>scientists say God not real, you evolved from stardust over a gazillion years

>scientists say God not real, you evolved from stardust over a gazillion years
>philosophers say there is no objective morality, it's all shades of gray
>news headline says animals have gay sex in nature, therefore you can have gay sex too since we're all animals after all
>celeb says LGBT is good! Traditional values bad!
>psychologists say [moronic gender nonsense]
What's the difference between the "wise men" of the past and the babblings of scientists/satanists/atheists of the present? The way I see it there is none. There's either the world and it's sinful satanic ways or God, the Bible and it's Eternal Holy Truth. For Christians, there's no in between.

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no difference. God is real. We are still confused. We haven't figured it out. Stop worrying, it'll be okay.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >philosophers say there is no objective morality, it's all shades of gray
    No, sophists say this
    >unsophisticated
    Like a certain "fool" named socrates?

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm pretty sure that Moral realism is the mainstream view in academia
    I think evolution is the overwhelming consensus in Academia but there are lots of theistic scientists

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Worship of academia is exactly the kind of paganism he's talking about

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Amen.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >scientists say God not real, you evolved from stardust over a gazillion years
    No they don't. They look at physical evidence to construct a model of reality. Theism is compatible with all scientific theories.
    >philosophers say there is no objective morality, it's all shades of gray
    Yes it's context dependent. Morality is a result of agents interacting. If there was just one agent there would be no morality.
    >news headline says animals have gay sex in nature, therefore you can have gay sex too since we're all animals after all
    I mean yes gay sex is in nature. There is no natural telos/imperative for procreation. The morality of the act is a different question though and which is also different from mere attraction to the opposite sex.
    >celeb says LGBT is good! Traditional values bad!
    That's just government's peddling different values and forcing public figures to conform to those values. "Traditional values" are just an older form of political propaganda model when there was a different technology level.
    >psychologists say [moronic gender nonsense]
    That's just government's peddling different values and forcing psychologists to conform to those values. The psychologists have to follow government science if they want to keep there jobs after all.
    >What's the difference between the "wise men" of the past and the babblings of scientists/satanists/atheists of the present? The way I see it there is none. There's either the world and it's sinful satanic ways or God, the Bible and it's Eternal Holy Truth. For Christians, there's no in between.
    Christianity was just an older propaganda model that fell out of favor with governments. There is literally no difference.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There is no natural telos/imperative for procreation
      You're a death cultist

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ad hominem
        Prove to me that there are teloses in nature and how you would demarcate it. I just want to say that survival in nature isn't every organism in a species but just the whole species surviving. You don't have to procreate to help the species.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          do you know badly i want to cum inside of a woman and make babies with her. you think i need some israelitebook to tell me to do that? you're fricking insane.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You haven't demarcated it. You subjectively getting turned on from impregnating a woman isn't proof. Wanting to frick a woman =/= getting turned on from impregnating a woman. Mind you many cultures like Australian aboriginals didn't know sex would result in pregnancy util the Europeans arrived which shows that it isn't an inbuilt drive. And anyway many people don't feel the same way you do.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            aboriginals are as dumb as a bag of bricks. anyway with eyes knows that fricking a woman leads to pregnancy. as for your second claim i really don't believe that

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >aboriginals are as dumb as a bag of bricks. anyway with eyes knows that fricking a woman leads to pregnancy.
            Well, this still proves that it isn't a inbuilt drive though. Also not just aboriginals but Papuans, many central and west African groups and some south American groups too.

            >as for your second claim i really don't believe that
            There are people with no sex drive. I know people who get turned off from the idea of pregnancy. What you feel isn't universal. Now I'm not saying procreation is bad. What I'm saying is that it isn't an inbuilt drive.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          When you die out because of your worship of death, that will be my proof.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >scientists say God not real, you evolved from stardust over a gazillion years
    Scientce doesnt take any position on God exiting or not existing.
    say there is no objective morality, it's all shades of gray
    In fact most philosophers are moral realists
    >>news headline says animals have gay sex in nature,
    This is true
    >we're all animals after all
    This is also true, you can with some work accept tissue donations from a pig.
    says
    Celebs are not experts on anything
    > scientists/satanists/atheists
    Why do you conflat these things? The scientist who came up with the big bang theory was a Catholic priest.
    > The way I see it there is none.
    Scientists use a methodology largely developed by Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries.
    > There's either the world and it's sinful satanic ways or God
    Thomas Aquinas argued that faith and reason, that is, philosophical rhetoric, logical inquiry and naturalistic studies, are not necessarily at odds. Was he wrong?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Praise science, praise reddit

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes, reddit. Not like the bastion of Christian faith that is IQfy.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Was he wrong?
      YES. That's the point. You fools responding to the individual points and trying to "refute" them, are so focused on what OP said, that you failed to notice what he said. Faith and reason do not stand side by side, for apart from faith there is no reason. Autonomy, the wisdom of the world, philosophy; it's bankrupt.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        YES. That's the point.
        The problem here is that there are lots of saints Christian philosophers and scientists who disagree with OP and you. What Op is saying is, in fact, contrary to large sections of Christian tradition.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >there are lots of saints Christian philosophers and scientists who disagree with OP and you
          Which books of the bible did they write?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Which books of the bible did they write?
            Which book of the bible declares that faith and reason are at odds? Op posted an Icon, so I would assume he sees Church tradition as authoritative.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Faith and reason are not at odds. Faith is at odds with worldly wisdom. Would you like me to show you where the bible says that?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Would you like to show me where that was ever interpreted to mean we should distrust natural philosophy (science). Medieval Christians had no problem consulting books on medicine, mineralogy, even astronomy that were written by Pagans and Muslims.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does God let animals have gay sex?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do Christians openly embrace foolishness and reject the "wisdom of the world" like this, but when outsiders call them foolish and claim to be wiser about the things of the world, they get defensive?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *