Where do Christians get the idea that they're "allowed" to eat pork?
>>16658788Because there's a passage in the NT where Jesus eats food with dirty hands and when people express opposition to him refusing to wash his hands before eating, he goes on an autistic rant about how germs haven't been discovered yet and it doesn't matter how filthy your hands are, and then the author of the text himself writes down his intepretation of that to mean a lifting of all dietary laws. Not making this up, it's actually a separate anonymous voice in the text expressing its opinion on what Jesus meant by this
>>16658788St. Paul bro. Road to Damascus.
What would you do if was proven, with no space for doubt, that god don't exist and there is nothing beyond the material reality ?
>>16658651Based 80 IQ poster
>>16658651it' is a hypothetical, it don't need to be true nor you need to consider it true for you to respond what would you do if that was the case
>>16658641NothingReligion is just a package included in identity politics. I will find new titles to call myself and continue the usual "us vs them" tribalism.
First of all I would burn down my church for lying to me and start stealing everything I want, raping every woman who tempts me, and killing anyone who pisses me off. I could do whatever I want, so I would.
>>16658737As if there's no other reasons not to do shit. Also doesn't christianity teach, that you can do all that stuff as long as you truly believe in Jesus Christ as your king and saviour?
Was there a possibility for some Indian dynasty to expand into MENA?Their population has always been advantageous to their western neighbors.
>>16658664The Mauryans were actually close to marching to the Iran Plateau, but the Seleucids made a peace deal with them and they agreed to draw a border.We don't know what could happen if the peace deal wasn't made. Would the Mauryans defeat the Seleucids and conquer Persia? Perhaps
>>16658664Yes but there is little reason for them to expand westwards as the geography between India and the Middle East is extremely rough (Hindu Kush and Balochi Desert). Also there isn't much to be gained in the Middle East. All the wealth was to be found in India, that's why so many dynasties not native to India like the Mughals invaded it.
"God is a Rock on the Ark in "Heaven" the 1st Name of "Stonehenge" in Antiquity."-- The Holy Ghost
The Investiture conflict didn't die with Gregory VII and instead continued for the next several pontificates. At the 1122 Concordat of Worms, Calixtus II and Henry V reached a compromise concerning appointment of clergy and similar agreements were signed for England and France. But elsewhere in Europe the kings continued to have a dominant role in appointing bishops.In 1130 the college of cardinals was divided. One faction elected Innocent II, the other Anacletus II. Anacletus, of the noble Pierleoni family, had a Jewish great-grandfather who converted to Christianity and was mocked by his opponents as "Judaeo-Pontifex", and St. Bernard, who was normally friendly to Jews, lamented that a man of Jewish ancestry should come to occupy St. Peter's chair. Most of the clergy and all European rulers save for Sicily's Roger II recognized Innocent II. Anacletus was mockingly accused of incest and of robbing churches to enrich his Jewish friends, but the population of Rome loved him until his death in 1138.
He resisted all secular attempts to tax the clergy without papal consent, he provided papal funds for needy priests, and worked to improve the clergy's education, and his legislation simplified the Church's structure and bureaucracy. Innocent was probably the ablest lawyer of his day, able to provide legal logic and precedent for nearly every decision he made.In his final triumph as legislator and Pope, Innocent presided in 1215 over the 4th Lateran Council, held in the church of St. John's Lateran in Rome. Attending were 1,500 clergy and other representatives from all major Christian states. The Pope's opening address went "The corruption of the people has its chief source in the clergy. From this arise the evils of Christendom. Faith perishes, religion is defaced, justice is trampled underfoot, heretics multiply, schismatics are emboldened, the faithless grow strong, the Saracens triumph." Innocent was thus given leeway to personally redefine Church doctrine as he saw fit. Here the doctrine of transubstantiation was defined for the first time. The council accepted his decree that non-Christians must wear a distinguishing badge in Christian lands, and it responded enthusiastially to his call for war on the Albigensian heretics. At the same time the council accepted Innocent's criticisms of church practice.It denounced the sale of fradulent relics, it condemned indulgences, it attempted a far-reaching reform of monastic life. It denounced clerical drunkenness, immorality, and clandestine marriage, and passed aggressive measures against them but also denounced the Albigensian claim that all sex was immoral. It was the most important Church council since Nicaea.
