/truth/ - Paranomal

The Book of Mormon.

Talmud

any of these
>>2741

>>3051
But the Sabbetan-frankist conspiracy doesn't explain ancient global satanism or the satanism of the ancient Jews, so it never got my attention, but i'll check it out.

>>3056
Sure, in the ancient world there was a lot of subtle satanic themes like serpents and dragons, and sacrifice and worshiping of horned gods. This 5 hour video in the pirate bay link goes through a lot of the satanism and infiltration in the world religions and secret societies. I used to know a page that laid out the serpents in ancient religions/regions but i can't find it.

https://thepiratebay0.org/torrent/31050622/Exposing_the_Satanic_Illuminati_Freemasons_-_5_Hour_Presentation

>>3064
>had nothing to do with Judaism
I agree.
>That was technically paganism
paganism is also practiced in the modern secret societies, the ancient paganism has satanic elements, such as horned Gods and Ritual sacrifice.

>>3057
>Sure, in the ancient world there was a lot of subtle satanic themes like serpents and dragons, and sacrifice and worshiping of horned gods.
It's the other way around. The conventional faun-like depiction of Satan is patterned after pagan figures like Pan due to Christians demonizing paganism. Serpents in the ancient world were seen as symbols of wisdom.

>>3066
>It's the other way around.
That's your opinion, the pagan apologist opinion.
>The conventional faun-like depiction of Satan is patterned after pagan figures like Pan due to Christians demonizing paganism.
Paganism demonizes itself. The wiccas would say they don't worship satan despite practicing magic and having a Freemason as a founder, and one of it's most mainstream version of wicca has a horned being that is worshiped.

>>3065
Tranks for your midwit takes, fake calculator anon.

>>3069
I don't care about you say.

>>3070
Enough to reply like a butthurt teengirl.

>>3071
lol

>>3067
>That's your opinion, the pagan apologist opinion.
No, just the historical facts. Serpent symbolism and creatures like Pan predate Christian depictions of Satan. Only nutty Biblical literalists deny this.
>The wiccas would say they don't worship satan despite practicing magic and having a Freemason as a founder
Some people would say Robert E. Lee fought the Civil War despite the fact that he loved golf and men named Steve.

>>3090
You're not as smart as you think, pink ID.

>>3090
>No, just the historical facts.
Just because it predates it doesn't mean it's automatically true, the Bible could be retro active.
>Some people would say Robert E. Lee fought the Civil War despite the fact that he loved golf and men named Steve.
What does that have to do with anything? Of course unintentional satanists aren't going to admit they're satanist despite doing a bunch of satanic things.

>>3096
>Just because it predates it doesn't mean it's automatically true, the Bible could be retro active.
But we have no good evidence to assume it is.
>What does that have to do with anything?
How do practicing magic or being a Freemason make someone a satanist?

>>3097
>But we have no good evidence to assume it is.
There is lot of evidence for the Bible.
>How do practicing magic or being a Freemason make someone a satanist?
Look up Zachary King's testimony of being ex-satanic high priest/wizard, Magic is controlling demons to do your bidding, ultimately there are two powers/kingdoms Gods and Satans, Satan controls magic and God permits it but not without consequence. Freemasonry says in their literature that they worship Lucifer.

This is a quote by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et L'enfant dans La Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, Page 588. Cited from 'The question of freemasonry, ( 2nd edition 1986 by Edward Decker pp12-14) "Oui, Lucifer est Dieu, et malheureusement Adonaï" which translates to "Yes, Lucifer is God, and alas Adonai" Roughly translated the full quote is:
"That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a god, but it is the god one adores without superstition. To you sovereign grand inspector general, we say this and you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees - the Masonic religion should be by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the luciferian doctrine.
If lucifer were not god, would Adonay (the God of the Christians) whose deeds prove cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and His priests, calumniate Him?
Yes, lucifer is god, and unfortunately Adonay is also God, for the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods. darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil, as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.
Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in lucifer, the equal of Adonay, but lucifer, god of light and god of good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the god of darkness and evil"
https://archive.org/details/RiveACDeLaLaFemmeEtLenfantDansLaFrancMaconnerieUniverselle1894/page/n5/mode/2up Supposidly the Confession of Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, better known as Léo Taxil https://www.christian-restoration.com/fmasonry/Taxil.html debunks this quote, but If you read his full confession it records "A voice. "That was a successful prank!" Another listener. "These Freemasons were your accomplices!" M. Léo Taxil "You bet!… "".
As well as from Thirty third degree Mason Manley P. Hall amplifies the luciferian doctrine on page 48 of his book 'The Lost keys of Freemasonry' "When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy" http://www.cedarcitylodge.org/books/The_Lost_Keys_of_Freemasonry.pdf

>>3098
>There is lot of evidence for the Bible.
No, there isn't, and a bunch of sketchy jpgs prove nothing. A global flood would have completely jumbled up the fossil record, an extremely tall man doesn't prove the Biblical narratives, Ron Wyatt's "findings" are doubted even among Christian apologists, and we have no mention of the Shroud of Turin prior to the 1300s (and it's not only anatomically inaccurate but evidently had accusations of forgery being made toward it even then).
>Look up Zachary King's testimony of being ex-satanic high priest/wizard,
I already have, and he's clearly a huckster trying to fleece gullible people with a laughable story.
>This is a quote by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et L'enfant dans La Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, Page 588. Cited from 'The question of freemasonry, ( 2nd edition 1986 by Edward Decker pp12-14) "Oui, Lucifer est Dieu, et malheureusement Adonaï" which translates to "Yes, Lucifer is God, and alas Adonai" Roughly translated the full quote is:
"That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a god, but it is the god one adores without superstition. To you sovereign grand inspector general, we say this and you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees - the Masonic religion should be by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the luciferian doctrine.
If lucifer were not god, would Adonay (the God of the Christians) whose deeds prove cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and His priests, calumniate Him?
Yes, lucifer is god, and unfortunately Adonay is also God, for the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods. darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil, as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.
Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in lucifer, the equal of Adonay, but lucifer, god of light and god of good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the god of darkness and evil"
https://archive.org/details/RiveACDeLaLaFemmeEtLenfantDansLaFrancMaconnerieUniverselle1894/page/n5/mode/2up Supposidly the Confession of Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, better known as Léo Taxil https://www.christian-restoration.com/fmasonry/Taxil.html debunks this quote, but If you read his full confession it records "A voice. "That was a successful prank!" Another listener. "These Freemasons were your accomplices!" M. Léo Taxil "You bet!… "".
That quote isn't satanic and openly calls satanism heresy. It sounds like the dualistic monism of Chinese philosophy that the yin-yang symbol is supposed to express. Besides that, Taxil openly stated that he was making things up.

Even many early Christians like Marcion pointed out the barbarity of the god of the Old Testament, although proto-orthodox Christians denounced them as heretics and pretended that there was always one true Christianity.
>As well as from Thirty third degree Mason Manley P. Hall amplifies the luciferian doctrine on page 48 of his book 'The Lost keys of Freemasonry' "When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy" http://www.cedarcitylodge.org/books/The_Lost_Keys_of_Freemasonry.pdf
That's completely misleading in that Manly P. Hall didn't become a Freemason until the '50s and was only given 33rd degree status in the '70s. All the degrees in Scottish Rite Freemasonry past the first three are honorary anyway. If there was really some conspiracy of Satan worshipers among Freemasons, there would be a lot of reputable people blowing the whistle considering that there are millions of Freemasons in the world and that they tend to be Christians.

The word "lucifer" means "light bringer," and when old-school occult writers talked about Lucifer they weren't talking about the same idea as what your average Biblical literliat thinks they are. The gnostics saw Jesus as a luciferian figure, and that type of language is even used in the Bible itself to describe him (see 2 Peter 1:19).

