Become Christian

Nope

>God
In this context, you're actually mixing up the god that is properly called Yahweh, the Asian god of the Judeo-Christians with God, the contracted form of Godan which is Lombardic spelling of Wodan of Germanic paganism. Godan's name was often shortend to God, but remains the exclusive god of the Aryans. Judeo-Christians can shorten Yahweh's name to Yah, but they may not use the word God. It would seem that Judeo-Christians would want to use the word Yahweh given their obsession with Jews and Rabbi Jesus . They do though say Hallelujah, which does include Yah, the shortend form of their Jew god.

that's not a convincing argument. What properties of God do you find contradictory or just impossible to be?

>memeflag
>bad shitpost
go away larper

Have sex

we have free will but God has planned everything from the start.

also here are 2 paradoxes:
If God is able to make a mountain more heavy than He is able to lift, then there may be something He is not able to do: He is not able to lift that mountain.

If God is not able to make such a mountain, then there is something He is not able do: He is not able to make that mountain.

I debated enough Christians (even 2 priests) while in highschool and their last comment is always:"well it's up to faith you know, you just gotta have faith"

I can't have faith that makes no sense to me bro.

But then again IRL you wouldnt know this about me because I'm publically orthodox Christian and we need to support the Church, especially now then the Catholics are cucked and we're being attacked by the left too.

Attached: 1484587329312.jpg (251x242, 12K)

>God
You should say Yahweh please.

shut up please, thanks

>we have free will but God has planned everything from the start.
We have free will, but we are like small fish in a pond compared to the foresight of God who gives us freedom to as we will, but he pleads that we do what we ought to do.
>If God is able to make a mountain more heavy than He is able to lift, then there may be something He is not able to do: He is not able to lift that mountain.
This is a stupid question in the likes of can the sky become a cabbage and spread teeth to hear a symphony.
You want an honest answer?
God can create a mountain that God cannot lift. What would happen if the mountain would fall to crush God though? God would lift the mountain away.
>I debated enough Christians in highschool
You debated shit. I'm willing to bet that once they heard your mountain argument, they laughed and instantly understood where you were coming from and where the discussion was going to which is nowhere.
>I can't have faith that makes no sense to me bro
You have no sense. You rely on nonsensical arguments that you do not understand.
What is omnipotence to you?
What is free will to you?
From what I can tell you drop everything on some benign singularity and dare not step forth into the fiery void of metaphysics.

finally some argument.
First the incompatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom.
This is an easy one. Think of God's knowledge more as a shadow of you and your actions as you, the body. It is necessary that the shadow follows the person and is always accurate concerning its form as it represents it. But the shadow is determined by the form of the body not vice versa. This is how it works, God knows only the truth and it's always accurate, but we "make that truth", so that for God became true.

And now the classic object that can't be moved. Saying that God can create an object that can't be lifted and the lift it is an logical contradiction.
If God can lift the object, then the object can be moved, and so he can't make such an object. This an contradiction.
All of this is based on the fact that we presuppose the God can't make the illogical true, if he can, then there is no problem, but if he can't, still there isnno problems because we "made" one.

please tone down your autism, you are not helping. You don't understand the problems posed so please be quiet and let others solve the problem.

> You don't understand the problems posed so please be quiet and let others solve the problem
Fuck off you halfwit.
Your problem is literally nonsensical and nonexistent. What the fuck are you trying to prove arguing reddit tier (((contradictions))) here?

No fuck you christcucks.

>this is a stupid question
okay. Christians say that God is all knowing and all powerful but basic logic beats him.

>in the likes of can the sky become a cabbage and spread teeth to hear a symphony
nobody said the sky is all knowing and all powerful.

stop strawmanning

please tone down your autism, keep this civil

>God is all knowing and all powerful but basic logic beats him
What are you talking about? You imply that knowledge is preset and power has limits.
Knowledge is subjective and power literally has no limit.
It's like you'd use 3rd grade math and physics to explain how a car engine works.
>nobody said the sky is all knowing and all powerful
It's the same form of argument. Elaborate on your statement and you will find it literally means nothing. It's nonsensical.
>strawmanning
Holy shit. Do you even know what a strawman argument is?

