How do you know God is real

I'd like to get your guy's opinion over this Christianity vs Atheism debate, i hope the corny thumbnail, half an hour length, or destiny's e-celeb status don't scare you away.

Attached: asda.jpg (2272x1704, 2.09M)

Other urls found in this thread:

All of the above.

Attached: 4CB9077A-810C-4D19-B10A-A9B190ABB09D.jpeg (1000x447, 152.2K)

Everyone who belives in god is a retard; end of story. Religion or belief in a space pixie has no place under socialism.

Attached: quote-religion-is-the-opium-of-the-masses-karl-marx-120974.jpg (850x400, 42.04K)

You must be really stupid to believe in any of these religious bullshits.

Who gives a shit about whether you have faith or not? People should be free to believe whatever they want, so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

Attached: singularity pepe.png (1200x758, 678.41K)

What is this meme called?

yikes tbhfam

Nobody is that stupid. It's because of coercion. Quit patting yourself on the back for being lucky enough not to be abused into psychosis like most people.

Because the point is to choice, without an evil option, we would be robots.
Can you elaborate? What specific institution and what do you mean by earthly powers?

Many intelligent scientists (Christian and non-christian) believed in God.

Attached: 307c8f853a9c1527d6c7819f91b0029d42be60ada534449db2b2bea0a24e8721 2.png (498x960 659.32 KB, 119.73K)

Fuck off christian nigger.

My grandmother is a christian and she's illiterate, therefore all christians are illiterate.

What does that even mean? Might as well ask if Fbrglmrjj is real. Being able to form a sentence doesn't guarantee it has any substance.

Attached: scientists-should-make-iphones.webm (470x350, 3.6M)

That guy has to be the personification of reddit; the voice, the pedantry, the akshually, the so ur saying that, the thats arbitary, the neurotic chair wiggling.

Believing in any religion in current year shows that you are pretty stupid or pretty ignorant or just pretending to believe to get advantage from the morons who believe in it.
BUT keep in mind that god or something like a god might exist even if all the religions are wrong. I see people conflating having faith based on religion with believing or not in god but it isn't same thing.
Like the questions in are based on the christian notions about god being this all loving, all powerful and all knowing which a quick glace at this shitty world should be enough for anyone with a brain to realize it's contradictory bullshit. But again christianity or any other religion being utterly retarded and contradictory doesn't mean that there isn't a god or gods out there, it could very well be the case that god is just a giant asshole rather than an all loving fairy and stuff or his powers might actually be limited instead of unlimited and he can't help yo ass even if he wanted to and so on and so on.

If not able to prevent evil, why call him/her/it/xir god? I have no doubt that all sorts of unknown entities live in our universe, but that doesn't make them gods. Plenty of animal species exhibit an intelligence quite similar to ours. There's some evidence indicating a sort of ecological intelligence where there are information networks of mycelium in forest floors that can respond to threats by creating antibodies. The universe is so vast some kind of alien life probably exists out there, and since most of the matter in the universe is dark matter, there may well be life forms in the dark matter "dimension" i.e. only able to interact with us via gravity, and if so they have a lot more matter to work with to develop complex life than we do.

Since the idea of god comes from these obviously bullshit sources instead of any other evidence, and in most cases the concept itself is contingent on specific theological ideas, it's pretty fucking safe to conclude that there's no god.

Epicurus BTFO this argument millennia ago. Pic related.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1595x895, 825.68K)

Why does a god need to create a universal hugbox to be a god?

Maybe I'm too much of a brainlet but I don't understand the need to be good or to be willing to prevent evil for an entity to be considered a god.
Think for instance about the old gods from the roman pantheon, they didn't give a shit about "good" nor "fairness", they were pretty much like us with the only difference being that they had some super powers and could create stuff from nothing and influence one's fate in a supernatural manner.

It only makes sense in a Christian framework where God is considered to be the source of morals and ethics.

