, how a lot of atheists see themselves. The whole, passive, blackpill of "Tfw too smart for religion" thing really easily transforms into "tfw too smart for anthing" and ends up just a piece of disaffected, intellectual (and practical) paralysis.

>Again, I'm sure some people need to have religion as a crutch, but I doubt a majority of people.

Don't be mistaken, it's a crutch for everybody. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need it at all. That's what Salvation is all about.

>>657426

Thanks for the in depth response.

I'll think about your position and I hope you take some time to consider mine. I'd respond, but were getting to blog post levels now.

If you have anything specific (and care enough) I'll respond to it.

>>657310

>they're infinitely more advanced they've become majority atheistic.

Does more advanced mean more unreliable? Entire fields have been found to be worse than chance as to whether their claimed findings are replicable.

>>657440

No problem. Thank you for the discussion.

God bless you.

>>657443

You mean extremely new and under-researched fields that are waiting for new discoveries or instruments? Which fields are you referring to?

>>657452

>Galaxies and stars rotating in ways only possible if there was some sort of mass attracting them. That mass seems to be impossible to detect directly, but the influence it has on stars and galaxies is detectable.

Nice phrasing. You mean it is impossible to detect, as it can't be observed period and again entirely theoretical. No evidence. And it is "believed" to exert a gravitational force, but the evidences for unknown gravity sources are often cherry picked and thin; for every proof there are five more that disprove it.

>regressed

We've clearly regressed because scientism is the mainstay and people are accepting claims without evidence; dark matter for instance.

>>657064

Another great point OP

>atheism is unable to accept the unknown or that there is an unknown

>mankind are gods in the eyes of an atheist

>despite the inability of mankind's ability to even understand our own brains

>>657501

No… It's detectable indirectly, not impossible to detect. That makes it not entirely theoretical.

>the evidences for unknown gravity sources are often cherry picked and thin; for every proof there are five more that disprove it.

Source? Or are you just saying what you hope is true?

>We've clearly regressed because scientism is the mainstay and people are accepting claims without evidence; dark matter for instance.

You still have to support your attack against the dark matter hypothesis. But what other "unsupported" claims are you talking about?

>>657452

>only possible

These are unscientific words.

>>657562

You're right.

How about: "The best guess we have is that there is some unseen mass causing the rotation of these galaxies around what we see as nothing." ?

>>657566

>And what's the likelihood that something else is dectected and then misconstrued due to not knowing the answer

That's just the best guess astrophysicists can make. It could be that something detectable is producing that effect, but as far as they know, it's not anything detectable.

>and wanting a specific one?

Why would they want the specific answer of dark matter over another hypothesis?

>Find your own sources Skippy

Kek, spoken like a true bullshitter. I'm not going to find your sources for you.

>it has to be detectable directly and observed; otherwise it is a myth.

No it doesn't… Indirect observation is reliably used in all related fields of science.

>Think hard about the ramifications of dark matter being proven to be false tomorrow

Scientists would admit they're wrong and keep working on trying to find the right answer…

Wait… great. You're a flat earther aren't you? Oh boy. This is going to be interesting.

So what? Space, stars, black holes and shit is all some giant conspiracy? Please elaborate.

>Other claims rely on an unseen, unobservable magic space matter to work

Extremely un-evidenced theoretical hypotheses maybe.

>>657566

>what else would pull bodies?

>enough gravity can

>It probably does. It's estimated that the universe is primarily composed of dark matter (apply this to above > )

>it's brand new science. There's almost no testing that we've done to confirm any hypotheses about it. So yeah, we don't know why or how it does what it does, just that it apparently does. That's how all theories begin.

>>657112

Daily reminder Hitler wasn't Christian, but an occultist.

>>657145

Amen. Luckily in the next half a century, Christians would out breed most of the lost cause millennial's. HOWEVER, I can't say I still have much hope for the world, or for western country's, as of now. That might be a black pill speaking though.

>>657116

yeah with the pope ;p

>>657316

>my main color is black with a little blue here and there.

>No fun control, and removal

I give you 3/10 because I also have a mono black deck but since dimir is anti-fun you get gulag.

>>657112

Read Mit brennender Sorge, you liar.