Or what?
You'll call me a starwmanner?

I said KEEP THIS CIVIL YOU RETARD. Stop spewing nonsense and useless hate, he has some points, not very valid, but valid enough to warrant an explanation. The explanations you gave are vague, subjective and unconvincing. That's why you should better look and learn before you speak.

youtu.be/Bh4nNdNJ_U8

>knowledge is subjective
then how can God be all knowing? How can he be absolute? Being absolute is objective.

>power has limits
power literally has limits, at least in our known universe. Only God has absolute power ---> refer to the mountain paradox please

>Do you know what a strawman argument is?
Yes, exactly what you did.

>God
If you don't say Yahweh, people aren't going to know about the magic Jew power of the magic Jew god. Just sayin'.

Are you satisfied enough with my answer?

Sometimes I think about becoming Christian. Then I read the gospels and am overwhelmed at how Jewish and uneuropean Christianity is.

lol
Go fuck yourself and your cousin.
You have no arguments and I won't even bother arguing with you fags.

Because you can't understand Christianity without the Old Testament. Even in the period of Jesus, there was a strong difference between Him and His view of the OT and the Rabbis of the day and their interpretation, that btw are still held.

Go away then, shue

>God creates a mountain more heavy than he is able to lift
This is stupid because you’re anthromorphizing God, He can create mountains and level them at will. It may take ages for us to see but it’s a blink of an eye to Him. Remember time is relative to us based on our mass and velocity but to the omnipotent, everything is literally happening simultaneously and outside of our linear comprehension.

Man, stop this confusing mass. You can frame his argument without any reference to physical time or space. The question is that if God can make the illogical true.

>All of this is based on the fact that we presuppose that God can't make the illogical true

Presuming that he cant is the logical thing to do. Why?

I don't see any other reason to judge him outside the fundamental laws of our known universe.
To be able to do that you literally need to "have faith".

and faith means, in the religious sense:
"strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

Kys christcuck, go ahead and pummel your head into a wall.

refer to this

>how can God be all knowing
>How can he be absolute
Because knowledge is subjective, but knowing is not. Imagine you write down some math with a bunch of variables, but you don't put the variables in, but those who you give the will to do so. You don't necessarily know the variables that'll be used, but you'll always know what's on the other side of the = sign.
>Being absolute is objective
True, but your whole outlook is then objective. Without subjectivity free will is nonexistent and this reality is all that there is which makes the whole of theology meaningless.
>power literally has limits
There is no limits to power. Power is limited in parts to stabilize the universe and nature, to balance it. But there is no end to frequencies. You can really recreate the entire universe on a higher or lower frequency and you wouldn't even notice it. String theory digs into these things, but the limits of power that we have are not objective physically.
>Yes, exactly what you did.
A strawman argument is the most basic and nonsensical argument that takes a part of a statement and puts it in a deadlock while ignoring the rest of the statement that breaks it.
Like you stupid mountain paradox that makes God not the essence of creation, but only a part of it.

>He can create mountains and level them at will.
Why is this true? Can you give an example?

No. You're stuck with me.

Attached: 350.jpg (350x350, 30K)

Ever heard of a thing called a false vacuum?

>Ever heard of a thing called a false vacuum?
yes, SO WHAT?

>posts idol
>says become Christian
youtu.be/raO6PFxaa1Q

Is there a name for someone who is culturally Christian, not an Atheist, but doesn't buy into the "personified Christian God"

You can suppose that God can make the illogical true, like Descartes did, but you will find some difficulties along the road. I refuted the argument on both views.
And faith means trust in God and His will for you.
Imagine that you find an ant in some place that you it will die, you want to move it tona safe place. You can put it in your hand and move it. All of this can't be understood by the ant, it can move and fall of your hand and remain in that place and die, it can't understand the reason why it's dangerous for it to be there. The link that is required if trust, the ant need to trust you and remain in your hand to be in a better place, but it can't understand why and how. That's an analogy for faith, God has revealed to us and then we trust him. This trust is like knowing your that your friend didn't steal your wallet, not because you have some empirical and forensic facts but, by the fact that you know him personally and that he won't do that.