>>3099
>No, there isn't,
Did you decide that on your own?
>A global flood would have completely jumbled up the fossil record
Lots of ancient beliefs talk about a global flood, not just Christianity.
>an extremely tall man doesn't prove the Biblical narratives,
It proves there were Giants.
>I already have, and he's clearly a huckster trying to fleece gullible people with a laughable story.
You don't have to pay to hear his testimony. There are others who have documented the Satanic elite, like fritz Springmeier.
>That quote isn't satanic and openly calls satanism heresy.
Calling lucifer God isn't a satanic heresy and is blatant worship of a satanic being. Why are you going contrary to everything i post? Why does it bother you that paganism is satanism?
>Taxil openly stated that he was making things up.
He admitted to working with the Freemasons, you're just ignoring what i posted again.
>Even many early Christians like Marcion pointed out the barbarity of the god of the Old Testament,
Read the book "is God is moral Monster". God is always loving and merciful even when he appears not to be.
>If there was really some conspiracy of Satan worshipers among Freemasons, there would be a lot of reputable people blowing the whistle considering that there are millions of Freemasons in the world and that they tend to be Christians.
There was and they were silenced. Secret societies being blamed for devil worshiping is as old as the Templars.
>The word "lucifer" means "light bringer," and when old-school occult writers talked about Lucifer they weren't talking about the same idea as what your average Biblical literliat thinks they are.
>and when old-school occult writers
Of course the """occultists""" are going to defend lucifer and say hes just an angel of light.
>The gnostics saw Jesus as a luciferian figure, and that type of language is even used in the Bible itself to describe him (see 2 Peter 1:19).
The Gnostics also invert God as the devil. Jesus is compared to Lucifer in the Bible often because It's a counterfeit to the true light, that doesn't mean the Gnostics were right.

>>3098
>Did you decide that on your own?
I decided it after looking at the quality of evidence for it that its believers present. If there is some good evidence for it, where is it hiding?
>Lots of ancient beliefs talk about a global flood, not just Christianity.
And ancient people generally settled near bodies of water when given the chance, especially flood plains like the Nile, the Indus River, and the Tigris and Euphrates.
>It proves there were Giants.
Freakishly tall people appearing every once in a while isn't the same thing as a race of giants. That's like saying the existence of midgets proves that Alberich and his dwarf kingdom were real.
>You don't have to pay to hear his testimony.
No, but it drums up attention and support for his "ministry."
>There are others who have documented the Satanic elite, like fritz Springmeier.
You mean the rambling nutjob who thinks everyone in power is part of some Satan-worshiping bloodline or another and is allergic to proofreading? He seriously claims that Abraham Lincoln was an illegitimate Rothschild descendant, the head of Rosicrucians (and associate of Paschal Beverly Randolph), and pumped out children out of wedlock with another member of the super secret satanist Illuminati. He also claims Hitler was another Rothschild bastard and pushes the meme that he was an occultist and even a Theosophist (despite the fact that the Theosophical organizations were banned in Nazi Germany and Theosophists were persecuted).

His work is just poorly formatted schizo rambling.
>Calling lucifer God isn't a satanic heresy and is blatant worship of a satanic being.
No, it's not.
>Why are you going contrary to everything i post? Why does it bother you that paganism is satanism?
It bothers me that you're trying to pawn off falsehoods as truths.
>He admitted to working with the Freemasons, you're just ignoring what i posted again.
Here's the full quote:
>M. Léo Taxil -You bet!… May I say again that I had only two auxiliaries who were in the secret of the prank: my doctor friend and Miss Diana Vaughan.
Since Diana Vaughan was a character of Taxil's creation, that means that only one other person was in on the hoax.
>Read the book "is God is moral Monster". God is always loving and merciful even when he appears not to be.
Let me guess: it makes the same age-old rationalizations about how all the people Yahweh killed and brutally punished in the Bible actually deserved it, right? Christians start from the assumption that God is perfectly just, therefore anything he had supposedly done evangelical Christians are going to justify on an a priori basis. If the Bible said that God spent his time endlessly torturing babies and kicking puppies, they'd say he was perfectly right to do so and that they should be grateful for his love and attention.
>There was and they were silenced. Secret societies being blamed for devil worshiping is as old as the Templars.
That's because anyone who disagreed with ecclesiastical establishment in any way were labeled heretics or devil worshipers.
>Of course the """occultists""" are going to defend lucifer and say hes just an angel of light.
Because "light bringer" is literally what the term "lucifer" means.
>The Gnostics also invert God as the devil. Jesus is compared to Lucifer in the Bible often because It's a counterfeit to the true light, that doesn't mean the Gnostics were right.
The Christian Gnostics were just one of many early Christian belief systems and really aren't any less legitimate than the proto-orthodox form of Christianity that eventually won out. There never really was "one true Christianity." And on top of that, it made more sense. At least they tried to work through the logical disconnect of worshiping a supposedly loving and merciful god who acts pettily malevolent at the drop of a hat according to the Jewish scriptures. The Gnostic approach is also more conducive to true spirituality (as opposed to the dogmatic faux-spirituality that tends to predominate in most forms of organized religion) in that they saw Jesus as a figure who came to teach humans about their divine nature and awaken us all to the Kingdom of God to be found inside each of us. That's a much better approach than the idea that you save your soul through mindless belief, especially considering how little of what you're told to believe actually holds up to examination.

>>3101
>No, it's not.
What? According to you, Calling lucifer God is not satanic? you're just wrong on that.
>It bothers me that you're trying to pawn off falsehoods as truths.
No, you're bothered by it because you have some sort of alliance to these groups, which you most likely won't tell me which for obvious reasons, or you have some personal problem with Christianity, either way you're starting your position as if these anti-christian groups are true. Paganism is still satanic.

>>3101
>Freakishly tall people appearing every once in a while isn't the same thing as a race of giants.
You're very good a denying facts.

>>3104
>What? According to you, Calling lucifer God is not satanic? you're just wrong on that.
Lucifer was the Roman name for Venus, which was personified by poets and only later taken by Christians and retroactively applied to Satan (despite never being used in such a way in the Bible). The lucifer archetype goes beyond Satan.
>No, you're bothered by it because you have some sort of alliance to these groups, which you most likely won't tell me which for obvious reasons
I forgot to mention that I'm the head of a clandestine worldwide baby-sacrificing coven that I was recruited into as a teenager by listening to Judas Priest songs backwards and playing Dungeons & Dragons.
>or you have some personal problem with Christianity
Yes, I'm against any system that stifles independent thought in favor of blind faith, promotes ancient Middle-Eastern myths as literal truth, and outsources personal responsibility to a being who is probably imaginary. Christianity is a 2,000-year-old version of "TRUST THE PLAN."
>either way you're starting your position as if these anti-christian groups are true
Given the failure of Christians to put forward a convincing case in favor of their beliefs, they seem to hit closer to the mark than orthodox Christianity.
>Paganism is still satanic.
Nope.
>>3110
So the Nibelungenlied was right about dwarfs?

>>3162
>despite never being used in such a way in the Bible
2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
>I forgot to mention that I'm the head of a clandestine worldwide baby-sacrificing coven that I was recruited into as a teenager by listening to Judas Priest songs backwards and playing Dungeons & Dragons.
Obviously Satanism has a more encompassing/mainstream definition than the most extreme and the most subtle examples of it.
>I'm against any system that stifles independent thought in favor of blind faith
Calling Christianity "blind faith" is something a teenagers would do, it's a strawman, aren't you suppose to be an independent thinker? Having faith in God means we know God is real. The evidence for God is as old as the bible.
>Nope.
I don't really care if you disagree, It's right there in the demons you call gods and pentagrams you use, and the magic you practice. Of course you will object to everything i post, no one likes being called a devil worshiper.

>>3163
>2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
I'm talking about using "Lucifer" as a proper name. When it comes to luciferian imagery, the same thing could be said about Jesus.
>Calling Christianity "blind faith" is something a teenagers would do, it's a strawman, aren't you suppose to be an independent thinker? Having faith in God means we know God is real.
Except we don't know that any god is real, and the existence of any of the Abrahamic gods is highly doubtful. Mainstream Christianity doesn't even have a consistent portrayal of God, since it believes the earlier and more conventionally pagan idea of God (non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, having a physical body) found in the Old Testament is divinely inspired. For example, in Genesis God apparently needed to ask Abel what happened to Cain (Genesis 4:9). He supposedly "came down" to take a look at the Tower of Babel to know what was going on and seems to have been concerned about humans reaching his level power (Genesis 11:5-6). Judges 1:19 mentions Judah being unable to defeat iron chariots with God's backing, and Ezekiel 1:27 mentions God's "waist" or "loins." From what the Bible has to say on the matter, Yahweh was much closer in nature to the other gods of the ancient Middle East than the more impersonal and Hellenically influenced one that would take root later on.

