/lit/ - Literature

Faith is free to give and infinitely rewarding

>>11396825
not literature...
>>/his/

>fedorafag comes on /lit/ tryna pick a fight

well good luck with that

>>11396853
You got me there.
I just had the realization, this is just the only board I peruse anymore so I automatically came here.
Guess I'll just wait for the warning.

>>11396825
This one time I was tripping balls on shrooms and...

Humans are innately religious creatures and our lives demand the Eternal, both as it is lived and as it is understood. Everything that humans do is religious. Think art, think passions, think our relationships--its all faith, love, and a reverance for the image of the Eternal. Our life is impoverished without the Eternal. Our concepts of truth, morality, and so on, do not work without a creator God. Without the unquestionable Logos, there is nothing in this world but power--no real relationships, no real love, except the strong crushing the weak--a relationship of complicit self-destruction.

There's a pattern to life. There's evidently good and hope in this life. And on top of that, I struggle to see how anyone can come to understand the Christian ethical vision (King as Servant) and not immediately recognise it as the truth. From there, and from learning how to see beyond appearances, and that human life is and must be grounded in the Eternal (for this world will pass away but the Word will not pass away), it is a short journey to the light of Christ. And on top of all that, there's something to be said about the way that the Christian life transforms us and frees us. It's a violent faith, in the sense that it tears us each apart, but its better than staying on earth.

That's a rambling mess but its 2 am where I am so give me a break.

>>11396825
I searched for God and found him. I didn't know it at the time but he was also taking steps towards me. Even when I was an agnostic I always felt like there was something sustaining me just enough to get by in life. There are too many to exepriences in my life were I had just gotten by.

There is definitely a God and it is only through Jesus Christ that you're able to get to him. When you repent of your sin, you start cleansing to attain holiness. God himself is holy, he is of light and there is no darkness in him at all (1 John 1:5).

Once you accept Jesus Christ into your heart, you are receive the Holy Spirit. This is something real and it can be felt throughout your day to day life. I have stopped drinking, watching pornography, listing after women, committing fornication, stopped stealing, stopped lying, stopped cursing and I've stopped smoking pot. Jesus Christ has freed me of all my past earthly afflictions.

The most beautiful thing about it all is that you may have your own doubts about this. But I will tell you of a truth. Our God is a personal God. Meaning, you can directly talk to him and he will answer your prayer. You just have to come humbly before him. Hide nothing because he knows it all.

I wish you the best in this journey, anon.
It is easily the biggest decision you can make in your entire life.

>>11396897
This is very much my own experience. Christ has helped me conquer so many vices that I had struggled against for years. I still doubt a lot but my faith gets stronger every time. I started searching, and within a months Christ forced himself into my life, and I resisted, but there's no hiding from the truth once you've seen it, so eventually I accepted it, and it is honestly the greatest decision I've ever made.

>>11396825
Faith and it holds up internally.
Also this really isn't that /lit/

>>11396889
This is very well worded response, thank you very much man.

>>11396825
The belief that a meaningful conversation is possible is predicated on the existence of the Christian God, the Holy Trinity. Is there universal truth? How are we able to know it? How are we able to communicate it? All of this is impossible without the Logos.

>>11396932
really? i thought it was a rambling mess that'd get shot down for pseudery. thanks for the kind words man. my faith is very much self-taught so im always afraid of sounding like an idiot or a heretic

>>11396940
The concept of the logos wasn't even first coined by Christians

>>11396825
To be honest, my connection with the christian faith is shaky. But God however, isn't. Since I was a child I've felt I've had a god above me and that heard me when I wept or laughed. It could be a delusion, and it could be just me trying to feel less insignificant. However, the feeling that he is there and that he loves me is very much present. So what can I say? Thank the cold unfeeling universe for making me believe in a fairy? Maybe. But it doesn't feel that way. There are times, usually outdoors, that I feel God so strongly I could drop to my knees and die right then out of gratitude for access to such experience, that feeling of pure being bound by a faith in the transcendent. That is real and that helps me be a little better of a person than I would be otherwise. It sounds cliche but faith really is key. All that pascals wager stuff is bullshit, whether he exists or not I'm thankful I get to believe in him and to some degree that sustains my ability to love myself and others like we deserve as sentient beings.

Faith is the antidote to the poisonously cerebral analytical thinking of contemporary Western society. Everything in this society becomes reducible to quantitative measurements and exchange values, must be measured by the yard stick of binary scientific thinking, must be logically comprehensible. It's a style of thinking that has its purpose in dealing with a certain subset of phenomena but is crippling to the human mind when it becomes the only manner of thought. Faith is visceral, lived, and embodied, understood without analysis.

That's not what gave me faith though. Precisely because of what I said, no man can reason himself into faith no matter how sound the argument. I've experienced the hand of God in my life many times, and it took being open to the concept of faith for me to accept and understand it. Those directly lived experiences are what gave me faith.

>>11396958
It's not an accident that God chose the Greek world to be the center of Church. The Greeks were the only people at that time with a philosophical vocabulary capable of expressing Christian revelation.

>>11396963
>whether he exists or not I'm thankful I get to believe in him
That was wonderfully put anon. Me and my buddy both really liked it.

>>11396958
It was first used as a philosophical concept by Heraclitus, but it was used in a variety of different ways. The Greeks did not invent the Christian concept of Logos

>>11396838
>Faith is free to give and infinitely rewarding
fpbp

>>11396825
A brief blog to give context. I grew up Catholic, but like many lost faith before I even knew what it was supposed to be. Bible stories I learned as a child promised miracles and wonders, but my parish priest was a fat alcoholic Mexican who barely spoke English and couldn't explain the concept of divine grace if he wanted to even in his native tongue. My parental unit was devout, but they treated it like many Catholics do (as magical amulets, superstition, and worship of the feminine prinicple rather than philosophy) and that was more reason to run from the Church. So I quit around puberty, after Confirmation. Did not at all lose interest in the accidentals of metaphysics though: switched to reading about druids, then new age crystal bullshit, Crowley, Carlos Castaneda, Buddhism, then nothing for a long time. Was never atheist, just "agnostic." Early 20s I got into Campbell's comparative mythology and Graves' Greek Myths and was reading the Bible looking for metaphors, trying to hack knowledge from parables without faith, and studying the Bible as projected psychodrama and primitive mythology. Kind of like what JBP has been doing.

1/2

>>11397044
2/2
Finally one day I started with the Greeks. I didn't like philosophy because my first dip into it had been Sartre and he *sucked*. But I dug Socrates, and Aristotle was brilliant if a bit dry. I was learning more about the early Church and its influences, and hey this guy Plotinus had his good ideas ripped off by Augustine. Continued learning about Greek influences on the New Testament and the origins of Christian theology, and especially how the NT sits atop the OT and draws authority from it rather than discrediting it. Finally got to Aquinas and he's more of a reference and I can't always follow his arguments but his Five Ways are convincing. The capstone on this period was reading Rene Girard, and his analysis of Christ as eternally recurring (ie both real and mythical) scapegoat. A sacrfice that exhorts to sacrifice for the purpose of atonement. At-One-ment, as Campbell would say.

What really clinched it for me, however, what really brought a real sincere faith back into my life since I was a child (and maybe for the first time): reading Plotinus' Enneads. Specifically his essay On Beauty. The first time I read it I was floored, I couldn't argue against it. The Form of the Good as first principle, Being as the product of the only thing that we the Created can want for-itself: Love. To forgive and to show mercy is to manifest grace. God is infinite, and infinitely merciful. If you disagree with religion, fine. They disagree amongst themselves. But don't throw out the baby Jesus (or what he stands for) with the bathwater.

>>11396966
This

I shot myself in the head and lived.

>>11397065

Really? I've thought about doing that. Not worth it?

>>11397050
>>11397044
>>11396966
>>11396963
>>11396897
Cool guys
>>11397065
made me laugh guys
>>11396940
Pseud

>>11397044
>>11397050
That was an incredible read. I'm gonna look into Plotinus thanks to you.

>>11396966
This is why it's incredibly difficult to speak to most people about faith. There is no "proof." That's kind of the point.

>>11397050
>>11397044
This is lovely. I hate that the Catholic faith is dominated by Aristotelians--it dwarfs the beauty of the Platonic tradition. One of my professors, who in a lot of ways is a mentor to me, is a Platonist Christian--shelf in his office is filled with commentaries on Plotinus and Schopenhauer, he's so cool

>>11397086
>There is no "proof." That's kind of the point.
The proof is our own being. Literally every human culture simultaneously developed ideas about the transcendent. To act as though that's all just projection is naive.

>>11397075
>Pseud
not an argument

>>11397072
It depends on whether the implications of surviving something so unlikely would have an impact on the course of your life.

It's not something I'm comfortable "recommending"; you'll carry an emotional burden you'll never be able to really share.

>>11397095
I'm of the opinion that truly to live a life of faith is to cast off logic. To have a given logical reason for faith is to "worship" that reason--I'd rather cut out the middleman.

Faith to me is realizing that logic itself has its limits.

>>11397100

I probably won't then.

>>11397103
That's definitely fair. "Logic", after all, only goes so far as human intellect can, and that as we know is a limited capacity. As St. Augustine said, "If you understand it, it ain't God"

A thing can only move or change if it has the potential for that movement or change. A rock with the potential to move can't move itself, it has to derive that movement from something else. Something else has to actualize the rocks potential movement. Since every series or chain of moved and mover is contingent on the first mover, the first mover couldn't have any potential. It would have to be pure act.

To put it another way, everything that is in motion or changing is moved or changed by something else. This chain of mover and moved cannot go on forever because if it did there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover as well. This is because second movers don't move except when moved by a first mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. So a first mover which is itself unmoved by anything else is necessary to explain motion.