Attached: T9rgG.png (651x721, 411.19K)

Any other religion like what?
For example :
Like in gnosticism? They didn't say asshole, but epithets they used for the Demiurge translate as "Blind" and "Stupid".
Like any deity in a polytheistic system?
If skeptics don't believe in the gods, too bad. Who cares? Proselytising monotheists but just about no one else.

Why would you worship or venerate or support someone who would create a world full of so much pointless suffering? "God" isn't simply a question of relative power or of status regarding the universe's existence. It implies moral highness and divine authority as well. A being who created this world ought not to be seen as any kind of friend or ally, much less someone to whom you owe a debt of servitude.

made me think

Cuz the nigga up there has a temper and I don't want to see my crops dying nor see me and my family be cursed and plagued.
Through history people have worshiped gods for many different reasons. Sometimes out of pure fear another times to get favors and protection and sometimes even "just because".

Where are you getting this definition from?
There are plenty of gods from pantheistic religions who are not moral at all.

Attached: f1015ef64709273f9657c3449e79ebaf.jpg (1280x909, 250.59K)

Morality does not apply to deities, just like the ruling class.

The ruling class don't follow God.

Attached: Untitled.png (568x454, 609.35K)

Because the ruling class invents God.

Can you prove that?

They believe that God is more of a metaphor for self-godhood.

Attached: freemasons belive.jpg (1193x1113, 552.16K)

Most of them in the west follow God in the same way the average person follows God, as a cultural convention devoid of real sincerity.

Nah, it's just a by product of natural human pattern recognition and philosophizing.

The average person is a cultural Christian but isn't a luciferian/believer in mystery religions though.

Not true, sorry.

In America, Christianity is the majority religion, but most people are only cultural Christians, they go to Sunday mass, maybe read the bible but don't actually follow it.

Retards are the master race. Prove existence and consciousness are separate or GTFO

Attached: Pol Pot2.jpg (1600x1103, 248.89K)

My bad the average person especially in the West is usually Christian, is that better?

The Ruling class thinks THEY ARE God

Fucking classist prick

I'd rather burn for eternity on my feet than suck a fascist terrorist's cock on my knees.
It's usually fear (especially these days), but none of those are good reasons unless you're actually in contact with like an alien or something and you're in a mutually beneficial or altruistic relationship.
I think you mean polytheistic, which is true. I was talking about capital-G God, not just some powerful entity but specifically a monotheistic idea of a universal deity responsible for the nature of reality, including morality.

Why are you pretending to be the quoted user?

Attached: f7d7821b9d53esss3b6ded79fefeb3c7b291b7bca3935101ccb699c769085e322fe.jpg (1242x1370, 128.98K)

Because I am God and Satan at the same time

I don't want to lose my time watching Destiny et al., but there is my hottake:

I think God exists, but it's either only the primary cause or everything that exists. This god certainly doesn't give a shit about humanity, and isn't omnibenevolent and so on. Our consciousness is a material phenomenon, and it disappears after we die.
Deism and pantheism are the most logical type of conceiving God, and it's sad that the former has fell out of fashion after the Enlightenment among Christians.
I'm not against religion per se, but I'm anti-clerical. The clergy is a fucking cancer literally selling pseudo-spirituality to the masses. They were the ones censoring scholastic philosophers giving reasonable arguments for the existence of God back in the Middle Ages. They are defenders of the status quo, or thinly-veiled far-right ideologues in the case of fundamentalists.
In any case, the essence of God is ultimately unknowable to us due to our limited cognition, so yeah, whatever. Playing with different conceptions of God is fun from times to times, but that's it.

Why should the creator of the universe give a flying fuck about what happens on this little blue dot among trillions upon trillions of worlds? Belief in a God willing to care about and solve your problems is narcissistic hubris.