Daily reminder that technological advances mask spiritual and cultural decay.

>>657773

>Saaaaaaauuuuuucee??? Jesus christ dude,

Reported for blasphemy.

>>657845

Just reread the rules. I don't see that being strictly prohibited.

>>657452

Actually it turns out galaxy rotation is currently hypothesized to be due to large scale quantum teleportation. Dark matter isn’t s term to describe a type of matter. It’s a placeholder phrase for “we don’t know”

we don't need to. one must only read our holy book to see that our beliefs are legitimate. what kind of fool would deny the existence of talking snakes, unicorns, wizards and women made from ribs?

>>657912

Tl;dr something we thought could only have been the case if our understanding of how the universe works was fundamentally in need of a rework? Turns out that’s the case after all

>>657915

I was asking for sauce.

>>657924

Oh lol. Here.

http://www.sci-news.com/physics/einsteins-principle-local-realism-big-bell-test-05998.html

>>657930

>Actually it turns out galaxy rotation is currently hypothesized to be due to large scale quantum teleportation.

Sauce for this my dude.

>>657947

>>657913

Warned for being as sarcastic as a woman going through menopause.

>>657948

are you denying the perfect word of god? the bible is very clear about the talking serpent being real. stop this satanism at once and repent for your disobedience to god

>>657955

following god's word is reddit tier behavior? clearly you have been led astray by satan. apologize to god for your heresy, or your eternal soul shall burn for ever in hell

>>657967

>trying

yes. I am trying to save you from eternal hellfire.

atheism is so stupid and easy to defend against. dawkins himself destroyed it. ask them what sort of proof they would deem as acceptable. your name written in the stars isn't enough cause it could easily be an alien. what is more likely (to the fedora). that you can communicate with God and Him to write a name in the sky, or that you know advanced aliens. Obviously aliens to the idiotfedora will be the most likely. Keep going, there will be literally no answer that can satisfy them. Not a million dollars in the bank, not an apparition, (can all be ayylmaos). They literally can never give one single answer that will ever satisfy them. in the end if they keep talking they have to admit they aren't asking for any proof at all because they can't come up with one single example of anything that fits their criteria. they have already decided that everything is an impossibility for them.

the proof of god is already proven by aquinas but for these ppl nothing is a proof for them they just say uhh that's refuted, they don't even have the mind to understand anything. they already proved despite any evidence provided they will not accept it, dogmatically. because in their mind anything, literally anything is more likely than God. even if they strongly felt like it was God doing all of this, they would conclude that it's more likely they took a drug and was hallucinating all of this and they forgot about it.

and anyways they have no kids, they are dying out.

however not all of the secular people these days are actually idiot fedoras. many people are a product of the current state sponsored secularism agnosticism and they are too afraid to go against the grain. the reality is this is human nature, this is how all these countries went protestant during the reformation or hornyboihenry's days. most people just follow. it's up to the woke (truly woke) people to make big changes and then people will follow. we're being attacked by all sides, making christianity look illogical (when it's the only logical way of thinking), stupid (literally created western/modern civilization), lame (literally the greatest art of all time was a byproduct of this) and so on.

so my idea of how to fight secularization and faggotry? we have to keep working hard to provide refutations for idiots arguments against christianity, by smart replying to comments, training people who want to get into online apologetics, creating good aesthetic resources on the faith etc. strongly create anti-propaganda, images and memes against the BS faggotry anti-christianism that is being spread around.

the second is what a lot of people don't like, yeah i really hate protestanism, but even within them not all of them are totally disgusting. we have to suppress the people who make us look really bad. we can't burn at the stake anymore, but we can actively do a lot to show these people are shunned and not taken seriously at all.

the next is i think a very important and overlooked area - it has to do with culture and arts. people are heavily influenced by this. we need to be creating great art which calls people to christianity, both explicit and implicit. in this day and age a lot can be done implicitly. music is an excellent way for an implicit way to inspire people (not shitty christian rock). we could do the same with fiction, short films (youtube is really untapped this way) and so on. we have a lot of work to do and a lot long way to go.

we have to work hard and influence the culture this way. yes the jews took over our industry and had it for a while, but the internet is a gift from God to us. we have to utilize it to the best and fight back. hopefully we can start some organized efforts soon.

