>>583 Im sure Jesus is rolling in his grave right now at how christians believe christmas has anything to do with the birth of Christ and isn't some kind of pagan tree worship. Sept = 6, Oct = 8, Nov = 9 and December should logically follow as the 10th month in a year so the current calender date people assume is christs birthday isn't even accurate.

>>2462 >random guy comes in with an absolutely abhorrent hot take, when the Julian calendar, still used in the church, was fixed by the greatest astronomers of the ancient world decades before the birth of Christ

>>2459 >Whatever happened to that Western Orthodox idea that was floating around. I heard they had a few churches at least in the US. They're still around: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=G--S_mN_Ga4

>>2458 For me, I look at Orthodox things and go, yeah this looks great. Then I look at Catholic things and go, yeah, this looks great. They both seem comfortable and right when I look at one of the other. How does one even choose? I can't go get baptized and sign up to join both, can I? It's a problem, see, so I'm just stuck here on the side looking in going, wow sure is nice to be part of a church. Wish I could be Christian, but I can't because you fucking autists went and excommunicated each other over how to prepare magic bread among other things.

>>2412 Alright, I have some questions. >The Bible is both historical and accurate. It claims so itself, and everywhere we as man have been able to put it to the test, it has proven to be so. I don't understand this. The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true? That logic is really circular. I don't see how that constitutes a proof of anything. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. Also, does a belief in God necessarily imply a belief in Satan? Can you believe in God without believing Satan is real? Or is Satan a more intangible thing, like an abstract representation of the evil that rests in the hearts of man?

>>2464 I enjoyed that. There were some differences to what I'm used to but I think I'd feel right at home. I recognised the English Gradual and the Missa de Angelis although it was sung in English for some reason. I guess Latin is too much? I appreciated the hymns. I didn't think they would be present in an Orthodox service. Hymns are underrated as instructional tools I think. >>2468 Not him and I hate to answer for him but I don't think that's quite what he's saying. I could be wrong and I'd like to hear from him but I think he's saying the the Bible has actual historical events recorded in it and that it makes it clear that these are meant to be understood as history. What he's trying to rule out is the idea that this is an obviously fictional story that we're all pretending is factual. He is not addressing the possibility that this historical account might simply be false. It would indeed be silly to say, "I am telling the truth because I am a truth-teller." You seem like you'd appreciate an epistemological explanation. How do we actually know these things? I'm happy to throw in my two cents but first I have to ask something myself. Putting aside Christianity, what do you think of the notion that there is more to existence than just the stuff we can detect with our senses? Do you think there is any kind of divine thing? It doesn't have to a "person" type of god. Maybe there are many such entities? What I'm asking is whether you are a strict materialist.

>>2469 >I'm happy to throw in my two cents but first I have to ask something myself. Putting aside Christianity, what do you think of the notion that there is more to existence than just the stuff we can detect with our senses? Do you think there is any kind of divine thing? It doesn't have to a "person" type of god. Maybe there are many such entities? What I'm asking is whether you are a strict materialist. While I do believe most things that we concern ourselves with in our day-to-day lives are provable with empirical evidence, I believe that the universe is ultimately not a rational place. There is ultimately no rational explanation for the miracle of existence itself, how something exists in place of nothing, so that gives me a sense that existential nihilism is not the correct way to view the world. I've asked myself these questions as I was growing up, I've always leaned agnostic as I could never confirm nor deny the existence of the divine. A while back I sort of began looking into transhumanism and Frank Tipler's omega point cosmology, which posits that the existence of intelligent life is not an accident and ultimately may decide the fate of the universe. The idea is that if we stay on course as a species and keep advancing technologically then eventually we may literally 'create' God, via AI or augmenting our own biology or what have you, and this future man-made God is actually influencing events in the past to cause its own existence. Looking at it, I found some comfort in this idea, and sought shelter in it from my existential worries. But lately I have to come to realize that this transhumanist position is basically no different from faith in the Christian God, it is swapping one God for another (God, Zeus, Allah, The Omega Point, etc. are all variations on the same idea of a divine being). I think that we're used to there being rational explanations for things in our mundane day to day lives. But questions as big as the meaning of life and why there exists a universe at all are more all-encompassing in scope and are of a far greater context than anything we know. Which is why I say there could very well be a God, although we don't know its exact nature. We don't know if it's a sentient, emotional thing that loves us, or just a passive force like gravity that permeates the cosmos. tl;dr I sort of believe there is a God, because the existence of all things is something we don't have a rational answer for. But I'm just not sure if it's the Christian God and if it's sapient and loves us.