Free will and thus choice is incompatible with an omniscient omnipotent creator god. God knows the future of a moral actor at their creation, and thus the actor is created to make the choices they make. Predestination is the only coherent doctrine, and it makes god pretty damn evil, considering it means god dooms people into eternal (have a really in-depth think about what eternal actually means, the depth of the concept of eternity truly understanding eternity is impossible since humans are temporal beings, but still, it's not just a really really long time) suffering in hell, while being omnipotently able to do otherwise. If there is a god he is not worth worshiping. Though in reality you don't worship for god or the glory of god or whatever, but for your own benefit in some way.

Attached: divine priorities.jpg (530x4550, 354.82K)

That's because he never said that.

Christians have complicated the issue by saying God sacrificed Himself to save mankind.
. But originally, the gods were thought to be reliant for their survival upon mortals for sacrifices (literal sacrifices, meat or if you couldn't afford meat, then grain.)
There's a bit in Gilgamesh where the gods realize they've screwed up in nearly wiping out mankind with a Flood, because they've cut off their supply of sacrifices.
Even if you think religion is bollocks designed to stave off existential despair, this is a least a good metaphor for life.
(And what else is there?

? )
You want x, you need to do y. - that applies to everything.
It goes back to Mesopotamian thinking. They boiled everything down in "summa" clauses (if..then clauses) If x, then y.
Most people today don't burn sacrifices,as they don't belive it'll do anything, not unless you count Catholics burning incense. (I'm not being facetious.)
If anything, most people will use a watered down version of religion, positive thinking.
If anons don't need religion, great, but a lot of skeptics seem obsessed, not to mention angry. It's worse than MRA's/willful cuckold's in feminists' twitter feeds. (Isn't there anything else to be getting on with.?)

That's it basically.

Attached: IMG_20190506_221912.jpg (3120x2091, 1.67M)

*I didn't mean to type willful cuckolds.
I meant m en g oing t heir own w ay.
It's the word filter.

He isn't.

Such deity being the source of everything that exists would also be the source of "evil" since it is part of reality.
Have you ever thought that maybe to such deity "good" and "evil" might be meaningless or hold the exact same value? so why would it bother with preventing evil or upholding good?
Also morality is relative, it varies greatly according to time, culture and place. In the beginning of the industrial revolution it was considered completely normal to overwork kids in inhumane working conditions in factories, now if you suggest we do the same thing people will jump at your throat; Aztecs thought they needed to perform ritualistic sacrifices to their god and it was considered beautiful and moral.
If you ask some religious retard why there's suffering he'll say that it's because of a greater good which we just cannot understand because god's mind is too complex for us to comprehend.

Basically this.

Get your mind out of Christian moralist dogma.

And this to an extant.

On the right track but still wrapped up in Judeo-Christian-European personal god brainletism. If we can't create a universe or a Sun or a solar system how could we possibly understand a consciousness capable of doing so? An ant can't understand our rationale behind building an airplane.

It's not about venerating or worshipping god you dingus. That's only a part of brainlet mind control cults. The purpose of those cults is to direct worship to the leaders of these cults as having a closer relationship to the almighty being than the general member of the cult. Why would a being or entity who created the universe need worship? That's only a egotistical human need.

I'm going to give a summary explanation that I think will adress all of yall's general points here:

Why does evil exist? Why do bad things happen?
Why does gravity sometimes cause you to fall to your death? Well, could we have a planet without it? Why do thermodynamics sometimes burn us? Could we exist and live without thermodynamics?

If the laws of thermodynamics and gravity sometimes do bad stuff, why give them any importance at all!?! I say we should all believe that they don't exist because I don't like the effects that my ignorance of them have on my life and others!!!
So you don't fall to your death or get burned to death dinguses.

God(or put another way, the existence, creation, universe itself) being good or evil is a retarded question reserved for storybook mind control cults.

