Christianity (Reformed)

Do you trust that Jesus died for the remission of sins? We live in a fallen world of sin and we ourselves are fallen and sinful with it. Nevertheless, God sent his Son to die the death that we deserve. And not only this, but also that we may graciously receive the resurrection and everlasting life that is Christ's. This gift is for all those who hate their sinful lives and wish to see it die.

Attached: 1557948819796_verse_image.jpg (1280x1280, 138K)

typical classically evangelical christians assuming that current unbelievers bent on their own destruction might be turned from their present course and brought to faith in the sole source of fulfilment and life, namely, their creator; Jesus Christ

i mean, it's so obvious what you're doing it's blatant

How is it possible to be stupid enough to believe in Christianity after the Enlightenment happened?

how is it possible to believe the enlightenment happened without a common worldview throughout europe predicated on protestant christian values?

I'm not trying to come off as deceiving. I'm not trying to scare you with the idea of hell. I'm asking if you hate your sin.

>I'm not trying to come off as deceiving.

i know

that's why i said what you're doing is obvious

now all that's left to do is for you to figure out if i have a problem with that :3

Why would I bother trying to figure that out?

Attached: 1539816350867.gif (260x200, 66K)

well i imagine it would help you discern how to continue this conversation, or whether to proceed with it at all

I can't biblethump you into becoming a believer. Is there anything you want to talk about?

do you really think my assessment of your OP was the critique of an unbeliever?

From reading your reply I assumed you were an unbeliever and were trying to critique me. Was I wrong?

>Was I wrong?

yes

Totally irrelevant retort. It doesn't matter why the Enlightenment happened, what matters is that since we've discovered that the World can be understood at a mechanical level, there is no room for any Magic Man's will directing the World.

Sorry then, brother. Hope you can forgive me.

Why wouldn't a sovereign god be able to control the world on a mathematical level?

>It doesn't matter why the Enlightenment happened, what matters is that since we've discovered that the World can be understood at a mechanical level

this is one heckuva self-contradictory statement, big fella; to say that why something happens is irrelevant and then to praise the virtue of why things happen at a mechanical level -- that's one heaping spoonful of cognitive dissonance you got going on there pal

wanna try again?

nothing to forgive, i deliberately used what seemed an aggressive closing remark to provoke replies, and so bumped your nice thread

It runs itself.
You're literally babbling. I don't think you understand the point I was attempting to explain to you.

arite then, OP -- i'm gonna bow out your nice thread with a final bump

btw; there's a live DL in half an hour -- might wanna check in on that

no sir, you are wilfully and obstinately ignorant by self-imposition; rejecting anything that contradicts your worldview as irrelevant -- while claiming to embrace the understanding of mechanical dynamics

THAT is logical incoherence on a level more profound than anything i said in my short poast, and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking you walk the footsteps of the enlightenment, when you're as close-minded as an inquisitor chasing galileo

Attached: unpertur¦3ed.jpg (180x207, 57K)

It's irrelevant to the point I was making, which wasn't about why the Enlightenment happened, but about what the consequences of it happening was regarding belief in God.
Indirectly you have answered my initial question with your display of incredible stupidity.

No, I have no reason to trust in it, and so far none of your ilk has managed more than 'a book said so'

Yeah the book is a pretty integral aspect of having faith, I won't deny that. But why not actually start reading it to see if it's just 'a book.' The elegance and intelligence of Paul's epistles blew me away when I first read the bible. Also, have you considered that the men who wrote the books of the New Testament strongly believed what they were writing? So much so, that they were willing to and did in fact die for their faith.

Having grown up on it I think I've had plenty of exposure. I'm not saying there's nothing of value in there, but the tangled mess of metaphysics seems unjustifiable.
They believed very much in it, though they lived in a time where basically every belief system involved tautologically defined supernatural shenanigans

enjoy your slave morality, untermensch!

He died for more power. He died to become a high power in the eternities. Saving us was part of his mission, but mostly to make us more like him. I am left wondering if he foresaw and wished for his greatest enemies to rise out of our planet, because that's what I want. When he rises on earth again and stabs the antichrist, I forsee the antichrist will just use the resurrection mechanism to fall down upon Christ's skull, crushing it and dooming the universe to his rule. The funniest "fate" of all.

I would argue that biblical hermeneutics and exegesis are only as in depth as you want them to be. I love reading books on Reformed theology but I don't think the thief on the cross was contemplating such things as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, Covenant Theology, etc.

>le enlightened atheist XD

Sure, but the 'Jesus died for remission of sins' bit was important enough to make the OP and I'd consider that rather baseless as well

>since we've discovered that the World can be understood at a mechanical level,
Only to a limited extent - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle prevents complete understanding.
Nor do we understand how consciousness works, even though that's what God mainly interacts with.

>Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Doesn't have to be so technical.

Go for proving pi in any real world scenario, and tell me the last digit.

well I think the thief on the cross understood to a degree what Jesus's death next to him meant. He he refers to Him as innocent and undeserving of his death but refers to himself and the unrepentant thief as deserving their death.

>even though that's what God mainly interacts with.
Bold statement when regarding something that you claim nobody at all understands.

Attached: 1303720302683.jpg (349x268, 23K)

no an argument retard get a bit creative at least