>>2470 OK. I had to ask because it's an entirely different challenge to answer if you're starting from a point of believing that material existence is the only existence. I did specify something beyond the material so no AI, no matter how advanced, would qualify nor would anything else created by humans. Some kind of immaterial pervasive "thing" is quite a sufficient starting point. Let us also assume that it "acts" somehow on our material universe despite being beyond it. >we don't know its exact nature. We don't know if it's a sentient, emotional thing that loves us, or just a passive force like gravity that permeates the cosmos. This is quite an astute thing to say and I would be inclined to agree with you. We have no way of understanding a god. No amount of human reason could ever help us understand the nature of this kind of being because we can only reason by reference to the familiar material world. But we're talking about an immaterial being and there's no guarantee that it would be anything like what we're familiar with. In fact we couldn't even say if it's likely or unlikely to be similar. I would say that even though we can experience something beyond the material in our lives (something we crudely call "god"), the exists an impassable gap between us and it and we cannot approach an understanding of it. Now we come to the epistemology. How do we know anything? As far as I'm aware, there are four ways. 1. We observe it with our senses 2. We reason it with our minds 3. We experience it 4. We are told so by someone who knows Obviously, by definition, (1) is out of the question. We have just both agreed that (2) can never work. (3) is possible but how then to explain the great variety of conflicting religions? It can't be sufficient to gain the kind of understanding that Christianity claims. Finally, (4) must be out because, in order for someone else to know, they must have known via one of the first three methods. Now we're really stuck aren't we? And stuck we are. There is literally no way for man to understand God except in a vague sense via experience. And right here is the trick: Although man cannot reach up to heaven to understand God, we claim that God reached down to Earth and told us about himself. He revealed certain aspects of himself - by no means even close to everything, God is still very much a mystery. God essentially said, "That feeling of something beyond you feel? That's me." He also performed many impossible things (miracles) to demonstrate this. Now there's a starting point. Some people know and they can hand that knowledge down to other people. This is what Tradition is. The Bible is a written compilation of this. Nothing in Christianity is invented by man. Whether you believe Christianity or not depends not on your own intelligence but on whether you find the messenger credible. Do you believe me? If you had lived 2000 years ago, that would be that. You would judge for yourself whether St Paul or whoever was an honest, credible man. Whether you could believe him when he said Jesus rose from the dead or is he lying? Since you don't, there is an added difficulty. Maybe I'm not lying as such but I'm just mistaken. Maybe it's a case of Chinese whispers or maybe honest men were duped originally and it was their honesty that spread Christianity. You're going to have to make a gut decision about that. Read the New Testament. Read other early Christian writings (the Orthodox guy in here will dump a whole library on you). Decide, are these people credible? This is at least how I think of it and I actually can't think of another way we could know about God. Assuming we accept the definition of "god" I laid out. You'll notice there's no circular argument here. You don't believe someone because they say, "Believe me." It's a matter of whether you find him trustworthy. As for your question about Satan. Is this a sticking point? Satan is real. He was originally an angel that rebelled against God. However, he's not even remotely comparable in power or anything else to God. Christianity is not dualist. I would say that you can be a Christian without thinking about him very much. In fact I wouldn't recommend dwelling on that topic. I'm a little unsure of what the problem is here and I don't want to write an answer to a question you didn't have.

You’d be surprised the amount of mongoloids out there that don’t know demons and angels are the same thing but different ideologies. What I find odd is how god did not give them to gift of free will. So how did they rebel in the first place? Its is by design and orchestrated by god himself. God even created sin because he gets awfully bored in the void and created it as a means to create entertainment for him.