This pure actual must be omnipotent, because to not be able to do something would be unrealized potential. Pure act would have to be omniscient, because to not know anything would be an unrealized potential. It can't not exist since nonexistence is pure potential, so pure act must be eternal. Pure act must be non corporeal because physical things can change which is unrealized potential. An imperfection of any kind would be unrealized potential so pure act must be perfect. There can only be one pure act because the only way to tell the difference between two things is if one had something the other didn't, but pure act can't lack anything as that would be an unrealized potential.

So here we have a necessary eternal act which is omnipotent, omniscient, non corporeal, perfect, and singular.

>>11397114
The reason I'm Christian is because I find resurrection argument compelling.

To give it a short summary, we start with some basic facts that almost all historians agree with. Jesus was a real person and was crucified, multiple people claimed to have encountered the resurrected Christ, and this belief was genuine (regardless of whether it's true or not) because many of them went on to become martyrs for that belief.

Now because Jesus was crucified, it's reasonable to believe he really died. He was placed in a guarded tomb because it was in the best interest of the Jewish and Roman authorities to make sure that the body didn't disappear. The Romans were putting down a rebellion and the Jews were squashing a heresy, and they were both well aware of the resurrection prophecy. We know for sure the body truly disappeared because the Jews who were enemies of Christians accused them of stealing the body.

There's a limited number of explanations for the post resurrection appearances. There's the hallucination hypothesis which accuses the followers of hallucinating but this doesn't make any sense because multiple people at multiple times and places claimed to have experienced the risen Christ and hallucinations don't work like that. This also fails to explain the radical conversion of Paul who was one of the greatest prosecutors of Christians and quickly became the most devoted follower after Jesus met him on the road. There's also the "greed hypothesis" which accuses the followers of making it all up but it wouldn't made any sense for them to do that because there was nothing to gain but death and torture.

There's a few more skeptical hypothesis but those are actually the stronger ones which is why I think it's reasonable to assume that Jesus Christ is who he actually said he is.

>>11397106
Great quote. I like to refer to Ecclesiastes 11:5--"As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all."

It's deeply affirming to meet a few others who are living like this. It's an increasingly rare frame of mind now that science supposedly has the answer to everything.

>>11397050
Thanks my dude

>>11397105
I should mention that I already had a belief in God before I attempted to kill myself, but in retrospect I didn't take it as seriously now.
And for the record, my belief is a constant reconciliation of physics, technology and abstractions about God. I am sure that God as an entity exists, and the trinity fits as an explanation for such an entity in the history of our world.

My life is better taking this belief seriously, but the nature of God has me asking questions about existence and myself. I feel less knowledgeable by the day as I learn more reading the Greeks and the Church fathers, and the line of great thinkers of the west.

>>11397134
I appreciate your openness on the topic. I too am already religious, but the nature of my faith places God in a light that may not necessarily care if I did kill myself or not. I suppose there is reason enough not to.

>>11397103
To me, logic is the exploration of faith that goes beyond the self.

>>11397103
I think this sort of thinking is very shallow making you susceptible to a sort of whimsical change that will end in atheism. If you don't have good reasons for believing something it doesn't take a very good reason to stop believing it. Faith is holding onto what you know to be true because sometimes it is very hard on a practical level to be a Christian since we're held to a high standard but how could you possibly have faith without reason?

>>11397075
>>11397081
>>11397092
>>11397130
Thanks m8s. I'm glad I could pass it on for you.

>>11397134
I'm glad you're still with us. There seems to be a lot of theologybros on /lit/ lately, I'm sure they'd take a crack at any questions you have. Or alternatively ask your local priest but they kind of vary.

>>11397134
>I feel less knowledgeable by the day
That's how it is. Understanding comes and goes (and goes for the most part), but when it hits you, it's staggering.

>>11397427
>alternatively ask your local priest but they kind of vary
A Dominican priest is your best bet. Those guys live to teach.

I get that to a lot of people they can justify religion because it gives them meaning, but I wonder how can someone force themselves to believe something.

>>11397134
>>11397440
This is a good idea. If you can, anon, travel to a Dominican monastery near you. There are a few in the US, and I'm sure they'd be happy to have a visitor asking them questions for a day or two.

>>11397443
That's precisely the point. When you are ready to really truly believe, you won't need convincing. You will submit to it gladly because you have recognized the truth of it. And not merely as some utilitarian philosophy that serves man, but as a real step towards preparing to rejoin the ineffable.

>>11396825
I went through a depressed edgy nihilist phase and eventually came to the conclusion that the only rational way to live is to live as if there is a God. If there isn't, well then nothing has meaning and there's no point existing. But then even supposed "atheists" believe in transcendental truth otherwise they wouldn't bother to continue to live (Or they don't fully understand nihilism and think "I want to have good experiences" is a meaningful reason to exist).

It improved my life in measurable ways. I'm happy with my place in the universe and I'm happy to have a framework by which to live my life and achieve lasting happiness. I place my trust in God because there is no other rational choice. God is good and we need to listen to the wisdom of our ancestors, because as much as we mock them for not knowing scientific truth they had deeper knowledge of what it means to be human than many of us today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alzd2UvE7qY

>>11397455
What is the truth of it?

>>11397462
It's a lot to explain in a post, and the path that ultimately worked for me may not be the path you were meant to take. Start with the Greeks. Read the Bible, and Girard, and Campbell, and learn about the early Church. I'm sure part of not 'forcing yourself to believe' is discovering these truths for yourself and adopting them willingly.

Bump

I easily found God in any given part of my comfortable life in my hometown. Everything good could be attributed to him and everything bad could be seen as a test. Then I travelled several hundred miles away and he didn't come with me. What was good, I had to earn. No "divine intervention" (read easy hometown life). What was bad wasn't a test, it's just what happens to people all the fucking time. He doesn't exist outside the confines of what you're accustomed to. Your parents ideology only works in your parents house.

This thread has been amazing to read through. Can someone suggest some reading for someone just beginning to explore this? I've read the Bible, and though some of it really drew me in, there was a lot I couldn't wrap my head around. I was raised in a secular household and wasn't exposed to a ton of religion growing up, I didn't really realise how rich the tradition was intellectually until recently.

>>11397455
Honest question, how often do you doubt it? Not your faith, but how often do you wonder
if what you believe in is wrong?

As someone who was raised Christian, but was always given the freedom to question everything,
I abandoned my faith after debating myself for years.
I actually find that I'm much more at peace with my current atheistic beliefs.

/Christian/ for many reasons. I'll list a few non-supernatural ones to make it more accessible.

Empty tomb is a pretty big reason. Paul makes a rather extreme historical claim--if Jesus did not raise from the dead then our faith is dead. If you're making up a religion, you don't make historical claims like that. All of the apostles' writings don't make any sense if they didn't truly believe what they were writing. They never ask for money or power but rather point to Jesus. Compare that to other religions like Mormonism where it's pretty obvious the central figure made it to get money and power.

Fedoras might laugh at this but it actually is striking how internally consistent Christian theology is. Everything logically fits together if you study it enough and ask the right questions.

Also, the dead sea scrolls put many prophecies in perspective. There's a fully intact Isaiah scroll that predates Jesus by centuries and lays out so much of what he accomplished.

Ask me questions

>>11398250
This isn't really related to the threads topic but how do I pray? How do I find a church that suits me?

>>11398258
There's no one right way to pray. I pray to Father God, and end with in Jesus name simply because Jesus said there is no way to God except through him.

A common way that I have found helpful is ACTS, Adoration, then Confession, then Thanksgiving, then Supplication. I hope you find this helpful.

>>11398060
I'm aa big fan of Ed Feser

>>11396825
I'll just copy and paste what I asked in a similar thread a few days ago and hope I get a proper response this time:

"I have a question. Suppose you're religious. Do you believe there is A God or THE God? Do you believe that all religious people praise and pray to the same Entity (but It has different names) or do you believe 'literally' in the stories of exclusively your own religion?

As an example, let's take a look at Christianity. Do you believe that there is God, his son Jesus Christ who resurrected to save humanity and the Holy Spirit (along with the Divine Virgin Mary and Saints and what not) and that all of them are LITERAL figures and that by praying you are communicating with one of them? Or do you follow the doctrines of Christianity while recognizing other belief systems?

Let's suppose you're the first type of believer and let's suppose that somewhere exists another person who believes in, say, Hinduism. And for argument's sake, let's say that he is the most splendid person ever to exist, basically sinless. Now he's off in a temple somewhere praying to Vishnu. To remind ourselves, you don't believe that he is correct in believing in Vishnu because that would be a contradiction. When that person prays, God hears him? He is omnipotent after all? But then, is this person not a Christian? Due to geographical conditions he does have a different name for Him, yet he lives as virtuously as he can. Aren't you two worshiping the same Entity? But from his point of view, he can say exactly the same things about you (provided you are a good person which let's say you are). Would you be willing to pray to Agni? He to Jesus Christ? But isn't this the same as being a believer of the second type?

What makes A God THE God?

In my mind, this doesn't prove that there is no God, only that if there is, such an Entity would not care for the names we have in store. And the rituals which differ from religion to religion, country to country. And for the mass gatherings of praise. After all, it's not like God has ever started speaking during mass. Would it not be logical then to talk to Him in our privacy. Reformulating the question of religion into the question of believing whether or not there is a Deity with which you can communicate with your thoughts?

I apologize if it's not very coherent and if this sort of question has been addressed often, but I hope my thoughts are understandable. If there are books on this topic or something similar, please let me know!"