Even the most popular Christian apologists fail to make a convincing case for their beliefs. William Lane Craig pushes the Kalam cosmological argument and makes the jump from believing that the universe must have an outside cause to assuming that the cause must be the one he's been personally invested in since high school. It's pretty clear that the "rational Christian" figures that evangelicals point to to justify their faith seem to mainly be there to placate troubled believers and keep them from leaving the fold. It's no wonder so many people are leaving the Church when even the standard bearers of "rational Christianity" are so transparently full of shit.
>The evidence for God is as old as the bible.
What evidence? I don't doubt that there's some kind of intelligence at work in the universe, but your version of God as a powerful man sitting on a throne is based on a contradictory and nonsensical (like the entire idea of God killing his son who is also himself to somehow account for humanity's sins that he should have had advanced knowledge of in the first place given his supposed omniscience) mishmash of ancient literature that doesn't seem to have much other than post-hoc rationalizations, special pleading, and unnecessarily conspiratorial thinking to support a literal interpretation of it.
>I don't really care if you disagree, It's right there in the demons you call gods and pentagrams you use, and the magic you practice. Of course you will object to everything i post, no one likes being called a devil worshiper.
You're starting from the premise that everything you don't like is demonic and then working backwards from there and looking for anything you can to support your belief.

>>3168
Nice reddit pic, lol!

>>3172
Facebook, twitter, reddit. They're all the same.

>>3169
Take the green pill. Here are some links from /server/'s /fringe/ thread, but don't take any of them as gospel:
>Jurgen Ziewe - The Multidimensional Man
https://tuxdoc.com/download/multidimenssional-man-jurgen-ziewe-5_pdf

>expanded notes for The Multimensional Man
http://www.tomkin.us/books/ZieweJurgen_MultiDimensions.pdf

>Jurgen Ziewe - Vistas of Infinity: How to Enjoy Life When You Are Dead
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=8F99E1E264046610225C84F197889C8D

This one's a fictional story but is based on the author's OBEs over the decades:
>William Buhlman - Adventures in the Afterlife
>https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=341A494DD70150726612EEB41C4113B2

>William Walker Atkinson - The Life Beyond Death
http://www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1909lifebeyonddeath.pdf

I can post some alium and cryptid ones if you want them, but I don't think they're as essential.

>>3175
No, I tried to back when I was in high school while listening to binaural beats but never succeeded and lost interest. I've been focusing on other things lately.

>Jacques Vallee - Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=1A73ACBBD897BFCD883C4FA6032C21B4

>Patrick Harpur - Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=F0FFF93E5BDCCCD182B46BCC074E05BB

>Thom Powell - The Locals: A Contemporary Investigation of the Bigfoot Sasquatch Phenomenon
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=1F4E53DAD929966F7B90680FFAE90F52

Dimensions is the best out of these, I'd say. The book is an argument for the interdimensional UFO hypothesis and discusses the similarities between UFO sightings and other phenomena like Marian apparitions and old fairy stories. The Locals goes into accounts from alleged sasquatch eyewitnesses who claim to have seen them doing things that they shouldn't be able to do if they're nothing more than big apes (assuming they're even real). But I do think it uses those crippled sasquatch footprints as evidence, and from what I've read the guy who "discovered" them was a known hoaxer. Daimonic Reality uses the surgeon's photo at one point, although from what I recall is more featured as more of an inessential supplement than anything.

Either way, I think they're all worth reading in that they make good cases for non-physical explanations for these phenomena that tie in with idealist metaphysics (even if only tangentially so in case of The Locals).

>>3177
It makes perfect sense to me if there are other planes of existence out there and our thoughts influence reality. If the unexplained experiences with strange beings people are having are real, they could be beings from other dimensions taking a form in line with our collective unconscious (from goblins and elves to little green men), emanations of the collective unconscious, or the result of what we believe in our subconscious minds (like the differences of environments and beings encountered you see in Near-Death Experiences across different cultures and religions). I think Jacques Vallee does a good job explaining the flaws of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and his basic ideas could apply to other paranormal phenomena.

I came across this article not long ago, which makes it look like these ideas are beginning to gain traction even among people who would have written them off a long time ago:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mechanics-reveal-that-life-is-but-a-dream/
New Thought writers have long claimed that each of us exists in our own bubble of reality that intersects with the realities of others. I've read of people successfully practicing self-hypnosis to influence the outside world. That said, I don't think that most of the Law of Attraction people really understand what the hell they're talking about as far as technique goes, and people like Esther Hicks are straight-up scammers.

I understand why you don't want to go into the stuff that seems crazy, since there's tons of schizo insanity and hucksterism to wade through when you start getting this deep. I haven't even gotten my power level high enough to penetrate the mysteries of deep soy or golf rumors yet.

>>3168
Atheism, theism and agnosticism are all faith based belief systems, but there is evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, read The Case For Christ, not just a review.
>For example, in Genesis God apparently needed to ask Abel what happened to Cain
There are parts in the bible that appear to portray God as having a psychical body, but it he doesn't actually, read https://www.gotquestions.org/God-physical-body.html
>You're starting from the premise that everything you don't like is demonic
Christianity has earned my trust and i test it almost everyday, reading about ideologies and practices, theories that go against it. Everything that God doesn't like is evil and bad for us. Sin appeals to my flesh in the short term but can lead to self-destruction in the long term.

>>3169
Read the Bible https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-Holy-Bible-King-James-Version.pdf

>>3184
>Atheism, theism and agnosticism are all faith based belief systems
Nope. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.
>but there is evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, read The Case For Christ, not just a review.
Not at all. It's all just ancient hearsay from a time when people would routinely make things up, and even historians cared more about getting a moral across than writing accurate history as we'd understand it. Do you believe that Romulus ascended to heaven too?
>There are parts in the bible that appear to portray God as having a psychical body, but it he doesn't actually, read https://www.gotquestions.org/God-physical-body.html
That's nothing but a transparent attempt to harmonize the newer notion of an infinite god with the traditional Canaanite view of Yahweh as a typical pagan deity. If God doesn't have a physical form, then how is Jesus supposed to be sitting at his right hand like several verses state? How did he take evening strolls through the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8)? How did he walk up to Abraham's tent and eat a meal he gave him (Genesis 18:1-8) How did he have face-to-face conversations with Moses (Exodus 33:11)? Why did Exodus quote God as saying that nobody can see the face of God and live (Exodus 33:20-23) and mention his hand and back (or "back parts")? How did he stand on Mount Sinai with Moses(Exodus 34:5)? These verses are clearly supposed to be taken literally.
>Christianity has earned my trust and i test it almost everyday, reading about ideologies and practices, theories that go against it.
Then you're not testing it enough.
>Everything that God doesn't like is evil and bad for us. Sin appeals to my flesh in the short term but can lead to self-destruction in the long term.
How do you know what God wants?

>>3192
>Nope. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is still faith based because you can't prove there is no God.
>Not at all.
Just because you dismiss the evidence for Jesus doesn't mean it stops existing.
>Do you believe that Romulus ascended to heaven too?
Just because something irrelevant didn't happened doesn't mean it invalidates the Bible also.
>That's nothing but a transparent attempt to harmonize the newer notion of an infinite god with the traditional Canaanite view of Yahweh as a typical pagan deity.
Is about the cave drawings of yahweh, i don't really bother with stuff outside the bible, whatever idolatry the Israelites did God was against it.
>If God doesn't have a physical form, then how..
He chose at certain times to reveal Himself in human form. These occurrences are called theophanies.
>then how is Jesus supposed to be sitting at his right hand like several verses state?
In the case of God, once all finitude is negated from a statement, what is left is what is actually true. If nothing is left, then it is a pure metaphor. Some metaphors use attributes from creation itself (2 Samuel 22:3). Others use man's attributes (anthropomorphism - Deuteronomy 33:27). In this way we can go from what we know by experience to what we know through the metaphors. For example, when Scripture describes God's mighty arm we know that arms are by definition limited - but might is not. So God's mighty arm is actually unlimited power to act (what we call omnipotence). When Scripture describes God's mind, we know that minds are limited, but knowledge is not. God's mind is actually His infinite knowledge (what we call omniscience). Another example is The term "God's right hand" in prophecy refers to the Messiah to whom is given the power and authority to subdue His enemies (Psalm 110:1; Psalm 118:16). We find a quote in Matthew 22:44 from Psalm 110:1, which is a Messianic Psalm.
>Then you're not testing it enough.
Why do you say that? I'm clearly not an expert, but i spend a lot of time talking about it with Christians and people who disagree with it, along with studying it.
>How do you know what God wants?
Because it says so in the bible "For it is God's will that you should be holy: You must abstain from sexual immorality;"

>>3194
Theophanies refers to the temporal and spatial manifestation of God in some tangible form. Where the deity does not take tangible form (outward manifestation), the broader term used for inward manifestation is divine revelation or divine inspiration. Where the spirit of god is manifest in a person the term used is divine incarnation, avatar or personification of the deity. God reveals himself in many ways throughout the bible, Creation Reveals God, Written on Our Hearts, Through the Person of Jesus Christ and Through the Word of God. This does not contradict, God remains an immaterial infinite being.

