If atheism is true why do elites worship satan

[VV62]

Why do they go to bohemian grove

Its just a frat for old rich farts bud

 

[enriquecuador]

Its just a frat for old rich farts bud

For sure goy

 

[Deleted member 161065]

This.


I have pointed this out and the Gaytheists go GAYmode as usual. Leave the Gaytheists to stupid slaves

Notice how the elites attack Christianity only. More proof Christianity is the only truth

I thought about this too. As an atheist I wonder why the elites are satanic

 

[kurd]

I did it cos your a Kurd and I like Kurds tbh good people very high IQ many leave Islam which proves their higher than avg IQ like other Iranic peoples. I’m about to shake you why your historically ignorant so ima give you a lesson in logic which is funny as your an atheist you can’t even give me an account for logic lol the irony

1 i call Othe religions gay because they are false. It’s an insult it’s not suppose to be an argument for my position it’s me saying what I think of other religions in one word.

2: ok once again I don’t think you get what I’m saying. So lemme explain the timeline. You have 2nd temple Judaism (what ancient Jews post 500-400 AD followed many within this scope followed diadic and even trinitarianesque formulas for example Phillips Alexandria a rabbi who mentions 2 divine persons in god. Judaism as YOU THINK OF IT is RABBINICAL JUDAISM which is BORN as a response to Christianity and comes out form 2nd temple Judaism. Do you know what else came out from 2nd temple Judaism… CHRISTIANITY .

What am I saying here? I’m saying that today we have 2 “Jewish Judaism” religions Christianity and RABBINIC Judaism. Both are BORN OUT OF 2ND TEMPLE JUDAISM I THINK YOU FORGET THE FIRST CHRISTIANS WERE ALLL JEWS AND THAT CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THAT WE STILL FOLLOW THAT BOOK.

Jesus began Christianity and fulfilled the prophecies foretold as it says in Zachariah the coming of the messiah will bring about a new coveneant one unlike any other before it, that covenant is the New Testament aka Christianity which is in line with ancient Jewish tradition. The apostles simply followed Jesus’s teachings nothing more nothing less THATS AN HISTORICAL FACT, Jesus says himself the New Testament only comes into light ONCE HE GOES BACK TO THE FATHER so ofc when Jesus was alive the mosaic covenant was still valid but once he died as JESUS HIMSELF SAID the new covenant come into motion.


Psalm 22 is about Jesus who else was pierced who else had lots counted for his garments who else was a “ransom for our sins” even pre 1st century Jewish rabbis like Jonathan Targum and Rabbi Ruth view Pslam 22 and Isiah 53 for example as messianic it’s only after Christ came Jews started coping and saying it isn’t about Jesus but about David or Isreal which makes no sense because Isiah 53 SAYS HE NEVER SINNED OR HURT ANYBODY and we all know the Jews all throughout Isiah speaks about the Jews sinning and being assholes if you want Bible verses I’ll send them but this is simply your ignorance and you regurgitating nonsensical rabbinic bullshit from idiot Jews who had to make up BS to cope. I mean there’s so many messianic passages the boom of wisdom 2 and 7, Pslam 2 proverbs 8 etc I can go on point is Jews are COPING HARD that’s why they don’t read the bible but their Talmud because the bible hurts them as they know they have done wrong


Once again don’t be a retard plz Christianity is a religion with clear cut parameters has always been. The neonates docetists, nazarines and others ARE NOTHING MORE THAN HERETICS, Gnostics are more like Manachians they go so off the board they are their own unique thing tbh.


Anyways point im making is that we have Apostollic succession the same way Muslims have isnad chains. The bishops they pass on the tradition handed down from Christ and the apostles unto the church I can show you 1st century church fathers and LITERAL DISCIPLES OFF THE APOSTLES SUCH AS POLYCARP AND ST IGNATUS SAYING WHAT IM SAYING Christianity has never been this massive Protestant style free for all with various interpretations, we have had one faith since its inception and many people unfortunately defected from Christianity and created their own nonsense like Gnosticism or tried to graft themselves to it like the Ebianites which were 1st century Jews who tried to wrestle with the prophecy in Zachariah 13 and Daniel 2 about the messiah coming before the 3rd temple being destroyed so they became quasi Christian’s but still followed The mosaic law (judiasers they get mocked by our church fathers like St John Chrystostom) and they denied Christs divinity but said we can ALL BECOME Christs

As I said Christianity always had clear cut rules and stipulations to be one of us, nothing like your stating you can read 1st century church fathers and the deciples of the apostles and what they say on the matter to educate yourself


And no this isn’t a “no true Scotsman” you failed miserably here buddy because im
Speaking about the parameters to be considered part of an ideology which made it clear from its inception there are strict guidelines and beliefs one must hold to to be part of the RELGION and ANY DEVIATION FROM THAT KICKS YOU FROM THE FAITH, your stupid attempt to graft groups that were always considered outside of Christianity by our ancient church fathers and apostles is an vain Attempt to devalue and mislead people about history or your simply historically ignorant on the topic in which case BE HUMBLE and I’ll teach you and show you the sources if you must to educate yourself on it.

1. “You can’t account for logic as an atheist”​

That’s just recycled presuppositionalism. Logic isn’t a thing you “account for,” it’s a tool we use to structure reasoning based on observations. It’s not proof of your God. If you think logic needs your particular version of the Christian God to exist, then you’re confusing existence with metaphysics. You’re assuming what you’re trying to prove.

2 Judaism vs. Christianity​

Yes, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism both evolved from Second Temple Judaism. You saying that doesn’t prove Christianity is the “correct” continuation it just means you’re one of many post Temple offshoots. The idea that Christianity is more valid because it kept some ancient traditions is like saying modern pagans are more legit than Hindus because they burn incense.

And no, Christianity is not “300 500 years older” than Rabbinic Judaism they both developed after the Temple was destroyed. Rabbinic Judaism didn’t suddenly appear in 800 CE, it gradually formed as the Jewish world adapted, just like early Christianity evolved and fractured.

---

3 Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Daniel, etc.​

You keep throwing around prophetic texts like they’re crystal-clear predictions of Jesus but that’s your interpretation. You’re not proving anything, you’re just saying “this matches what I already believe.” Jews the people who wrote these texts disagree. So either they misunderstood their own scriptures... or maybe you’re just cherrypicking and retrofitting. Happens in every religion. Muslims do it with the Bible too, you’d say they’re wrong. So why should anyone take your version as the ultimate truth?

---

4 “Christianity always had clear rules"​

Not really. Early Christianity was messy. The New Testament wasn’t even fully agreed on for centuries. Doctrines like the Trinity weren’t formalized until the 4th century. Apostolic succession is a nice idea, but it doesn’t erase the fact that tons of groups all claimed to represent “true” Christianity from the beginning. You calling everyone else “heretics” doesn’t erase the fact they existed and called themselves Christians too. You’re literally just doing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy and denying it in the same breath.

If all of this is the best argument for why your version of Christianity is the only true one, then I’m more convinced than ever that religion is built more on pride and tradition than truth ngl

 

[enriquecuador]

I thought about this too. As an atheist I wonder why the elites are satanic

Doubt they would do it all as a “joke” or a “tradition” lol they don’t care about that kind of bs

 

[VV62]

For sure goy

Are you a christian?

 

[VV62]

I thought about this too. As an atheist I wonder why the elites are satanic

Why do you think the elites have had some divine revelation or that they are right even if they do worship satan?

 

[canthus]

Nigger believes in god

 

[Deleted member 161065]

Why do you think the elites have had some divine revelation or that they are right even if they do worship satan?

I don't think they are "right". But why would they believe in it and coincidentally be at the top if it's just bullshit?

 

[crazyguy]

If atheism is true, if the world was created by a big bang

Why do serious business men/influential people worship satan

Why do they go to bohemian grove

Why do they perform satanic rituals at concerts and at parties

Is it all just a joke?

It’s all a bit of fun, right goy?

Those aren't the real elites, they're just puppets for the people above them. What if they're being told to worship satan to make us peasants think this is what's happening behind the curtains? They make you know about bohemian grove on purpose because they wouldn't ever show what the true elites are really doing, if you think about it
everything you know is controlled to fit a certain agenda

 

[VV62]

I don't think they are "right". But why would they believe in it and coincidentally be at the top if it's just bullshit?