And logic is above the physical rules.

Deism

Holly shieeet you still havent kys orthocuck, just stop talking and put the blade trough you.

Jesus is very real and so is satan the ruler of this realm

Don't get hung up on the "image" of God for he is so vast there is no eye that has beheld Him so how can a man tell you for sure?

Attached: 20190616_180339(1) (1).jpg (3264x2448, 1.43M)

Thanks

Do any of you goys even know who Metatron is?

Attached: 20190616_212606 (1).jpg (3264x2448, 2.07M)

what? Are you retarded or just pretending?

>God
You persist in saying God instead of Yahweh, the magic Asian Jew god of the Judeo-Christians.

No I hate you Abrahmic retards and I will gladly kill you when society will finally break down.

YHWH = JEHOVAH ? JOVE / ZEUS

Attached: 423423542524.jpg (780x438, 47K)

nus ortodox, eu iti sugerez sa mergi sa #rezist in alta parte, aici e un loc unde se discuta, nu unde ne defecam pe strada ca pajitii

And pray daily. At least 3 times. Morning prayer is the most important. Be sincere in your confessions, thank God for what he gave you and humbly ask for guidance. Amen brother

In my language I use Dumnezeu, whats your argument now?

Go to huy.

Attached: 1545330942040.jpg (371x622, 77K)

>Become Christian.
converted to Christianity 3 months ago

Attached: 814ef40d6e6de930487e8678309f5de2.jpg (457x640, 90K)

>Dumnezeu
Keep using that and things will be ok.

Si atunci de ce aperi cultul Abrahamic?

You can use any word as long as it's understood as the thing you have in mind. Etimological coherence is not a necessary part of a valid word.

have sex

Doesn't exist.

Attached: jesus.jpg (333x499, 28K)

jur ca esti spălat pe creier, eu nu cred pentru ca alții cred, aia e tâmpit. Eu cred pentru ca am experimentat la prima mana pe Dumnezeu si ca am argumente pentru existenta Lui. Si ortodocșii nus singurii creștini din România, mai ai si protestanți.

The existence of Jesus in undisputed in the academic levels. It's a fact that he existed, and we have better sources than we have for Iulius Cesar, which is mind boggling.

what if Jesus was Alexander the Great?

>The existence of Jesus in undisputed in the academic levels.
How would you know? You've never read a single academic journal in your entire life.

>It's a fact that he existed, and we have better sources than we have for Iulius Cesar
All those "sources" were written at least 150 years after Jesus' supposed death.

>The existence of Jesus in undisputed in the academic levels.
No, modern scholarship has proven Christianity to be totally fraudulent. Jesus is an example of an historically fake person. We can simply test for them by seeing whether they came in and out of existence by preposterous magical events.

Oh oau acuma e si mai rau, voi sunteti si mai agresivi si indobitociti.

>what if Jesus was Alexander the Great?
We have archaelogical, numismatic and manuscript evidence for Alexander the Great. None of those things for Jesus.

>knowledge is subjective but knowing is not
okay...

so what you mean is that God gave us
( ) + ( ) = ( )
so this is a fundamental thing, but the values we add is our free will? The fundamental truth is there, but mathematics is a construct that humans made to understand the universe around us better. Thats what you mean I think.
Which is true, but where's the proof that it was indeed God who created everything?
Even if I throw you into an universe that is different than ours you would slowly start making sense of it. You would start seeing patterns and build a system of understanding so that the universe makes more sense to you. That doesnt mean that the patterns were made by someone.

>without subjectivity free will is nonexistent
do you actually have free will user or you only think you do. How many times did you take a decision based on how your body feels? So who's in command? Your brain or your soul?