>>3197
>Better cite some scripture to back that up
Genesis 12:7-9; 18:1-33; 32:22-30
>Except him appearing physically disproves that he "remains" immaterial and infinite.
It could be a paradox like the trinity, or how spiritual beings (like angels and demons) shape shift into humans or other beings. Just because hes a spirit doesn't mean he can't use his power to reveal himself as something physical or influence someone. He is also revealed in Christ and he was fully man and fully God.

>>3199
>the trinity is not biblical
That's wrong. Just because it's not explicitly stated in the bible doesn't mean it's false. omnipotence isn't stated either.
>The concept of a savior is a pagan concept.
The satanic is a counterfeit to God.
> I was a Christian for all my life and just a month or two ago it fell apart for me.
Now I'm trying to figure it out. I hope you come to that conclusion too.
How did your life fall apart? or did your belief in Christianity "fall apart" for you? are you still a Christian?

>>3193
>Atheism is still faith based because you can't prove there is no God.
Not believing in a god isn't the same thing as believing god doesn't exist. That's why people make a distinction between strong and weak atheism.
>Just because you dismiss the evidence for Jesus doesn't mean it stops existing.
What evidence? There probably was at least one historical person that the Biblical Jesus was based on, but we have no eyewitness accounts. Even Paul, whose authentic works are the earliest books in the New Testament chronologically, never claimed to have seen him in the flesh.

The only source we have outside the Bible that mentions a historical Jesus from his own century is Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, and even then Josephus didn't seem impressed with what he knew of him (unlike John the Baptist). There are even some authors who think any mentions of Jesus whatsoever in the Antiquities are later interpolations, although that's definitely a minority view.
>Just because something irrelevant didn't happened doesn't mean it invalidates the Bible also.
It's not irrelevant at all. People routinely made far-fetched claims in ancient times, and yet you're writing all of them off except the ones you've personally got a stake in.
>Is about the cave drawings of yahweh, i don't really bother with stuff outside the bible, whatever idolatry the Israelites did God was against it.
Yahweh and El were part of the Canaanite pantheon before we have any evidence of monotheism.
>He chose at certain times to reveal Himself in human form. These occurrences are called theophanies.
That's just mental gymnastics to explain away contradictory views of God and the more primitive views of God that you can see remnants of in the Old Testament. God taking evening strolls in the Garden of Eden while Adam and Eve hide or "[coming] down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built" in Genesis 11 sure don't seem like he's just taking human form to reveal himself to humans and seem to have a naive view of God as a finite being.
>In the case of God, once all finitude is negated from a statement, what is left is what is actually true. If nothing is left, then it is a pure metaphor. Some metaphors use attributes from creation itself (2 Samuel 22:3). Others use man's attributes (anthropomorphism - Deuteronomy 33:27). In this way we can go from what we know by experience to what we know through the metaphors. For example, when Scripture describes God's mighty arm we know that arms are by definition limited - but might is not. So God's mighty arm is actually unlimited power to act (what we call omnipotence). When Scripture describes God's mind, we know that minds are limited, but knowledge is not. God's mind is actually His infinite knowledge (what we call omniscience). Another example is The term "God's right hand" in prophecy refers to the Messiah to whom is given the power and authority to subdue His enemies (Psalm 110:1; Psalm 118:16). We find a quote in Matthew 22:44 from Psalm 110:1, which is a Messianic Psalm.
Yet there are verses that contradict God's supposed omniscience and omnipotence, like the ones I've mentioned.
>Why do you say that? I'm clearly not an expert, but i spend a lot of time talking about it with Christians and people who disagree with it, along with studying it.
Try exposing yourself to better sources than apologists who think they're engaging in rigorous examinations of their beliefs by asking themselves "challenging" softball questions. Bart Ehrman is worth checking out regarding the New Testament, although even he seems to be behind the times in some ways.

The idea of a literally true, divinely inspired Bible falls apart when you stop being so concerned about trying to prove its accuracy.
>Because it says so in the bible "For it is God's will that you should be holy: You must abstain from sexual immorality;"
How do you know the Bible is accurate?
>>3199
>I was a Christian for all my life and just a month or two ago it fell apart for me.
I hope you can get through it smoothly. I had a pretty religious upbringing, and the year I realized I couldn't keep believing Christianity anymore was the roughest period of my life. I feel like I'm on the right path now, but it definitely took some adjusting. It still feels kind of weird all this time later trying to wrap my head around the idea that the Bible isn't an accurate history book. Then again, I did a complete 180 from being a full-blown Young Earth Creationist who thought the end days was at hand.

I can understand why people cling to hard to Biblical literalism, but at some point you have to pull the band-aid off and come to terms with the fact that you were so invested in something that almost certainly isn't true.

>>3201
>What evidence?
The Book the case for Christ presents evidence for the resurrection.
>There probably was at least one historical person that the Biblical Jesus was based on, but we have no eyewitness accounts. Even Paul, whose authentic works are the earliest books in the New Testament chronologically, never claimed to have seen him in the flesh.
Your approaching the Jesus myth theory territory, which is a fringe theory, not accepted by scholars, popularized by a vocal community.
>The only source we have outside the Bible that mentions a historical Jesus
There were a few non-biblical sources.
>Yahweh and El were part of the Canaanite pantheon before we have any evidence of monotheism.
There is also the Gnostic God and jesus, the buddist Jesus, the New Age Jesus, so what if the ancient israelites were idolaters.
>That's just mental gymnastics to explain away contradictory views of God
How can Jesus be fully God and fully man, it sounds like a contradiction until you find out that he had a human nature and a God nature. I don't have all the answers but i'm sure there is some explanation for it.
>Yet there are verses that contradict God's supposed omniscience and omnipotence, like the ones I've mentioned.
Which ones? Do you mind reposting them?
>Try exposing yourself to better sources
Okay.
>How do you know the Bible is accurate?
Because there is documented evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

>>3202
>Your approaching the Jesus myth theory territory, which is a fringe theory, not accepted by scholars, popularized by a vocal community.
No, this is a pretty standard view among scholars. There's no evidence that the New Testament was written by people who were direct eyewitnesses of Jesus. It was written in Greek and not Aramaic, the Gospels were originally circulated anonymously, and Mark and Luke weren't original followers of Jesus. The Gospels weren't originally even given the names we know them by until later on.

Scholarly consensus can definitely be valuable, but I'm also not allergic to fringe perspectives if they seem to offer valuable points. I think the historicists are the most likely camp to be right, but the ones who write off any form of mythicism completely tend to overrate how confident we can actually be about the past. The further back you look historically, the murkier things become.
>There were a few non-biblical sources.
Here's what Mara bar-Serapion had to say:
>What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down.
That's hardly a clear reference to Jesus.

Suetonius mentioned a Chrestus who had followers who were causing trouble in Rome, and he's probably referring to Jesus but going off bad information and thinking he was still alive.

Those other authors besides Josephus were writing in the 2nd century at the earliest. Besides that, it's a huge jump to say that just because a historical Jesus existed that he was anything like what the Bible claims.
>There is also the Gnostic God and jesus, the buddist Jesus, the New Age Jesus, so what if the ancient israelites were idolaters.
Given the spats there seem to have been between Paul and Peter and James, there doesn't seem to have been one version of Christianity to begin with once Jesus was out of the picture.

But the point is that there was "idolatry" before people were following the "correct" path and worshiping Yahweh only. People weren't straying from the "one true faith"; the "one true faith" was an outgrowth of "idolatry" that eventually went in a totally different direction. Appealing to exegetical tradition isn't a good argument considering that traditional methods of Biblical interpretation start from holding certain assumptions about the truth of the Bible and hand-wave away the prospect of deeply examining it in terms of the historical contexts in which the books were written.
>Which ones? Do you mind reposting them?
<For example, in Genesis God apparently needed to ask Abel what happened to Cain (Genesis 4:9). He supposedly "came down" to take a look at the Tower of Babel to know what was going on and seems to have been concerned about humans reaching his level power (Genesis 11:5-6). Judges 1:19 mentions Judah being unable to defeat iron chariots with God's backing
>Because there is documented evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
By "documented evidence" you mean the Bible, right? Using that logic, the Quran "documents" Mohammed splitting the moon in two.
>>3203
I don't recall posting any meditation advice, but breathing is supposed to slow down drastically in deep meditative states. I don't think that's the same thing as breathing stopping completely though. It's just supposed to be infrequent from what I understand.

I haven't delved deep enough into meditation to really comment on it. Right now I regularly put myself into an alpha state and just focus on the stillness and nudge myself back when my mind strays. It helps me get away from the constant mental chatter that's always going on in my head, and I come out feeling more rested. Other than that, I've just been practicing self-hypnosis every day. You sound like you're already a lot further along in meditation than I am.