After that Innocent's energy and health left him and he died in 1216 at only 55, exhausted by his relentless work schedule. In his last year the crusade he organized to retake Palestine had failed, the crusade against the Albigensians after his death did succeed. His contemporaries respected him but did not love him. Some clergy complained that Innocent was too much of a politician and diplomat, not enough of a spiritual leader. St. Lutgardis thought he could only escape Hell by a narrow margin and the Church shied away from canonizing him. But the truth still stands that Innocent was one of the ablest and most far-sighted men to ever occupy St. Peter's chair and he left the Church at a peak she had never known before and outside a few fleeting moments never would again.Innocent was succeeded as pope by the kindly Honorius III, who greenlighted the recently formed Dominican and Franciscan religious orders and organized the 5th Crusade but died in 1227 before it could begin. Gregory IX, although an octogenarian when he became Pope, renewed the struggle with the Holy Roman Emperor vigorously, leading to armed conflict with Frederick II. Yet Gregory also protected the possibly heretical Francis of Assisi. The elderly pope died in 1243, about 95 years old, and was succeeded by Innocent IV who finally destroyed Frederick and sanctioned the use of torture by the Inquisition. He was a patron of philosophy, aided the universities, and founded schools of law.Alexander IV (1254-61) assumed guardianship of the last Hohenstaufen ruler Conradin, but conspired against him and fought his uncle Manfred whom he excommunicated in vain. The Pope called on the kings of England and Norway to crusade against the Hohenstaufens but had no luck. He also declared the Inquisition was not to investigate reports of persons engaged in magic or sorcery, which he dismissed as superstition.
Clement IV (1265-8) took to the battlefield. He defeated Manfred and finally broke the Hohenstaufens and Imperial Germany and also upheld Gregory IX's prohibition on the Jewish Talmud. He did not make possession of the book a capital offense, but he ordered the Jews of Aragon to hand over their copies to Dominican censors for removal of any passages seen as derisive of the Christian religion. The Greeks retook Constantinople, threatening to reopen the schism of the Church but Gregory X earned the gratitude of Michael Palaeologus by condemning the ambition of Charles of Anjou to conquer the Byzantine Empire, the restored emperor submitted to Rome, and the papacy was supreme once again.
>>16656961>and also upheld Gregory IX's prohibition on the Jewish Talmud. He did not make possession of the book a capital offense, but he ordered the Jews of Aragon to hand over their copies to Dominican censors for removal of any passages seen as derisive of the Christian religion.absolutely based
ok
I know Mark is the oldest canonical gospel but are there earlier ones?
>>16656483lol>>16656403It's Mark.You might hear "the Gospel of Thomas is older" but what they mean (if theyre not complete pseuds) is that the sayings therein are potentially the oldest and have been compiled into Thomas.Either way the synoptic gospels and thomas both reference "Q" which would be the earliest writings on Jesus' life.Even Paul makes allusions to Jesus' life found in the gospels before* said gospels were written.
>>16656403>are there earlier ones?If so they didn't survive. Also this >>16656483
Evan Powell suggested the authorship of Mark was a response to the oldest material in John. He lays out arguments for it in The Unfinished Gospel that are the only arguments I've read even remotely convincing that there is any extant, substantial portion of Christian Gospel material older than Mark.I don't really believe in Q as commonly reconstructed (although there might be a unitary textual or oral source used by Matthew and Luke and not Mark, I don't think it largely corresponds to the double tradition), but even if there really were such a document, I don't see why so many are confident saying its traditions were collated prior to the authorship of Mark.Thomas almost certainly does have very old traditions going back to before Mark. I have in mind especially this logion:>The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."Even if we assume it's not authentic, hard to see why someone would write it or say it unless James was either alive or not long dead, and to me at that time Mark is not yet written. That being said, Thomas is not very substantial if you remove the accretions. Read April Deconick on gThomas if you're interested in this.
>>16656403Traditionally Matthew, which was supposed to have originally been in Hebrew.There is conjectured to have been the original Q document which the other Gospels may have drawn from.