You're on the right track but I think you may still be confused in the sense you're still imagining a personal god who has some kind of opinion of you personally. God creating a universe or a being apart from himself would make god not omnipresent or singular. God would have to be creating the universe or beings from some source material that exists separately from itself, which would make god not the singular cause of existence and not the true god if this separate source material existed separately from itself. No, instead we must assume that god is the singular source material and therefore whatever god creates is created solely from god itself. So as we sit here speculating on god, in reality, we are an aspect of god speculating on god as a whole. The only thing separating us from the knowledge or memory of creating the universe that we exist in is our belief in a division between us and our aspect which did so. So by worshiping or better surrendering ourself to this central aspect which is the sole cause for all of existence is our unfounded belief that we are so separated. But by surrendering ourself to this aspect which is aware of our omnipotence and singular existence which nothing can exist apart of we become that aspect. We our both the infinite container and the contained and by surrendering ourself to the infinite container all misconceptions will be rendered void.

As to why the universe exists in the first place. Like I said before here:

We could only understand that answer to that question after our consciousness has become perfectly merged with that infinite container/source/god/ whatever you want to call it. There is no need to speculate on that. We will all know in time, but at that point it will no longer matter. That is the temporary mystery of existence.

My last post script.

Terms like this will probably just cause more confusion I realize. Because as I was addressing before, we are always and forever merged with this container because we are simply a division of it or a pattern existing with in it. Just like we can't exist in another universe because that would negate the true meaning of the word universe or infinite.

I also said before we can't speculate on why the universe exists but I have my own theory but, people might think it's dark.

God, the infinite and singular consciousness if I may use a metaphor which is of course flawed is like a man locked in a padded cell, but for all eternity. Just like a mad man locked in such a state may feel inclined to imagine multiple personas inside himself for the sake of comfort and entertainment or whatever so is our true self. Eventually the universe melds back into it's source and it is the pain and horror of absolute and eternal solitary existence that causes us to create an imaginary universe and imaginary characters within ourself to ease our "loneliness." But then again, just as we are doing here, we eventually rise to a higher level of consciousness and become aware of that fallacies of partitioning ourself in an imaginary creation and then we again become aware of the truth and reach "sanity" and true awarness of our eternal situation, than back we go to imaginiary limited existence, and back and forth forever(which is also an imaginary construct because in our true existence, we are outside of time itself, time and continuity sequentiality are all imaginary concepts which don't exist in reality. It is also impossible for us to visualize what consciousness of true reality is which is separate from the imaginary limitations of time and space.)

*while our consciousness is in its current state which is that which is convinced of the reality of these imaginary concepts.

But through bringing our consciousness closer to alignment with our true central consciousness(through worship, surrender, studying, pranayama, etc.) we can begin to approach understanding of the truth. But the reason this universe exists in the first place, like I said, is for diversion, and aversion of the inescapable truth, so we instead dick around and beat our dicks all day. But that truth is inescapable and eventually all of existence will become aware and this existence will be resolved, then a new existence will occur. But like I said time is imaginary as well as sequentiality and our consciousness which is convinced of these concepts can never truly appreciate or furthermore never articulate existence separate from them in a language designed to explain the apparent reality based in those imaginary concepts.

Read Schoppenhauer.
We discussed this matter to death.
Any point you bring up was already answered by this dude.

That's a European name, so no bruh. Why would I read anything by the people who are just parroting shit that was said in The East centuries prior( and mixed with his own European bullshit from the looks of this wikipedia article)? No, Europeans are generally retarded.

'God' is a meaningless word. It doesn't refer to anything. Not only does 'God' not exist, 'God' doesn't not-exist either. You are just playing around with language.

We could exist without bone cancer killing children. Fuck off and die with your sophistry.

Yeah the difference between a universal physical law and G A W D is that I physically can't choose not to follow a universal physical law. The only thing I truly own are my choices, and I'm not going to squander that by obeying the dictates of an entity that would cause or allow such pointless misery.

Nobody is talking about obeying/worshiping the giant asshole in the sky.
If it exists it'll exist irregardless of you getting triggered by suffering and the presence of evil. You are too embedded into the idea of spooky moralities and missing the whole point of the discussion.