>>2471 >>2474 >God even created sin because he gets awfully bored in the void and created it as a means to create entertainment for him. Okay, see, THIS I don't buy. When we try to think of a reason why God created everything, our monkey brains typically turn to what we consider a reason for living, which is enjoying/amusing ourselves. But this is kind of a narrow purview, God is supposedly from an infinitely broader, different context. When we think he created everything just because he got bored, we're projecting our own raison d'eitre onto him because we can't conceive of a different reason He'd do anything. I don't believe God would be capable of being bored in the sense that we perceive it. I think whatever 'reason' He has is something beyond our comprehension, much like He is. Reason itself is a construct of man, and the existence of the universe itself is something beyond reason. Therefore God would also be beyond reason. >>2471 >I did specify something beyond the material so no AI, no matter how advanced, would qualify nor would anything else created by humans. Some kind of immaterial pervasive "thing" is quite a sufficient starting point. Let us also assume that it "acts" somehow on our material universe despite being beyond it. Do you mean to say that a very powerful AI, with abilities that we would consider 'Godlike' from our current perspective (I.E. manipulating all forms of matter and energy, travelling through time, resurrecting the dead) would still not be anywhere near to a true God? Why do you believe this is? Is it because a manmade powerful entity would still be material and therefore finite? I can understand this reasoning insofar that there may be a limit to how much we can manipulate the world around us, but what if there is no limit? What if reality can be manipulated like code in a computer? We don't know if that's possible yet, and we can't confirm or deny if it is, so the jury's still out on that. There is a saying by Arthur C. Clarke that says "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and I do believe that to be true, so it's all a matter of how advanced technology can get. But for now, you could be right that there is a limit and that something like that would never attain the status of the divine or immaterial. That's not something you can just 'earn'. >Whether you believe Christianity or not depends not on your own intelligence but on whether you find the messenger credible. Do you believe me? If you had lived 2000 years ago, that would be that. You would judge for yourself whether St Paul or whoever was an honest, credible man. Whether you could believe him when he said Jesus rose from the dead or is he lying? Since you don't, there is an added difficulty. Maybe I'm not lying as such but I'm just mistaken. Maybe it's a case of Chinese whispers or maybe honest men were duped originally and it was their honesty that spread Christianity. You're going to have to make a gut decision about that. You seem like a swell guy and I believe that you believe what you believe, but like you said, man is susceptible to delusion, deception and exaggeration, and this is even stated endlessly in the Bible. So it's hard to make a judgment call on it. Offhand, I can't say I fully believe it, even if it was written by good people throughout the generations, it is something difficult to take seriously. People who've claimed they've talked to God or seen angels could've just been hallucinating or delusional - Terry Davis claimed to hear God and he was de-facto schizophrenic. But it could just be that I don't have enough information. If I could meet and get to know the people who wrote the bible, you're right, I would be able to make a better judgment call. But ultimately, EVERYONE is capable of lying, so I think no one is credible by default. It's the reason why simple hearsay isn't admissible evidence in a court of law, even if it is under oath. Correlating testimony could be, but it's still susceptible to false interpretation and embellishment. I am sad to say that without material proof I find these things very hard to believe, even though I want to. If Jesus himself showed up at my doorstep and performed miracles in front of my eyes, that'd be good enough, that'd be all I need to believe in him. But that's probably not going to happen, so it appears to me that religion is a leap of faith. It pains me that I crave material evidence. I wish I could just cast that aside and believe like the rest of you that God and Jesus and the Bible are real. But alas, I am but a simple scared monkey, and I need to see, touch, smell and taste the banana for me to believe there is a banana. I don't wish to be cast out. I want to enter Jesus's kingdom but I am blocked by this desire for proof. I think atheists and agnostics envy you. It must be comforting and beautiful to be so certain. We are uncertain people.

>>2483 >First bit I couldn't agree more. I don't agree with that other guy. Somebody much wiser than I might know the answer. Apparently though there was something "good" about our creation. I don't mean good in the human sense. When we say something is good, we mean it is good for something. But there must be something objectively good about our creation. Something that means that we ought to exist. I've wondered what a creature that is objectively not good would be like if such a thing could exist. I suppose it would be quite unlike anything in our universe. >Reason itself is a construct of man, and the existence of the universe itself is something beyond reason. Therefore God would also be beyond reason. I only agree if you really mean "beyond reason" and not "sub reason." I think reason is a gift from God though. It's nothing to do with how powerful the AI is. The AI has to exist in a place. In a computer or a futuristic bio-network or even encoded into the strings of string theory. The point is it would have to have a physical presence. One of the premises I started with was that we assumed the existence of something non-physical and non-material (that we call god). That's the only reason. It's important because we believe that God created us (and the whole world), not the other way around. If you want to talk about things that man makes and whether we should worship them and whether we should dare construct an AI god, that's an interesting question in its own right but it's a different one. I'm just saying that given these premises, this is the means by which it is possible to know about God. >I am sad to say that without material proof I find these things very hard to believe, even though I want to. If Jesus himself showed up at my doorstep and performed miracles in front of my eyes, that'd be good enough, that'd be all I need to believe in him. You're in very good company. No less than St Thomas (one of the twelve apostles who witnessed many great things) was absent when Jesus first appeared to the rest after his resurrection. When he was told by the other apostles, he said >Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and place my finger in the mark of the nails, I will not believe. How blessed must you be, who have not seen what Thomas saw, to reach this point? I don't say this in a condescending manner. I am not implying "... and therefore you will believe like he did." What I am saying is that it is OK to doubt. In fact you have to be a bit suspicious of anyone who has never doubted any of their beliefs. How do they know if they really believe if it has never been put to a real test? I think atheists and agnostics like yourself are far closer to true faith than you realise. Closer than many who profess to be Christian. Again I don't mean to say, "Haha you're all Christians in denial!" It's more like a winding road through the mountains. At some point along the road you may come very near your destination such that you could even shout to the people there. But there's no direct way to just get there. You have to continue along the road and it may seem that you're getting farther away for a time. This probably seems like some dreadful platitude to you but it really is like this. I've been there (for a somewhat different problem I was having). So don't worry about it too much. Relax and enjoy the holidays. I think I'm going to have to leave it here for tonight though. Merry Christmas Anon.

