A lot of people think Christianity is stupid.
These people also think protestantism is Christianity.
They think that the vast majority of Christians are protestants of one sort or another.
They don't realize how big the Catholic church actually is.
Here's the key to understanding: Protestants are just plain stupid. They are the sort of stupid that it's hard to explain how stupid they are.
When the reformers started their movement, they were hyper-educated autistic types. They wanted to throw everything away and start from scratch, but since they had no revelation from God telling them to do that, they had to pick and choose their foundation.
They chose things that were literally retarded. They ignored pretty much what everyone had been saying up until then. When things couldn't be ignored, they just changed what people said to match their narrative.
It doesn't take long to sit down with a protestant and see how wrong they are about everything.
Take, for instance, this idea of "Sola Scriptura". The idea sounds nice, but it is terribly misguided. They claim that the Bible is God's word. Ok, I think most people can agree with that. They claim that God wrote the Bible. Ok. That's absurd, but let's run with that. Then they claim that everything we need to know is in the Bible. That's ridiculous.
For starters, where does God say in the Bible that the Bible even exists? He doesn't. In the New Testament, when the writers reference "scriptures" and such, they are talking about the books that compose the Old Testament, including books that we no longer consider as part of the canon, and books that we likely don't even have a faithful copy of. So you can't use anything from the New Testament to justify the New Testament as part of the canon. In fact, it would be silly to think a statement such as "Only these books that have been written and these books *yet to be written* are part of the canon" could even exist in the Bible.
Then we have the problem of whether God is allowed to speak or not. If there ever was a scripture that says "OK, I am God and I'm done talking now and I'll never talk again" it would be a contradiction, because anything said after that statement would not be allowed. But we don't even know which books were written when because they are so old. Certainly, after the books were written, people were looking forward to more writings. They had no idea that those would be the last words. And what about all the writings we lost? What if someone found them? Suppose we found another epistle from Paul buried in some ancient church, or if some Egyptian tomb contained an older copy of a gospel with more content? Would that be scripture?
Anyway, any honest reader of the Bible will be confused because the Bible contains information that is just plain wrong and even contradictory. It's really hard to get a solid statement out of the Bible because that was never the intention of the writers of the Bible. It's clear that most of the passages are allegory or poetic in nature, and that the historical parts are more a form of writing where the bias is intentional and moral judgment the main point of the work. Even when Jesus spoke, it's hard to tell when he is being directly literal or when he is being metaphoric or employing parables or even references to other scriptures. For instance, he once said "You can't get into heaven unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" (according to John). How are we supposed to interpret that?
Protestants claim that the meaning of the Bible is clear but it is clearly not clear. The fact that they are still arguing with themselves and others about even the most plain passages of the Bible tells you all you need to know.
At least the Catholics and Orthodox realize the absurdity of Sola Scriptura. They appeal to tradition as an ultimate authority.
The problem with protestantism is that it is a horrible idea by people who should've known better but didn't. Most of the problems in modern society can be traced to bad ideas from protestantism. In fact, atheism probably wouldn't even be a thing unless the protestants were out there making obviously false statements and pretending you have to believe those things in order to accept the reality of God. Is it any wonder when people investigate those claims, find them almost unintelligible, and then decide that maybe God can't exist?
You who adhere to protestantism need to investigate your faith and seriously look into what it is you assume to be true and what you tell each other. It's some very horrible stuff with horrible consequences.
There needs to be a reformation of the reformation, so to speak.
The catholics are not entirely wrong. I'm saying this as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you're lost, go ask a Catholic scholar to get you back on the right path.
If I had to choose between everyone being a protestant or everyone being atheist... that's a hard choice.
These people also think protestantism is Christianity.
They think that the vast majority of Christians are protestants of one sort or another.
They don't realize how big the Catholic church actually is.
Here's the key to understanding: Protestants are just plain stupid. They are the sort of stupid that it's hard to explain how stupid they are.
When the reformers started their movement, they were hyper-educated autistic types. They wanted to throw everything away and start from scratch, but since they had no revelation from God telling them to do that, they had to pick and choose their foundation.