>>11398603
>do you believe 'literally' in the stories of exclusively your religion?
Yes.
>you don't believe that he is correct in believing in Vishnu because that would be a contradiction
God and Vishnu share many characteristics. If God can be likened to a light-emanating orb, Vishnu is a semi-distorted mirror reflecting God's light. I suppose the Hindu might say something similar vice versa.

>>11396889
> I struggle to see how anyone can come to understand the Christian ethical vision (King as Servant) and not immediately recognise it as the truth
Because that's literally just your own cultural conditioning causing you to develop an affinity for this archetypal narrative. That's not to say it doesn't have some beauty to it, but it is absolutely not a reason to then say that this makes Christianity the "one true religion."

>It's a violent faith, in the sense that it tears us each apart, but its better than staying on earth.
This is true of any spiritual tradition. It's not a coincidence in the slightest that all religions - when practiced will full devotion - emphasise compassion, emptying one's self, humility, piety, faith, honesty, etc. etc.

>>11398603
There is only one God, what changes is the cultural lens we view him through. Whether or not he cares about that is up for debate.

>>11398258
>How do I find a church that suits me?

You don't. You go to a church that's true.

/lit/ - literature
will you religitards please fuck off

>>11396966
Dude, at least be pragmatic about it. You invented a delusion to help you cope and find meaning. Making any claims is out of the window but let the results of the delusion be what's real only.

I grew up religious and eventually realized it's all a collection of metaphors that make people feel secure. What the metaphor is, the characteristics of what you call god, is unimportant so long as you have faith. It's not unlike the faith people place in charismatic political figures.

>>11396825
literally just if you were born into it

>>11399731
>as if all religious people are born into it
>as if that has any hold on whether the claims are true or false

>>11399731
I was born in an atheist family and my other divorced parent was a Christian.

I'm a Muslim.

Fuck off.

LOL Christians celebrate pagan holidays and make a mockery of their God by marketing him. Very weak religion . 2/10

>>11399538
Seriously. Is this board always full of christfags?

>>11399832

Doesn't the fact that it went from obscure jewish cult to supplanting local tradition by Constantine's time prove that, at the very least, it can spread fast? Seems like a pretty top tier religion to me.

>>11399832
>LOL Christians celebrate pagan holidays and make a mockery of their God by marketing him. Very weak religion . 2/10
>omits the fact they're irish pagan holidays
>ignores which board he's on
I'd call you a dunce, but it's insulting to the eponymous medieval scholar.

>>11399891
If it can spread fast then does that make it top-tier? Islam spread very fast too, and so did K-Pop and the Bieber fever.

>>11399919
yeah, absolutely. Islam is also top tier.

>>11399936
Islam got military help immediately, christians didn't have this kind of help spreading until almost 4th century.

God exists but within the human himself. The kingdom of heaven is an internal kingdom. In this way God's existence has more significance than if He were some being out there somewhere.

>>11399963
God actually exists. I've prayed and felt the wind blown. I have prayed and felt my spirit healed.

I have heard God and I love him. No Christ worship for me, thank you.

>>11399976
This.
Putting God within yourself is actually substituting God for your self. Or with the world, or with some idea.
God is that clearly transcendent principle of Being, which we know in certainty but cannot express comprehensively due to our finitude.
We need to keep monotheism alive, as Abraham did even when he was the only believer in the whole world.

>>11396825

No one that gathered enough information about religions and history/politics can be a truly religious.
There is a hardcore correlation between believes, geography, historycal backround and cultural mentality + a bonus of economical situation of the society. When you put all the factors together you get the whole picture actually. And no reasonable man that has seen it, can still rationally believe in religions.
So, religions are out of the question.


Believing in a God on the other hand is something else. God/Matrix/Master/Creator/Universal law/Physical laws described as God.....
Believing in God itself is.. a belief. You can't proove it, you can't deny it. You just can hope.
And this depends completly on your personality, not intelligence. This is why it is said that Tesla didn't believe in the existence of a "creator", but Einstein did.

Reading this thread i got the sense that there are a lot of people that are not in touch with the reality they are living in. There are people who actually try to reason religions...

Just a reminder to the normal people that browese here.
Read the thread, those are the autistic fedoras that rate your writings. Just in case if you start worrying and doubting yourselves. It's all cool. They are retarded.

>>11397044
>>11397050
>>11396889
>>11396897
wtf i love jesus now?

>>11400046
...And not a single point was made

>13 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,[a] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

>4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

>8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly,[b] but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Not a proper Christian but 1 Corinthians 13 almost makes me cry whenever I read it.

>>11396940
The only universal truth is that there is none.

>>11400128

>>11400019
>>11400046

>>11398250
>Compare that to other religions like Mormonism
About a dozen people witnessed the Golden Tablets Adam Smith found and whats more they never recanted this (even when some of them were kicked out) - despite the fact that it would have brought them a lot of wealth and freedom from persecution. Should this serve as concrete proof of their existence?

>striking how internally consistent Christian theology is
But isnt that kind of a non issue as theology by its very foundational status sets the conditions for consistency? Hence why other religions like Islam and eastern faiths can be consistent as well.

>>11400154
Are you claiming that there is no reason to religion? Is there no objective element within it which has some measure of truth? From this viewpoint, every genuine person’s beliefs cannot be made inferior to another’s. And the lack of belief is just as much justified. So why exactly are “they” retards? Where is their mistake?

>>11398111
>how often do you doubt it?
At least twice a month

>>11400195

There is no reason for the very existing of the religion, if you have done enough of research and + (bonus) lived your life with passion about Gods and searched for answers.

You are not different than an Athenian peasent that believed with pure passion and loyality in Zeus. No, that is not edgy. It's the way the circle works. Now it's the reality we live in, after 200 years it will changed by something that passes better to the reality that our grandchildren will have.
Everything repeats itself. There is a reason for religions, for traditions, for culture, for entertainment.. because we are humans, and we can't without them. But if you are more interested in the subject, read enough, open enough for a new world viewing... you will that it's all an abstract object that we have created and we believed in. That's all, Anon.

We are better because we create our own abstractions that distract us from the truth that doesn't exactly comfy us the way it should be. Sometimes the truth is an enemy of a healthy mind.

>>11400285
>You are not different than an Athenian peasent that believed with pure passion and loyality in Zeus
Greek religion and Christianity are pretty different in character, you have to admit.

>>11400285
>Sometimes the truth is an enemy of a healthy mind

>>11398111
honest answer: every once in a while the thought crosses my mind. it doesn't actually concern me, because I know I'm right. I'm convinced. Yes, I know there is no proof. the thought goes away as quickly as it came.

>I abandoned my faith after debating myself for years.
Please don't think I'm judging you, but by your post it sounds like you're still debating. No judgment, sincerely. I believe all roads lead to God, even the proud and difficult ones. They're just a longer way around.

>>11400297

Greek religion and paganism/hinduism/some other religions in native america/ egyptian politeism and so on/ are different in character, you have to admit.

BTW, watch the "The man from earth". This topic reminded me of that minimalistic movie, which is actually pretty good. Cheers.

>>11400285
>We are better because we create our own abstractions that distract us from the truth that doesn't exactly comfy us the way it should be.
Not everyone has the ability to double-think like you. And you suspiciously distrust the pursuit of reason and true wisdom, which I just can’t understand.

>>11400328
whats that text

>>11400334
Hegel’s PoS, Preface.

You WILL worship something. Most atheists worship their intellect and follow their desires. I choose god because that where the virtues to a righteous life lie.

>>11400345
>I choose god because that where the virtues to a righteous life lie.
Sounds like you’re not worshiping God, but virtues and living a righteous life, and belief in God is just the means. But why is God necessary? How does the belief in God help you derive the principles for living a virtuous life?

>>11400328
>you suspiciously distrust the pursuit of reason and true wisdom

I don't really know what do you mean, man.
What do you really mean?

>>11400364
>But why is God necessary? How does the belief in God help you derive the principles for living a virtuous life?
How can virtue exist without God?

>>11400344
>Hegel

>>11400385
You've never seen an atheist do something virtuous?

>>11400381
Read the pic

>>11400385
How can virtue exist with God? I’m asking how they are related. But to answer your question, virtue is derived from wisdom, and it is essentially wisdom in action. Plato’s Gorgias, Meno and Protagoras dialogues discuss the topic of virtue in detail without referencing some connection to God.

>>11400392
That isn't what he said. Of course atheists can do virtuous things.

Also, existentially, these virtuous things will NOT have the same teleological meaning as they would for a believer.

>>11400385
>How can virtue exist without God?
Not that anon but through teleonomy or ideology.

>>11396897
>God himself is holy, he is of light and there is no darkness in him at all (1 John 1:5).
Compare to Plotinus, in >>11397044
>...light which is incorporeal and formative power and form. This is why fire itself is more beautiful than all other bodies, because it has the rank of form in relation to the other elements; it is above them in place and is the finest and subtlest of all bodies, being close to the incorporeal. It alone does not admit the others; but the others admit it: for it warms them but is not cooled itself; it has colour primarily and all other things take the form of colour from it.

wtf i love the old testament now

>>11396897
your own...personal...jesus...

>>11396838
Maybe for you. My belief comes at the price of evidence. It's not something to be had for free.

>>11400695
>empiricist
>tryna weigh in on a discussion of metaphysics
just close the browser tab and move on with your day, bugman.

>>11400825
The word “evidence” need not refer to sensual experiences. You can rely on purely evidence without being an empiricist because reason is also evidence, since reason makes propositions evidenT.

>>11396825
I want to be Christian, I really do, but how the fuck am I supposed to pretend that the God of the kikes isn't just a larp? The Greek doctrines offer far better explanations of divinity without all the superstitious nonsense you find in the Bible.

>>11401079
read the thread.