>>3206
>this is a pretty standard view among scholars.
Prove it. Because most scholars are against Jesus myth theory. To dismiss the bible is intellectually disingenuous. https://bib.irr.org/reliability-of-bible Besides
>inb4 Contemporary evidence or stfu!
Things weren't normally written down back then and that is an argument of silence which is not a good one. Even atheists say it's not a good argument https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-contemporary-references-to-jesus/
>That's hardly a clear reference to Jesus.
Of course you will deny it. Three wise men, Jews that executed their wise king, it's highly probable that it was Jesus
>Suetonius
https://reasonsforjesus.com/roman-historian-suetonius-mentions-jesus-christ/
>those other authors besides Josephus were writing in the 2nd century at the earliest.
Here we go, the "Contemporary evidence or stfu!" argument of silence.
>it's a huge jump to say that just because a historical Jesus existed that he was anything like what the Bible claims.
Moving the goal post. I can show you evidence for Jesus, but you will disregard it endlessly. It's like if i asked you to prove that you exist and i keep dismissing any information you give.
>Given the spats there seem to have been between Paul and Peter and James, there doesn't seem to have been one version of Christianity to begin with once Jesus was out of the picture.
Saying Jesus was Lucifer and God is the devil, is very similar to another spiritual belief system. Besides the church called Gnosticsm one of the first heresies.
>But the point is that there was "idolatry" before people were following the "correct" path and worshiping Yahweh only.
I agree.
>For example, in Genesis God apparently needed to ask Abel what happened to Cain (Genesis 4:9).
God asked because he clearly wanted Abel to tell him, he can know what happened despite asking about it. Parents often do this with guilty children, God also did it in the garden of Eden.
>He supposedly "came down" to take a look at the Tower of Babel to know what was going on and seems to have been concerned about humans reaching his level power (Genesis 11:5-6)
The bible often describes God in limited physical descriptions like God's mind or having arms.
>Judges 1:19 mentions Judah being unable to defeat iron chariots with God's backing

Joshua 17:14-18:The people of Joseph said to Joshua, "Why have you given us only one allotment and one portion for an inheritance? We are a numerous people and the LORD has blessed us abundantly."

"If you are so numerous," Joshua answered, "and if the hill country of Ephraim is too small for you, go up into the forest and clear land for yourselves there in the land of the Perizzites and Rephaites."

The people of Joseph replied, "The hill country is not enough for us, and all the Canaanites who live in the plain have iron chariots, both those in Beth Shan and its settlements and those in the Valley of Jezreel."

But Joshua said to the house of Joseph - to Ephraim and Manasseh - "You are numerous and very powerful. You will have not only one allotment but the forested hill country as well. Clear it, and its farthest limits will be yours; though the Canaanites have iron chariots and though they are strong, you can drive them out."

It appears the plain country was not part of the original inheritance given to Israel, thus it may not have been God's intention to give it to the tribe of Joseph.
>By "documented evidence" you mean the Bible, right? Using that logic, the Quran "documents" Mohammed splitting the moon in two.
No, i believe the Case For Christ is good for the evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus, and you haven't presented an argument against it. I also know of the God helping me through demonic oppression but i don't really use that as evidence even though the spiritual side of life is real. There is evidence outside the bible. The Bible contradicts the Quran, one way is the Quran says to Muslims to believe in the Bible (and Muslims disobey and say it's corrupted), but the Quran says that Jesus didn't die on the cross as the webm will show.

Here is an answer to why God has no physical form and is revealed as a physical man in Genesis 12:7-9; 18:1-33; 32:22-30.

>It is the Logos of God that is appearing in each of these places, i.e. the pre-incarnate Christ. This is what the Church Fathers wrote, and this is what even Second Temple era non-Christian Jews such as Philo wrote. I wouldn't say that is His true form appearing, He can appear how ever He wants, obvious. God the Father is the one that is far transcendent to our experience and conceptualization, "who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see" (1 Timothy 6:1).

>>3173
t. discord spic

>>3208
>Prove it. Because most scholars are against Jesus myth theory.
I never said they weren't. Saying that the Gospels were originally anonymous and not written by the people they were attributed to has nothing to do with the mythicist position and is a completely mainstream view.

Bart Ehrman takes that view, and he refuses to even address mythicists anymore from what I've heard. From the Chapter 3 notes of Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium:
>Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names do not go back to a single "original" title, but were added by later scribes.
> As we will see, there may have been a few other early written accounts of Jesus' words and deeds. But even if such accounts did exist, there is no guarantee that they were based on direct testimony - since they too were probably based on oral tradition-or that they were widely known. It is striking,
for example, that our earliest New Testament author, Paul, gives no indication that he has ever seen or heard about a written account of Jesus' life, as we'll see further in ch.5.

Don't believe he's a good representative of scholarly opinion? This is from page 1744 of The New Oxford Annotated Bible:
>A historical genre does not necessarily guarantee historical accuracy or reliability, and neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus' life and teaching. Even the language has changed. Though Greek had become the common language used between groups whose primary languages were different in the eastern Roman Empire, and inscriptions and fragments of Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible show that Greek was used even among Jews within Judea, Jesus, his disciples, and the crowds would have spoken Aramaic, a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, which it had replaced as the principal spoken language of Palestine. Despite scholarly efforts to detect an underlying Aramaic original for Mark or Matthew, it is probable that all the evangelists wrote in the common ("koine") Greek of their day. Further, the vast majority of Hebrew Bible citations in the New Testament are taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint).
Is that mainstream enough for you?
>Of course you will deny it. Three wise men, Jews that executed their wise king, it's highly probable that it was Jesus
I'm not denying anything. How would his reference being to Jesus even hurt my position at all when I'm not saying there wasn't a historical person? All I'm saying is that's not a slam dunk argument. Mara bar Serapion is thought to have written the letter anywhere from after 72 A.D. to the third century. That means that if he was talking about Jesus (which I think he was, although it's also not clear), he at least had the possibility of having access to the Gospel of Mark or being influenced by people who had read it.
>https://reasonsforjesus.com/roman-historian-suetonius-mentions-jesus-christ/
I'm not disputing the fact the Suetonius was probably talking about Jesus, but it also doesn't go any further than mentioning a guy who he thought was him.
>Things weren't normally written down back then and that is an argument of silence which is not a good one. Even atheists say it's not a good argument https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-contemporary-references-to-jesus/
Saying that the evidence we have for Jesus is better than what we have for other ancient figures whose existences are taken for granted isn't necessarily convincing evidence for Jesus. If anything, it just shows how much of what we "know" is based on scant evidence. Tim O'Neill is right that there probably was a historical Jesus, but the historical Jesus that critical scholars and historians overwhelmingly believe existed has little in common with the one you're promoting.

Video related.

>Here we go, the "Contemporary evidence or stfu!" argument of silence.
The more time passes after a historical event before being documented, the more accounts of it will be subject to distortion. Deal with it.
>Moving the goal post. I can show you evidence for Jesus, but you will disregard it endlessly. It's like if i asked you to prove that you exist and i keep dismissing any information you give.
I'm not moving the goalposts at all. Your only evidence for the Biblical Jesus is posting the few early extra-Biblical accounts we have mentioning a guy named Jesus existing. It's like finding a real-life Clark Kent and concluding that Superman existed. If you take away Superman's powers, is he really Superman anymore?
>Saying Jesus was Lucifer and God is the devil, is very similar to another spiritual belief system. Besides the church called Gnosticsm one of the first heresies.
That's because the proto-orthodox faction was the version of Christianity than won out.
>God also did it in the garden of Eden.
The place he liked to take evening strolls through and enjoying the cool breeze.
>The bible often describes God in limited physical descriptions like God's mind or having arms.
Or his back and "loins." Why did they make so many references to oddly specific parts of his body if they didn't believe he literally had them? God is constantly described in corporeal terms and is repeatedly said to have walked among humans.
>It appears the plain country was not part of the original inheritance given to Israel, thus it may not have been God's intention to give it to the tribe of Joseph.
Or it's just one of many contradictions. When you need to go to extreme lengths to try and play down the countless inconsistencies in the Bible with rationalizations that are completely speculative (and often wouldn't be considered believable in any other context), then you've got a huge problem on your hands.
>No, i believe the Case For Christ is good for the evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus, and you haven't presented an argument against it.
Lee Strobel is a clown whose books are targeted toward people who already believe in Christianity and are looking for justifications for their religious beliefs. For all his talk of having credentials as a hard-nosed former investigative journalist, he's completely credulous when it comes to confirming the things he wants to believe. For example, he's said before that the American Medical Association confirmed that Jesus died on the cross yet fails to see that they're basing that scenario on information given in the Gospels right from the outset. It's like asking a metallurgy expert if the Cracks of Doom were really hot enough to melt the One Ring based on Tolkien's descriptions and thinking you've scored a point if they say they suppose so. He also pushes the idea that we have reliable, independent eyewitness accounts of Jesus after supposedly being resurrected. Christian apologists love trotting out the same old spurious arguments over and over while touting their dedication to the truth. If they were as dedicated to the truth as they claim, they wouldn't jump immediately to believing in miraculous explanations when they're also the least plausible.
>I also know of the God helping me through demonic oppression but i don't really use that as evidence even though the spiritual side of life is real.
How do you know you were oppressed by demons? Robert Anton Wilson thought he was in communication with beings from Sirius at one point but was careful enough not to claim it as a definite fact.
>There is evidence outside the bible.
What solid evidence outside of the Bible is there for a divine Jesus?
>The Bible contradicts the Quran, one way is the Quran says to Muslims to believe in the Bible (and Muslims disobey and say it's corrupted), but the Quran says that Jesus didn't die on the cross as the webm will show.
You're missing the point. Both offer nothing more than hearsay with no good supporting evidence to back up what they have to say.