They chose things that were literally retarded. They ignored pretty much what everyone had been saying up until then. When things couldn't be ignored, they just changed what people said to match their narrative.
It doesn't take long to sit down with a protestant and see how wrong they are about everything.
Take, for instance, this idea of "Sola Scriptura". The idea sounds nice, but it is terribly misguided. They claim that the Bible is God's word. Ok, I think most people can agree with that. They claim that God wrote the Bible. Ok. That's absurd, but let's run with that. Then they claim that everything we need to know is in the Bible. That's ridiculous.
For starters, where does God say in the Bible that the Bible even exists? He doesn't. In the New Testament, when the writers reference "scriptures" and such, they are talking about the books that compose the Old Testament, including books that we no longer consider as part of the canon, and books that we likely don't even have a faithful copy of. So you can't use anything from the New Testament to justify the New Testament as part of the canon. In fact, it would be silly to think a statement such as "Only these books that have been written and these books *yet to be written* are part of the canon" could even exist in the Bible.
Then we have the problem of whether God is allowed to speak or not. If there ever was a scripture that says "OK, I am God and I'm done talking now and I'll never talk again" it would be a contradiction, because anything said after that statement would not be allowed. But we don't even know which books were written when because they are so old. Certainly, after the books were written, people were looking forward to more writings. They had no idea that those would be the last words. And what about all the writings we lost? What if someone found them? Suppose we found another epistle from Paul buried in some ancient church, or if some Egyptian tomb contained an older copy of a gospel with more content? Would that be scripture?
Anyway, any honest reader of the Bible will be confused because the Bible contains information that is just plain wrong and even contradictory. It's really hard to get a solid statement out of the Bible because that was never the intention of the writers of the Bible. It's clear that most of the passages are allegory or poetic in nature, and that the historical parts are more a form of writing where the bias is intentional and moral judgment the main point of the work. Even when Jesus spoke, it's hard to tell when he is being directly literal or when he is being metaphoric or employing parables or even references to other scriptures. For instance, he once said "You can't get into heaven unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" (according to John). How are we supposed to interpret that?
Protestants claim that the meaning of the Bible is clear but it is clearly not clear. The fact that they are still arguing with themselves and others about even the most plain passages of the Bible tells you all you need to know.
At least the Catholics and Orthodox realize the absurdity of Sola Scriptura. They appeal to tradition as an ultimate authority.
The problem with protestantism is that it is a horrible idea by people who should've known better but didn't. Most of the problems in modern society can be traced to bad ideas from protestantism. In fact, atheism probably wouldn't even be a thing unless the protestants were out there making obviously false statements and pretending you have to believe those things in order to accept the reality of God. Is it any wonder when people investigate those claims, find them almost unintelligible, and then decide that maybe God can't exist?
You who adhere to protestantism need to investigate your faith and seriously look into what it is you assume to be true and what you tell each other. It's some very horrible stuff with horrible consequences.
There needs to be a reformation of the reformation, so to speak.
The catholics are not entirely wrong. I'm saying this as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you're lost, go ask a Catholic scholar to get you back on the right path.
If I had to choose between everyone being a protestant or everyone being atheist... that's a hard choice.
Sure, just ignore all visible evidence of all objects in the Universe.
>(the waters of the great deep)
You mean outer space? Which existed after the creation of the Universe? In which the disorganized matter which would form the Solar System floated until its organization? You mean the verbiage we use *to this day* in reference to spacefaring (seafaring) ships (ships) and the people (astro**nauts**) who go out there? The analogy used to describe to Bronze Age people what outer space is? Is that what you mean?
>God doesn't create out of nothing
Except when He does.
>the laws of physics clearly state that the universe has always existed
Other than, you know, all the observable evidence.
>EITHER something can reverse entropy (which makes no sense) or something can create something out of nothing (which makes no sense either.)
Or God, being omnipotent, could do both if He so chose. Self-evidently the Universe isn’t infinite in age, otherwise entropy would already be maximal and nothing would exist–nor have existed–for infinity. But it does. And all observable evidence shows it had a measurable beginning. The easiest and most logical explanation is that He created it at that point.
What evidence?
