>Heh, won't be so fun when you die though? is anything fun when you die?

>>3213 Heaven will be more 'fun' than any of us here can possibly imagine. Hell? Ehh, not so much.

>christcuck propaganda sage

>>3223 >posts this on /christmas/ , of all places. Heh.

CHRISTMAS IS RUINED THE WEBRING WAS A MISTAKE

>>3225 What established the "Common Era," indeed.

>>3247 Indeed. Or, 'Who', say rather.

May the Holy Spirit bless Christmas with black triangles.

Fed cars are always near for support ;)

>>3225 You could use the same logic to say that the pagan gods are still relevant by pointing to where the English names of the days of the week came from.

>>3253 That's more of a linguistics issue than one to do with thought. And foreigners have different names for days of the week. The Gregorian Calendar has gone out over all the Earth. >muh arguments Is funny, though.

>>3254 >The Gregorian Calendar has gone out over all the Earth. Yeah, but the story that Gregorian year notation system uses as its basis is becoming increasingly irrelevant outside the Third World.

>>3255 >irrelevant Even at its most degenerate, Western culture is not becoming any less based on "that story." Even I wish it was becoming "more pagan." That's not the event happening. It merely becomes a more deranged distortion of it and its teachings and the misinterpretations thereof. Anything touched by that overculture is therefore affected by that origin point. That means you, too. You can't escape the water in which you swim. https://nicholassorokin.substack.com/p/on-converts-long-marches-and-counter

>>3258 NTA. I get you Anon. > But the simple fact is that the gospel message of the Christian Bible is the only one that holds any true hope of redemption for any man. Naked you came into this world, and naked shall you leave. Receiving the gift of the clothing of righteousness by God's grace alone is the only way any of us will make it in the end. >tl;dr Biblical Christianity is the only game in town, bro. :)

>>3262 Redeemed from what, exactly?

>>3263 Why eternal death in the lake of fire, ofc. Why do you ask? :^)

>>3264 >Why eternal death in the lake of fire, ofc That's begging the question. It's like saying we all need to revere Thor because he fights the evil joetnar.

>>3144 This thread will move soon into the Thunderdome, OP.

>>3268 Ehh, I understand the point. Since there's ample, objective evidence that the Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God, I think we can safely trust what it has to say about such an important topic it referred to literally hundreds of times, Anon.

>>3270 >Since there's ample, objective evidence that the Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God I don't think so.

>>3272 It is. Literally the very first page of the book is well-established by modern scientific observations. There are hundreds (thousands?) of other validations through the remaining pages through numerous disciplines. It's certainly the most-studied document in all human history, so it's no surprise tbh.

>>3273 >It is. Literally the very first page of the book is well-established by modern scientific observations. That's not true. It has the universe being created in six days, plant life predating the stars, birds existing before land animals, and relies on ancient flat-earth cosmology (hence the "lights in the firmament"). >There are hundreds (thousands?) of other validations through the remaining pages through numerous disciplines. I doubt it. It's filled with inaccuracies and contradictions. It doesn't even have a consistent conception of God. >It's certainly the most-studied document in all human history, so it's no surprise tbh. People study all sorts of influential pieces of literature, whether it's The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Canterbury Tales, or the works of Shakespeare. That doesn't mean any of these should be taken as literally accurate depictions of historical events.

>jeffthread devolved into religious kvetching my job here is done too bad the admin had to be a faggot and obliterate my thread just bc it was doing ironman numbers

>>3282 God "makes" things conceptually first not physically. The first one with light and dark is a metaphor for "1" and "0" or "is/is not". The order can afford to be disjointed using this explanation. The inconsistency in the manner of God's character I'd best explain as ancient primitive tribes being told lessons in a manner they were able to "get" properly. The lessons change radically once those tribes become orderly and not a bunch of club wielding shit eaters. It's why I don't get the concept of original sin the way I'm supposed to. Man's fall from Eden is a negotiation in my mind between man and God, rather than a great shaming in which God punishes children for the sins of their ancestors. It's a radical departure from scripture which Jesus did not change/alter/promote/mention/support. But it's the only way I have grasped at it that makes sense to me. Both the Old and New Testament have things in them that align with historical evidence; major floods, downfalls of civs, etc. I believe Jesus was a real man who came to save us. From what I haven't established cause I'm funny like that but I hold it dear because the peak works of our own civ were accomplished when this set of beliefs and ideals were held dear to people. The conceptual idea of God is a good one and I'm glad to be a weirdo in modern history by maintaining it.