They believed shit like alchemy in the past and divine kings doesn't make them right and if divine punishment was that cruel why would they risk it for temporary riches

 

[Deleted member 161065]

They believed shit like alchemy in the past and divine kings doesn't make them right and if divine punishment was that cruel why would they risk it for temporary riches

Yes, but they believed in it because everyone did. Nowadays you would think they are atheist, no?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

1. “You can’t account for logic as an atheist”​

That’s just recycled presuppositionalism. Logic isn’t a thing you “account for,” it’s a tool we use to structure reasoning based on observations. It’s not proof of your God. If you think logic needs your particular version of the Christian God to exist, then you’re confusing existence with metaphysics. You’re assuming what you’re trying to prove.

2 Judaism vs. Christianity​

Yes, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism both evolved from Second Temple Judaism. You saying that doesn’t prove Christianity is the “correct” continuation it just means you’re one of many post Temple offshoots. The idea that Christianity is more valid because it kept some ancient traditions is like saying modern pagans are more legit than Hindus because they burn incense.

And no, Christianity is not “300 500 years older” than Rabbinic Judaism they both developed after the Temple was destroyed. Rabbinic Judaism didn’t suddenly appear in 800 CE, it gradually formed as the Jewish world adapted, just like early Christianity evolved and fractured.

---

3 Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Daniel, etc.​

You keep throwing around prophetic texts like they’re crystal-clear predictions of Jesus but that’s your interpretation. You’re not proving anything, you’re just saying “this matches what I already believe.” Jews the people who wrote these texts disagree. So either they misunderstood their own scriptures... or maybe you’re just cherrypicking and retrofitting. Happens in every religion. Muslims do it with the Bible too, you’d say they’re wrong. So why should anyone take your version as the ultimate truth?

---

4 “Christianity always had clear rules"​

Not really. Early Christianity was messy. The New Testament wasn’t even fully agreed on for centuries. Doctrines like the Trinity weren’t formalized until the 4th century. Apostolic succession is a nice idea, but it doesn’t erase the fact that tons of groups all claimed to represent “true” Christianity from the beginning. You calling everyone else “heretics” doesn’t erase the fact they existed and called themselves Christians too. You’re literally just doing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy and denying it in the same breath.

If all of this is the best argument for why your version of Christianity is the only true one, then I’m more convinced than ever that religion is built more on pride and tradition than truth ngl

So you did a lot of strawmans. Very disappointed in you, you jump to conclusion's about things I never even concluded, this is a typical device I have noticed you use when dialogue with others to seem smart but honestly it just makes you look intellectually inept that you can’t comprehend what your opponents saying. Word of advice Next time don’t put words into people’s mouths it never ends well .



But the logic thing is a transcendental catagory the MAIN reason why Christianity is true is because only the Christian paradigm can account for these without falling into illogical incoherency and contradiction. The other turf I wrote was a reply to your reply to that retard Roman Catholic you was replying 2. I don’t use the Bible on its own as a proof for Christianity especially to a GAYtheist but once again you jump to conclusions nobody made see how it makes you look

1 LOGIC AS AN GAYTHEIST IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR:
You’re avoiding the issue. The problem isn’t that logic is a tool that we use, I also agree it is but rather what justifies our ability to use it universally, immutably, and abstractly in the first place. If logic is merely a human invention based on observation, then it’s contingent it could have been otherwise. But logic, by its very nature, is not contingent. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, doesn’t stop being true in some cultures or galaxies. It’s a universal, immaterial truth. But if you’re an atheist and hold to strict naturalism or materialism, what are you grounding these immaterial and universal realities in? Molecules don’t produce immaterial universals.

So, no, I’m not confusing metaphysics with existence (which is ironic as existence in of itself is a domain of metaphysics but ofc you don’t know that like you don’t know history, or church history and that religions and groups have clear cut and defined criteria that need to be met to be a member of) I’m pointing out that your worldview doesn’t account for the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of logic. In a Christian worldview, logic reflects the consistent and orderly nature of God’s mind. That’s why logic is universal, immaterial, and invariant, because it is grounded in a God who is all-knowing, eternal, and unchanging.

Once again you jump the boat and say I’m ‘assuming what I’m trying to prove,’ but im simply actually asking you to consistently explain how your worldview justifies logical absolutes without borrowing from mine. You’re using logic, but your worldview gives no basis for why such a thing should exist, be trustworthy, or apply universally. That’s not circularity on my end it’s internal critique of your position. I have given my account you can’t give your account which shows your worldview is either incomplete or illogical unironically


2 RABBINICAL JUDAISM VS CHRISTIANITY: Ok once again showing your historical illiteracy once again ok bro you realise Christianity began before the destruction of the 2nd temple right? You realise Paul’s letters can go back to 40-50s right? This is why I told you to be humble but you’re not humble. By the time of the 2nd temple destruction by Titus Christianity was already spread around the empire. Rabbinical Judaism only began around post 70AD at Yavneh as a response to the 2nd temple collapse which I doubt you even know about because once again your historically illiterate.

Rabbinical and Christianity whilst true both come from 2nd temple Judaism both aren’t equally evolutions as your implying. Christianity is a fulfilment of the prophets a complete guide of the past of God it doesn’t claim to be an adaptation or a reinterpretation unlike rabbinic Judaism which I exampled by showing you pre rabbinical Judaic rabbis agree that Isiah 53 and Pslam 22 are all messianic showing Jewish Cope.

And now you strawman me once again, now ima make you look dumb again (see this is why I told you to be humble and not strawman in your attempt to look smart you fucked yourself over) I never claimed Christianity is ‘truer’ because it uses ancient symbols the claim is that Christianity is the continuation promised within the Old Testament. Jesus is the Messiah anticipated by Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms and that claim is made within the Jewish framework, not alongside it. Early Christians weren’t inventing a new religion they were proclaiming that the long-awaited promises of Israel had been fulfilled. Hence why all the apostles were Jews. Rabbinic Judaism is actually the offshoot, formed to fill the void left by rejecting the Messiah and losing the Temple system that had defined biblical Judaism for centuries which even rabbinics admit in the Talmud itself as post-Temple Judaism is not the same as the biblical faith of Moses (e.g. Sanhedrin 11b talks about the end of prophecy, meaning the direct connection to God was broken which can’t happpen until the messiah comes Zach 13 & Daniel 9 )


3 Pslam 22, Isiah etc:
You keep saying ‘that’s your interpretation’ like it’s some sort of trump card but interpretation is unavoidable there is no theory neural position including YOURS. There is no such thing as a ‘neutral’ reading of Scripture your secular assumptions are just as loaded as mine are theologically. So pretending you’re sitting on some objective, theory-free hill is dishonest or just naive.

Jews disagree with Christian’s that’s true but that doesn’t mean a refutation. The question here is which one better explains and aligns with the full textual and historical evidence? Rabbinic Judaism has to reinterpret and sometimes outright suppress what their own texts say to avoid what Christians saw clearly. And I can prove it.

Masoretic Alteration of the Hebrew Bible EVERY IMPORTANT READ THIS BEFORE SPOUTING RABBINIC BULLSHIT AGAIN:
We know that some post Christian Jewish scribes altered or reinterpreted passages to avoid messianic readings that supported Jesus. For example:

• Isaiah 53:5 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsa) and Nahal Hever fragments reads: “He was pierced for our transgressions.” (Karu)
  But in later Masoretic manuscripts, the reading is altered slightly to remove the overt personhood and suffering imagery subtly favouring a national reading saying “Like a lion” (Kari) which is It’s grammatically broken .
• The Masoretes (9th–10th century AD) finalised the text through a post-Christian, Rabbinic lens, suppressing messianic implications. This is confirmed by comparing the Septuagint (LXX) and DSS, both predating Rabbinic Judaism.

Isaiah 53 Cannot Be About Israel:

You claim that Isaiah 53 is a “retrofit” ai you can ignore the Internal consistency of the message purposely because your either a Jew or once again historically and religiously illiterate.

• The “Suffering Servant” is portrayed as innocent, voluntarily suffering, silent, and dying for the sins of others — not being punished for his own guilt.
  But Israel is constantly portrayed as sinful, punished for their own iniquities throughout the Tanakh (see Isaiah 1, 5, Jeremiah 2, Ezekiel 16).
  The Servant is “cut off from the land of the living for the transgression of my people” (Isaiah 53:8) — that explicitly distinguishes the Servant from Israel.
• Why did Jews invent the concept of two messiahs Messiah ben Joseph (the suffering one) and Messiah ben David (the ruling king)? Because they couldn’t square the suffering and glory in one figure. That’s a theological Band-Aid that only proves the tension Christians resolve in Christ. Jews btw have no response to this contention I have asked I went to a Jewish school and the rabbi had bo response

Before Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism crystallised, many Jews already interpreted Isaiah 53 and other prophecies messianically:

• The Targum Jonathan (early Aramaic paraphrase of the prophets) reads Isaiah 52:13 as:
  “Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper…”
  That’s a Jewish source admitting the Servant is the Messiah — before Christians ever used the passage.
• The Dead Sea Scrolls contain 4Q541, which describes a messianic figure who will be rejected, suffer, and heal others — very close to Jesus-like imagery.