The post I was replying to was literally likening a universal deity to the laws of physics. That implication is obvious even if it's (rather pointedly) unstated.

And we could avoid mesothelioma by not mining asbestos. Why blame human ignorance on the universe itself?

You didn't read anything I wrote if you're still concerned with following or not following the one true cause for our perceived univesere/existence.

Thank you. This guy gets it.

No you fool. You're still wrapped up in ideas of dualism and a personal god. I tried to explain as best I could but you fail to comprehend because you're focused on your own emotional reaction to your subjective experience within perceived existence/your own life/limited observations. Read literally anyone on this subject and free your mind from your own emotional reactions and opinions.

To elaborate my implications because you seem to miss the point of everything.

We probably could escape ill health( as we see it) by lessening our ignorance. But then what? Live forever? How can we escape time itself? We live an experience based on irrational contradictions of starts and ends. Only by becoming aware of our true nature can we escape the contradictions of duality.

What point are you even trying to make here? Using asbestos is bad, because it causes horrific and unneeded suffering. Creating this universe is bad, because it causes horrific and unneeded suffering. If there was someone who did that, they're bad and should be disregarded out of hand. Maybe they exist, but we shouldn't care. What about this is even remotely complicated?
If such a being exists and willfully chose to do this, it is beneath my disgust, contempt, consideration, or awareness.

Some faggot who created a simulation that birthed our universe isn't a fucking god. We as a civilization are potentially on track to building self-aware simulations eventually. That doesn't mean it makes sense to regard a programmer who would negligently bring a universe overflowing with suffering into existence as anything other than filth and worthy of the hastiest possible summary execution for the holocausts upon holocausts that their idle pet projects summoned forth from the void.
Arbitrarily slapping the label of "god" onto the nature of the universe itself is the laziest or most desperate possible justification of muh god.

You could live as long as you chose, dying at your discretion. Existence is a burden for many; a sanctioned and humane exit (voluntary euthanasia) would benefit millions on Earth right now alone. Of course, solving human existential anxieties would be implied by "escaping ill health (as we see it)" if you thought about your own fucking premise for more than 2 seconds. Even assuming you're right about these problems being insoluble, that's also an argument for the problems with whatever hypothetical entity created the universe and not regarding it as anything like a god.

Is the sum of GTA pedestrians killed in all the games of GTA ever played matter at all?

How so? How can the one true god of existence be anything other than the existence itself(and also infinitely more)

Whose to say this situation would be good or better? Who made you the judge? Back to my laws of physics, your ignorance and opinions have no effect on them, by lessening your ignorance maybe you could avoid there effects and use them to your advantage and escape involuntary death and who's to say such beings don't exist and haven't done so already. I'm telling you such a desire is pointless anyways because what we know as "the universe" is guaranteed to die so no matter how long you live you can't escape that. In fact we may be better off having to deal only with the problems of indefinite lifespans, how long have you even mentally analyzed your childish desires of "how things should be?"

I tried to introduce you to some concepts that are beyond your current understanding but you refuse to research them so I will give you one last nugget before I give up.

Why does evil exist? Because good exists. Good can only exist in comparison to evil. If there is no evil there can be no good. Why does death exist? Because birth exists. Death and evil are implicated in there opposite qualities.

Last time: read about dualism and a personal god.

God damn I can't stop myself.
Nigga you ain't even self aware. Jesus Christ western thinkers are fucked in the head.

I'll bite even further because this is becoming amusing:

What does self-awareness mean to you stirner poster?

Good could exist without evil, the only difference is that it wouldn't be perceived as "good".

Death requires birth because for something to die it has to exist and to exist it has to have been born. But birth doesn't require death, something could simply be born and exist forever.

Forget perception. Good is entirely conceptual. A concept is not one when it lacks definition.

The laws of thermodynamics would beg to differ bub.

Sorry to burst your bube kiddo.