>>658110

hmm I wonder….

>>657913

roastie detected

>>658121

>using /r9k/ terms for women

Ew. Bad as Reddit.

>>658152

*heretic

sorry typo

>>658152

Sarcasm is not edifying. Yes we believe those things (except "unicorn" is a mistranslation of Auroch), but you're being a dick and repeatedly violating rule 2. If you hate us, why not go somewhere else?

>>658176

>except "unicorn" is a mistranslation of Auroch

citation needed

>If you hate us, why not go somewhere else?

I will not rest until I've made you pseudo christians see the light. god demands it of me!

>>658191

Well I guess you;re illiterate because I just explained that we *do* believe those things.

I sure hope you don't talk to people this way in real life.

>>658200

>I sure hope you don't talk to people this way in real life

you bet I spread the word of god irl. Jesus himself instructed me to after all. I see you aren't one of those heretics then. good on you man! together we can spread the word of christ and someday hopefully take back the holy land, which rightfully belongs to the lord!

>>657181

I was raised gadolig and believed it until I was 14. Then I read a logical fallacy by some Greek dude whose name began with E, I forgot what it was. It went something like this:

>If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then whence cometh evil?

There is no way around it. If God is all-knowing, then he knows the Jews exist. If God is all-loving, then He doesn't want us to suffer at their hand. And if God is all-powerful, then He has the power to destroy them or He could have simply not created them in the first place. There is no way out of that, it's a logical fallacy.

Also, when Christians say, "we've strayed so far from God", how is He all-powerful then? If there is a such thing as distance from Him? What about the Holy Spirit that's supposed to be everywhere? It doesn't make sense, and your only argument is "we are mere mortals, how can we make sense of God?" ffs

>>657773

>go to college

>yes goy, get in a debt for a useless degree to study space n' sheeit with fellow liberal sjw teachers who tweets against Drumpf all the time.

>wow! You didn't found anything and if you did were all proven wrong making your studies useless in the long run? Well too bad, pay me.

>also vote for the democrat party, vote Democrat!

>>657434

Based post, Science(TM) is cancer

>>658191

The word translated 'unicorn' in KJV is translated 'unicornis' in the Latin vulgate, and simply means 'a creature with a single horn.' In fact, it is still used today as the species name for one-horned rhinos. Prior to about the 19th century, this was the common meaning of the word 'unicorn' in English. The KJV was written in the 17th century.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant, because the word only appears in Isaiah and Job, which were written in Hebrew. The word is 'רֶאֵם' pronounced 're'em.' The original meaning has been lost in time, but was translated into 'unicorn' in both the Greek Septuagint (which dates to the first millennium B.C.) and the Latin Vulgate, while Israeli Hebrew translates the animal as an oryx.

As for the original meaning, Johann Ulrich Duerst discovered it was based on an Akkadian word, 'rimu,' which refers to the aurochs.

So no, the word 'unicorn' in the Bible has absolutely zero to do with magical, one horned horses, something atheists would know if they bothered reading something more than 50 years old once in a while.

>>658646

Technological advancement is not inherently good. It seems that in many cases, an overly technologically dependent society becomes weak and degenerate. Western society has gotten much worse since 1969. Obviously the moon landing didn't cause that, rather the overall technological leap forward did.

>>658658

did I argue for what is good or what is true? also stoning gay people to death isn't good lmao

>>658662

>stoning gay people to death isn't good lmao

the shock treatment would be preferable

>>658662

> did I argue for what is good or what is true?

You tell me. You appeared to be implying that technological progress is obviously a good thing.

> stoning gay people to death isn't good

Having sex with the same sex isn't good. It's only God's mercy and patience that keep homos alive and out of Hell. Stoning was the right punishment under the Mosaic Law.

>>658674

lots of animals are gay. look it up. it's completely natural. but enough about the faggots. I argued that science is of course true. that black matter and black energy thing is just an unproven theory. that doesn't discredit all the tangible things science has done for us.

>>657773

>Science is a self correcting process, unlike absolutist religion.