Daniel 7:13-14 describes “one like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven” — and this figure is given glory, worship, and dominion over all nations forever.

• Even Rashi (11th century) and Maimonides (Rambam) admitted this was a messianic figure.
• But the text clearly shows two distinct divine persons — the “Ancient of Days” and “Son of Man.”
  Worshipping anyone other than God is idolatry in Judaism — yet this figure is worshipped by all peoples (Aramaic: pelach – a term used exclusively for divine worship in Daniel).

How does Rabbinic Judaism account for this without violating its own monotheism? It doesn’t. It spiritualises or sidesteps it. Proving my point from the beginning, we disagree but disagreement doesn’t == refutation or equality of reason.

4 BUH MUSLIMS DO IT 2
Yes, Muslims claim the Bible points to Muhammad but their own Qur’an was written 600+ years later, in a different language, with no consistent textual basis and a different book with different stories of the prophets it’s a fan fiction at best and a gnostic retelling at worst.nChristianity, by contrast, emerged from within Second Temple Judaism, using its own texts, its own prophecies, in their own language, to make its claims. The early Christians were Jews. The apostles were Jews. The first 3,000 converts (Acts 2) were Jews (something you idiots seem to always forget) because they saw Jesus as the fulfilment, not an outsider. Their argument wasn’t one of faith but one of a claimed experience with the risen Christ himself not the same thing once again.




TLDR for this section: The burden is on you to explain why ancient Jews before Christianity interpreted these passages as messianic — and why later Jews had to change, avoid, or invent new messiahs to deal with them. Also you ain’t ‘disproving’ anything by saying ‘that’s just your interpretation, you are interpreting just as much as I am you’re just doing it based on a presupposition that Jesus can’t be the Messiah because you hold a personal bias and want Christianity to be false hence why a non Jew is clinging so hard onto rabbinic interpretation which is circular reasoning.




5 CHRISTIANITY ALWAYS HAD CLEAR RULES
Final part is a lot to unpack so many inaccurate fallacious rediculous historically illiterate points I literally don’t think I’ll fit all of it into this message you outdid yourself

You’re parroting a popular but historically lazy argument from fellow retards. Sure, early Christianity dealt with competing sects and had to articulate its theology more precisely over time. But the claim that Christianity had no clear rules in the beginning is simply false and the Church Fathers, especially those who were disciples of the apostles themselves, outright reject that idea. The boundary markers of Christian identity were present from the beginning those stepping outside were already being called heretics.

Even using the Bible we see this
1 John 4:1-3 – “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world… Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”
From the apostolic era itself, there was a litmus test for orthodoxy the Incarnation, Christ’s divinity, and fidelity to apostolic teaching.

Galatians 1:8-9 – “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be accursed!”
Paul condemns deviation from the original apostolic message, affirming a clearly defined gospel from the start. But ofc your illiterate so I have to teach you like a baby

And I knew your dumbass would fall for the “no true Scotsman fallacy” I literally refuted this in my last message to you and your dumbass still took the bait. Calling others “heretics” is the No True Scotsman fallacy. But you’re misusing the fallacy. It’s not fallacious if the group had objective standards from the beginning which they did; this isn’t rocket science. The early Church was unified in teaching, worship, and structure — guided by apostolic authority which is still only found in the Eastern Orthodox Church which still adheres to the ancient church. The only thing you have done is prove that heretics had to DEVIATE FROM ALREADY ESTABLISHED DOGMA. It’s not pride or tradition it’s history, and it’s truth. If you want to challenge the faith, do it honestly not with recycled Reddit-tier takes that ignore the mountain of first and second century testimony and evidence




Here are 2 disciples of the APOSTLES themselves stating what I have been saying seeing as your a fucking moron I’ll cite them

Ignatius of Antioch
(c. 35–110 AD)
— disciple of John the Apostle:
“Do not be deceived, my brethren: if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If anyone walks in strange doctrine, he is not in accord with the Passion.” (Letter to the Philadelphians, ch. 3)

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)
Ignatius explicitly taught apostolic authority, Eucharistic theology, and ecclesial unity as the standard of true Christianity in the 1st century, not the 4th.





Irenaeus of Lyons
(c. 130–202 AD)
— student of Polycarp (Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle)
“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith… as if she had but one soul and the same heart.” (Against Heresies, I.10.1)
“It is within the power of all… to ascertain the truth, which is clearly shown by all the Church, if they are willing to follow the tradition which comes from the apostles.” (Against Heresies, III.3.1)
Irenaeus names and dismantles heretics like Valentinus and Marcion and grounds Christian identity in apostolic succession and the universal tradition of the Church — long before Constantine or Nicea.


MUH cannon Nicea durp durp retard go reeee:
You’re conflating the formal canonisation of the New Testament with its actual use and authority. The early Church already knew which texts were authentic and apostolic:
By mid-2nd century, most of the New Testament was being read as Scripture in churches ( Muratorian Fragment, c. 170 AD). Clement of Rome (Bishop and then pope) (c. 96 AD), Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr quote from the Gospels, Paul’s letters, Acts, and Revelation as Scripture.

TRUNITY WAS MADE UP IN NICEA DURP DURP RETARD ALERT DERP:

The word “Trinity” was formalised at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), but the doctrine is already found in Scripture and affirmed by the earliest Fathers:

Ignatius speaks of “our God, Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:1).

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) talks about the Father, Son, and Spirit in worship.
Tertullian (c. 200 AD) coined the word “Trinitas” — decades before Nicaea — and explicitly defends Christ’s divinity and the unity of the Godhead.

Polycarp of Smyrna
(c. 69–155 AD)
— also a disciple of John:
He calls those who deny the faith “the firstborn of Satan” and encourages fidelity to the faith handed down from the apostles.
In his Letter to the Philippians, he echoes New Testament texts almost word for word affirming continuity with the apostolic gospel.


@iblamexyz
@Hernan
@enriquecuador
@Iraniancel
@trvechud
Not saying to read it all but understand these gay faggot tier arguments from the Gaytheists like the guy I am debating can easily be countered and refuted by simply knowing
History and not falling for atheist tier meme arguments from illiterate ignorant morons

 

[kurd]

So you did a lot of strawmans. Very disappointed in you, you jump to conclusion's about things I never even concluded, this is a typical device I have noticed you use when dialogue with others to seem smart but honestly it just makes you look intellectually inept that you can’t comprehend what your opponents saying. Word of advice Next time don’t put words into people’s mouths it never ends well .



But the logic thing is a transcendental catagory the MAIN reason why Christianity is true is because only the Christian paradigm can account for these without falling into illogical incoherency and contradiction. The other turf I wrote was a reply to your reply to that retard Roman Catholic you was replying 2. I don’t use the Bible on its own as a proof for Christianity especially to a GAYtheist but once again you jump to conclusions nobody made see how it makes you look

1 LOGIC AS AN GAYTHEIST IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR:
You’re avoiding the issue. The problem isn’t that logic is a tool that we use, I also agree it is but rather what justifies our ability to use it universally, immutably, and abstractly in the first place. If logic is merely a human invention based on observation, then it’s contingent it could have been otherwise. But logic, by its very nature, is not contingent. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, doesn’t stop being true in some cultures or galaxies. It’s a universal, immaterial truth. But if you’re an atheist and hold to strict naturalism or materialism, what are you grounding these immaterial and universal realities in? Molecules don’t produce immaterial universals.

So, no, I’m not confusing metaphysics with existence (which is ironic as existence in of itself is a domain of metaphysics but ofc you don’t know that like you don’t know history, or church history and that religions and groups have clear cut and defined criteria that need to be met to be a member of) I’m pointing out that your worldview doesn’t account for the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of logic. In a Christian worldview, logic reflects the consistent and orderly nature of God’s mind. That’s why logic is universal, immaterial, and invariant, because it is grounded in a God who is all-knowing, eternal, and unchanging.