>>2483 >Okay, see, THIS I don't buy. >all seeing, all knowing That includes EVERY possibility there is out there. He created it. redditcopers can't comprehend that God doesn't get bored. Hence the trials and tribulations because without struggle there would be no way to measure worthiness and if everyone just got into heaven then it would be as meaningless as going to the local grocery store.

>>2483 >It pains me that I crave material evidence. I wish I could just cast that aside and believe like the rest of you that God and Jesus and the Bible are real. But alas, I am but a simple scared monkey, and I need to see, touch, smell and taste the banana for me to believe there is a banana God comes through practice, not through testing. Western theology went heavy on attempting to exposit the properties of God after rediscovering Aristotle's philosophical works during the Crusades, even though his empiricism is ultimately inadequate to describe Him. This led to the atheism in the modern sciences because He, being something that can't be qualified fully by the faculties of man, was therefore dismissed by the philosophers of science as something that was not useful since God can't be deduced observationally. The modern crisis of faith is heavily tied into the misunderstanding that God is seen to be some entity object rather than an intuitive truth that is appreciated by faith.

>>2489 >crusades >"western" >After WW2 the world was split into two. East and West. This marked the beginning of the era called the Cold War. Fuck off nigger. East and west weren't even used in that cold war geographical ideologue context until the 1960's.

>>2491 ...? De facto difference between Eastern and Western Europe can easily be seen in how Constantinople and Rome related to each other. What are you on about?

Well, while I wait for Agnostic Anon to return, I suppose there are a couple of other question replies I could respond to? >>2429 >I have nothing to add, but are you the Anglican anon from earlier? No, I'm just a typical Bible-believing Protestant. >Are you typically about in /christian/? Not generally. I think the last time I was there was before the Soyjack spammer attack. >>2468 >The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true? No. It's truth because of it's Author's character, Who cannot lie. We, as feeble mortals, have tested it and it's proven true in the things it claims as true. The historical beginning of the universe itself, and it's progression up to the present day. Much of this is spelled out in the Bible thousands of years before the modern era of Astrophysics & Astronomy. This is but one area we can put the Bible to a rigorous test and it passes with flying colors. However, I think this Anon (>>2469) puts it far better than me: >but I think he's saying the the Bible has actual historical events recorded in it and that it makes it clear that these are meant to be understood as history. >Also, does a belief in God necessarily imply a belief in Satan? Can you believe in God without believing Satan is real? Well I suppose you can, Anon. But the truth of the matter is what's actually important, and there are no versions of the truth. >Or is Satan a more intangible thing, like an abstract representation of the evil that rests in the hearts of man? Definitely not. Satan is very real. As much as you or I. He was created as Lucifer, the guarding Cherub above the very throne of God, and the leader of Heavenly worship. He is a very potent enemy, but of course only to us humans in our current state. To be more clear; there is no such thing as a 'arm-wrestling' match going on between Satan and God. Satan is but a (very, very) fallen creature.

>>2493 >No. It's truth because of it's Author's character, Who cannot lie. We, as feeble mortals, have tested it and it's proven true in the things it claims as true. God, right? You're saying God wrote the Bible? Or was it written by man? I thought the apostles put it to pen. >This is but one area we can put the Bible to a rigorous test and it passes with flying colors. Any examples? >Definitely not. Satan is very real. As much as you or I. He was created as Lucifer, the guarding Cherub above the very throne of God, and the leader of Heavenly worship. He is a very potent enemy, but of course only to us humans in our current state Alright, so Satan is a real entity that guides us to do bad things? Are all evil acts the work of Satan, or are men culpable for it? I'm trying to ascertain the true nature of this entity. How does he manifest? How can we avoid him? What should we be looking for? Let me give a specific example: Transhumanists believe that they can attain biological immortality through science, life extension, augmentation, mind uploading, etc. Are they being misguided by Satan? Because I've heard some devout people say that Satan is tricking them.