>>16657492Maybe there are also renditions in the Old Syriac versions of the gospels which could reflect transmission from earlier Aramaic oral or written traditions.
If you say it is because of Jesus abolishing the OT law that means bestiality is ok because it isn’t explicitly talked about by Jesus. Jesus also said that not a dot of the law would be abolished until all things were done (New earth and heaven). Consider also that the story about the adulterous woman being stoned was apparently added after John was written
>jesus said>jesus never said
Jesus did not abolish OT Law. Rather, he showed that the Jewish conception of Law was incomplete.Matthew 5:17 NRSV-CI[17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. The Jews view the Law as something that can be gotten around through loopholes.Rather, from the Christian perspective, the Law shows us an aspect of the good, but it is an incomplete picture.Matthew 5:27-28 NRSV-CI[27] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ [28] But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.Sin is not defined by trangressing a seemingly arbitrary Law that God mandated.Sin means "a missing of the mark."Sin describes any way in which you fail to live up to being the person you were created to be, whether voluntary or involuntary.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
If Jesus is God, why didn't he just give the apostles some magical camera with video proof of all his miracles?
>>16657623Better yet, if God wanted the whole world to know about Jesus's saving passion and resurrection, which we can infer he did by the apostles being sent to minister to all nations, why didn't God miraculously announce that passion to all nations, instead relying on human missionaries to slowly spread the word? By relying on humans, it meant that whole nations could go whole generations living and dying without knowledge of Christ, with the extreme case of the entire population of the Americas having no chance to learn of Jesus for almost 1500 years until they were finally reached by the Christian mission. If God wanted everyone to know of Christ and the salvation he provides, and God is omnipotent, then why didn't God use that omnipotence to instantly and universally spread the Good News?
>>16658407I suppose the parable of Lazarus comes from a source that didn't know anything about any resurrection on the part of Jesus, and was copied into Luke despite sitting uneasily with the Widow of Nain story. A little narrative tension is not completely impossible. A reader more inclined to harmonize might try to find a meaning even more parabolic than the one usually gleaned from it.I also think it's just barely possible that some were saying that the beloved disciple was Lazarus (this has been suggested before, IIRC the argument is Lazarus is the only disciple explicitly said to be loved by Jesus, and Lazarus stops being mentioned as soon as the beloved disciple starts being mentioned, and also the anxiety over the death of the beloved disciple at the end of John takes on a new light if we suppose he was raised from the dead by Jesus), and the parable - or the choice of name in the parable - represents antagonism between one tradent and the Johannine community.
>>16657623Because in his infinite wisdom only people back then deserved miracles and today we just have to believe in the social gossip from jews from 2,000 years ago.
>>16658624Also I might add the reverse is possible, and John is deliberately refuting the parable by emphasizing the resurrection of Lazarus as a salvific sign. The only problem with that is, it's somewhat more difficult to make excuses for a new Biblical personage who is apparently a disciple of Jesus than it is to put a parable on Jesus's lips. We have books full of logia of Jesus everyone agrees are fake so we know it happened, but wholesale fabrications of disciples takes a little more chutzpah
>For God so loved the world>So lovedIn the sense that this is how he loves us, he's giving people a chance to choose out of their free will, if it was mega obvious there would be no risk, no drama, no dedication.But who's to say?
Why does history happen? No "it's a mix" you gotta pick one. Pick whichever is most correct.>History is driven mostly by material factors (resources, land, $)>History is driven mostly by culture (religion, tradition, ideas)>History is driven mostly by leaders (big man do thing)https://poll-maker.com/poll5197250xa6e54C02-156
>>16656750FINE if i had to pick just one, material factors greatly influence the culture, and culture greatly influences the leaders of that culture.
>>16656750History is the assertion of virtue over vice. Spiritual and Biological. The position of excellence however is tenous and prone to be lost without constant vigilance. So the process of churn of arete is also present.
I knew this board was full of communist faggots
>>16656750its big man do something because while most things happen for resources or cultural reasons those are not "history" history is significant events which are divided into eras and these are defined by great men not by material factors or culture.While those are primary drivers for every day life, historiography is based around Men of action acting upon each other.Their reasons can be both cultural and material, but ultimately it is a man pulling the trigger.
