[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.11224184 [View]
File: 155 KB, 500x490, scoobs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11224184

>>11223120
>>11223153
What are you a protestant? The Catholic church has lifetimes worth of reading material on this subject (Pre-VaticanII)

>> No.10594056 [View]
File: 155 KB, 500x490, 1503736747004.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10594056

>>10593084
Everything by Lewis is premium stuff for open-minded beginners.

Oxford Annotated is a study bible for scholars not for reading, I suggest picking up KJV or Douay-Rheims
without the secular clutter, just a clean run.

Anyway, afterwards follow with Eusebius and then the Church Fathers + Didache

If you started with the greeks everything will make a lot more sense.

>> No.10117225 [View]
File: 155 KB, 500x490, Thanks Facebook.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10117225

>>10113995
>being on 4chan
>surprised or at all disturbed by this

>>10114033
>I have a question regarding the Trinity - namely, why does such a doctrine exist, and why is it necessary to believe it's true?

It exists to understand the nature of Jesus in relation to God and, to a larger degree, God in relation to creation.

I could go into this further if you wish, though I'm not much educated here so I'll have my limits.

>>10114590
>>10114677

I got the post from /pol/'s Catholic Generals. I'm doubtful the quote is real, seeing the last line. I thought it was cute and saved it. Having ready Augustine I do know it does not read like what he's written before.

>>10115068
Why? Please explain.
Generalizing individuals is not sound practice and uncharitable but you must understand that the image is a joke and not declarative but rather a quotation, yes?

>> No.10047238 [View]
File: 155 KB, 500x490, Thanks Facebook.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10047238

>>10047200
>How would spirits imply substance dualism?
Spirits inherently don't. However, "spirits" isn't the
subject of the question. "Ghosts" are. The concept of ghosts, much like how >>10046844 states purgatory, is the idea of wandering entities in this reality. My comment you're responding to is specifically against this view, which I thought you were speaking of.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]