>>3213
>How would his reference being to Jesus even hurt my position at all when I'm not saying there wasn't a historical person?
Because the more you can deny the evidence for jesus or the bible the stronger your position is.
>he at least had the possibility of having access to the Gospel of Mark or being influenced by people who had read it.
Let me ask you a question, and i hope you answer it honestly, if Christianity were true would be you a christian? It's not suppose to be a gotcha, if you say no then it just says that you don't care if Christianity is true.
>If you take away Superman's powers, is he really Superman anymore?
That implies that God has no spiritual power in the modern world.
>That's because the proto-orthodox faction was the version of Christianity than won out.
If the bible said that God is the devil and Jesus is lucifer, i wouldn't be a christian.
>The place he liked to take evening strolls through and enjoying the cool breeze.
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-walk-garden.html
>Or it's just one of many contradictions.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi-tJmIiOS7NhiojK-X8Y96uZB_PhQ48I
>Lee Strobel is a clown…
Like before, you give a lot of shit talking, but you don't address the actual arguments of the people i've posted you're just dismissing Lee Strobel and Christian Apologists for something unfavorable they did.
>How do you know you were oppressed by demons?
Because i tried doing a magic spell where i would send a thought form to make someone give me a glass of water, just to see if it would work, and immediately after i did it got visions of dead people in my head, people I've never seen before, i had not mental health problems, and it stopped once i went to the priest.
>What solid evidence outside of the Bible is there for a divine Jesus?
There is no such thing as solid evidence, anything can be denied. I meant more smaller scope evidence that the bible happened like that I've posted before. Proving God is very hard, because you have experience God and anecdotes are not good evidence.
>You're missing the point. Both offer nothing more than hearsay with no good supporting evidence to back up what they have to say.
Why would the early Christians sacrifice themselves for something that wasn't true? How do you explain Bible prophecy that was completed? https://bibleprophecies.net/true.php

The reason i am a Christian is because the elite are practicing satanists who worship Satan and sometimes his demons. We need God is a world bathed in satanism, What do you think that means for the subliminal messages programmed into your mind from mass media? The Bible is right when it says that the Devil is permitted to rule the earth. https://archive.ph/t3upi
>In the case of William of Norwich-a young boy found dead in a wood in England, in the year 1144-his premature demise was transformed, ex post facto, into a ritual supposedly performed by Jews explicitly to mock the Passion of the Christ.

>>3216
>Because the more you can deny the evidence for jesus or the bible the stronger your position is.
But my position isn't necessarily that Jesus as a historical person didn't exist. Just that we don't have evidence to believe that he was a divine figure. Maybe he didn't exist, but I don't find most mythicist arguments convincing.
>Let me ask you a question, and i hope you answer it honestly, if Christianity were true would be you a christian? It's not suppose to be a gotcha, if you say no then it just says that you don't care if Christianity is true.
Yes, if that's where the evidence pointed. That's especially true if it entailed hell or annihilation for non-believers. Fear of hell and the desire for a positive afterlife were always the things that kept me the most invested in Christianity.
>That implies that God has no spiritual power in the modern world.
It means that just because some guy existed doesn't mean the claims of superhuman abilities surrounding him are true.
>Like before, you give a lot of shit talking, but you don't address the actual arguments of the people i've posted you're just dismissing Lee Strobel and Christian Apologists for something unfavorable they did.
I addressed several of his claims as examples.
>If the bible said that God is the devil and Jesus is lucifer, i wouldn't be a christian.
Why?
>Because i tried doing a magic spell where i would send a thought form to make someone give me a glass of water, just to see if it would work, and immediately after i did it got visions of dead people in my head, people I've never seen before, i had not mental health problems, and it stopped once i went to the priest.
That doesn't prove anything. People have all kinds of paranormal experiences, whether positive or negative, in line with their subconscious beliefs and expectations. Just look at Near-Death Experiences. People seem to go into realms in line with their subconscious expectations and cultural conditioning.
>There is no such thing as solid evidence, anything can be denied. I meant more smaller scope evidence that the bible happened like that I've posted before. Proving God is very hard, because you have experience God and anecdotes are not good evidence.
Just because some people will never be satisfied with evidence no matter how good it is doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as solid evidence.
>Why would the early Christians sacrifice themselves for something that wasn't true?
Why would the Heaven's Gate members commit mass suicide? Why would people blow themselves up in the name of Islam? Why would foreign volunteers join up with the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War? People are willing to put their lives on the line for all sorts of causes.
>How do you explain Bible prophecy that was completed? https://bibleprophecies.net/true.php
They're vague, made up after the fact, misinterpreted (like a lot of the supposed Old Testament references to Jesus), self-fulfilling prophecies (Jews returning to Israel), or didn't actually come true (Tyre being completely destroyed). The latter is a big problem. The Nile was supposed to dry up, and Egypt was supposed to be uninhabited for generations. Damascus still hasn't been destroyed either, and obviously Jesus never came back within the lifetime of his disciples.
>The reason i am a Christian is because the elite are practicing satanists who worship Satan and sometimes his demons. We need God is a world bathed in satanism, What do you think that means for the subliminal messages programmed into your mind from mass media?
I doubt the ruling class has any shared religious values other than maybe whatever justifies their selfishness. Subliminal messages also seem to have limited effectiveness.
>The Bible is right when it says that the Devil is permitted to rule the earth. https://archive.ph/t3upi
That seems like more of a response to explain the problem of evil more than anything. The Jews were told that God would serve them if they followed him, and they continued getting their shit pushed in no matter how devout they were. Changing Satan from a subordinate being working for God to the Christian version of an evil entity temporarily working in opposition to him was an attempt at reconciling their beliefs with what they were going through.
>In the case of William of Norwich-a young boy found dead in a wood in England, in the year 1144-his premature demise was transformed, ex post facto, into a ritual supposedly performed by Jews explicitly to mock the Passion of the Christ.
I don't think that means anything just because someone wrote it. Even as late as the 19th century it was a pretty common practice for newspapers to run hoaxes and joke stories, for example. Historical sources shouldn't be taken at face value, and that's increasingly true the further back you go.

There is an Israeli author named Ariel Toaff who thinks that certain medieval Jews used dried blood in magic rituals, but even he doesn't think murder was involved. I don't know how trustworthy his work is either.

>>3249
>Why?
Because then it would just be another satanic deception in a sea of other satanic deceptions.
>That doesn't prove anything.
There are aspects of this world that cannot be explained. Part of the reason i don't use it as proof is because people are quick to say it's all psychology, and that psychology is more real than the spiritual(which is clearly hard to prove). Demons and magic are real. There are people who have never heard of Jesus and have had paranormal experiences with him, so psychology isn't always the answer.
>The Nile was supposed to dry up, and Egypt was supposed to be uninhabited for generations. Damascus still hasn't been destroyed either, and obviously Jesus never came back within the lifetime of his disciples.
I'm sure a pastor could answer those peculiarities. That is not to say everything in the bible is known, there are certain words that have unknown meaning. The Bible is unclear when it says something is about to shortly transpire. for example revelation says that it will shortly happen, some believe it will happen in the future and some believe it has already happened. I would say if you want to get a fair educated point of view on the bible go to a bible college.
>I doubt the ruling class has any shared religious values other than maybe whatever justifies their selfishness.
Their shared selfishness is spiritually satanic. William Copper says that the elite have many identities but they're all luciferian, i don't know if i agree with that. They all seem to practice satanic practices like pedophilia and human sacrifice.
>Subliminal messages also seem to have limited effectiveness.
There is evidence to say that they're not very effective, yet you still see them in the media of the current year, are they just put there to mock us?
>That seems like more of a response to explain the problem of evil more than anything.
What do you mean by this? Do you believe it's just a coincidence that different forms of satanism is practiced in the elite?
>The Jews were told that God would serve them if they followed him, and they continued getting their shit pushed in no matter how devout they were.
The Jews were misbehaved, they worshiped golden caffs and eventually followed the kabbalah and the Talmud. The majority of jews have rejected God.
>I don't think that means anything just because someone wrote it.
Then what do you consider solid evidence if documented evidence is not good? Human sacrifice is must have happened in south america because it's in the Mayan art.