B U M P

>>11401122
They rarely help and it's over a hundred posts long.

>>11397050
>implying this isn't just confirming that the Greek doctrines were infinitely better than Hebrew larping bullshit
>Hurr we're the chosen people of God and shit we're getting massacred by Romans and enslaved by Egyptians and shit we're the essence of love and justice but also the most emphatic enablers of globalist capitalism and pornography and shit

Seriously, anything good that comes out of Christianity always dates to the Greeks. No one has ever been able to tell me why Jesus or his Hebrew God are inherently worth following based on Jesus' own doctrines, because those doctrines are built on a Jewish way of seeing the world, and I am not Jewish, so naturally I am unable to empathize with their God. Jesus never offers this sort of theology - this is all done by the Greeks well before or the Romans well after.

Also, 9/10 times when someone tries to describe God's essence they reference the Bible, which is also dumb because his essence should be universally demonstrable.

>>11401569
>has nothing fucking clue about judaism
>spouts bullshit conspiracies about jews being globalists

>>11401572
>has no argument
>is actually fucking dumb enough to think its a conspiracy

I hate to tell you famalam but regardless of whether you buy into genetic determinism, it's written right there in Exodus, or at the least the psychological narcissism of "Everything I do is righteous because lmao God's chosen" is.

>>11401715
It's not narcissism if they actually are hte chosen people

>>11396825
I read The Brothers Karmazov and had some kind of epiphany when reading the Father Zosima chapters.

I do have "reasons" for believing, but really it all comes down to a strong feeling that is awoken in you that just causes you to believe because it feels right to do so. Which I think has a value on its own and would be ruined if we could somehow prove god existed.

>>11396825
Platonic Realism. If forms are real, as modern mathematics and physics require, then the source of forms must be ontologically prior to forms, i.e. the One/God beyond being. Good modern introduction is:
>Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Aeropagite
>By Eric Pearl

Also Stanford:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

>>11398111
I doubt a lot but that's because I'm a depressed wreck.

>>11401572
t. rootless cosmopolitan who should be deported 101 kilometres from the border of /lit/

>>11401728
Historical trends and their avariciousness would indicate that they're probably not. Most Bronze Age peoples were retarded enough to think they were divinely chosen.
>Be Aryan
>Almost all of the world was sired as your lineage
>Create the most significant works of art and technological innovation barring no competition
>Only run out of steam due to colossal ambition paired with (((financiers)))

>Be Jewish
>Holy book celebrates faggots who whored out their own wives because they were absolute cowards
>For some reason the cowardice God imbues them with brings harsh judgement upon the Egyptians for fucking said wife
>Bring discord wherever you go but never actually attain any measure of victory with it because you are a fundamentally schizophrenic people incapable of great work
>be social equivalent to a tumor
>be anemic and effeminate
>eventually the dumb elder brother of English Sovereignty destroys six million of you in an industrial murder machine
>only get saved due to the system of global capital you enmeshed yourself in by the lion's share efforts of Aryans

Which of these peoples appears as divinely chosen, or at least less fucking dumb in believing that they are divinely chosen?

>>11401079
Because the God-man Christ is a more fitting mediator between the Divine and Man than Platonic Daimons. Christianity is 90% Plantonism anyway, the main difference is attitude to demons. If you trust demons, become a Platonist; if not become a Christian.

I've read a fair few of the posts on here, and on the whole they seem to have deep thought in them, and to expound the essence of Christian scripture. But we've all met Christians who go around just rehearsing *points* of the bible *at* you as though the bible is just a list of orders that you must obey pointwise, and say that if it's written in the bible then it's something that *God personally said* to everyone; and if you try to communicate any kind of notion to them to the effect that it was written by geezers who truly had great & sublime visions, but that the particular *fine details* of the commands in it are influenced by the culture of their time - or anything atall like that - that there is deep meaning to be discerned through all the apparent rules & stuff, they just scoff & tell you that you're going to hell for not obeying. I think they just want to have people obeying *themselves* more than anything; and they are a nuisance, and put people off reading the scriptures & seeing for themselves how sublime it is.

>>11401734
See, I'm on board with this but don't see how it justifies a Christian God.

>>11398603
For me I believe in THE God and that essentially every other religion is worshipping the same thing, just their own interpretation of the eternal. That does not mean to say that my religions interpretation is the ultimate version. It's just the form that suits me best.

As for Jesus and such, it's a good question that I don't fully have an answer to myself. There is more evidence than most religions that Jesus really did rise from the dead and so on, but I'm not convinced.

Mostly I just look at all the religions of the world including my own as a finite interpretation of the infinite.

>>11401753
The Aryan Greeks who Christ choose Paul to minister to as the first sons of the Church.

>>11399731
LOL both of my parents are fedora tippers and so was I for a long time.

>>11401761
How do you get to the ineffable One? Who mediates your epistrophe back to God?

>>11401771
but that wasn't the argument, we were talking about whether or not Jews were the chosen people, which is demonstrably bullshit, as is most of the law with regards to divinity.

>>11401796
I have no idea what epistrophe means. To get to the ineffable? Who knows. Why should Jesus be that mediator? His doctrines have demonstrable failures, the trinity is retarded in that Jesus could not be truly human if he was also God.

The whole idea of alienating himself from himself or even needing a sacrificial abatement in the first place is also ridiculous, because a divinity, if a divinity is thought of as bountiful love, wouldn't require worship for the sake of veneration / appeasement. Sacrifice, worship, and ritual are distinctedly human practices of attaining salvation through works of obedience to that divinity, but a divinity that requires sacrifice and worship is by definition insufficient unto itself and thus not divine and probably not worthy of worship in the first place (if I wanted to worship something that was incomplete I would just worship myself).

>>11401814
>a divinity that requires sacrifice and worship is by definition insufficient unto itself and thus not divine
Christians don't worship God for his sake, they worship God for their own sake. Worship is where we gain our sustenance. God benefits nothing from it

>>11397065
hi martin

>>11401828
So why is God such a vicious cunt that he needs to mask his creation by killing himself as a sacrificial lamb?

I'm Christian because of beauty. I find the Christian faith to be the most beautiful thing in history; the character of Christ is beauty, the Divine liturgy is beauty, the orthodox life is beauty. Faith to me is something that is lived and loved and not something you rationalise into being as many have done and many will do.

>>11401938
>t. Not actually a Christian

>be me
>create this world
>takes me six days
>on the seventh I rest
>because I'm done working
>because I finished on day six
>mfw these abominations I created have plenty of work to be done and yet they rest every seventh day

>>11401940
T. Crypto atheist Thomist

Thoughts?

>>11396963
You and I feel alike on some things. Thank you for typing it out brother.

>>11401814
>epistrophe
It's the techical term for return to form, and of the return of form to the One/God, as the final cause (telos) of objects in Platonism.

You're confusing the object that is being acted on in theurgy. Rituals and sacrifice are not acting upon God, they are acting upon men to make them God-like, as an act of epistrophe, a return and realisation of their form in fuller/full participation in the One. Theurgy (God-work) and other mechanisms of mediation (like the incarnation or Platonic daimons) between men and God are means of man's becoming into being; that is the realisation of their form as the teleological purpose of their existence. It is man (or more broadly created objects) that is not sufficient and who is made more sufficent by theurgy, not God. It is man who has not become fully being, not that which is fully Being (forms) or that which is beyond being (the One/God), by being privated of (as in imperfectly participating in) his form.

You can't worship yourself because your form is ontologically prior to your existence, and God is ontologically prior to all forms/Form. You are not even yet a being but something that is participanting in the act of becoming by epistrophe to being (that is form) and to that which is beyond being; God.

>>11401862
As the superlative, perfect, and absolute (because of the actual sacrifice of God rather than a mimetic act of ordinary animal or votive sacrifice) act of theurgy whose sacrifice and sacrificial meal we could always partake in to mediate ourselves in absolute to God.

>>11402009
Eudaimonia doens't fully capture the religious experience. On the one hand eudaimonia is accidental to theosis, and Christian life is often difficult, unjoyful and demanding of sacrifice. On the other hand eudaimonia doesn't compare to the hights of divine eros and the ecstasy of Platonic divine mania. Eudaimonia is a good ethical precept but it does not enclose the religious experience or define a sufficient telos for men.

Query to believers, how relevant are the Holy Scriptures to your personal faith? And how can one possibly look up to God as depicted in the Old Testament, vain and petty and overzealous?

>>11400152
based Nāgārjuna

>>11402150
>How relevant are the holy scriptures
Very relevant.
>Vain petty and overzealous
He isn't any of these.

>>11401351
>"I want to believe in God"
>read the thread
>"I can't be bothered."
fix yourself.

>>11400310
I see how you could get that impression from reading my post, but it's really not the case.
I'm a computer science student, I've always been annoyed at things I couldn't wrap my head around, understanding something puts me at ease.
Most of my struggle with religion stemmed from me growing up in a very, very religious crowd. Everyone around me was saying how God watching over us and loves us, and it felt both good and stressful to believe that. Then I started asking questions and realized everyone had their own version of God and their own interpretation of faith.

While that may be really beautiful in its' own way, it completely shattered my faith. When I look at the world around us, a loving, caring God just doesn't fit in for me. Removing that expectation from the world, and not looking for a meaning in everything really was a weight off my shoulders. I acknowledge faith as a beautiful thing, but I also realize it's not for me.