What you think science is is a failure that constantly has to correct itself because it is constantly wrong, unlike revealed truth from God. It's always the same with fedoras: they brag about their great "knowledge", and when people point out how pathetic is is proven to be, they brag about how much it fails, because IT'S A FEATURE

As other anons have pointed out, your great scientific truth are a bunch of guesses by some men whose income depends on how many papers they can publish every year.

>>658688

there are things that are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and there are things that aren't completely proven. that doesn't mean that dinosaur bones were buried by satan lmao.

>>658691

At least you could pretend you havve some shame, and not talk about things beyond shadow of doubt., while you talk about how much your """science""" has to be corrected

>>658685

>lots of animals are cannibals. look it up. it's completely natural.

>lots of animals are necrophiles. look it up. it's completely natural.

>lots of animals are rapists. look it up. it's completely natural.

>>658306

>There is no way out of that, it's a logical fallacy.

It is not, because you are assuming that there is no reason for God to allow suffering. You just project your hedonism, in a childish understanding of God.

Retards like you, trying to use big words like "logical fallacy" are our best propaganda, shoehorning them every sentence to sound smart, even when they make no sense. In this case the retardation is so intense, that you think the ever-present influence of God is related to physical distances.

>>658685

Nice to know that fedorasa compare themselvves to wild animals and dogs

>>657452

modern scientific advancements have poisoned the well. pollution, habitat destruction, antibiotic resistant microbes, toxic food supply, etc. etc.

we would be much better off with the technology of a century ago.

>>658744

>Makes gay posts on one of the most obscure Christian websites

>Says there's nothing wrong with being gay

>Cries about it when told otherwise

Just like those fags with the cake, you're going out of your way to feel oppressed

>>658749

I told you I'm not gay I'm just asking why you people are so autistic about where people decide to stick their dick? are YOU gay?

>>658754

>Why do people care about the rampant degeneracy and loss of every virtue in favor of the normalisation of every disgusting and perverse vice?

>>657112

is this supposed to be a bad thing? lol…

>>659123

>winnie the pooh

weird word filter, but you get my point

>>659125

wtf I believe in talking snakes now

>>659128

>throwing out ad hominems like "did your mother drop you on your head" is a logical argument

Also

>gay anon

>anime post

The absolute state of fedoras

>>659123

> I don't believe in him because I'm not 5 years old and don't believe in literal fairy tales lmao

Not only is this idiotic misrepresentation, but it's pretty ironic coming from someone who sounds like an adolescent. I mean it'd probably be inaccurate for me to call you a 16 year old, but it's definitely closer to the truth than your lame insults.

> how retarded do you have to be in order to believe in sourceless claims of miracles written by people who didn't know where the sun goes at night

Ancient people knew plenty of things that people today are ignorant of. The fact that they weren't highly technologically advanced and didn't have an understanding of modern science does not automatically make them wrong about everything. Technologically advanced people believe all sorts of dumb crap.

> we live in a time where every single winnie the pooh thing written in genesis has been proven to be absolute nonsense

So has science proven that God didn't create the universe, or are you a liar? Genesis might not be a literal account of every single thing that happened during creation, but it can still help us to understand the fact that God created the universe, created humanity, and that humanity disobeyed God and caused a great many problems because of that.

>>659140

>Ancient people knew plenty of things that people today are ignorant of

yeah like that the earth was created in 7 days and that talking snakes are real. they were truly the wisest of us all

>>659143

> like that the earth was created in 7 days

Even if we take the 6 days of creation as literal days, it was 6 days, not 7.

> talking snakes

It wasn't any ordinary snake, it was possessed by the devil.

> they were truly the wisest of us all

They certainly weren't stupid enough to believe in feminism, gay marriage, or democracy. The stuff they were ignorant about was mostly due to science not having developed that much. The stuff modern people are ignorant of is mostly due to evil ideology poisoning people's brains.

>>659139

the argument was that sourceless claims of miracles written by people who didn't know where the sun goes at night are false you dense motherwinnie the pooher

>>659149

>imagine being such a brainlet that your only "argument" is posting pictures of people with funny hats

>>659139

>complaining about anime on 8chan

reddit's down the hall and to the left

>>659209

I'm sorry and I take that back, I shouldn't have said that since I was probably in a worse place than you are now.

I'll pray for your repentance and humility.

>>659208

>sourceless claims

>written by…

This is your brain on atheism