Kys Ashton.

>>3250
>There are aspects of this world that cannot be explained.
i.e. God Gap fallacy
BTFO

>>3286
>GATCHA!
https://www.compellingtruth.org/God-of-the-gaps.html#:~:text=The%20God-of-the-gaps%20argument%20%28also%20known%20as%20the%20God-of-the-gaps,miraculous%20or%20impossible%20to%20understand%20at%20the%20time.

>>3250
>Because then it would just be another satanic deception in a sea of other satanic deceptions.
How do you know? Your entire idea of Satan comes from the Bible and traditions that grew out from it.
>There are aspects of this world that cannot be explained. Part of the reason i don't use it as proof is because people are quick to say it's all psychology, and that psychology is more real than the spiritual(which is clearly hard to prove). Demons and magic are real. There are people who have never heard of Jesus and have had paranormal experiences with him, so psychology isn't always the answer.
I'm not saying that spiritual things don't exist. Far from it. What I'm saying is that subconscious beliefs inform what kinds of paranormal experiences people are going to have. Experienced out-of-body travelers report that people congregate to different afterlife regions according to their beliefs and interests. Reality seems to be essentially mental in nature, and it seems to become more malleable the closer you get to the core of existence. Christians might see Jesus (and yet report totally different physical descriptions of him), Hindus might see various figures from their religion, and irreligious people will often just see beings of light. The beings people encounter could be thoughtforms or the denizens of higher realms. Emanuel Swedenborg had experiences similar to what modern OBE/NDE books talk about way back in the 18th century. He viewed everything through a Christian lens (and even claimed to have met the spirits of Old Testament patriarchs) but also thought that the angels he talked about meeting were the spirits of the dead, as were demons.
>I'm sure a pastor could answer those peculiarities. That is not to say everything in the bible is known, there are certain words that have unknown meaning. The Bible is unclear when it says something is about to shortly transpire. for example revelation says that it will shortly happen, some believe it will happen in the future and some believe it has already happened. I would say if you want to get a fair educated point of view on the bible go to a bible college.
All evangelical pastors seem to be able to offer is after-the-fact justifications and thought-terminating cliches. If the Bible said something is going to happen shortly, it's a safe bet the writers weren't talking about thousands of years later.
>There is evidence to say that they're not very effective, yet you still see them in the media of the current year, are they just put there to mock us?
They make the viewers feel smart for finding them, and I imagine the marketers hope to gain publicity form them.
>What do you mean by this? Do you believe it's just a coincidence that different forms of satanism is practiced in the elite?
Putting Satan in temporary control of the world helps take the onus off God to do something about all the pain and suffering in the world in people's minds. I don't believe that Satanism is all that common among the rich and powerful.
>The Jews were misbehaved, they worshiped golden caffs and eventually followed the kabbalah and the Talmud. The majority of jews have rejected God.
Torah-observant Jews in the Second Temple period saw themselves as oppressed and humiliated by foreign powers instead of being rewarded by God for their righteousness and faithful adherence to their laws. The apocalyptic beliefs that were catching on at that time seemed more theodically plausible.
>Then what do you consider solid evidence if documented evidence is not good? Human sacrifice is must have happened in south america because it's in the Mayan art.
All we can do is piece things together (like documents and archaeological evidence) as best we can given the sources we have and make educated guesses as to what really happened and what motivated people to write what they did.

The bible. Jesus is a cool guy.

>>3289
>How do you know? Your entire idea of Satan comes from the Bible and traditions that grew out from it.
My entire idea of Satan dosen't come from the bible, it also comes from the elite. Satan is mentioned very little in the bible, what it does mention doesn't go into too much detail about how satanism is a deception, just that it is and that it's deceived the entire world. There is a lot not mentioned about satanism in the bible that connects many modern beliefs systems, practices, religions, media to famous satanists. There are New Agers that expose the satanic conspiracy despite not being Christian and despite the New Age just being a re-branding of Satansim. Sure the bible hints at this, but there are many connections outside the bible that show the satanic conspiracy.
>What I'm saying is that subconscious beliefs inform what kinds of paranormal experiences people are going to have.
If that is true why do people have experiences of religious beings that they have never prior knowledge about?
>All evangelical pastors seem to be able to offer is after-the-fact justifications and thought-terminating cliches.
It would be a waste to dismiss educated answers as rigid thinking.
>If the Bible said something is going to happen shortly, it's a safe bet the writers weren't talking about thousands of years later.
Well God exists outside of time so time doesn't move forward for him like it does for us Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.
>They make the viewers feel smart for finding them, and I imagine the marketers hope to gain publicity form them.
I don't feel smart after finding the deplorable filth they put on media. Putting a penis on the cover of the little mermaid should have been the end of Disney, yet no one cares, and it's not the only sex related image they put in their children's movies, there should be more outrage.
>Putting Satan in temporary control of the world helps take the onus off God to do something about all the pain and suffering in the world in people's minds
If you want a world of love, you need to have freewill and choice to love. To make a square God has to give up his power to make a circle.
>I don't believe that Satanism is all that common among the rich and powerful.
How did you reach this conclusion despite all the evidence of pedophile rings and huaman sacrifice?

>>3305
I'm schitzophrenic

>>3305
>My entire idea of Satan dosen't come from the bible, it also comes from the elite. Satan is mentioned very little in the bible, what it does mention doesn't go into too much detail about how satanism is a deception, just that it is and that it's deceived the entire world. There is a lot not mentioned about satanism in the bible that connects many modern beliefs systems, practices, religions, media to famous satanists.
The whole concept of Satan goes back to the Bible, and everyone else is drawing from that. There's no Satan without the Bible.
>There are New Agers that expose the satanic conspiracy despite not being Christian and despite the New Age just being a re-branding of Satansim. Sure the bible hints at this, but there are many connections outside the bible that show the satanic conspiracy.
That doesn't mean much seeing as how "New Age" people are prone to being overly credulous nuts who often will eat up any off-the-wall idea they come across. It's kind of a catchall term, but people who receive that label tend to be far from being scrupulously skeptical. You're more likely to find someone who believes unquestioningly in ascending to 5D via Atlantean dolphin vibrations than any kind of rigorous thinker.
>If that is true why do people have experiences of religious beings that they have never prior knowledge about?
Because it means everything exists as part of a collective consciousness, anima mundi, world soul, or whatever you want to call it. The macrocosm exists in the microcosm.
>It would be a waste to dismiss educated answers as rigid thinking.
Assuming there's anything behind mouthing platitudes and empty soundbites involved, all the erudition in the world doesn't count for anything if there's little actual substance behind the answers.
>Well God exists outside of time so time doesn't move forward for him like it does for us Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.
Why wouldn't God be speaking in terms that humans will understand if he's supposed to be omniscient and knows something will easily be misinterpreted and cause confusion?
>I don't feel smart after finding the deplorable filth they put on media. Putting a penis on the cover of the little mermaid should have been the end of Disney, yet no one cares, and it's not the only sex related image they put in their children's movies, there should be more outrage.
The spires on that artwork already look vaguely phallic in the first place. There's no evidence that that one was even intended to be a cock.
>If you want a world of love, you need to have freewill and choice to love. To make a square God has to give up his power to make a circle.
God granting free will is contradicted by God hardening the pharaoh's heart (Exodus 7:3, 7:13, and 9:12), as well as several verses in the New Testament that suggest predestination.

Is there supposed to be free will in heaven? If so, then why would God need to make people suffer unnecessarily when he's already omniscient and knows who will make it anyway? If not, then why would he give free will here but not there?
>How did you reach this conclusion despite all the evidence of pedophile rings and huaman sacrifice?
I've never seen good evidence for widespread human sacrifice, and pedophile rings don't necessitate Satan worship any more than any other undesirable behaviors that people engage in.