My whole outlook is not objective. But there are some fundamental things that we believe to be absolute. But then you hear of quantum physics and stuff that shouldnt happen, does happen. So is that proof that there must be a God? I dont see it.

>paradox that makes God no the essence of creation, but only a part of it.
but God created the unmovable mountain that he can move. user...

thank you for making my point

Jesus died in vain :(

Attached: 1546379582008.jpg (1134x1001, 219K)

>Orthodogs
>Christian
You can only pick one nigger

ofof, another armchair retard.
First you don't know what I know, secondly I did read academic papers on the subject. And thirdly Josephus was in same century as Jesus and his apostles. And fourthly, some passages from the NT can be filtered with historical tools and we come up with documents that are close to 10 years from his death.
and this
reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/

zice ala care amenință cu moartea pe străini pe care nui cunoaște si nu io făcut nimic. Nu iti mai mirosi flatulenta, ca nu ii semn de om de speță înaltă.

>the ant analogy
if something that I dont understand moves me from A to be B then I sure as hell will try to find out what that thing is and I would believe in its existence.

Dont change the definition of faith.

"strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

it is the belief in something for which you have no proof. But if God does something similar to what I did to the ant then I would have proof that it happened. "Something moved me from point A to point B" that something therefore must exists.

God didnt reveal himself to us.
He revelead himself to Prophets which told us that God revealed himself to them.

Sunt alergic la retardati Abrahamici ca voi nu am ce sa fac.

>First you don't know what I know, secondly I did read academic papers on the subject.
Well, the other possible explanation is that you're stupid. Which is it - have you read the research, or are you just stupid?

>And thirdly Josephus was in same century as Jesus and his apostles
Yes, and unfortunately he didn't write a single word about Jesus.

>And fourthly, some passages from the NT can be filtered with historical tools and we come up with documents that are close to 10 years from his death.
Which passages?

dute cauta ceva constructiv ca sa iti fie identitate nu mai sta ca un parazit pe alții. Faptul ca ai nevoie sa iti afirmi ura si poziția arata cat de personala e treaba si ca face parte din identitatea ta. Oprește-te si analizează-ti viata.

I refuse. While i can honestly say that i'm trying to find my own spiritual path, i consider the Christian God to be an evil abomination straight out of a fewer dream. Also, the ideas of Heaven and Hell are both equally repulsive to me.

What's is the biggest rock that can exist in the universe? You're thinking in material terms.

Attached: image.jpg (1056x1080, 103K)

Urasc culturile Abrahamice dupa ce am stat si analizat lucrurile las-o mai moale cu superiortatea morala.

How do you reconcile the fact that your god is an infant genital cutter?

Richard Carrier has been thoroughly debunked. Only idiots believe him.

Attached: image.jpg (800x800, 121K)

put them all together and your closer although Christ is the Truth most things about him are a lie it seems

If that moving is on the personal/subiective level, then people won't belive you and will find explanations for your experience. That's why the matter is not cut and dry.
And I told you the definition I use and that I find to be sufficient to believe all that I belive.
And yes, God reveals Himself to people not just prophets, I experienced that first hand and saw in others experiences of that kind.

tu nu ai baza morala(obiectiva/ nu opinie) deci sa nu-mi zici tu mie de cei bun sau rau ca esti falimentar la fundamente.

and you're thinking in non-existent terms.

Its not me who said God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

You are too stupid to be even argued. Read that article and the speak.

who yet! peas debts!
taceti in pula mea odata cu cacaturile voasre.
fucking morons still falling for the judenschwein tricks

>Richard Carrier has been thoroughly debunked.
Great, give me a citation from a peer-reviewed academic history journal that debunks Carrier.

>You are too stupid to be even argued.
Maybe, but why can't you rebut anything I say?

>de cei bun sau rau ca esti falimentar la fundamente.
De ce pentru ca nu urmez acelasi cult al nebuniei ca tine?