Because we are created literally in their image!

I fail to see how that first pic is inaccurate, obviously all those things don't happen at once, it took probably tens of thousands of years of reinterpretation for religion to go from nature worship to formalised Abrahamic stuff.

Attached: 1425466234924.jpg (500x363, 43.82K)

Cute cat picture :3

Wittgenstein would have a field day with the current state of this board

Looks like the only giant asshole here is you now stuff your face/add with black cock

babby's first existential crisis lmao
The only reason to think that a time-finite universe isn't meaningful is if you're so spooked by religious dogma that you think only eternal life with G A W D is worth anything. You are trying really hard to avoid looking like a religious apologist but it's not working.

And you're a science apologist.

Literal meme assumptions.

Dark your theory is indeed.
It reminds me of a story by Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger.

Attached: 220px-Myststranger.jpg (220x293, 28.21K)

Why do you believe this? Just because God can can see the future doesn't mean he controls your actions.

If God created the universe don't you think he could at least care about his human creation.
Christians don't describe God as a magic genie whose here to solve your problems.

This has nothing to do with your point, but i just wanted to touch on the uniqueness of the many accounts of the global flood.

Attached: The Epic of Gilgamesh Flood and the Bible.webm (480x360, 14.26M)

presenting your monistic view of god-as-the-totality-of-everything as the only one possible is pretty dishonest, considering the varied history of theology and metaphysics where god is indeed a personal being though the idea of god-as-everything is the most defensible conception of god IMO - god is the noumenal world, to illustrate this in a current_year way, god is a data entity containing everything, from which subjectively experiencing beings derive patterns and thus information
you present this as a logical argument but don't actually explicate the necessary assumptions behind it. as always, omnipotence leads to issues for example.
fancy, but you're still doing it for a personal benefit, no less so than someone praying for rain

if you believe in an omnipotent omniscient creator god, the creator god creates a moral actor in full understanding of all the acts the actor will do. omnipotence means that god could opt to create a saint for heaven instead of a hellbound sinner, and yet does not. god deliberately creates eternal, again not a word to be used lightly, suffering.

At least in Christian theology, originally God created only good (like in the garden of Eden, and lucifer the Cherub) and from good's autonomy came evil (lucifer wanted to be God, then became the Devil). The point of humanity is to get to know, and to choose to love God over the Devil's world kingdom. He also left behind a legacy to guide humanity away from suffering.

Ok. I watched the webm. The narrator isn't accurate when he says scholars are all agreed the Babylonian version is inferior to the Biblical version.

Two points - the birds released by Noah or the Babylonian boatman.
If you're interested, this is from the fullest scholarly commentary on Gilgamesh, by A. R. George:

(143-7). Then begins the famous episode of the birds, famous because it is one of >those
details held in common that proved the shared origin of the tales of Üta-napišti and Noah.
member of the crow family). The dove >and swallow returned to the ark, having
found no place to land; the raven, however, saw the waters receding, found food and did
not return. The episode has been much >discussed. Here, comment will be confined to the
order of the birds in the respective accounts. Heidel compared the Babylonian version
and thence applied unaltered to the cuneiform tradition, is methodologically >suspect. The Babylonian order of birds may have had a different rationale from that which informed the Hebrew story. It became more likely that this was in fact the case when a connection was
maritime practice. The proponent of this theory, David Freedman, believes the cor-
rect practice is reflected in the biblical >narrative, in which Noah releases only two birds, first a raven and then, on several occasions, a dove. His consequent inference that 'poet (of
lgameš] borrowed a Hebrew topos is >sufficienty provocative to need reply.
Freedman supposes that (a) ravens were used to scout for landfall and (b) doves were employed to find 'if land is habitable'. As presented in his >discussion, the evidence for (a) is plentiful, but there is none whatsoever for (b), despite the dove's 'famed domesticity'. Of this bird Freeman writes further, 'when mariners use doves, it is to >guide them through straits, or to gauge the weather, not to scout for land'. However, he overlooks evidence for sailors in different
parts of the world releasing doves with >exactly the last aim. On both counts his hypothesis of the different employment of doves and ravens in maritime navigation falls, and with it the assumed priority of the 'Hebrew topos'.
Like doves and pigeons, swallows and martins are also happy to nest in an >urban environment and can thus be seen as birds which cleave to man.Though the primary function of the episode
of the release of the three birds is to >mark the gradual ebbing of the waters, the pasage also serves as an aetiology of the different habitats of these birds, the dove and swallow on the one hand, the raven (or crow) on the other. It is very >plausible that these birds were considered to behave as they do because their habits were conditioned by the varying fortunes their remote ancestors experienced as the floodwaters of the >Deluge receded.The order of the birds in Genesis obscures such an explanation. On these grounds–quite apart from the wider problem Freedman's inference raises for the history of literary >transmission –I reject his argument that the Babylonian account is derivative of the Hebrew. Rather, those in the West who inherited the story of the birds gave it a different rationale. In doing so they >altered some details-as well as confusing the birds' order, they left out the swallow- missing the aetiology entirely, failed to appreciate the motif to the full.