>>11402405
if ur a computer science student then proving gods existence is as easy as popping this bad boy into Coq.

https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod/blob/master/Formalizations/Coq/GoedelGod_AnnikaBruno.v

My question is: at what point does “God” and “Jesus” become a trope or indeterminate signifier used to signify physis, or natural event? By having the word “God”, “jesus,” they start to constitute reality.( btw this is why you should read Derrida). Allah reveals himself as “I am that I am;” WITHOUT a signifier. In this sense, jehovah (I am that I am) is the closest ontological concept of anti-physis/pure spirit. I dont believe that pure spirit exists, but if it did , then it would be “I am that I am.” Logocentrism flushes spirituality of its mysteries and anti-concepts.

I (and other atheists) can’t explain the problem of consciousness: the condition for questioning and believing in anti-physis

>>11396825
I believe that the world is controlled by satanists. I eventually came to believe Satan was real, and therefore god must be too.

If you’re interested, I was lead to believe this by researching subliminal messages and biblical symbolism in pop-culture.

Now I see those same symbols all around me, constantly affirming what I believe.

>>11396889
Well written response; thank you!

>>11396825
Montaigne sums it up best for myself; it is the moral duty of us men to pick the best belief system of our time and preach it to high heaven. Metaphysics aside.

>>11399538
What is wrong with religious people?

I used to believe in God, having been brought up in a pentecostal church. We found out the pastor was using it as a racket and also fucking young dudes on the down low. It was pretty shocking, since the church was a pretty tight knit community and i was only 14 at the time.
Still feel pretty weird about God. I received the Holy Spirit, prayed in tongues and saw legit miracles in that church (people fully recovering from cancer, burns, addictions). But i dont really want to go back
I've read a lot of philosophy and history since leaving. I know that my God was a slight variation of literally millions before, all of which felt as real to millions of people before me. I think God is just something we don't understand but which can help us if we serve Him
I have a feeling I will probably come back but I don't want to yet

>>11402063
All of that makes a lot of sense, so I appreciate you taking the time to type it out, but it seems like it ignores the core problem - why was it necessary for Jesus to die in order to spare the world of God's judgement? If we build off your concepts, I've seen people claim that damnation is the natural result of a failure to live in accordance with religious principles, but within your model that seems like a purely psychological phenomenon.

What reason is there for God to need to manifest himself on earth? Only for us and so we could learn to be like him, as in your model? Because everyone else I've spoken to seems to have an idea of God as requiring appeasement by the death of Jesus (i.e. The death of himself).

>>11402335
I read through it and none of it was relevant to my objections.

>>11396889
>>11396897
>>11396910
>>11396940
>>11396963
>>11396966
>>11397044
>>11397114
Do you all literally believe, hand on heart, that 2,000 years ago in Ancient Palestine a Jewish carpenter named Jesus (Yeshua) walked across the surface of a lake? Do you literally believe that a mysterious man named Lazarus was brought back to life after being dead for several days? Do you really all believe these things to be literal historical truths?
>>11400155
This. I’m tired of seeing the apostles argument. It’s lazy.

>>11403799
>Do you all literally believe, hand on heart, that 2,000 years ago in Ancient Palestine a Jewish carpenter named Jesus (Yeshua) walked across the surface of a lake? Do you literally believe that a mysterious man named Lazarus was brought back to life after being dead for several days? Do you really all believe these things to be literal historical truths?

>>11403827
Is that an answer?

>>11403799
>Do you really all believe these things to be literal historical truths?
The thing with religions is that they are not believed in on the basis of their vericity but are themselves the standard bearers of truth.

Wow, an actually pretty decent /lit/ thread about Christianity. Nice to see it mostly hasn't devolved into fedoras shitposting.

>>11403845
So a man did walk on water?

>>11403898
A guy didn't drown helping one that almost did.

>>11403901
So the fact that - historical account which describes a man walking on water also describes a man being saved from drowning means that both of these claims must be correct?

>>11403799
>Do you all literally believe, hand on heart, that 2,000 years ago in Ancient Palestine a Jewish carpenter named Jesus (Yeshua) walked across the surface of a lake? Do you literally believe that a mysterious man named Lazarus was brought back to life after being dead for several days? Do you really all believe these things to be literal historical truths?
Yes

>>11399825
>>11401772
both of you are simply rebelling against your parents.

>>11403914
you're focusing on how it was done instead of how someone was saved

>>11403938
I’m focusing on what reason all the Christians in this thread have for believing such incredible historical claims which in any other context they would reject.

>>11403951
The historical argument for Jesus' resurrection was touched on here >>11397118

There's a good reason to believe that Jesus actually brought himself back from the dead. If he can do that why wouldn't he be able to walk on water?

We should have religion indicators on our posts so that we can tell if they were made by nutcase christfags in non bible related threads.

>>11403898
Yes and if you have real empirical data which seems to be evidence that the bible, if interpreted literally, would have to be accepted as false, then your idea of empirical data is wrong.
Consider Philip Henry Gosse's Omphalos. This what wikipedia says:
>Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot is a book by Philip Gosse, written in 1857 (two years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species), in which he argues that the fossil record is not evidence of evolution, but rather that it is an act of creation inevitably made so that the world would appear to be older than it is. The reasoning parallels the reasoning that Gosse chose to explain why Adam (who would have had no mother) had a navel: Though Adam would have had no need of a navel, God gave him one anyway to give him the appearance of having a human ancestry. Thus, the name of the book, Omphalos, which means 'navel' in Greek.

>>11397118
>>11403967
Where are the records of these multiple sightings of post-resurrection Jesus outside of the gospels? And do any of you think that those secular counter-hypothesis (greed, hallucination etc.) are all LESS viable than the belief that the Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead? This is just bad history.

Human psychology and motivation are deeply complex things. Just look at the Jonestown mass suicide if you need reminding of this. We know virtually nothing about the apostles or the authorship of the gospels - they just aren’t a reliable basis for recording events of this magnitude.

>>11404031
Let's hold a minute. Why do you exclude the gospels as evidence from the start?

>>11404046
Because they’re four contradictory and mysterious records whose weak reliability was being used to justify many supposed sightings of post-resurrection Jesus.

>>11400840
>since reason makes propositions evident
Ergo reason precedes evidence
Have a nice day

>>11404072
I think you're little uninformed because even most secular historians agree that the gospels are reliable sources of at least some historical information. I don't know what specific contradictions you're talking about but all of the atheist criticisms about the census, Judas, or the genealogies are easily reconciled and even when there isn't an easy answer it doesn't mean there is no historical value in other areas. I tell you, if we held all historical documents to the same exact standard that many critics hold the gospels then we would know absolutely nothing about history.

>>11404104
Not him but I agree with the gospels being valid historical sources in some way. I just don't think that something as insane as the resurrection can be proven with the historical method.

>>11404111
I agree with you but there's a bit of a misunderstanding. The argument isn't that the resurrection happened because the gospels said it happened, but instead the gospels are being used as evidence people really claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Christ. There's four separate documents written by different people at different times and places close the period of when it happened and they're in agreement with each other.

>>11404104
I never said they were useless, I know they have value. But the gospels are rightly held to a high standard because of what enormous things they claim.

You’ve left my other points unreplied to.

>>11404085
Reason is evidence. How can it not be?

>>11404141
If you don't recognize that four separate documents that are all in agreement which other that people actually claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Christ counts as acceptable evidence then we can't really have a conversation because that is how history is done. The historical evidence for the claim couldn't possibly be much stronger.

>>11404003

>>11404154
But I’m asking you what reason there is to believe that those claims necessarily correspond to reality. The motivations and backgrounds of the apostles are a mystery to us, why is it the best response to these documents to say that they must be evidence for miraculous events which have never since been repeated in soundly verifiable ways?
>how history is done
With regards to the history of wars and political conflicts yes, but not when we’re dealing with resurrections.

>>11404206
The claim is merely that multiple people at multiple times and places claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Christ and this is sufficiently evidence by the 4 gospels and the book of acts. They were all written by different people at different times and places. Do you understand that the argument here >>11397118 is not using the gospels as evidence that the resurrection truly happened?

>>11404236
This entire thread is ultimately about Christian belief which rests upon the gospels. That’s what I was aiming to discuss.

>>11404254
I don't agree with you that Christian belief rests on the gospels. It's a source of Christian belief but it's hardly the only one and even protestants would agree with me if they thought about it. I have no idea what you're trying to get out of this.

If Jesus actually resurrected himself, and there's good reason to believe he did, then it's reasonable to believe he could do other things like walk on water.

>>11398060
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is one of the more important theologians of the 20th century, and has came up with some very profound ideas regarding faith and whatnot. I would recommend reading his biography by Eric Metaxas.

>>11401753
>believing in the holohoax

>>11404236
Not that guy but the fact that they were written in different times and places and that (even if marginal) they do differ in some respects (and a lot more radically from texts that are contemporaneous with either the writing of or the oldest extant copies of the gospels) is sufficient leeway to argue that Jesus, and most of the events surrounding his life, are a mystery to us.

>>11404332
He was questioning how we know people actually claimed to have witnessed to resurrected Christ. It is evidently true that people claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Christ because all of the gospels and the book of acts agree with each other on that point.

Even if we assume the gospels aren't reliable in other aspects or contradict each other in other ways it is completely irrelevant to the claim being substantiated. That 5 different documents written by different people at different times all make same historical claim is very strong evidence that some people actually did claim to have witnessed the resurrected Christ and there is no rational basis for rejecting it.

>>11398060
C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is a great, beautifully written introduction.

>>11401730
If I remember correctly, he mentioned the principle of "active love", in which through practice, you become "convinced", for to prove a cause of faith would cause it to not be faith.

>>11396838
Or infinitely damning.
What if it's Allah sitting on the throne, throwing you into flames for not being a muselman?

>>11403829
not that anon, but one of the ones you mass (You)d... yes, that looks like an answer. now i'm going to disregard that you may just be a baiting fedora or incapable of determining answers from non-answers and give you an answer as well.

