/lit/ - Literature

>>15226501
Rude!!

That He loves us and we can and should pray to Him.
That He is truly one person who is fully human and fully divine, that He preexisted all time and has an actual human mind, soul and body just like we do.

>>15092572
For what? Anime? There are good anime and they brought me to Christ.

>https://www.strawpoll.me/19749508

Happy Good Friday, friends. How will you be spending this Holy Easter weekend?

>tfw will be reading the Divine Comedy

>>15040952
Of course.

>>14373464
Yes

T. S. Eliot is pretty good

>>14062668
>tfw kanye's memetic power is boosting chan christianity

>>11429393
>>11429068

>I just wanted to share with you a beautiful example of the transformative power of God's grace: before and after pictures of my friend who became Orthodox. <3

https://twitter.com/NunCatherine/status/1014475882600202242

Blessings.

>>10207713
>what if I'm indifferent to God, neither hate nor love, can I be saved?
if a man is indifferent to God he puts something in place of God, even if he doesn't realize it, some other ideology or passion or meaning as his "highest value", which would be idolatry. Death would involve separation from your idol and encountering God, so it could be a dissatisfying eternity perhaps not totally painful, but I doubt it would be a heaven.

>God knows and suffers with us. I have no idea how you can possibly claim to know this.
God is omniscient, God loves us and is benevolent. It follows that he knows our suffering and feels for us and never forgets. Jesus wept for Lazarus. God is a personal being.

>1. There's no inherent "what must be done". 2. There's no inherent "real meaning of life".
How do you know? How do you justify this in your worldview, where is your proofs, have you dug deep into life and know what its all about?

I would say you are wrong because God is the origin, end, and meaning of our lives. He is where we come from and where we return. And God's will is "what must be done". I know this by logic, intuition, and revelation.

>music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4xL0cDKWUs

>book
the bible

>>10168191
In the early church period there was a mainstream view of creation that understood "days" not in a 24 hour sense but as 1000 years (to follow with the expression in the Psalm that a day to God is a thousand years). Some others understanding it as 24 hours days and some understanding it as not days in any sense. What is unique from the view of 1000 year days is that despite the separation of creation between different days is rejected on rational grounds for a view of simultaneous creation. Fixism (that species before have been the same as species previous with no development of them) is presumed as that's the unsaid way in which people understood the world to work. As such the idea of the date of creation coinciding the date of the creation of man does not come from the early church's understanding of scripture but by a rational premise about how the world works. And their date for the creation of man is based on genealogies that have been questioned and rejected and accepted throughout much of the church's history. Primarily because the numbers (and even figures named) differ in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint and later because of learning more of ancient Jewish records and realizing them as incomplete (and seem to be a selective chain of notable figures or a whole house rather than being a modern family tree). It cannot be denied that some of the genealogical links are omitted in the Biblical lists; even St. Matthew had to employ this device, in order to arrange the ancestors of Christ in three series of fourteen each.


And note that this is already entirely distinct from Young Earth Creationism, which propound a support for 6 separate days of creation.

For further discussions of genealogies, check out the Catholic encyclopedia. All of it is approved by the Catholic Church as accurate.

>Biblical Chronology
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm

>Biblical Genealogies
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06408a.htm

part 1/2

>>10048509
Well "general understanding" is more than just a single concept. Just cause we said you're wrong about one aspect doesn't scrap your whole project. If you explain what you mean by "neutral spirits" it'd be fine to assist you. It could be a simple issue.

>is it wrong to know of god's existence and not care?
Yes, but the significance depends on how you understand God. From a theistic personalist view it can be argued as permissable to some extent while for classical theist views you're just fucking up.

>>10048879
>>10048911

>2. Belief in dogma is inherently stupid.

This is incorrect. If the validity of an authority as authoritative can be argued for then the authority's proclamations follow from the evidence and thus is rational inherently. Catholicism has a long, long history arguing for specifically this.

Your argument is based on a false premise. Further, your argument for the stupidity of dogma is nothing but rhetoric disguised as argumentation.

>the rest

Nietzsche you need to go home. You have no idea what you're talking about and Scheler sorted you out quite some time ago.

>>10049382
>The Bible interprets itself.
Evangelicalism keeps getting stupider.
That makes no sense at all. The vast, vast majority of terms in the Bible are not defined by the Bible, nor is the biblical canon itself defined in the Bible.

>>10049718
This recent migration during the election was pretty terrible. Nothing but r/atheists and Evangelicals/non-denominationals.

>>10049738
The authors attributed to them are the primary authors of the texts.

>>10051129
From >>10043160 I'd recommend:

Understanding the basics:

>Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger

Theology Basics:

>Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser

Reference Manual:

>Catholic Catechism and commentary sources if needed.

Spiritual Life:

>The Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales

>>10020769
1. Uphold and defend a worldview.
2. Argue for the revealing of this worldview in one historical intellectual tradition (for example, Aquinas' defense that God revealed Himself as divinely simple at the burning bush before we grasped such a concept).
3. Defend the historical claims as legitimate.
4. Defend other aspects of revelation that are not knowable as still probable or at least possible
5. If you can adequately defend a religion's historical claims, worldview, and argue that there was actual revelation and not just lucking out then you have successfully and completely argued for the validity of a religion

Friendly reminder /lit/ is a strictly Catholic board.

Just lol @ non-theists on /lit/ who deny the gospel of the Bible

Friendly reminder that /fitlit/ is strictly a Catholic board

Friendly reminder that /lit/ is strictly a Catholic board

Friendly reminder that /lit/ is strictly a Catholic board.

Why Christianity? I can only speak for myself but it's because I believe Jesus teachings are correct. Even ignoring all the supernatural claims about him he is a paragon of virtue and living by the lessons he teaches are enough to enrich your life materially, let alone the spiritual fulfillment you gain.

Simply put, love is the key. Love for God, your fellow man and all creation. The message itself is whats worth following for me. I'm Christian because I want to follow Christ, that's all there is to it really.

>Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

ITT: We discuss the Bible