The other point - the boat. It's been established that the Babylonian boat design (or more strictly speaking, Sumerian, as it is the original specs we're talking about ) was circular. The boat would have been seaworthy, had it ever been built.

Wow, I guess he should have seen that coming, huh?

the thing about omnipotence and omniscience and creatorhood is that an entity that holds these properties controls everything and free will, in the sense of a non-god actor having the option of changing one's own destiny by their will, is null and void. if that entity also morally evaluates actors (as in normative religion), who are all god's own creations, well-.

When God makes a cube he gives up the power to make that a sphere. It's clear that God has given free will to humanity since many freely choose to disobey him. It sounds like you're letting what God 'is' tell you what he does or what his motives are.
Many people who lived blasphemous lives have been able to better themselves.

What is good if it's not tested.

where omnipotence go tho
that's a nice circular argument
because god's "motives" are irrelevant in this case. free will is inherently incompatible with an omnipotent omniscient creator god, as from the point of view of god free will of individuals certainly does not exist. compatibilists' arguments are weak and irrelevant.
indeed, and they were created to do so, just like all the blasphemous people who remained blasphemous, as well as saintly people who became blasphemous.

The omniscient would know.

As the only Christian socialist on this board who sticks to orthodoxy and doesn't support transgenderism, gay marriage, etc. like that fucking retarded heretical third worldist, I have no idea why you made this discussion when I haven't been around in months and literally no one else on this board can give a christian perspective on things. You're just going to get an atheist circlejerk.

Attached: shrug.jpg (251x257, 86.25K)

You're right. It's all a perpetual motion machine. Now I truly see.

Go fuck yourself you self important christfag. No one wants your gay Judaism 2.0 here.

I never said they did you illiterate moron. I'm just pointing out that it makes no sense for a this board to start a topic on religion where no real discussion will happen because y'all have made up your minds already.

Read the thread the thread faggot. We had a nice thread without your trite christcuck faggotry.

"I am the true scotsman!"


He mad

Ok. I'm about to think you're a giant cockblocking fag in 5 seconds and then you will too.

That's how you know.

Ok I'll do it again in 5 minutes to drive the point through

You know what I get a lot of?? People trying to spook me by repeating my thoughts verbally.

How about you try and take those blow me ideas into IRL too

I'm thinking blow me all fucking day and nothing happens. The second I think about being Superman my coworker walks up to me and says gee you sure look like Clark Kent in those glasses.

What kind of.fucking operation is this??

schizo poster is back I see


Ok then….

Didnt even say that faggot. If you're not the christfag I responded to go back and read the post I was responding to. If you are that same faggot.. well you're just retarded.

Are you afraid or something? I can easily demonstrate any power.

Bring us full communism schizo comrade.