Whether those two events literally happened exactly as recorded or not is irrelevant, and you should think seriously for a while about why you think it does.

Jesus was fully man and fully God. Those aren't just words, ignorantly mumbled articles of faith, but rather a description of a hypostatic union. Yes, I believe those two events you mentioned were fully possible. Even probable. I can't know for certain because I wasn't there.

>>11403799
-->
>>11404538

>>11403799
dabbin' some EWTN on 'em. watch this, anon. it's a good lecture, and it raises some good problems for you to solve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N93T-DppU6U

>>11404569
>Fr. Robert Spitzer

I thought I recognized that name. This book was really good.

>>11404592
he's a smart guy. his lecture on the big bang is also great, and he reminds people that LeMaitre existed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj8qUx9Vzns

(this one)

>>11397044
>>11397050
Thanks brother. I'm gonna look into the Greeks you mentioned. I have faith but a wavering one at times and it helps to have greater rational arguments to back it up. I appreciate your posts

>>11403429
>jesus isn't I AM THAT I AM
Read John 1.

>>11404867
welcome senpai

>>11405607
I meant ontologically

>>11403799
>Do you all literally believe, hand on heart, that 2,000 years ago in Ancient Palestine a Jewish carpenter named Jesus (Yeshua) walked across the surface of a lake?
Why not? All things are possible with God. From the tone of your post it sounds like you're intimating that it's something absurd that no-one should believe in but that's assuming your philosophical outlook on the world is reductive materialism. That might be your view of reality, but it's certainly not mine, I think it's a silly a short sighted philosophy that hinges on "Hey we can discover things about how the universe functions, therefore there must be nothing except those things we can measure!" as an argument, but doesn't really work that well when you look into it.

>>11404592
Can recommend this too. Good book. Didn't appreciate the extreme need for fine tuning in astrophysics prior to reading.

>>11405825
>all things are possible with God
Huge cop out, considering that all things are possible without God as well. Molecules can rearrange, water can turn solid momentarily, hell you can even push your arm through stone if every atom aligned perfectly. That doesn't mean these things are likely to happen. Nor does it mean if they do happen, it had to have been God.

>>11405895
>considering that all things are possible without God as well.
Rather large assumption on your part I would say since I could easily counter by saying the properties that allow molecules to interact the way they do wouldn't exist without God in the first place. Things work the way they do because God wills it so. There is no such thing as an event that occurs "naturally", nor is there any difference between the "natural" or "supernatural". Reality is as God wills it to be, no more, no less.

>>11396825
I absolutely hate religion and dogma, but I believe in God. I'm drinking my fourth beer right now. When I return to a state where marijuana isn't a criminal offense, I will smoke it. I watch porn when I feel like it. I have had and will have sexual relations with a woman out of wedlock again.

But I believe in the Monad. In my belief, there is an ever present force which connects all space time and the collective conscious of life. The boundaries of this force can only be described as infinite and utterly beyond our complete comprehension.

I believe in the fundamental teachings of Christ without the dogma associated with institutional religion. I believe in the power to redeem one self of sin with faith and by grace. Christ came to the world at a time of utmost decadence, conflict, and confusion. He is a vehicle for those who seek confirmation in purpose beyond the fragility of this world. It is not wrong to embrace worldly cultures, but every once in a while those cultures die or become something so alien to what they were that it is beyond recognition. What lives? What do we have to aim toward? The Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is waiting to burst out of all of us. Because of different traditions, sects, and so on we all believe in practicing differently. Of course some will call me a sinner because of my lifestyle choices. Naturally I am a sinner because I am a man, and to be without sin is to be quite literally dead. The sin itself is present and surrounds all of us but through Christ we may live without being defined by it.

There are many people today who are assuming a Christian identity which is not contingent on structured institutions of faith. I believe that this is the best representation for where Christianity is moving forward. We are no longer boggled down by the dictations of a powerful minority. In this way we are free to practice our faith in Christ within the confines of our own relationship with Him.

There will always be people who say "this is wrong" or "this is heresy." Who cares? It's been that way since Peter and Paul.

Meditate on this.

>>11405925
So in other words, you're a member of the Brethren of the Free Spirit

>>11405925
>I'm spiritual but not religious tee hee

>>11404376
>some people
There you go. Now stop being stupid and answer by saying faith rather than reason

God bless you all my Christ-bros.

>>11403651
>why was it necessary for Jesus to die in order to spare the world of God's judgement?
It necessarily follows from the efficacy and role of sacrifice generally (as in animal sacrifice, votive sacrifice, libations etc.) practiced by all cultures. If you accept the role of sacrifice in ritual and as a mediation between man and God, then the sacrifice of God to God fulfills the same role in superlative/absolute terms, and also allows us a means to continually participate in that superlative ritual via the eucharist where we can all eat the sacrifice at the conclusion of the perfect ritual slaughter repeated each mass.

In terms of what sacrifice is generally, it's a return of a part of God offered back to God. Sacrifice is a return of a particular form back to the source of that form, the ineffeble One. So a particular animal or thing, usually (and properly) a beautiful and unblemished exempler, is given from the material world (as in killed) back to the noetic world of forms, in direct proximity to God.

Perhaps start with the Cannibal Hymn of the Egyptian Pyramid texts ( http://www.sofiatopia.org/maat/cannibal.htm ) to acquaint yourself with the concept of ritual sacrifice that is alien to Western modernity. Walter Burkert's book "Homo Necans: the Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth" is also a good source on Hellenic sacrifical custom. Note in the Cannibal Hymn how prior ritual has incarnated gods into animals, increasing their value as a sacrifice, which are then eaten by the Pharaoh, in turn increasing the Pharaohs beinghood as an eater of the being of gods because he is now closer in proximity to God (or as he claims the master of gods.)

>>11404104
>I don't know what specific contradictions you're talking about but all of the atheist criticisms about the census, Judas, or the genealogies are easily reconciled
They really aren't. Even most Christian scholars accept this.

>>11406246
They are though. Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw
Easily reconciled, no problem at all. It's only atheists who deliberately read the Bible in a hyper literalistic sense in order to advance their agenda who disagree.

>>11404072
Theoretically if there was a fifth gospel found today that wasn't added to the biblical canon you would find it a more reliable source than if it had been added to the canon 1500 years ago and the Bible had 5 gospels in it than 4? This is irrational. The Bible is a collection of testimony, it was collated for that exact purpose. You're allowing it's status as a holy book to blind you from it's historical context, and it's irrational to claim that sources outside the bible are more reliable when the new testament by definition is a collection of the most reliable sources that were being passed around about Jesus life

>>11406276
You dont know how reliable these testimonies are. Maybe Jesus existed and none of the supernatural claims are true.

>>11406276
The bible was standardised for political and religious goals, this isn't controversial. All religious authorities do this stuff, like the zoroastrians, and of course the Jews before that, the torah was agreed upon by the temple authority to centralise and standardise judaism and make it monotheistic. Religions "in the real world" always varied from place to place, and the texts are a process of centralisation of authority.

Have any of the Christians in this thread had in depth experiences with eastern religion, like Vedanta or Buddhism? And then ultimately chosen Jesus over that? If so, could you talk a little bit about what swayed you?

>>11406307
>The bible was standardised for political and religious goals
Citation needed.

>>11405825
Materialism has nothing to do with this. The whole point of Jesus’ miracles is that they are impossible occurrences so of course modern materialism can’t account for them - if it could then they wouldn’t have been miracles, just strange events. Basically your position is saying that since materialism is yet to explain everything you are justified in believing an ancient source that says a man walked on water because ‘all things are possible’ according to the explanations of God in that very same Jewish tradition that gospels arose from.

‘I believe that Muhammad rode up to Heaven on a horse because all things are possible with Allah and materialsm doesn’t explain everything!’

>>11396825
antitheist gnosticism helped me get through theodicy

Abrahamic systems are cancer and need to be stopped

>>11406358
>materialism is yet to explain everything
Materialism can't explain everything, by definition. It can only explain the physical so to believe it can explain everything you need to adhere to a materialistic worldview where only the physical exists, which I think is patently false. Secondly there is strong incidental evidence that the accounts of the gospels are accurate, such as the fact that Christianity grew out of the areas where Jesus performed his ministry, something that was unlikely to occur if the people in the area knew that Jesus was a fraud

And before you mention Islam again, they had to spread Islam by the sword, very few converts were gained by preaching, Mohammad himself had to resort to raiding caravans because the people in Mecca weren't buying his bullshit. Again, historical context can lead us to the truth, you don't have to reduce everything "B-But if you accept one account why not this other account!?". I'm perfectly capable of having a more nuanced view than just accepting every account on face value, I weigh their merits and I find the merits of Christianity compelling.

>>11406258
>It's only atheists who deliberately read the Bible in a hyper literalistic sense
whereas your own highly personal sugar coated interpretation is the right one, yes?
also there are probably millions of americans who believe the literal truth of the bible
pic related gets a million visitors per year

Ebin God is le dead xD

>>11406342
the historical record is citation enough
in the bible, king david is a major figure
in reality, he was a historical footnote, no matter how much the jerusalem authorities try to promote him
read e.g. the work of dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou

>>11406391
To be fair that looks pretty cool, I'd visit it myself despite not being a YEC. It's almost as if Christians aren't a monolith. If you want to skewer Evangelicals go for it, do it with the understanding that they're not representative of Christianity as a whole though.

>>11406400
>Francesca Stavrakopoulou
Yeah. No.

>>11406400
>Stavrakopoulou
You do know she's a biased cow who talks on TV shows about muh +100 gender inequality, right?
Sure, she had some credentials, but so do a lot of Frankfurt school marxists in US colleges.