Once again you jump the boat and say I’m ‘assuming what I’m trying to prove,’ but im simply actually asking you to consistently explain how your worldview justifies logical absolutes without borrowing from mine. You’re using logic, but your worldview gives no basis for why such a thing should exist, be trustworthy, or apply universally. That’s not circularity on my end it’s internal critique of your position. I have given my account you can’t give your account which shows your worldview is either incomplete or illogical unironically


2 RABBINICAL JUDAISM VS CHRISTIANITY: Ok once again showing your historical illiteracy once again ok bro you realise Christianity began before the destruction of the 2nd temple right? You realise Paul’s letters can go back to 40-50s right? This is why I told you to be humble but you’re not humble. By the time of the 2nd temple destruction by Titus Christianity was already spread around the empire. Rabbinical Judaism only began around post 70AD at Yavneh as a response to the 2nd temple collapse which I doubt you even know about because once again your historically illiterate.

Rabbinical and Christianity whilst true both come from 2nd temple Judaism both aren’t equally evolutions as your implying. Christianity is a fulfilment of the prophets a complete guide of the past of God it doesn’t claim to be an adaptation or a reinterpretation unlike rabbinic Judaism which I exampled by showing you pre rabbinical Judaic rabbis agree that Isiah 53 and Pslam 22 are all messianic showing Jewish Cope.

And now you strawman me once again, now ima make you look dumb again (see this is why I told you to be humble and not strawman in your attempt to look smart you fucked yourself over) I never claimed Christianity is ‘truer’ because it uses ancient symbols the claim is that Christianity is the continuation promised within the Old Testament. Jesus is the Messiah anticipated by Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms and that claim is made within the Jewish framework, not alongside it. Early Christians weren’t inventing a new religion they were proclaiming that the long-awaited promises of Israel had been fulfilled. Hence why all the apostles were Jews. Rabbinic Judaism is actually the offshoot, formed to fill the void left by rejecting the Messiah and losing the Temple system that had defined biblical Judaism for centuries which even rabbinics admit in the Talmud itself as post-Temple Judaism is not the same as the biblical faith of Moses (e.g. Sanhedrin 11b talks about the end of prophecy, meaning the direct connection to God was broken which can’t happpen until the messiah comes Zach 13 & Daniel 9 )


3 Pslam 22, Isiah etc:
You keep saying ‘that’s your interpretation’ like it’s some sort of trump card but interpretation is unavoidable there is no theory neural position including YOURS. There is no such thing as a ‘neutral’ reading of Scripture your secular assumptions are just as loaded as mine are theologically. So pretending you’re sitting on some objective, theory-free hill is dishonest or just naive.

Jews disagree with Christian’s that’s true but that doesn’t mean a refutation. The question here is which one better explains and aligns with the full textual and historical evidence? Rabbinic Judaism has to reinterpret and sometimes outright suppress what their own texts say to avoid what Christians saw clearly. And I can prove it.

Masoretic Alteration of the Hebrew Bible EVERY IMPORTANT READ THIS BEFORE SPOUTING RABBINIC BULLSHIT AGAIN:
We know that some post Christian Jewish scribes altered or reinterpreted passages to avoid messianic readings that supported Jesus. For example:

• Isaiah 53:5 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsa) and Nahal Hever fragments reads: “He was pierced for our transgressions.” (Karu)
  But in later Masoretic manuscripts, the reading is altered slightly to remove the overt personhood and suffering imagery subtly favouring a national reading saying “Like a lion” (Kari) which is It’s grammatically broken .
• The Masoretes (9th–10th century AD) finalised the text through a post-Christian, Rabbinic lens, suppressing messianic implications. This is confirmed by comparing the Septuagint (LXX) and DSS, both predating Rabbinic Judaism.

Isaiah 53 Cannot Be About Israel:

You claim that Isaiah 53 is a “retrofit” ai you can ignore the Internal consistency of the message purposely because your either a Jew or once again historically and religiously illiterate.

• The “Suffering Servant” is portrayed as innocent, voluntarily suffering, silent, and dying for the sins of others — not being punished for his own guilt.
  But Israel is constantly portrayed as sinful, punished for their own iniquities throughout the Tanakh (see Isaiah 1, 5, Jeremiah 2, Ezekiel 16).
  The Servant is “cut off from the land of the living for the transgression of my people” (Isaiah 53:8) — that explicitly distinguishes the Servant from Israel.
• Why did Jews invent the concept of two messiahs Messiah ben Joseph (the suffering one) and Messiah ben David (the ruling king)? Because they couldn’t square the suffering and glory in one figure. That’s a theological Band-Aid that only proves the tension Christians resolve in Christ. Jews btw have no response to this contention I have asked I went to a Jewish school and the rabbi had bo response

Before Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism crystallised, many Jews already interpreted Isaiah 53 and other prophecies messianically:

• The Targum Jonathan (early Aramaic paraphrase of the prophets) reads Isaiah 52:13 as:
  “Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper…”
  That’s a Jewish source admitting the Servant is the Messiah — before Christians ever used the passage.
• The Dead Sea Scrolls contain 4Q541, which describes a messianic figure who will be rejected, suffer, and heal others — very close to Jesus-like imagery.

Daniel 7:13-14 describes “one like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven” — and this figure is given glory, worship, and dominion over all nations forever.

• Even Rashi (11th century) and Maimonides (Rambam) admitted this was a messianic figure.
• But the text clearly shows two distinct divine persons — the “Ancient of Days” and “Son of Man.”
  Worshipping anyone other than God is idolatry in Judaism — yet this figure is worshipped by all peoples (Aramaic: pelach – a term used exclusively for divine worship in Daniel).

How does Rabbinic Judaism account for this without violating its own monotheism? It doesn’t. It spiritualises or sidesteps it. Proving my point from the beginning, we disagree but disagreement doesn’t == refutation or equality of reason.

4 BUH MUSLIMS DO IT 2
Yes, Muslims claim the Bible points to Muhammad but their own Qur’an was written 600+ years later, in a different language, with no consistent textual basis and a different book with different stories of the prophets it’s a fan fiction at best and a gnostic retelling at worst.nChristianity, by contrast, emerged from within Second Temple Judaism, using its own texts, its own prophecies, in their own language, to make its claims. The early Christians were Jews. The apostles were Jews. The first 3,000 converts (Acts 2) were Jews (something you idiots seem to always forget) because they saw Jesus as the fulfilment, not an outsider. Their argument wasn’t one of faith but one of a claimed experience with the risen Christ himself not the same thing once again.




TLDR for this section: The burden is on you to explain why ancient Jews before Christianity interpreted these passages as messianic — and why later Jews had to change, avoid, or invent new messiahs to deal with them. Also you ain’t ‘disproving’ anything by saying ‘that’s just your interpretation, you are interpreting just as much as I am you’re just doing it based on a presupposition that Jesus can’t be the Messiah because you hold a personal bias and want Christianity to be false hence why a non Jew is clinging so hard onto rabbinic interpretation which is circular reasoning.




5 CHRISTIANITY ALWAYS HAD CLEAR RULES
Final part is a lot to unpack so many inaccurate fallacious rediculous historically illiterate points I literally don’t think I’ll fit all of it into this message you outdid yourself

You’re parroting a popular but historically lazy argument from fellow retards. Sure, early Christianity dealt with competing sects and had to articulate its theology more precisely over time. But the claim that Christianity had no clear rules in the beginning is simply false and the Church Fathers, especially those who were disciples of the apostles themselves, outright reject that idea. The boundary markers of Christian identity were present from the beginning those stepping outside were already being called heretics.

Even using the Bible we see this
1 John 4:1-3 – “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world… Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”
From the apostolic era itself, there was a litmus test for orthodoxy the Incarnation, Christ’s divinity, and fidelity to apostolic teaching.

Galatians 1:8-9 – “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be accursed!”
Paul condemns deviation from the original apostolic message, affirming a clearly defined gospel from the start. But ofc your illiterate so I have to teach you like a baby

And I knew your dumbass would fall for the “no true Scotsman fallacy” I literally refuted this in my last message to you and your dumbass still took the bait. Calling others “heretics” is the No True Scotsman fallacy. But you’re misusing the fallacy. It’s not fallacious if the group had objective standards from the beginning which they did; this isn’t rocket science. The early Church was unified in teaching, worship, and structure — guided by apostolic authority which is still only found in the Eastern Orthodox Church which still adheres to the ancient church. The only thing you have done is prove that heretics had to DEVIATE FROM ALREADY ESTABLISHED DOGMA. It’s not pride or tradition it’s history, and it’s truth. If you want to challenge the faith, do it honestly not with recycled Reddit-tier takes that ignore the mountain of first and second century testimony and evidence




Here are 2 disciples of the APOSTLES themselves stating what I have been saying seeing as your a fucking moron I’ll cite them

Ignatius of Antioch
(c. 35–110 AD)
— disciple of John the Apostle:
“Do not be deceived, my brethren: if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If anyone walks in strange doctrine, he is not in accord with the Passion.” (Letter to the Philadelphians, ch. 3)

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)
Ignatius explicitly taught apostolic authority, Eucharistic theology, and ecclesial unity as the standard of true Christianity in the 1st century, not the 4th.