>>3355
>Why wouldn't God be speaking in terms that humans will understand if he's supposed to be omniscient and knows something will easily be misinterpreted and cause confusion?
Part of Being a Christian is knowing God's nature. We also have priests and pastors who will give educated answers.
>The spires on that artwork already look vaguely phallic in the first place. There's no evidence that that one was even intended to be a cock.
It's like that picture of the word sex subliminally in leaves, if you intend to see it you will see it, and once you see it, it was always there. The topless woman with the beast head in The Rescuers is more obvious.
>God granting free will is contradicted by God hardening the pharaoh's heart (Exodus 7:3, 7:13, and 9:12), as well as several verses in the New Testament that suggest predestination.
Freewill vs predestination is a difficult one, if i remember correctly the one about the pharaoh's heart was because God has many ways to motivate someone beyond controlling their freewill. Pharaoh by his own admission sinned by refusing to let Israel go One. apologist described it as watching a recording of a soccer game and you knowing the outcome, the players still have freewill despite you knowing.
>Is there supposed to be free will in heaven? If so, then why would God need to make people suffer unnecessarily when he's already omniscient and knows who will make it anyway?
In heaven you will have freewill, but you won't have a sinful nature so all you needs will be met. Life on Earth is not entirely suffering, we have God and with him comes blessings. Why doesn't God just send us to heaven or hell if he already knows who is going to make it, i don't know, i guess to test us, to see if we will use the sacrifice of Jesus to reach heaven. i'm sure there are many camps on freewill vs predestination, but i believe we still have freewill even if God knows the outcome.
> human sacrifice, and pedophile rings don't necessitate Satan worship
Both those practices often are done with rituals, if not the spiritual aspect of them are very dark.

>>3356
i'd give ariel my satanic tower, if you get what i mean

>>3039
Ain't it funny how those letters surrounding the baphomet head pentagram, in the circle look hebrew? Ain't that just ODD?

Wtf why is this paragraph spamming satanist nigger here and in every thread.

>>3365
/christian/ and /leftypol/ both are pretty much the same

>>3367
No, /christian/ doesn't fit with /pol/ or /leftypol/.

>>3369
They defend niggers there. Look I get that we have to baptize everyone if they come
looking to be saved regardless of color but still.

>>3370
Just because they defend blacks doesn't mean they fit in with /leftypol/ which (like socialism) is strongly atheist.

>>3356
>Part of Being a Christian is knowing God's nature.
How can you know you know God's nature?
>We also have priests and pastors who will give educated answers.
Being educated into believing something doesn't make them correct. You can find "educated" people with all kinds of nutty views.
>It's like that picture of the word sex subliminally in leaves, if you intend to see it you will see it, and once you see it, it was always there.
I don't think I would have necessarily taken notice of that dick spire unless it was pointed out.
>Freewill vs predestination is a difficult one, if i remember correctly the one about the pharaoh's heart was because God has many ways to motivate someone beyond controlling their freewill. Pharaoh by his own admission sinned by refusing to let Israel go One. apologist described it as watching a recording of a soccer game and you knowing the outcome, the players still have freewill despite you knowing.
If our actions are predetermined by God, then him sinning wasn't his own fault in the first place.
>In heaven you will have freewill, but you won't have a sinful nature so all you needs will be met. Life on Earth is not entirely suffering, we have God and with him comes blessings. Why doesn't God just send us to heaven or hell if he already knows who is going to make it, i don't know, i guess to test us, to see if we will use the sacrifice of Jesus to reach heaven. i'm sure there are many camps on freewill vs predestination, but i believe we still have freewill even if God knows the outcome.
What's the point of testing people if the outcome is the same and already known ahead of time?
>Both those practices often are done with rituals, if not the spiritual aspect of them are very dark.
Spiritual practices don't have to have anything to do with pedophile rings. Most people involved with them seem to just be sickos looking to get themselves off.
>>3364
It boggles the mind why a meme religion made to spoof another religion based on ancient Hebrew and Hebrew-inspired scriptures would use an emblem that features Hebrew writing.
>>3365
>nooooo stop responding to things!

>>3456
shut the fuck up

>>3456
>How can you know you know God's nature?
From the bible.
>Being educated into believing something doesn't make them correct. You can find "educated" people with all kinds of nutty views.
True, but they will be able to defend it better than the average person.
>If our actions are predetermined by God
>then him sinning wasn't his own fault in the first place.
God knows our future but doesn't decide our actions, some people can't put all knowing, creator and freewill together for some reason. God doesn't want us to sin.
>What's the point of testing people if the outcome is the same and already known ahead of time?
It would make sense that he would get bored of something so predictable, unless you love the person who you are testing, of course that would make it all the more tragic.
>Spiritual practices don't have to have anything to do with pedophile rings.
The MKUltra pedophiles rings do, and the Epstein sex practices did as well, there was a worker who posted what he knew on 4chan (i don't have the thread screenshots with me) before getting arrested who didn't realize what he was doing was a ritual but realized it after wards, the pedophiles also wore a goat head mask and had to be obeyed when the wore it.
>Most people involved with them seem to just be sickos looking to get themselves off.
deplorable sins effect our connection with God, eventually God gives us up to our destruction.

>>3174
Long time coming but I think I've almost got it. I have learned to breathe in a special way that I can go without air for a little while. Haven't had an OBE yet but a little bit of practice won't hurt.

>>3459
>From the bible.
Reading the Bible doesn't mean you know that you actually know God's nature. All it gives you is the opinions of people from ancient times.
>True, but they will be able to defend it better than the average person.
That really isn't saying much of anything.
>God knows our future but doesn't decide our actions, some people can't put all knowing, creator and freewill together for some reason. God doesn't want us to sin.
The Bible has many verses pointing to predestination, as well as a few that don't. God would have created people with the nature they had based on genetic and environmental factors beyond their control and known ahead of time how they'd react.
>The MKUltra pedophiles rings do, and the Epstein sex practices did as well, there was a worker who posted what he knew on 4chan (i don't have the thread screenshots with me) before getting arrested who didn't realize what he was doing was a ritual but realized it after wards, the pedophiles also wore a goat head mask and had to be obeyed when the wore it.
I don't really trust 4chan posts. The Finders cult is the only case I've confirmed, and that's based on declassified documents. I also am not sure if it's known what their beliefs actually were other than that they would wear robes and kill goats.
>>3524
Neat, I should really focus on my own breathing more. Lately I've been having weird closed-eye visualizations, which I take to be a good sign. I've also been hearing that high-pitched hum you usually hear when in complete silence, and I've read that there's supposed to be some significance to that.

>>3595
>Reading the Bible doesn't mean you know that you actually know God's nature. All it gives you is the opinions of people from ancient times.
An opinion is chicken is good, broccoli is bad, these people either did or didn't have messages from God. It's the documentation of people who met God in ancient times, if this is true, it tells you God's nature.
>God would have created people with the nature they had based on genetic and environmental factors beyond their control and known ahead of time how they'd react.
Sounds like you mean him creating a perfect world or Eden. I think i missed your point here, but it's not God fault that we sin, it's the product of freewill and the choice of good and evil. Yes, the idea of freewill vs predestination is confusing.
>I don't really trust 4chan posts.
You can disregard it since i don't have the screenshot, but the 4chan screenshot included a news site documenting the arrest of the 4chan post exposing himself.
>I also am not sure if it's known what their beliefs actually were other than that they would wear robes and kill goats.
The description of a ritual can fit many things, a gathering of friends is a ritual, anything act with higher meaning is a ritual, the robes and sacrifice makes it sound satanic.

There was a big exposing around 2012 on the internet with the UK pedo rings and video of traumatized children confessing to what had happened to them, and suddenly it was all deleted and people forgot about it. Video related is from it. I don't know what it is, but pedo rings always have satanic stuff.

>>3596
Abrahamic-religions attracts pedos, nothing new about it.

>>3600
>sage
>whataboutism tier response
>anon didn't even say anything about being fascists in the first place
>none of those parties are even fascist
I wonder what kind of fit you'd throw if someone were to show you a compilation of kike religion pedos.

>>3601
>I wonder what kind of fit you'd throw if someone were to show you a compilation of kike religion pedos.
There are pedophiles in every place, including white nationalist organizations, What the original poster ignores is that the bible is against pedophilia https://www.gotquestions.org/pedophilia.html and says that humanity is fallen and addicted to practicing evil. But you don't care about accurately portraying Christianity, you just want to claim that all religious people are pedophiles without looking at the evil practiced in your group. Don't throw stone when you live in glass houses.