>>11406400
>Francesca Stavrakopoulou
You gotta be fucking kidding me

>>11406408
>>11406416
>ad hominems
not an argument

>>11406419
Dude, my man, look her up. She's really not important and her biased is even bigger than her nose. She's like Jordan Peterson, but actually legit in it for the press celebrity and doesn't care about her work.

i am god

>>11406423
cool
can i have the new xbox for christmas please?

>>11406400
>king david a historical footnote
>because I only use certain sources and ignore all others

>>11406429
gonna need a lot of absolution for that
commit some horrible sin then repent for it and then ill see what i can do

>>11406430
>I only use certain sources and ignore all others
do please list some archaeological sources for the importance of king david
note, "it's in the bible" doesn't count as a source

>>11406440
Please note some Chinese sources for the existence of Plato. The Greeks don't count as a source. I only accept writings by peoples to whom that person had no contact with or importance.

>>11406445
given that david lived 1000 years BC the writers of the bible had no contact with him either

>>11406389
Materialism does explain everything by definition. You just choose to believe in stuff that aren't real. Just because materialism feel stifling doesn't mean that it isn't all it is.

>>11396825
Not christian anymore though I still have christian tendencies I'm trying to figure out, but I was born and raised as in a very strict evangelical denomination.

My reason was being born into it, in the most simple terms I left because it doesn't make sense.

>>11406487
>thoughts ain't real n shit, only the matererial be real

>>11406445
>archaeology
>no contact with the person
wut

>>11406507
Not him and not Christian but there's a fuckton of things we accept as historical that we don't have archaeological evidence fot

>>11406501
What doesn't?

>>11406389
>something that was unlikely to occur if the people in the area knew that Jesus was a fraud
Many modern cults have been joined by people who initially thought the leader was a fraud.
>they had to spread Islam by the sword, very few converts were gained by preaching
Yet many people did and continue to convert to Islam through peaceful means which renders this argument mute. Don’t forget that Christianity was spread by the sword en masse in the Americas.
>Mohammad himself had to resort to raiding caravans because the people in Mecca weren't buying his bullshit
And the Jewish community in Judea were so unconvinced by Jesus that they had him executed for heresy, and this included people that supposedly were witnesses to his miracles. What’s your point?

>>11406504
>thoughts being ultimately material means that they aren’t real

>>11406540
name a few

>>11406769
>Yet many people did and continue to convert to Islam through peaceful means which renders this argument mute.
No it doesn't because we're looking at the behavior of the first converts to try and discern the legitimacy of the movement. If the founder was legitimate then people shouldn't need to be violently coerced and indeed we see the spread of early Christianity was entirely peaceful. In contrast the followers of Mohammad started warring amongst themselves as soon as he died which was followed by military conquests.

>Don’t forget that Christianity was spread by the sword en masse in the Americas.
1500 years after the fact. That says nothing about the legitimacy of the movement at all. We're looking at the earliest converts because if someone does miracles then you shouldn't need to put them to the sword to accept them, and early Christianity thrived without needing any violent coercion. Islam didn't.

>>11406769
>>11406769
>And the Jewish community in Judea were so unconvinced by Jesus that they had him executed for heresy, and this included people that supposedly were witnesses to his miracles. What’s your point?
I think the point is that Jesus died for his "heresy", bu then something happened that every one of his disciples died preaching his message. Something so astounding that defied their fears after shunning him while he was captured.
>Yet many people did and continue to convert to Islam through peaceful means.
Though this can be said about Christianity as well, part for this conversion was the cultural gains. Though you must admit that Islam had shed more blood in its initial spread than say Christianity that shed its own blood while being spread.
>Many modern cults have been joined by people who initially thought the leader was a fraud.
How many of these cults do you think will survive the next 1000 years while also spreading through multiple cultures?

>>11406791
>Though you must admit that Islam had shed more blood in its initial spread than say Christianity that shed its own blood while being spread.
But this says nothing about the validity of the claims. The community that Jesus was born into was tiny and under the thumb of the Roman Empire. They couldn’t have conquered and spread by force even if they wanted to. You’re being far too narrow here in your reasoning. Islam and Christianity developed under very different conditions and in different eras, it says nothing about the validity.
>How many of these cults do you think will survive the next 1000 years while also spreading through multiple cultures?
Again this is more a commentary on historical and sociological factors than the validity of a belief system.

>>11396825
Normally people are born into it - it's just a part of culture

>>11404538
>why you think it does
Because if the gospels can’t be relied upon as evidence of Jesus walking on water then they probably can’t be accepted as evidence of Jesus’ literal resurrection which Paul himself says is the foundation of Christianity. It matters enormously.
>I can't know for certain because I wasn't there.
And yet you presumably live as though they were historical truths.

>>11406807
If you honestly think the the Quran has more logical validity than the Bible, then I'd like you to meet someone.

>>11406832
Not my point at all.

>>11406840
It must be good to be able to change your point whenever it suites you, eh Muhamad?

>>11396825
Meditation on ones situation reveals that man is in a testing phase in existence, that he must use his mind towards solving the problems of his own disharmony rather than advance his self destruction. Doctrine of mans salvation, or rather, clues to pass this probation period, have been gradually understood and communicated by the prophets of the old testament. Further, they knew that a full doctrine of mans salvation would eventually be understood. The messiah finally revealed to man the fullness of the doctrine of salvation, one which could, if followed, give man the link which bridges him from contingent and temporary existence to infinite existence. I am a Christian because I have hope that man will pass this probation period, and I want to be a part of the energy for furthering his progress.

>>11406936
???
it seems to me like all >>11406807 is saying is that islam and christianity originated at different times and under different conditions. what's weird about that?
it's not even a new viewpoint. i've read before that jesus was a prophet of the oppressed, mohammed was a prophet of the oppressor. it would explain a lot
both islam and christianity are still utter bollocks, of course

>>11406293
Or maybe he existed and all of the supernatural claims are true.

>>11406338
Do you have to experience the entire world and every point of view before you can know the truth of anything? If not then why do you treat religion differently?

>>11406773
Existence is immaterial, yet here you are. Science can't (and good science doesn't) explain that things are rather than not being.
This doesn't disprove materialism, albeit ot suggest that as with every other truth, it's dishonest to say the least to not recognize it as an axiom.
This is a good thread, apart for the silly biblical strife.
I'm struggling with my spirituality. As I would like to believe, since I can't help but being grateful, even of the most horrible things, as they are part of life. I guess my outlook is more eastern than western.
Anyhow, I keeo torturing myself: should I allow myself to believe?
Have you christbros experience this? Being afraid that Faith is merely the product of one's willing to behave «faithfully»?

>>11407586
What do you want to believe anon?
That nothing really matters and we will never prove this otherwise? That we're all entrapped in our mortal shells and either are destined to repeat this cycle of existence forever or until we evolve into something more? Etc. etc.
I personally believe in Jesus Christ because he promises the ultimate good, humility, forgiveness, eternal life in peace and so on. Is his story true though, has it been edited, misunderstood, did he really rise from the dead or is that some kind of profound lie as well?
In the end everything spiritual is nonsense in many rational ways of looking at it. Yet still people find solace in it all, especially those who suffer the most and no rationality can help them.
So I choose to believe that Jesus Christ is real, his story is real, his resurrection, his message is all real. I'll never be able to prove any of it, but I don't think I will ever need to, not to myself. From the time I accepted Christ, cried in my prayer and studied the Bible, in just the first few weeks I have felt a profound change for the better that I could have only dreamed of experiencing. Since then months have passed and near every day I still suffer one crisis of fate or another. But never will I renounce my faith in God ever again, I just can't, the promise of eternal grace for my own love and forgiveness has entrapped me, giving me spiritual nourishment whenever I need it. I laughed when people said, "love God and he will provide," now I know without a doubt it really is like that, like a state of mind, like madness, but good, without fear, just this warmth somewhere all over inside of me.
It's a tough thing, anon. You really just have to make a leap of faith to find God, I think. I managed to do so, I'm sure anybody can do it too, they just have to feel ready to do it or something.
I guess I can;t help you,, but pray that you will find good grace too, for it is the most amazing thing I myself have experienced in my life.

>>11401753

>multitude of genocides and global ailments resulting from "Aryan race"
>we are the chosen people because we make art and technology

Any group of divinely chosen people would undoubtedly be held to an expectation of great piety and sincere practice of their religious beliefs. You're brainwashed if you think the totality of the mark Aryans have left on this world is of the "divinely chosen".

>>11396897
>>11396889
Do you guys participate in any Christian community? A Church, or whatever? Or are you simply practicing Christianity alone? Do you choose to have friends that are Christian, or don't care?

(any christian: feel free to answer)

>>11407849
I keep trying to force myself to go to Church, but I just can't since I know my local priests are insincere money grubbing frauds.
I'm afraid to tell my friends about my faith because I don't have many and they're all either atheist or look at Christianity weirdly.
I pray God will give me the strength and will to do right by Him. I can only hope that I'll fix my shitty life enough that whenever I'd be asked in the future on how I did it, I could say Christ helped me.

>>11406258
>it's easily reconciled by making up a whole complicated story based on no evidence
Oh boy, I knew this would be good.

>>resurrection prophesy

actually nowhere in the Torah or Mishnah does it say that the Messiah, which is a King and Restorer of the Rule of God in the Land of Israel, resurrects. The Messiah was not even eternal - he was a King not a Spirit. The idea of an eternal being comes from Isiah, "the Son of Man coming in the clouds sitting in the right hand of God", and since "Son of Man" Jesus's own preferred way of referring to himself, we can hypothesize that he considered eternal, in a way. The Bible quotes him as saying that he knew he would resurrect, but always comes with the epithet 'The Son of Man', and never Messiah. So in any case there was never any ''resurrection prophesy''; neither in the Hebrew scriptures regarding the Messiah neither in the prophecies of the Son of Man - of which there is just that one Isiah line.