Irenaeus of Lyons
(c. 130–202 AD)
— student of Polycarp (Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle)
“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith… as if she had but one soul and the same heart.” (Against Heresies, I.10.1)
“It is within the power of all… to ascertain the truth, which is clearly shown by all the Church, if they are willing to follow the tradition which comes from the apostles.” (Against Heresies, III.3.1)
Irenaeus names and dismantles heretics like Valentinus and Marcion and grounds Christian identity in apostolic succession and the universal tradition of the Church — long before Constantine or Nicea.


MUH cannon Nicea durp durp retard go reeee:
You’re conflating the formal canonisation of the New Testament with its actual use and authority. The early Church already knew which texts were authentic and apostolic:
By mid-2nd century, most of the New Testament was being read as Scripture in churches ( Muratorian Fragment, c. 170 AD). Clement of Rome (Bishop and then pope) (c. 96 AD), Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr quote from the Gospels, Paul’s letters, Acts, and Revelation as Scripture.

TRUNITY WAS MADE UP IN NICEA DURP DURP RETARD ALERT DERP:

The word “Trinity” was formalised at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), but the doctrine is already found in Scripture and affirmed by the earliest Fathers:

Ignatius speaks of “our God, Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:1).

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) talks about the Father, Son, and Spirit in worship.
Tertullian (c. 200 AD) coined the word “Trinitas” — decades before Nicaea — and explicitly defends Christ’s divinity and the unity of the Godhead.

Polycarp of Smyrna
(c. 69–155 AD)
— also a disciple of John:
He calls those who deny the faith “the firstborn of Satan” and encourages fidelity to the faith handed down from the apostles.
In his Letter to the Philippians, he echoes New Testament texts almost word for word affirming continuity with the apostolic gospel.


@iblamexyz
@Hernan
@enriquecuador
@Iraniancel
@trvechud
Not saying to read it all but understand these gay faggot tier arguments from the Gaytheists like the guy I am debating can easily be countered and refuted by simply knowing
History and not falling for atheist tier meme arguments from illiterate ignorant morons

You’re out here typing lol every few sentences like that’s a mic drop while half the stuff you said is just repetition of presupp nonsense mixed with church history cherrypicking and self congratulatory fan fiction. Let’s go piece by piece:

1. TAG & Logic:

You keep screaming “GAYtheists can’t account for logic!!” like that’s some kind of final boss argument. Bro, all you’re doing is assuming logic needs to be “accounted for” by your God to exist. That’s your starting point, not a conclusion. Classic circular reasoning with extra smug on top.

“If logic exists, it must reflect God’s mind!!”

That’s not proof, that’s assertion. And nah, logic doesn’t need to be “grounded” in a divine being to be valid. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive it maps the structure of how reality behaves and how rational minds understand it. No one needs to “borrow” your worldview to use it. You didn’t invent logic.

Also: immaterial ≠ supernatural. Try again.

2. Rabbinic Judaism vs Christianity:

You're so desperate to make Christianity look like the “true” continuation of ancient Judaism that you’re rewriting timelines in real time. Bro said “rabbinic Judaism is a response to Christianity” you forgetting that Christianity LITERALLY grew out of the same 2nd Temple Jewish scene as all the other Jewish sects did?

Christianity isn’t “older” it’s just one branch that took a radical turn claiming their guy was the messiah. That’s it. You saying Jews “coping” because they didn’t buy it doesn’t change that. They rejected Jesus not because they were blindbut because he didn’t match the messianic expectations from their own texts. You just reinterpreted everything after the fact to force the fit. That’s not prophecy that’s retrofitting.

Dead Sea Scrolls? Septuagint? Cool. You know what they also prove? That Judaism was diverse af back then. Different messianic expectations, different interpretations, different sects. You didn’t fulfill anything you just made a theological claim and then pretended it was obvious all along.

Also hilarious you say Jews invented Messiah ben Joseph because they “couldn’t square the suffering and the glory.” Like… bro… YOU’RE the one who split God into three persons to make your doctrine work, and you’re clowning Jews for trying to make theological sense of complex prophecy? Stop projecting.

3. “That’s just your interpretation” = cope?

Lmao you say “everyone has interpretations” but then act like YOURS is the objective default. That’s the whole problem. You’re acting like quoting Ignatius and Irenaeus automatically ends the debate when all it does is show what your side believed at the time not that it was divinely revealed. That’s just you appealing to authority while pretending it’s evidence.

If quoting early Christians made Christianity true, then quoting early Buddhists would make Buddhism true too. But I doubt you’re gonna convert because someone linked you to a 1st-century monk.

4. Christianity always had clear rules?

You literally just copy pasted stuff like “heresy existed so that means orthodoxy was already defined” like that proves your point. No bro it just proves people disagreed, and the people in power decided who was in and who was out. That’s not divine authority that’s historical gatekeeping.

And yeah, early bishops wrote letters saying “yo these dudes are wrong.” But so what? Every religion has gatekeepers. That’s what happens when humans organize belief. That’s not proof of truth that’s proof of structure.

5. Final cope: "you're just a historically illiterate Reddit atheist"

Nah bro, what I am is someone who isn’t impressed by walls of selfcongratulatory text that assume everything you believe is already correct. You’re throwing quotes, scriptures, patristic sources, and jfl emojis like it’s a kill combo, but all you’re doing is dodging the actual issue:

Your entire worldview is built on assuming your scripture is divine, your tradition is true, and everyone else is just rebelling or coping. That’s not argument that’s presupp dogma with a superiority complex.

So yeah, I’ll pass on the theological LARPing. You can keep calling people gay and illiterate if it helps you sleep at night, but don’t act like you’re out here dropping undeniable truth bombs. You’re just really loud and really convinced.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

You’re out here typing lol every few sentences like that’s a mic drop while half the stuff you said is just repetition of presupp nonsense mixed with church history cherrypicking and self congratulatory fan fiction. Let’s go piece by piece:

1. TAG & Logic:

You keep screaming “GAYtheists can’t account for logic!!” like that’s some kind of final boss argument. Bro, all you’re doing is assuming logic needs to be “accounted for” by your God to exist. That’s your starting point, not a conclusion. Classic circular reasoning with extra smug on top.


That’s not proof, that’s assertion. And nah, logic doesn’t need to be “grounded” in a divine being to be valid. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive it maps the structure of how reality behaves and how rational minds understand it. No one needs to “borrow” your worldview to use it. You didn’t invent logic.

Also: immaterial ≠ supernatural. Try again.

2. Rabbinic Judaism vs Christianity:

You're so desperate to make Christianity look like the “true” continuation of ancient Judaism that you’re rewriting timelines in real time. Bro said “rabbinic Judaism is a response to Christianity” you forgetting that Christianity LITERALLY grew out of the same 2nd Temple Jewish scene as all the other Jewish sects did?

Christianity isn’t “older” it’s just one branch that took a radical turn claiming their guy was the messiah. That’s it. You saying Jews “coping” because they didn’t buy it doesn’t change that. They rejected Jesus not because they were blindbut because he didn’t match the messianic expectations from their own texts. You just reinterpreted everything after the fact to force the fit. That’s not prophecy that’s retrofitting.

Dead Sea Scrolls? Septuagint? Cool. You know what they also prove? That Judaism was diverse af back then. Different messianic expectations, different interpretations, different sects. You didn’t fulfill anything you just made a theological claim and then pretended it was obvious all along.

Also hilarious you say Jews invented Messiah ben Joseph because they “couldn’t square the suffering and the glory.” Like… bro… YOU’RE the one who split God into three persons to make your doctrine work, and you’re clowning Jews for trying to make theological sense of complex prophecy? Stop projecting.

3. “That’s just your interpretation” = cope?

Lmao you say “everyone has interpretations” but then act like YOURS is the objective default. That’s the whole problem. You’re acting like quoting Ignatius and Irenaeus automatically ends the debate when all it does is show what your side believed at the time not that it was divinely revealed. That’s just you appealing to authority while pretending it’s evidence.

If quoting early Christians made Christianity true, then quoting early Buddhists would make Buddhism true too. But I doubt you’re gonna convert because someone linked you to a 1st-century monk.