>>2495 >God, right? You're saying God wrote the Bible? Or was it written by man? I thought the apostles put it to pen. Man's fallible nature is perfected by the gifts of divine grace bestowed through the Holy Spirit. That is how the apostles were able produced the writings of the New Testament with authority from above.

>>2496 By the way, would you say St. Paul of Tarsus among those guided?

>>2496 >with authority from above. How did this work? They never explain what that meant beyond insinuating normfag tier cronyism. How does the book of Enoch fit into all of this?

>>2495 >God, right? You're saying God wrote the Bible? Indeed I am. The Bible itself claims so as well, regarding the Holy Spirit-breathed character of it. >Or was it written by man? I thought the apostles put it to pen. Many more men than just Apostles were used to scribe the entire thing front to back. 40 of them, IIRC. I have a personal anecdote regarding this phenomenon. My own mother helped my grandfather publish the books he had dreamed of doing all his life. He recorded all the text of the books verbally, and mom transcribed them as she was led to. But my mom wasn't the author of the book, grandpa was. Make sense? >Any examples? I personally consider the unfolding for mere mortals the very character and evolution of the entire universe rather a profound example. There are literally hundreds of archaeological and historical others. I'll leave that as an exercise for yourself if you care to dig. For some skeptics, the Biblical fact of the origin of all mankind from just a single woman and man are problematic. But so-called Y-Chromosomal Adam, and Mitochondrial Eve are highly provocative scientific discoveries in support of the Biblical view. The separation of their origin by 10's of thousands of years is also right in line with the Biblical account of Noah, his sons, the females of their household, and the Flood. >Are all evil acts the work of Satan, or are men culpable for it? Each man will be judged according to the works he has done while in the body. >I'm trying to ascertain the true nature of this entity. How does he manifest? How can we avoid him? What should we be looking for? I don't think you can avoid him. Like the rest of us, you were born into sin by the fall of your father Adam, and Satan was (as the god of this world), perhaps still is--your spiritual father. Only through salvation can you have even the most basic hope of escape from this hideously evil being. >Let me give a specific example: Transhumanists believe that they can attain biological immortality through science, life extension, augmentation, mind uploading, etc. This a topic near-and-dear to my heart actually. If you'd care to understand a thorough treatment of the topic generally, then I recommend you pick up book related. > https://support.reasons.org/category/featured-products/humans-20-scientific-philosophical-and-theological-perspectives-on-transhumanism >Are they being misguided by Satan? Because I've heard some devout people say that Satan is tricking them. Satan is the Father of Lies, so yes. If he's involved in giving 'advice' to these people, you can be certain he's doing it deceptively, and with sinister intent.

>>2498 >How did this work? They never explain what that meant beyond insinuating normfag tier cronyism. That the content of what was written was sufficient to communicate the redemption and sanctification of man's nature and soul. >How does the book of Enoch fit into all of this? It wasn't part of the majority canon, not even of the expanded canon of the Septuagint used by the Greek Orthodox. The only church that has a version of it in their canon is the Ethiopian. Like most disputed texts, we only have fragments of an original manuscript and the rest is extant only in translation, so we cannot confirm what was authentic and what may have been editorial insertion. It was known to scholars and theologians throughout the early church but it was not seen as authoritative, either by Jews or Christians, to be counted with the remainder of the Old Testament or for any reason with the New. The qualities of what is doctrinal in the Christian religion were summarily expressed by the French monk Vincent of Lerins in 443: >Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. By these were the critical elements of Christian belief made canonical in the ecumenical councils, where the whole of the church met to determine what was their singleness of faith. Even heretics like Arius were invited to advocate for themselves. All orthodox Christians at the least accept the results of the first two ecumenical councils, which produced the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as a summary of the Christian religion. Depending on the denomination, they may dispute the third, fourth, or those beyond the seventh. After being made the state religion of the Roman Empire, religion was increasingly entangled in disputes of political power. In my personal judgement, this was at its own expense.