>I believe Jesus was a real man who came to save us. i wanna believe this too can you imagine? some actual dude from 2000 years ago deadass managed to psyop a whole population into thinking he is a demigod and mfs were so impressed they kept parroting his delusions forever after? truly peak jewness literally stuff for the history books

>>3298 But what happened if the 21st century le funni dissident view of history is wrong, it actually happened, and all this anger is just directed at a world too deranged to interpret anything correctly anymore? What makes the man living in the most blinkered era of modern history a good judge of history at a glance?

>>3299 >t.

>>3289 Sorry, Jeff. >>3291 >The inconsistency in the manner of God's character I'd best explain as ancient primitive tribes being told lessons in a manner they were able to "get" properly. The lessons change radically once those tribes become orderly and not a bunch of club wielding shit eaters. It's why I don't get the concept of original sin the way I'm supposed to. Man's fall from Eden is a negotiation in my mind between man and God, rather than a great shaming in which God punishes children for the sins of their ancestors. It's a radical departure from scripture which Jesus did not change/alter/promote/mention/support. But it's the only way I have grasped at it that makes sense to me. I don't think that there weren't people smart enough to have a deeper understanding of theology. Even then, why couldn't an omnipotent being find a way to explain concepts to people in a way they can wrap their heads around? It just looks like the idea of an ancient, more anthropomorphic Canaanite god colliding with a more abstract, Hellenistically inspired idea of an ultimate god. >Both the Old and New Testament have things in them that align with historical evidence; major floods, downfalls of civs, etc. The historicity of much of the Old Testament is pretty questionable. The existence of the Patriarchs and the Exodus story are pretty dubious. There's also a curious lack of mentions of the usual Biblical figures in the Elephantine papyri. The Tel-Dan stele seemingly points to the existence of a King David though, or at least a house attributed to him. I'm actually open to the possibility of a catastrophic flood happening many thousands of years ago, but I'm not scientist and don't know what to think of what people like Randall Carlson claim. I also find it suspicious that there are all kinds of obscure county histories and so on that mention people digging up the bones of giants. But these are pretty speculative and also not ideas unique to the Bible. >I believe Jesus was a real man who came to save us. I lean toward there being a historical Jesus, but I think if he existed he was pretty different from how people later began to think of him. I'm definitely not allergic to considering the arguments of the smarter mythicists out there though. >From what I haven't established cause I'm funny like that but I hold it dear because the peak works of our own civ were accomplished when this set of beliefs and ideals were held dear to people. I don't think the central claims of Christianity are true, don't like Christianity as a value system, and never felt much of a connection to the figure of Jesus even when I was religious and thought he was the Son of God.

>I lean toward there being a historical Jesus, but I think if he existed he was pretty different from how people later began to think of him. yea obviously his myth would change over the course of 2 millennia first of all, jesus was black

>I don't think that there weren't people smart enough to have a deeper understanding of theology. Even then, why couldn't an omnipotent being find a way to explain concepts to people in a way they can wrap their heads around? Problem of evil was contemporaneous with yeezy boy and nobody even tried to solve it until the 18th century (Théodicée) Christ wasn't the first and he wasn't the last to do that kind of illithid culture jamming but he did do a good job though, and the better christian texts echo his rhetoric. It's a pretty interesting writing style but I think that the legalism of the jews is still a lot more fun to put to pen.

A cosmology of thumbtacks and strings that exist only in my mind have lead me to the opinion that Jesus probably didn't exist. The jews actually got their warrior/prophet/king in the first century but he got crushed so hard by the Romans that no one remembers his name. Then the heretical remnants that survived the purge ret-conned him into a god of love and redemption that conquered the Romans in turn by appealing to the women and slaves.

I am annoyed. I remembered the /christmas/ board from previous years, but didn't think to look this year. If it got advertised, I didn't see it. It wasn't a big deal, but I'm still annoyed because I got have gotten in on some festivities.

>>3444 *I could have gotten in on some festivities.

>>3444 >digits Our apologies, Anon. What board are you from? We can try to make a point of not missing it in the future hopefully.

>>3449 Mostly /k/. To be fair, my personal life has been hectic anyway, and I was mostly just venting.

>>3450 If it's anon/k/, I'm pretty sure we left an invite in their /meta/ thread? My apologies if we missed you anons, that was an oversight. >and I was mostly just venting. Hehe, no worries. Glad you're here now Anon! Merry Christmas Cheers. :)