4. Christianity always had clear rules?

You literally just copy pasted stuff like “heresy existed so that means orthodoxy was already defined” like that proves your point. No bro it just proves people disagreed, and the people in power decided who was in and who was out. That’s not divine authority that’s historical gatekeeping.

And yeah, early bishops wrote letters saying “yo these dudes are wrong.” But so what? Every religion has gatekeepers. That’s what happens when humans organize belief. That’s not proof of truth that’s proof of structure.

5. Final cope: "you're just a historically illiterate Reddit atheist"

Nah bro, what I am is someone who isn’t impressed by walls of selfcongratulatory text that assume everything you believe is already correct. You’re throwing quotes, scriptures, patristic sources, and jfl emojis like it’s a kill combo, but all you’re doing is dodging the actual issue:

Your entire worldview is built on assuming your scripture is divine, your tradition is true, and everyone else is just rebelling or coping. That’s not argument that’s presupp dogma with a superiority complex.

So yeah, I’ll pass on the theological LARPing. You can keep calling people gay and illiterate if it helps you sleep at night, but don’t act like you’re out here dropping undeniable truth bombs. You’re just really loud and really convinced.

Nope not what my world view is about if you bothered to actually read the GPT images I sent you on my FIRST reply to you you’d know I base my paradigm on the TAG for God.


But once again you strawman me proving the the whole form your not only historically illiterate and philosophically ignorant but your also a disingenuous asshole


It’s not circular reasoning either TAG because I’m saying there needs to be an invariant immaterial universal personalised being that accounts for these things for they can only find their reason their justification in something that is like that or above it. In your gay materialistic paradigm you have no response for this and can’t answer simple questions such as “what is the ontological state of logic” “what is the reason for logic being the way it is” you can’t answer these you can only say “we use it” and that’s it.

I can provide a coherent justification for why it exists and why it exists in the way that it does. We are not the same it’s not circular a circle would be me saying logic exists because I use it. Like WHAT YOU DO ISNT THAT IRONIC Which already presupposes other things such as Truth, Relaibility of one’s facility and a rational ordered reality all of which you also cannot account for it’s not looking good for you buddy

Your entire worldview is “Trust me bro” and “I feel like it’s real cos I umm experience it and like umm I guess that’s why it must be real even though I can’t even say how my experiences are “true” but umm yeah I feel like it” fucking idiot

Sit down and STFU

 

[kurd]

Nope not what my world view is about if you bothered to actually read the GPT images I sent you on my FIRST reply to you you’d know I base my paradigm on the TAG for God.


But once again you strawman me proving the the whole form your not only historically illiterate and philosophically ignorant but your also a disingenuous asshole

Yeah, I get i you base your whole worldview on TAG. You think logic, morality, intelligibility, etc. only make sense ifthe Christian God exists. Cool. I’m not twisting that. I’m saying that argument doesn’t prove what you think it does.

You’re acting like “logic is immaterial, universal, and invariant” automatically means God did it. That’s not a conclusion that’s a leap. You're just inserting your God into the gap and calling it “philosophy.”

No, I don’t need to ground logic in “God’s nature” to use it. Logic works because it describes how reality behaves consistently. The law of non contradiction isn’t true because God says so, it’s true because something can’t be itself and not itself at the same time. That’s literally just how identity works.

You’re saying atheists “can’t account for logic” but like… bro… yes we can. You just don’t like the answer unless it ends in your theology.

Also, stop acting like TAG leads straight to Eastern Orthodoxy. Even if someone bought your argument (which I don’t), you’d still have to prove it’s your God not a deistic one, not some abstract force, not Allah, not a spaghetti monster. You keep skipping that part like it’s a formality.

So no, I’m not disingenuous I’m just not impressed by philosophy that starts with “assume God” and ends with “so therefore God.”

 

[bottleofwater]

If atheism is true, if the world was created by a big bang

Why do serious business men/influential people worship satan

Why do they go to bohemian grove

Why do they perform satanic rituals at concerts and at parties

Is it all just a joke?

It’s all a bit of fun, right goy?

I want to be satanist low key

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Yeah, I get i you base your whole worldview on TAG. You think logic, morality, intelligibility, etc. only make sense ifthe Christian God exists. Cool. I’m not twisting that. I’m saying that argument doesn’t prove what you think it does.

You’re acting like “logic is immaterial, universal, and invariant” automatically means God did it. That’s not a conclusion that’s a leap. You're just inserting your God into the gap and calling it “philosophy.”

No, I don’t need to ground logic in “God’s nature” to use it. Logic works because it describes how reality behaves consistently. The law of non contradiction isn’t true because God says so, it’s true because something can’t be itself and not itself at the same time. That’s literally just how identity works.

You’re saying atheists “can’t account for logic” but like… bro… yes we can. You just don’t like the answer unless it ends in your theology.

Also, stop acting like TAG leads straight to Eastern Orthodoxy. Even if someone bought your argument (which I don’t), you’d still have to prove it’s your God not a deistic one, not some abstract force, not Allah, not a spaghetti monster. You keep skipping that part like it’s a formality.

So no, I’m not disingenuous I’m just not impressed by philosophy that starts with “assume God” and ends with “so therefore God.”

You replied before I added to that last comment but anyways I’m done with you your arguments are shit ahahah go back see the last comment I added to it and that’s all.

You strawman too much and I don’t like engaging with disingenuous parties that put words into peoples mouths or jump the Gun which is what you enjoy doing your not pleasant to speak to and tbh your kind of a dick. So yeah good luck with life and yes I fucked you hard in the previous comments which is why your chimping out as you have realise you know nothing about history


Nobody here has to prove anything to you, your a lost cause I won’t try convince you of anything your a arrogant GAYthiest and that’s where I’ll leave it don’t reply to me on this thread again unless it’s to provide how you can account for transcendentals as an GAYtheist

 

[kurd]

You replied before I added to that last comment but anyways I’m done with you your arguments are shit ahahah go back see the last comment I added to it and that’s all.

You strawman too much and I don’t like engaging with disingenuous parties that put words into peoples mouths or jump the Gun which is what you enjoy doing your not pleasant to speak to and tbh your kind of a dick. So yeah good luck with life and yes I fucked you hard in the previous comments which is why your chimping out as you have realise you know nothing about history


Nobody here has to prove anything to you, your a lost cause I won’t try convince you of anything your a arrogant GAYthiest and that’s where I’ll leave it don’t reply to me on this thread again unless it’s to provide how you can account for transcendentals as an GAYtheist

you just quoted early church dudes, added some smug emojis, and called everyone who disagrees a “GAYtheist” like that’s an argument. You think repeating “TAG” over and over wins the debate, but you never actually prove the jump from logic to your God let alone the Orthodox one with incense and icons.

Anyways, Im a Agnostic. So im open to the idea that christianity might exist and im willing to be convinced. Im simply just responding to your arguments however you’re calling that strawmanning for some reason

 

[chadhamed]

who knows

I know

 

[kurd]

Nope not what my world view is about if you bothered to actually read the GPT images I sent you on my FIRST reply to you you’d know I base my paradigm on the TAG for God.


But once again you strawman me proving the the whole form your not only historically illiterate and philosophically ignorant but your also a disingenuous asshole


It’s not circular reasoning either TAG because I’m saying there needs to be an invariant immaterial universal personalised being that accounts for these things for they can only find their reason their justification in something that is like that or above it. In your gay materialistic paradigm you have no response for this and can’t answer simple questions such as “what is the ontological state of logic” “what is the reason for logic being the way it is” you can’t answer these you can only say “we use it” and that’s it.

I can provide a coherent justification for why it exists and why it exists in the way that it does. We are not the same it’s not circular a circle would be me saying logic exists because I use it. Like WHAT YOU DO ISNT THAT IRONIC Which already presupposes other things such as Truth, Relaibility of one’s facility and a rational ordered reality all of which you also cannot account for it’s not looking good for you buddy

Your entire worldview is “Trust me bro” and “I feel like it’s real cos I umm experience it and like umm I guess that’s why it must be real even though I can’t even say how my experiences are “true” but umm yeah I feel like it” fucking idiot

Sit down and STFU

TAG is circular you assume God to prove God.
Logic doesn’t need a mind it’s abstract, not personal.
Atheism uses logic fine no metaphysics required.
Christianity isn’t 2nd Temple Judaism it split from it.
Prophecies are vague “”fulfillment” is just your take.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

TAG is circular you assume God to prove God.
Logic doesn’t need a mind it’s abstract, not personal.
Atheism uses logic fine no metaphysics required.
Christianity isn’t 2nd Temple Judaism it split from it.
Prophecies are vague “”fulfillment” is just your take.