>>2499 >Satan is the Father of Lies, so yes. If he's involved in giving 'advice' to these people, you can be certain he's doing it deceptively, and with sinister intent. I don't believe Satan is advising these people. I don't want to assume anything about your stance, but let me ask something that's been on my mind. Transhumanism posits that someday soon we will be able to 'cure' the problems caused by aging, the pathologies that eventually cause us to die, and because of that we would be able to extend our lives indefinitely. If this becomes possible in the future, should we or should we not do it? Why or why not? If God allows us to take control of our biology in such a way then shouldn't we do it? After all Jesus himself healed the sick and curing aging would be the ultimate medical breakthrough in history. Should we not strive for indefinite longevity if God allows us?

>>2503 Different anon, btw. >I don't believe Satan is advising these people They don't necessarily have to be being advised personally by Satan. These people do however, think according a paradigm that can only be described as 'Satanic' in character, in that it is worldly and anti-God. And no, we shouldn't try to abolish death or anything. If anything, Christ coming in the flesh and recapitulating every state of life before Himself undergoing death has in a sense sanctified every stage of human life, and we too must undergo death at some point. There is nothing to fear about death if one has faith in Jesus Christ, because He has defeated its power over us, and will raise us and grant us true eternal life in incorruptible bodies. This will not happen through developments in this world. The idea of 'progress' is foreign to Christianity. In fact, we see degeneration if anything. The first men and women could live centuries at a time, and since then our lives have only been shortening, and humanity has been growing ever more stunted and alienated from the divine through our technological achievements and scientific advancements. Ultimately this drive is founded on a Satanic drive to 'become God', not realizing that the only way to become a 'god' is through the grace of God and union with Him, and sharing in His love in theosis. Humanity has been created in the image of God, and this is not merely referring to soul or consciousness. Transhumanist elites want to distort and destroy the image of God in mankind, and turn us into subhumans in both body and soul. Aging is not a sickness per se, it is a natural part of this life that we must all undergo. This world is a mere interlude.

>>2504 I see. Then, this is a set of beliefs that I can respect, but ultimately cannot cosign. Medicine is a practice that assuredly exists. If we continue advancing forward, which is as inevitable as the march of time, then that means we can extrapolate that the logical endpoint of medicine is to abolish all possible ailments of the body up to and including death itself. It is currently the status quo that all human beings age, and suffer more pain and sickness as they get older, eventually resulting in their deaths. From a simply humanitarian perspective this is a hideous and monstrous imposition on the human race and if we can cure it the same way we can cure any disease I believe that we simply must. Therefore I cannot cosign any set of beliefs that admonishes this most noble and humanitarian goal. However I respect your beliefs and I think the world is ultimately better for having you in it. But if this is truly how all of you feel about it, then I don't think I can walk the path with you. I still don't disbelieve there is a God though.

>>2505 This sort of modern idea of perpetual progress is without foundation, though. I think this sort of 19th and 20th century optimism has already been refuted in practice and has no legs to stand on, and it is solely kept afloat from propaganda from the government, scientists, sci-fi movies and entertainment in general. It's something people want to believe in, but there's no reason to believe it. The idea that this is even possible in the first place is questionable, let alone if it is desirable, because we all know that such technology would only end up in the hands of the elites, who would use it to rule over the 'cattle' for centuries at a time. When we keep in mind the fact that science is wracked with a crisis of replicability, especially in the fields of medicine and similar fields, it is even more humorous to read these sorts of optimistic predictions that it is 'inevitable' that we will become 'gods' eventually with complete control over ourselves, over nature, and over life and death. This is the end-goal, and this is why I called it Satanic. In science today over 60%+ of studies in some fields are completely irreplicable, and has become increasingly clear in the last year or so, the field is able to be bent to the whims of politics and various agendas. On top of this, the entire modern project has brought more net-misery to humanity than it has alleviated, and a look at how it is developed countries who have the highest rates of depression, anxiety, obesity, neurosis, suicides and other problems just underlines this, along with statistics showing that young people are more pessimistic about the future than ever, and that women are actually less happy than they were before 'women's liberation', not to mention the similar situation with men. People are more alienated than ever, feeling alone even within massive cities of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Along with all of this, the same elites promising you a future without aging and disease are the same ones actively destroying the planet, killing off plants and animals, polluting and trying to turn this entire planet into a disgusting filthy parking-lot and strip-mall. They want to control you more and more in every way imaginable, even gaining control over your own mind and body, turning you into a manufactured product. The future on this trajectory is not a deathless perfect utopia, but rather hell on earth, as has been the result of every ideology that has attempted to build heaven on earth, such as the communists, or the nazis, or now the modern capitalistic / liberal ideology. The world is just as fallen as ever.

