Why are Christians so moronic? Roosh recommended this book. I open the sample on amazon, first chapter, and it goes on about eyewitness this, eyewitness that. It says that Mary was the most important eyewitness of the early events of the Gospel narrative. Youdontsay.jpg
>At the same time, it is completely self-evident that the first and most important eyewitness of the early events of the Gospel narrative was the most holy Virgin Mary, about whom St Luke twice mentions, that she treasured the memory of all these events, pondering them in her heart (Luke 2:19, 51).
Great exegesis! Mary saw what Jesus did, and we know this because an apostle wrote so. Great fricking revelation mate! Goddamn literalists are dumb as frick.
What are some non-moronic exegetical books? And by that I mean non-literalist.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
You're not meant to be looking for proof, you're meant to be looking for meaning
Yes, and the religions that preceded Christianity are far more meaningful.
You're perverted by orientalism, Christianity may seem shallow because it is familiar
Exactly and that's why that book and anyone recommending it go in the trash.
Its just outdated. Nothing more. Post industrial society will slowly suffocate and kill religion
What's your issue? That statement is completely correct. The Holy Virgin was indeed a primary source for Lukes Gospel.
>if you're not a literalist you're not a believer/not saved!
thanks for proving my point
I deleted it myself to upload a higher resolution image
>thanks for proving my point
That if you don't believe, you're not a believer?
Look man, if you want to be a transChristian, go to /lgbt/, and tell them that you identify as believing in Christ, without actually believing in Christ.
It's actually literalists that aren't believers, because they believe in a fake and superficial understanding of scripture.
>you must believe the bible IN MY EXACT WAY AND ONLY MY WAY to be at true christian! no other ways are compatible with it!
You can be a literalist and also understand that there are symbolic meanings to scripture. The majority of the Church Fathers' exegesis are exactly like that - and if you actually downloaded the PDF of Archbishop Averky's commentaries, and read further, you would find some more symbolic exegesis.
But, if you're more interested in shitposting on IQfy than in actually reading further, then this really is just a certified pearls before swine moment.
>>you must believe the bible IN MY EXACT WAY AND ONLY MY WAY to be at true christian! no other ways are compatible with it!
That's what YOU said, moron.
>You can be a literalist and also understand that there are symbolic meanings to scripture.
There can be different complementary ways to view scripture. There can't be contradictory ways to view scripture.
Grow the frick up please, you're embarrassing yourself.
>I watched Jordan Peterson analyse Genesis from an allegorical perspective and claim that the church fathers did so to
Yes, that is fine, but there is not a single real theologist or ordained member of any serious church who will ever tell you to look at the gospels in the same way. If you do not accept that Jesus Christ literally died for our sins and rose again then you are not a Christian. This is not "literalism", you are incorrectly applying the term, it is like when a young boy learns a new word and fails to reapply it in a new context
Why did you make this thread again? Why are you complaining that a book written by believers is confessing belief in the history of the events?
Is this some reverse-psychology to try get people to read Archbishop Averky's gospel commentaries, since you know that IQfy people are contrarians? This is the only logical explanation I can think of for this.
>Why did you make this thread again?
Xhe wants to own the Christchuds.
>Modernity addled fedora doesn't like this book
Good endorsement. I will now read it.
Your first thread 404'd lmao
>What are some non-moronic exegetical books? And by that I mean non-literalist.
Origen
>Roosh recommended this book.
This guy was a literal pua who converted to the meme larp religion. What did you expect?
>roosh
Kek literally a failed pickup artist, and now I’d trying to grift the only group stupider than losers; christians
>Roosh
I still lurk on the forums. Strange cats.
Just like you can't polish a turd, you can't write a smart book about christianity
Based on the thread so far I don't think the book matters, you read one line you don't like and you're already sperging out. Just go jerk off or something you will never get anywhere. God forbid you pick up another book and find something that actually stumps you, the world doesn't need any more mass shooters.
Well thanks for posting your rambling schizo thoughts, but you're just a loser like the rest of us, you haven't studied philosophy, linguistics, theology or anything.
>sch-SCHIZO
*Sniffsniffsniff*
Ah, FEAR
What's your point moron? I'm saying this guy is just a rambling stoner, he doesn't explain things in a good way because he hasn't studied shit, he's literally just some guy who browses IQfy like the rest of us. He's fricking annoying in how he thinks he's so profound.
>you haven't studied philosophy, linguistics, theology or anything.
You've just named the chief routes of transmission for schizophrenia
I'm 12 minutes in and I'm not impressed by this moron. Symbolic/metaphor =/= not real but is a type of language, in fact all language is symbolic. Then give a few examples of metaphors that convey a meaning which is true yet not literal. There I could have explained that much more succinctly than this stoner.
>Why are Christians so moronic? Roosh recommended this book.
You're taking book recs from roosh. Glass houses.
Because St. Luke's gospel explicitly mentions that Luke went around interviewing eyewitnesses and investigating everything meticulously so that we may be sure of the 'certainty' of what he writes. St. Mary was probably one of the eyewitnesses that Luke interviewed. This is what makes Christianity unique in the history of religion: our scriptures are historical as well as symbolic/spiritual.
>1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
Nah moron he's talking about those that have "seen" God, just like people today say they have seen God, they mean with the mind's eye.