>>11407200
Maybe he never existed and all the supernatural claims are true

>>11407586
>Existence is immaterial, yet here you are
Woah...

>>11408216
If he existed and none of the miracles happened, then it is just the same as if he didn't exist and it's all a lie, a mystery, a fraud of the most epic proportions and the truth, at best, lies in dogmatic acid dreams and fornicating idol worship, for all we know.
If he did exist and all the miracles are true, then He is the Son of God, savior of us all, Heaven is real, God's Grace and infinite mercy is real.
What would you rather chose to be real, anon?

>>11408230
i could choose to grow a tail
wouldn't make it happen

it'd be a fucking good tail too. prehensile of course

>>11408241
So you value a tail or not to either there being endless nihilism and meaninglessness or eternal life in peace? How shallow are you?

It was actually the writings of a secularist that first got me interested in religion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sorel
>He dismissed science as "a system of idealised entities: atoms, electric charges, mass, energy and the like – fictions compounded out of observed uniformities... deliberately adapted to mathematical treatment that enable men to identify some of the furniture of the universe, and to predict and... control parts of it." [1; 301] He regarded science more as "an achievement of the creative imagination, not an accurate reproduction of the structure of reality, not a map, still less a picture, of what there was. Outside of this set of formulas, of imaginary entities and mathematical relationships in terms of which the system was constructed, there was ‘natural’ nature – the real thing…" [1; 302] He regarded such a view as "an odious insult to human dignity, a mockery of the proper ends of men", [1; 300] and ultimately constructed by "fanatical pedants", [1; 303] out of "abstractions into which men escape to avoid facing the chaos of reality." [1; 302]


Mainly I imagine Christian styled monotheism as being a good combination of asceticism and overall teleological goals to work towards, but in terms of belief in God itself it stems from following Christian teachings, observing what good it does in my life, and believing in God because I am not a materialist or physicalist of any kind. Somehow it was a mix of Sorel, Nietchze, and Aquinas that made me question what I saw as reality. How two hard secularists ended up turning me to theism is strange as well.

>>11407953
>Based on no evidence
Yikes, want to tell me why you think there is no evidence?

>>11408252
You’re shallow enough that you pick and choose your beliefs based on what you’d most like to be true. Phoney and embarrassing faith.

>>11408269
You just sound like a generic pretentious spiritualist desu

>>11408224
C'mon, don't be silly. It's the basis of ontic occurring ontology.
Read up some Heidegger (Being and Time, Science and Meditation)

>>11408312
At least I know I want. You don't even care what is true unless it goes against your own interests.

>>11408327
I wonder what it’s like for you in those moments when you realise that you don’t even really believe in your own religion. Must be hard lying to yourself everyday just because 4chan told you that ‘nihilism’ is a bad word.

>>11408343
Fool. You know nothing.
Keep your nihilism then and see where it leads you.

>>11408320
Nope, Catholic.
>Inb4 hahah same thing

>>11408367
I enjoy life. Something tells me you don’t.

>>11408382
He probably does too. Religitards are happy because they're stupid.

>>11407965

can somebody explain this?

I don't know if this guy's a moron or a genius.

I thought (I still think) anyone who says they believe are either lying or trolling me. It's not even a matter of disagreement. I literally am unable to believe the other person is dillusional. I think we all know what the truth is. Lol.

>>11408541
https://youtu.be/VlBJpObJhDU
Watch this guy. Dont know how knowledgeable he is but I've been watching random orthodox rabbis answering questions on youtube and i like him best (would hang out/10)

>>11408547
They're lying to themselves for comfort. Karmic justice and eternal life really appeals to those with <115IQ.

>>11408577
I dont know man I dont normally take iq scores seriously but scored 139 on one posted the other day
>>11408547
Delusional*

I'm actually totally down for an opt in religion flag. Then we can see who's got iq creds when posting in other threads.

>>11400385
>he's actually going for the moral argument in 2018
Divine command theory/theistic ethics is dead, Jim.

>>11405876
You can only honestly argue for fine tuning under a framework of naturalism, God could do whatever he wants if he existed.

>>11408541
I don't know what he's talking about because there's multiples times where Jesus himself predicts his death and resurrection. To say people didn't completely understand or that not all Jews believed the messiah would die and resurrect wouldn't be controversial because the Jews believed all sorts of radically different things but to claim that there wasn't any expectation after the death of Jesus is ahistorical.

He says that there is no resurrection prophecy because Jesus refers to himself as the "son of man" rather than "the messiah" but why would that matter?

>>11408642
Also why would the tomb be guarded and why would the followers go back or even be allowed to check on the body after 3 days?

>>11408657
>Also why would the tomb be guarded
The tomb would be guarded probably because of Judas telling the Pharisees that Jesus said "in three days I will raise it up" and other imagery of resurrection that went over the disciples heads. The Pharisees could have feared one of his disciples would steal the body and fake a resurrection which is why Guards would be posted for a few days.
>why would the followers go back or even be allowed to check on the body after 3 days
The followers who went to check on him were the women, the main disciples were cowering and afraid. The women themselves forgot about the stone "but who will roll away the stone", yet went anyway to probably mourn outside.
The Jews placed a large emphasis on respecting the dead, the fact that Jesus got buried shows this, the women wouldn't have been denied anointing his body especially during the holy Passover.

>>11408589
Okay, while I have the only smart Christian here, let me ask you something. What do you think Heaven is? Just curious..

>>11408741
>the pharisees think these guys are retarded and believe in nonsense and let the dead body rot in a cave
>3 days later some retards steal the corpse
>start telling everyone jesus was raised from the dead
>some womyn who can't into emotions go and dream up angels near the empty cave
>pharisees realise what happened
>"you probably stole the body"
>omg how could we have there were guards lmao
>this guy paul gets bored of being a roman jew and sees potential in a cult facing crisis after the leader is brutally killed
>And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

>>11407849
I go to my local church and the church at my university. I've got a few Christian friends at uni, plus I know the priest there fairly well, but at my local church I'm pretty alone. I don't advise doing this alone.

>>11408657
There was probably never even a tomb in the first place. Victims of Roman crucifixion didn't get tombs.

>>11408816
>some womyn who can't into emotions
This. The testimony of two uneducated, emotional women would have been laughed out of any Jewish court at the time.

>>11408816
>3 days later retards steal the corpse.
Why? There is no good reason for doing such a thing.
>start telling everyone Jesus was raised.
Again why? Saying this would just be asking for more trouble when they have had enough, it would be more natural for them to say "Jesus died and this is a sign from God that we have been following a false preacher, better return to our normal lives" or "Jesus is vindicated and resting in Abraham's bosom". Not in the middle of their enemies claim their leader rose from the death.
>You probably stole the body.
Who? The disciples? Why would they then willingly go and suffer for the faith that he was bodily raised, if they knew it to be false?

>>11408816
The gospels specifically state that the disciples did not steal the corpse. Try again Sheckbergstein

>>11396888
Basically :^)

>>11409024
>>11408816
>>11408741
Why can't you dumb bastards learn to write properly?

>>11406823
>And yet you presumably live as though they were historical truths.
Now I know for sure you're baiting. You missed the part where I said the factuality of those two events as recorded is irrelevant. If you thought about it for more than a few seconds, you'd understand why.

and if you think i'm being mean to you or whatever, read Job: God owes you nothing.

your incessant whining for proof has got to be absolutely grating to Him.

>>11410157
>You missed the part where I said the factuality of those two events as recorded is irrelevant.
Yeah and I also must have missed the part where you explained why this is the case beyond just saying ‘dude think about it.’ I think I made my own point quite clearly.
>your incessant whining for proof
We’re having a discussion about justified belief here. The only reason you think I’m ‘whining’ is because you have no serious responses to make.
>read Job: God owes you nothing
So a different work of the same scriptural tradition as the gospels tells us that we don’t need any proof or even really any arguments in order to accept it’s system of beliefs? I can’t say I’m all that stupid surprised.

>>11410549
>smugpost part 17: wherein anon continues to not think

>>11410593
>beyond just saying ‘dude think about it.’

>>11410599
alright since you grabbed dubs and are baiting and unwilling to use your own brain:

the factuality of those events is irrelevant because i have faith in God, the first principle, which very obviously came by some other way (read the thread), and even if those events did not happen exactly as described my faith allows that they would have been *possible* because where an incarnation of the Creator on his own Earth.is concerned nothing is impossible.

and no, we're not talking about justified belief. we're discussing belief which, again, has no proof. although since you're apparently a low empiricist there are some pretty good enigmas which you should try to answer (such as the shroud lecture linked above).

i'm not trying to convince you, silly guy. i'm not saying i'm right and you're wrong, so stuff your fedora attitude in the trash. i've only been saying what i believe, and you've been shitting out brainlet replies for the past hundred posts or so. let me make it simple for you: you can't prove God doesn't exist. so take your superior self to a park or something and meditate on humility.

>>11410624
>you can't prove God doesn't exist
lol and you said that I was the one making the brainlet posts

I love christianity because of its lessons in ethics/morality, i believe in god too

>>11396897
Everything you just said other people say about other religions.

>>11410624
>there are actually people who believe in the authenticity of the turin shroud
good grief
even the church where the shroud is kept don't actually say that the shroud is authentic

>>11411124
Of course the Vatican doesn't acknowledge the shroud as authentic proof of Jesus resurrection. Think about why.

>>11411425
Because it’s a fraud?