How can abstract things have existence in a physicist/materialistic paradigm? This is why I asked you to evidence your account for them without borrowing from other worldviews and you failed at the gate . Atheism can’t account for what logic is that’s the point it literally should be IMPOSSIBLE in your worldview because atheism cannot account for abstract things as I said because it’s not material. And in my first comment I laid out why this is the case I won’t do so again.

All reasoning is fundamentally recursive at the level of presuppositions this is called the problem of the criterion. You’re confusing vicious circularity with transcendental necessity. The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) isn’t saying, “Assume God exists, therefore God exists.” It’s saying: “Unless the Triune God exists, you can’t justify the preconditions for knowledge, logic, morality, or intelligibility.” This is a meta level argument not a line by line syllogism

If logic is immaterial, invariant, and universal which it is then it cannot emerge from matter, which is mutable, particular, and contingent. So you’re borrowing from Platonism (abstract realism) without the metaphysical capital to pay for it. You want laws of logic without a Lawgiver, which is metaphysically incoherent.
Also: abstract objects don’t cause anything — they don’t “do” anything. So how are they grounding your use of logic in reasoning if they’re not part of any causal chain? You’re smuggling in the Christian metaphysical framework and then denying the cashier exists.

This is why your low IQ Every worldview necessarily presupposes a metaphysic. Even to say “logic works” is a metaphysical claim about truth, correspondence, identity, and causality. Atheism has no coherent account of: Universals (what is a “law of logic”?), Induction (how do you justify the uniformity of nature?), Moral facts (are they real, or social constructs?), Consciousness (how does a purely material system “experience” or reason?). GAYtheism assumes the tools of a theistic world (order, reason, unity-in-diversity) while denying the foundation that makes them intelligible. That’s intellectual parasitism which is once again why GAYthiesm is Gay and retarded like you. And the shit you say about the 2nd temple etc well go to Jeremiah 31 it speaks about the new coveneant transcending the temple to begin with. See unlike you I know my DEEN very well and you don’t know anything about history or Christianity yet your got a big mouth and now your getting bodied at philosophy. Then you beg the question CIRCULAR ONCE AGAIN by saying naturalism must be true by denying the possibility of prophecy because you have already made your mind up and when asked why you jsut say “because naturalism doesn’t give me the answer so thefore natralism is true” fucking moron


You are completely my Bitch rn I own you on history, RELGION and now Philosophy no wonder your in panic mode how will you save yourself

you just quoted early church dudes, added some smug emojis, and called everyone who disagrees a “GAYtheist” like that’s an argument. You think repeating “TAG” over and over wins the debate, but you never actually prove the jump from logic to your God let alone the Orthodox one with incense and icons.

Anyways, Im an Agnostic. So im open to the idea that christianity might exist and im willing to be convinced. Im simply just responding to your arguments however you’re calling that strawmanning for some reason

I added disciples of the apostles you know the group that spread the RELGION and set up the guidelines and boundaries for it oh you know the group that made it clear along with Jesus that anybody who doesn’t align with their teaching isn’t “Christian” yeah just “those dudes” you know the criterion for being Christian. I know your retarded so I’ll give you an example, a male is a male because the criterion for being a male is being born with male genitalia it’s that simple (XY chromosome) vs a female. Clear cut case. Same applies here. Specific criterion’s need to be met to be Christian, you fall out of that and BAMB YOUR NOT CHRISTIAN hopefully even an disabled person such as yourself gets that

 

[iblamexyz]

So you did a lot of strawmans. Very disappointed in you, you jump to conclusion's about things I never even concluded, this is a typical device I have noticed you use when dialogue with others to seem smart but honestly it just makes you look intellectually inept that you can’t comprehend what your opponents saying. Word of advice Next time don’t put words into people’s mouths it never ends well .



But the logic thing is a transcendental catagory the MAIN reason why Christianity is true is because only the Christian paradigm can account for these without falling into illogical incoherency and contradiction. The other turf I wrote was a reply to your reply to that retard Roman Catholic you was replying 2. I don’t use the Bible on its own as a proof for Christianity especially to a GAYtheist but once again you jump to conclusions nobody made see how it makes you look

1 LOGIC AS AN GAYTHEIST IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR:
You’re avoiding the issue. The problem isn’t that logic is a tool that we use, I also agree it is but rather what justifies our ability to use it universally, immutably, and abstractly in the first place. If logic is merely a human invention based on observation, then it’s contingent it could have been otherwise. But logic, by its very nature, is not contingent. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, doesn’t stop being true in some cultures or galaxies. It’s a universal, immaterial truth. But if you’re an atheist and hold to strict naturalism or materialism, what are you grounding these immaterial and universal realities in? Molecules don’t produce immaterial universals.

So, no, I’m not confusing metaphysics with existence (which is ironic as existence in of itself is a domain of metaphysics but ofc you don’t know that like you don’t know history, or church history and that religions and groups have clear cut and defined criteria that need to be met to be a member of) I’m pointing out that your worldview doesn’t account for the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of logic. In a Christian worldview, logic reflects the consistent and orderly nature of God’s mind. That’s why logic is universal, immaterial, and invariant, because it is grounded in a God who is all-knowing, eternal, and unchanging.

Once again you jump the boat and say I’m ‘assuming what I’m trying to prove,’ but im simply actually asking you to consistently explain how your worldview justifies logical absolutes without borrowing from mine. You’re using logic, but your worldview gives no basis for why such a thing should exist, be trustworthy, or apply universally. That’s not circularity on my end it’s internal critique of your position. I have given my account you can’t give your account which shows your worldview is either incomplete or illogical unironically


2 RABBINICAL JUDAISM VS CHRISTIANITY: Ok once again showing your historical illiteracy once again ok bro you realise Christianity began before the destruction of the 2nd temple right? You realise Paul’s letters can go back to 40-50s right? This is why I told you to be humble but you’re not humble. By the time of the 2nd temple destruction by Titus Christianity was already spread around the empire. Rabbinical Judaism only began around post 70AD at Yavneh as a response to the 2nd temple collapse which I doubt you even know about because once again your historically illiterate.

Rabbinical and Christianity whilst true both come from 2nd temple Judaism both aren’t equally evolutions as your implying. Christianity is a fulfilment of the prophets a complete guide of the past of God it doesn’t claim to be an adaptation or a reinterpretation unlike rabbinic Judaism which I exampled by showing you pre rabbinical Judaic rabbis agree that Isiah 53 and Pslam 22 are all messianic showing Jewish Cope.

And now you strawman me once again, now ima make you look dumb again (see this is why I told you to be humble and not strawman in your attempt to look smart you fucked yourself over) I never claimed Christianity is ‘truer’ because it uses ancient symbols the claim is that Christianity is the continuation promised within the Old Testament. Jesus is the Messiah anticipated by Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms and that claim is made within the Jewish framework, not alongside it. Early Christians weren’t inventing a new religion they were proclaiming that the long-awaited promises of Israel had been fulfilled. Hence why all the apostles were Jews. Rabbinic Judaism is actually the offshoot, formed to fill the void left by rejecting the Messiah and losing the Temple system that had defined biblical Judaism for centuries which even rabbinics admit in the Talmud itself as post-Temple Judaism is not the same as the biblical faith of Moses (e.g. Sanhedrin 11b talks about the end of prophecy, meaning the direct connection to God was broken which can’t happpen until the messiah comes Zach 13 & Daniel 9 )


3 Pslam 22, Isiah etc:
You keep saying ‘that’s your interpretation’ like it’s some sort of trump card but interpretation is unavoidable there is no theory neural position including YOURS. There is no such thing as a ‘neutral’ reading of Scripture your secular assumptions are just as loaded as mine are theologically. So pretending you’re sitting on some objective, theory-free hill is dishonest or just naive.

Jews disagree with Christian’s that’s true but that doesn’t mean a refutation. The question here is which one better explains and aligns with the full textual and historical evidence? Rabbinic Judaism has to reinterpret and sometimes outright suppress what their own texts say to avoid what Christians saw clearly. And I can prove it.

