even just questioning whether something should be a certain way if the bible specifies something is heretical

Children are taught this, and then these children turn into adults and they don't put the two and two that it's just a myth like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny because the community around them validates their belief weekly.

They cherry pick interpretation.

yeah

the pacifist christian thing vs sell your cloak and buy a sword thing

turn the cheek

can't get a simple answer from those faggots

well...

it's a bit more nuanced than that to be fair

google exegesis

They'll say one verse is literal, one is metaphorical, one is symbolic, one is hyperbole and condemn others as heretics and wrong who don't interpret it the same way. Which is why we have thousands of denominations and ways of seeing Christianity, with each pointing to each other saying you're wrong and going to hell, and I'm right. It's so childish, and the fact anyone could claim to be moral and be okay with someone burning forever and experiencing pain forever is absurd.

But I do admire Christianity as a way of controlling the masses

I think we will always require such a system

It controls them into not critically thinking and not exploring the universe scientifically.

else they descend into hedonism

if their IQ was 100 or less they were never going to think critically

also I don't think Christianity is as binding scientifically as people say

If you interpret it non-literally.

Newton was a christian for instance

"the fact anyone could claim to be moral and be okay with someone burning forever and experiencing pain forever is absurd." I disagree

Which I think arises in a simple problem, if you can interpret where you come from as non-literal, you can interpret the resurrection claims as non-literal and then you don't really have Christianity.

nothing in computer science really makes you doubt god

early physics as well

chemistry

athiesm itself is dumb imo

I agree.

Deism is more coherent.

but I can see how people doubt Christianity

"Which I think arises in a simple problem, if you can interpret where you come from as non-literal, you can interpret the resurrection claims as non-literal and then you don't really have Christianity." no

yes

darwin was a theist

because he attributed first cause to god

the resurrection claim is literal

which is coherent

You can interpret it non-literally, Gnostics do.

it can't be interpreted any other way

they are wrong to interpret it that way

It can, and it is interpreted in many other ways.

there was an original intent

there is one proper interpretation

there is an original intent for every sentence