>>16656750>No "it's a mix" you gotta pick one.I pick that you're a tremendous faggot.
Spanish civil war be like
>>16658591The nationalists are the good guys.
>>16658591Both were bad guys and the only goods guys were the CNT-FAI
there is no good "spain" or good spaniards there is only subjugation, wealth extraction, rape and jesusit's like mexico but with additional EU money
What was the effectiveness of Gulags against anti-social elements??
>>16658296Very effectice, especially Tsar era ones, they killed them all elements
>>16658296It succeeded in forcing hikiNEETS out of their rooms but it failed at fixing their social awkwardness.
>>16658296It contributed to Russia being the shithole that it is today. Most of gular culture transformed into Russian culture.
The physicalist view – the belief that only the physical exists, is more metaphysical than the metaphysical view: the physicalist belief is derived from extensively rigorous metaphysical arguing, while the metaphysical view is derived from simple physical observation.How the metaphysical view asserts that something has to exist beyond the physical world: while the absence of something within something exists, the absence of everything doesn't, therefore there has to be something greater than the physical world, this view is derived from a presupposition that the physical world is the ultimate truth.How the physicalist view asserts that nothing can exist beyond the physical world: the absence of something within something exists, from which a non-physical argument can be derived that nothing beyond this world can, therefore there has to be a "nothing" beyond the physical world, this view is derived from a skepticism in the physical world that would render the physical world completely useless if not for the metaphysics derived from it.
>>16658125Yeah, turns out doing proper mathematical analysis is harder than trying to spit rhymes that are the equivalent of pajeet dickmeasuring epics but "spiritual" (tm)
>>16658125>metaphysic is useless I use this theory derived from a metaphysician nobody understands instead
>physicalistIt's so retarded. I'm only a "physicalist" when spookster retards starts talking to me about ghosts and gods
>>16658047>unable to justify why you're looking for physical evidenceTheism makes predictions about stuff we should expect to see in reality, if theism is true
>>16658125>>16658136Communist idea of metaphysics is different from the colloquial term, but I've incorporated it in my post, the conditions for the physicalist view being more metaphysical is one of them.
Historicaly speaking why are they obssesed with us?
>>16658012I would bet 10000 dollars the data from south america is self reported.
>>16658012Who's us and who's they? Also historically speaking was a larger penis size able to balance out a man's tismic/vaguely spectral nerf when it comes to women/social dynamicsand allat? Consensually speaking ofc.
>>16658012Afghanistan? Pakistan? The Congo? Wow who got this data? The top researchers at Oxford? It's honestly baffling how gullible people are when you put out "data" like this. It's just resorting to stereotypes for this Asians=small dicks Blacks=big dicks. We don't even have accurate info on more serious things like reports around economics.
>>16658438Yeah I always found these "penis size by country maps" to be bizarre. Like, where the hell are they getting this information? Are there a bunch of people going around measuring the penises of people in various countries? Who the hell does that? And you'd have measure at least dozens of people's dicks in each country to get a decent sample size.The only alternative is that they're using self-report data, which is infamously unreliable. Probably quite a lot moreso when comes to this particular statistic.
>be child in non-christian third world country>die a horrofic death from cancer>"uhhh so the reason this happened to you is that some people ten thousand years ago ate an apple that I said they shouldn't...">"Anyways, have fun in hell you little shit, should have had faith in my son who is also me but not actually me. You'll wish you just had cancer again once you get there and the best part is that there's no death to save you from this indescribable infinite suffering you'll experience! Did I mention I'm the god of love by the way?"
>>16657906It sends the abortioner and everyone who works in the practice to Hell
>>16657977not if they ask forgiveness lmao
>>16657977>commit the ultimate sacrifice by aborting every single baby making sure they end up in heaven but condemning yourself to hell
>>16658011IrrefutableAnyone who could find it in themselves to do that would be a saint
>>16658016>>16658011These guys think they are clever and funny
>christcucks think their morality is objective because it came from magic jews
I don't get how they are this dumb. If morality were objective (it is) then it would exist independent of the subject of god. That's what objective means.
>>16658289The words objective and subjective lose all meaning in the theist view
report sage
>>16658289Only Monism solves this