>>2505 Nice wishful thinking schizo. You didn't even explain how your big brain is gonna abolish death itself lmao. Do you believe in santa clause too? Its a grave humanitarian crisis that kids don't get presents for christmas! This status quo must be stopped!

>the entire modern project has brought more net-misery to humanity than it has alleviated Or people could just not outlaw the very concept of retaliation and things would go back to normal overnight.... God does call one to defend thyself.

>>2509 I doubt it. The system relies on soft-power and controlling minds more than physically restraining people via laws.

>>2511 It's only a mater of time till that changes.

>>2507 All of this strikes me as an indication that we should only be picking up the pace in the march towards the post-singular future. One could argue that this is actually accelerating progress due to our desire to overcome the current state. If God wishes us not to pursue these technological solutions in earnest let him give us a clear sign.

>>2514 >All of this strikes me as an indication that we should only be picking up the pace in the march towards the post-singular future This is a cope brought about by ignoring God's Word and wishing to stay in a state of Satanic rebellion against Him. When you're doing things that are actively making the planet sick and polluted and humanity miserable, the thing to do is to stop doing those things, not to do it more and think that the problem with fix the problem.

>>2515 >When you're doing things that are actively making the planet sick and polluted and humanity miserable, the thing to do is to stop doing those things, not to do it more and think that the problem with fix the problem. I'm not doing any such thing. If you want to do something about pollution tell your societal overlords to stop outsourcing jobs to China and India and switch to nuclear power instead of getting up people's asses for not wanting to use paper straws.

>>2514 Technology has no end in itself.

>>2516 This doesn't fix the problems

>>2517 That is exactly the point. Truthfully I see no reason why Christianity and Transhumanist philosophy about an Omega Point cosmology can't both be true simultaneously, they both require an equal amount of faith and can both end up resulting in the same God being real.

>>2519 The end result of transhumanism is the destruction of man, whereas a core ethos in Christianity is that man, though fallen, is capable of redemption on its own accord (through the atonement of Christ). That is why for instance, though asceticism is praised in the church, the idea of pursuing it by an extreme measure like self-castration (as Origen, one of the great early theologians did) is censured. The Omega Point may be a nice conjecture, but it ultimately posits a wholly material God, a natural phenomenon with natural limitations. Why should humanity obey such a creature's sovereign will or ethos? If you want a more detailed opinikn on religion versus transhumanism, here's Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. Be aware however, he has rather eccentric views on many other subjects: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vNfEaZpE2mI

>>2519 >Truthfully I see no reason why Christianity and Transhumanist philosophy about an Omega Point cosmology can't both be true simultaneously Transhumanism cannot be reconciled with Christianity. Omega Point is based off evolution and modern progressive thought, which, as already said, are anti-Christian and have nothing to do with the revelation that God has given us. The world to come in Christianity is enacted via a sudden and decisive transformation from without by the power of God, it does not arise via development within the world. Evolution, transhumanism, etc. are all Satanic doctrines pushed by Jews, Masons, Jesuits and other evil individuals who want to distort and destroy the image of God within man. >they both require an equal amount of faith Any real Christian will know that God can be experienced right here and now through prayer and spiritual practices. And He has given us revelation through Scripture which contradicts everything about Transhumanism. Simple as that.