Keep in mind, I got my BS in physics, I studied astrophysics (and we all had a good laugh at their expense)
So I'm a big boy. Go ahead, point me to the evidence of the Big Bang. I've pretty much seen almost all of what people who claim the Big Bang is real as evidence and none of it is compelling, and some of it is cherry-picked and just plain wrong. So try to find something that isn't published wide and broad.
Or maybe take your time to try and understand the actual evidence of the Big Bang by explaining it to me slowly as if I were a child. Then you will begin to understand why I asked you this question.
Sometimes scientists lie about things, especially smart black man on the TV.
> > waters of the great deep
> You mean outer space?
I don't think that concept even existed until modern times. The authors of the Bible couldn't have possibly meant that.
But when you look at Genesis 1:6, he separated the waters of the great deep and made a space. I would think that gap would be where outer space is. What are your thoughts? Or do you think there is an "outer space" below the sky?
> > God doesn't create out of nothing
> Except when he does
Name one time when he did.
"Water to wine" I think is pretty clear evidence.
He even needed loaves and fishes to make food that one time he made food "out of nothing".
Weird, I can't think of any instance where there was literally nothing and then God poofed something into existence. Maybe I missed a verse in Genesis?
> > the laws of physics clearly state that the universe has always existed
> Other than, you know, all the observable evidence.
Did you see the evidence? When and where was the time and place when nothing existed? How did you see it? You said it's observable. I would like to observe this "universe not existing" thing.
> Reversing entropy
The problem with discussing something like "reversing entropy" with people who don't even know what it is is that they say something like "God can do anything!" and they don't even understand what it is you're asking God to do. Can God divide by zero?
The question of "reversing entropy" doesn't even make sense. If you don't know what entropy is, you think it should make sense, but just like someone who doesn't understand what "zero" and "divide" means thinks that "divide by zero" can make sense--it doesn't mean it makes sense.
[Yawn.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law)
>I got my BS
Sure do.
>I don't think that concept even existed until modern times.
*“Space was totally fake and gay until the 1950s.”* ~ not sane people
Or maybe you mean the 1600s were “modern times.”
>he separated the waters of the great deep and made a space
[Looks like a space to me.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/HL_Tau_protoplanetary_disk.jpg)
>Name one time when he did.
[Yawn.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201%3A1&version=KJV)
>"Water to wine" I think is pretty clear evidence.
Sure, elemental transmutation is possible with sufficient energy.
>He even needed loaves and fishes to make food that one time
[Easy peasy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox)
>I can't think of any instance where there was literally nothing and then God poofed something into existence. Maybe I missed a verse in Genesis?
Yep, the first one. Run along, fuckstick. You’re not fooling anyone.
Yes, that's when modern science started.
> Gen 1:1
A mistranslation.
The original Hebrew is better translated as "When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, (this is how he did it)"
But moving on from there, the crux of the argument relies on the interpretation of the word "bara". WE translated that as "create" in KJV and most other translations, but we cannot use that word for every case of its use in the Bible. You can look it up in Strong's if you want to see all the examples of its use.
Of note, it is the verb used to describe what God did when he made Adam. In Gen 2:7 it clearly states that Adam was formed from dust. Thus, Man was not created ex nihilo, but from dust, and the verb that was used was "bara", the same verb used for everything else.
Here's a good article by a scholar with sources you can look at: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/reviews-of-the-new-mormon-challenge/the-doctrine-of-creation-ex-nihilo-was-created-out-of-nothing
> banach tarski is easy peasy
Oh this is a new one.
So he took matter composed of -- what? Atoms? You do believe atoms are real, right?
And he moved them around and made something out of nothing?
Fascinating.
It'd make more sense if matter wasn't composed of atoms...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>A mistranslation
>”Yes, goyim! The first verse of the Bible is wrong! Therefore all of it is wrong! You’re all wrong, goyim! You lose now!” ~ subhuman retard
>[quotes a “different” translation that is the same]
Too retarded to be considered human.
>[atoms aren’t real because I am personally incapable of understanding how God works]
This seems to be a trend among sophists like you (and also all dune coons and most jews).