Masoretic Alteration of the Hebrew Bible EVERY IMPORTANT READ THIS BEFORE SPOUTING RABBINIC BULLSHIT AGAIN:
We know that some post Christian Jewish scribes altered or reinterpreted passages to avoid messianic readings that supported Jesus. For example:

• Isaiah 53:5 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsa) and Nahal Hever fragments reads: “He was pierced for our transgressions.” (Karu)
  But in later Masoretic manuscripts, the reading is altered slightly to remove the overt personhood and suffering imagery subtly favouring a national reading saying “Like a lion” (Kari) which is It’s grammatically broken .
• The Masoretes (9th–10th century AD) finalised the text through a post-Christian, Rabbinic lens, suppressing messianic implications. This is confirmed by comparing the Septuagint (LXX) and DSS, both predating Rabbinic Judaism.

Isaiah 53 Cannot Be About Israel:

You claim that Isaiah 53 is a “retrofit” ai you can ignore the Internal consistency of the message purposely because your either a Jew or once again historically and religiously illiterate.

• The “Suffering Servant” is portrayed as innocent, voluntarily suffering, silent, and dying for the sins of others — not being punished for his own guilt.
  But Israel is constantly portrayed as sinful, punished for their own iniquities throughout the Tanakh (see Isaiah 1, 5, Jeremiah 2, Ezekiel 16).
  The Servant is “cut off from the land of the living for the transgression of my people” (Isaiah 53:8) — that explicitly distinguishes the Servant from Israel.
• Why did Jews invent the concept of two messiahs Messiah ben Joseph (the suffering one) and Messiah ben David (the ruling king)? Because they couldn’t square the suffering and glory in one figure. That’s a theological Band-Aid that only proves the tension Christians resolve in Christ. Jews btw have no response to this contention I have asked I went to a Jewish school and the rabbi had bo response

Before Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism crystallised, many Jews already interpreted Isaiah 53 and other prophecies messianically:

• The Targum Jonathan (early Aramaic paraphrase of the prophets) reads Isaiah 52:13 as:
  “Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper…”
  That’s a Jewish source admitting the Servant is the Messiah — before Christians ever used the passage.
• The Dead Sea Scrolls contain 4Q541, which describes a messianic figure who will be rejected, suffer, and heal others — very close to Jesus-like imagery.

Daniel 7:13-14 describes “one like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven” — and this figure is given glory, worship, and dominion over all nations forever.

• Even Rashi (11th century) and Maimonides (Rambam) admitted this was a messianic figure.
• But the text clearly shows two distinct divine persons — the “Ancient of Days” and “Son of Man.”
  Worshipping anyone other than God is idolatry in Judaism — yet this figure is worshipped by all peoples (Aramaic: pelach – a term used exclusively for divine worship in Daniel).

How does Rabbinic Judaism account for this without violating its own monotheism? It doesn’t. It spiritualises or sidesteps it. Proving my point from the beginning, we disagree but disagreement doesn’t == refutation or equality of reason.

4 BUH MUSLIMS DO IT 2
Yes, Muslims claim the Bible points to Muhammad but their own Qur’an was written 600+ years later, in a different language, with no consistent textual basis and a different book with different stories of the prophets it’s a fan fiction at best and a gnostic retelling at worst.nChristianity, by contrast, emerged from within Second Temple Judaism, using its own texts, its own prophecies, in their own language, to make its claims. The early Christians were Jews. The apostles were Jews. The first 3,000 converts (Acts 2) were Jews (something you idiots seem to always forget) because they saw Jesus as the fulfilment, not an outsider. Their argument wasn’t one of faith but one of a claimed experience with the risen Christ himself not the same thing once again.




TLDR for this section: The burden is on you to explain why ancient Jews before Christianity interpreted these passages as messianic — and why later Jews had to change, avoid, or invent new messiahs to deal with them. Also you ain’t ‘disproving’ anything by saying ‘that’s just your interpretation, you are interpreting just as much as I am you’re just doing it based on a presupposition that Jesus can’t be the Messiah because you hold a personal bias and want Christianity to be false hence why a non Jew is clinging so hard onto rabbinic interpretation which is circular reasoning.




5 CHRISTIANITY ALWAYS HAD CLEAR RULES
Final part is a lot to unpack so many inaccurate fallacious rediculous historically illiterate points I literally don’t think I’ll fit all of it into this message you outdid yourself

You’re parroting a popular but historically lazy argument from fellow retards. Sure, early Christianity dealt with competing sects and had to articulate its theology more precisely over time. But the claim that Christianity had no clear rules in the beginning is simply false and the Church Fathers, especially those who were disciples of the apostles themselves, outright reject that idea. The boundary markers of Christian identity were present from the beginning those stepping outside were already being called heretics.

Even using the Bible we see this
1 John 4:1-3 – “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world… Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”
From the apostolic era itself, there was a litmus test for orthodoxy the Incarnation, Christ’s divinity, and fidelity to apostolic teaching.

Galatians 1:8-9 – “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be accursed!”
Paul condemns deviation from the original apostolic message, affirming a clearly defined gospel from the start. But ofc your illiterate so I have to teach you like a baby

And I knew your dumbass would fall for the “no true Scotsman fallacy” I literally refuted this in my last message to you and your dumbass still took the bait. Calling others “heretics” is the No True Scotsman fallacy. But you’re misusing the fallacy. It’s not fallacious if the group had objective standards from the beginning which they did; this isn’t rocket science. The early Church was unified in teaching, worship, and structure — guided by apostolic authority which is still only found in the Eastern Orthodox Church which still adheres to the ancient church. The only thing you have done is prove that heretics had to DEVIATE FROM ALREADY ESTABLISHED DOGMA. It’s not pride or tradition it’s history, and it’s truth. If you want to challenge the faith, do it honestly not with recycled Reddit-tier takes that ignore the mountain of first and second century testimony and evidence




Here are 2 disciples of the APOSTLES themselves stating what I have been saying seeing as your a fucking moron I’ll cite them

Ignatius of Antioch
(c. 35–110 AD)
— disciple of John the Apostle:
“Do not be deceived, my brethren: if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If anyone walks in strange doctrine, he is not in accord with the Passion.” (Letter to the Philadelphians, ch. 3)

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)
Ignatius explicitly taught apostolic authority, Eucharistic theology, and ecclesial unity as the standard of true Christianity in the 1st century, not the 4th.





Irenaeus of Lyons
(c. 130–202 AD)
— student of Polycarp (Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle)
“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith… as if she had but one soul and the same heart.” (Against Heresies, I.10.1)
“It is within the power of all… to ascertain the truth, which is clearly shown by all the Church, if they are willing to follow the tradition which comes from the apostles.” (Against Heresies, III.3.1)
Irenaeus names and dismantles heretics like Valentinus and Marcion and grounds Christian identity in apostolic succession and the universal tradition of the Church — long before Constantine or Nicea.


MUH cannon Nicea durp durp retard go reeee:
You’re conflating the formal canonisation of the New Testament with its actual use and authority. The early Church already knew which texts were authentic and apostolic:
By mid-2nd century, most of the New Testament was being read as Scripture in churches ( Muratorian Fragment, c. 170 AD). Clement of Rome (Bishop and then pope) (c. 96 AD), Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr quote from the Gospels, Paul’s letters, Acts, and Revelation as Scripture.

TRUNITY WAS MADE UP IN NICEA DURP DURP RETARD ALERT DERP:

The word “Trinity” was formalised at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), but the doctrine is already found in Scripture and affirmed by the earliest Fathers:

Ignatius speaks of “our God, Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:1).

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) talks about the Father, Son, and Spirit in worship.
Tertullian (c. 200 AD) coined the word “Trinitas” — decades before Nicaea — and explicitly defends Christ’s divinity and the unity of the Godhead.

Polycarp of Smyrna
(c. 69–155 AD)
— also a disciple of John:
He calls those who deny the faith “the firstborn of Satan” and encourages fidelity to the faith handed down from the apostles.
In his Letter to the Philippians, he echoes New Testament texts almost word for word affirming continuity with the apostolic gospel.


@iblamexyz
@Hernan
@enriquecuador
@Iraniancel
@trvechud
Not saying to read it all but understand these gay faggot tier arguments from the Gaytheists like the guy I am debating can easily be countered and refuted by simply knowing
History and not falling for atheist tier meme arguments from illiterate ignorant morons

Mirin the effort bhai, I’ll read but I doubt anyone would due to their hearts being harden

 

[DNRDniggerking]

Back when they used to kill adulterers, burn witches,

basically sharia

 

[ICXCLuvr]

If atheism is true, if the world was created by a big bang

Why do serious business men/influential people worship satan

Why do they go to bohemian grove

Why do they perform satanic rituals at concerts and at parties

Is it all just a joke?

It’s all a bit of fun, right goy?

that would mean that satan can grant wishes. which would be heresy. he can only tempt you to sin