I've been thinking about what everybody has been saying about transhumanism. It's an interesting topic because it highlights an extremely important part of Christianity that is crucial to understand for anyone considering becoming a Christian. I'll admit I have not read books on the subject so I was reluctant to join the fray but there are a few things I cannot get out of my mind. I will probably need some help from you all towards a better understanding of transhumanism. >>2503 >>2505 You have in your mind an image of helping people. Of relieving their suffering and overcoming disabilities. Yes, certainly. Christ healed the sick and lame. He made the blind to see and even raised people from the dead. Partly this was to demonstrate that he was the real deal but it was also because Christ saw people in distress and had compassion on them. Many Christians have emulated this and non-Christians have done so no less. It appears to be a part of humanity to do this. In no way is this wrong. We ought to care for the sick. We ought to promote good health. We ought to apply our knowledge to help the disabled. I wear glasses. Without this augmentation I would not get far in the world. Are glasses wrong? Was Satan whispering into the ear of Snell? No, of course not. Medicine is a wonderful benefit to humans and has allowed millions of people to live out lives dedicated to loving others. I will not disparage it or even make a "too far" argument. Now we come to the crossroads. The seems to me to be the most important part of this topic but it hasn't been adequately explored in this thread. There is a question we must ask ourselves. It's a highly relevant question to the world today. What is the highest thing to pursue? For what can we sacrifice everything else? What would you die for? The answer of the world seems clear. Everything can be sacrificed for the sake of human lives and there is nothing we would exchange our lives for. This appears to be the answer of transhumanism also. The single, overriding goal is to prevent death. Or, put another way, human life is the fixation. If you want to see a world where this is the prevailing ethos, look out your window. We are not even allowed to get sick anymore. Our demonic elites, of course, don't believe this (they care about power) but the common man does. And since tyranny is enforced from the bottom up rather than the top down, this is now the law of the land. Saving lives is more important than God. More important than virtue. More important than loving your neighbour. More important than your family. Saving your life is more important than living your life. You may say that these are the growing pains: that once we have rid ourselves of aging things will be better. I do not think this is the case but you are the expert on transhumanism so you tell me. Are those who push and encourage this kind of thinking the same as those who inspire us with their endless toil to improve lives and make people well? When you read their writings, do you get the sense they are written by someone who loves humans and humanity or do you get the sense of someone who hates humanity and wants to be rid of it? Do they write with compassion for individual humans or do they write with grandeur for an abstract humanity? Again, I am not familiar with their works so I don't know. I do have my suspicions though. Christianity is not about healing the sick. We do not hold so tightly to our lives that we would sacrifice all else to save them. Our greatest concern is our sins which you can understand as things that harm our relationship with God and with other people. We are sinful people and our faults, if left unchecked, only grow stronger over time. Our pride turns from disdain of others to contempt. Our greed turns to consuming lust for money. Our virtues require constant upkeep whereas our vices pull us down with no effort on our part. We are fighting a losing battle. This is why, contrary to your statement that it is "a hideous and monstrous imposition," death is actually a mercy. It prevents us from ever reaching a point where we literally become demons and are unsaveable. Imagine if George Soros were immortal. If you think he's Satanic now, try again in a thousand years after he's been stewing on centuries of hatred.

>>2523 Our relationship with God is the one thing we will sacrifice all else for. Including our lives. In fact we have to. As Christians we must die to the world (meaning we reject all of the false Gods such as our selves) in order to live in Christ. Christianity is a religion of self-denial. You may have to deny yourself fulfillment of your passions. You may have to deny yourself the things you want. You may even be called to martyrdom (an increasingly likely prospect). I won't mince words here. I won't say that it's not as bad as it sounds or that I don't quite mean it that way. No, I do mean it that way and it's harder than it sounds. Everything I'm saying is nothing but clever words in the face of actually having to do it. THIS is the stumbling block. THIS is the narrow gate. There are actually no surprises in Christianity after this. If you can accept it, you will become a Christian. I say this not so that you will be scared off (although with full knowledge this is likely) but so that you aren't deceived into thinking Christianity is easier or less total than it is. Or you could join one of those fake Christianity megachurches that preach health and wealth. >>2503 >If God allows us to eat the fruit of knowledge then shouldn't we do it? I'm surprised no one has crucified you for this one. God gave us free will so that we may freely choose him. This means we can also choose evil. God doesn't step in when we make the wrong choice because that would work against the whole point of giving us free will in the first place. Being able to do something doesn't mean you should do it. >>2504 >Humanity has been created in the image of God, and this is not merely referring to soul or consciousness. Transhumanist elites want to distort and destroy the image of God in mankind, and turn us into subhumans in both body and soul. This is a good point and deserves more elaboration. Ideas of creating supermen always seem to result in submen. They always seem to involve removing something that makes us human.

Shall /christian/ do something for New Year's Eve?

>>583 Thanks, /christian/. Appreciate your kindness.

Merry Christmas, gents. Any good or useful books you wish to volunteer?

>>3260 Not exactly a book per se, but how about this one by C.S. Lewis (et al) as well, Anon? Merry Christmas! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM&list=PL9boiLqIabFhrqabptq3ThGdwNanr65xU --- >this section is for professionals only: :^) 1. Install this: https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/wiki/Installation 2. Issue this command: yt-dlp -i https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9boiLqIabFhrqabptq3ThGdwNanr65xU

>>3261 Splendid art, and quite useful. Thank you. Having an amusing account of Southern funeral tradition and church life in return. And why not the other Georgia too?

christ-chan is p cute ngl too bad i cant find decent r34 of her

CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM

>>3454 Merry Christmas, /christmas/.