/lit/ - Literature

>>11815995
b-ok.xyz

I like anything buddhist, it's more developed than christianity on an emotional level. Christianity seems to have a designated idea of how life should be while buddhism asks you to seek it yourself, and the consequences of both religions play out naturally especially in today's age of degeneracy (ie the dali lama vs the pope)

There is only one God, if you believe in "the Christian God" you believe in God, the One, Allah, Brahman, the Tao, etc. There is only One, please do not seek a loss or faith. Faith is the most beautiful think you can have in this world.

>le eighth commandment

>>11815995
I believe "The Essential Kierkegaard" is on libgen. Kierkegaard has written a plethora about faith, anxiety, and despair so he is relevant to those facing dread or doubt. Also, this particular translation is very good.

>>11816030
This. Remember if you're in Western society please please study the Christian Faith. If you live in a society that uses a different faith, please look into it. Once you have you understanding into your own Faith you can see why religion is split (tower of Babel).

>>11816030
>>11816066
cringe

>>11815995
any reputable history book will do. once you've been shown that historically, Jesus didn't exist you can move on to some overviews of mythology that prove christianity copped all of its stuff from pre-christian religions and perverted the intended meanings.

>>11816102
>he thinks there isn't evidence of an historical jesus

>>11816102
/thread

>>11816115
give us some lmao

>>11815995
Good luck and don't falter bro remember your faith!

>>11816129
Josephus, writing c.90 AD, mentions him independently of the New Testament and even says he was the brother of James, indicating he was a flesh-and-blood person.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 (Whiston translation)
>so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

I'm agnostic, but it's uncontroversial to say there was a historical Jesus. His resurrection is a different story.

>>11816175
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aXudXRBbro
also look into N.T. Wright's exegesis

>>11816129
Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius

>>11816098
Yikes

>>11816115
>an istorical

>>11816175
>>11816189
all of those proven to be interlopations from later centuries to try and salvage the wreck of historical nonsense that the Church cobbled together.
next you're going to be citing Eusebius as a legitimate source kek

The Well of Eternity trilogy by Richard A Knaak

>>11816102
>historically, Jesus didn't exist

If you were born in, say, Qatar, would you have this special faith in the christian God, still?

>>11816228
>if you were different would you be different

I could give you a bunch of books that will make you Catholic and then I could show what's going on with the church. That's what made me stop being a Christian. The gates of hell prevailed which means Jesus lied so he wasn't God.

>>11816233
>thinking Catholicism is the true way of Christianity

>>11816210
oh boy hahahahahahah

>>11816237
Yeah that's what I said. If Christianity were true Catholicism would be true. Why are you replying to me?

>>11816245
>Christianity were true Catholicism would be true
Well this is wrong
>Why are you replying to me?
To correct you.

>>11816210
Not saying you are wrong, but who proved this? Any sources?

>>11816257
Okay then, correct me. One of the reasons I believe Catholicism would have to be true is the institution of the papacy by Jesus.

What is the biblical justification for the papacy? Tradition relies on several texts, but one most especially. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him. They gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:

Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note first that Simon served as a spokesman for the group, and he uttered a profound doctrine: the dogma of the incarnation (see Jn 6:68-69). Jesus explained to Simon that such truth could not be gained by natural means; Simon had received a special revelation from god. And Simon, with god's help, had spoken infallibly. Jesus then gave Simon a new name, Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment. Jesus promised to build a divine edifice upon that rock foundation. He called the edifice "My Church"; for it would be not merely a human institution. It would be, in some sense, incorrupt, too: "the powers of death [or 'gates of hell'] shall not prevail against it." So we see that god himself gave a guarantee to preserve Peter's authority.

continued

>>11816278
>>11816257
Now, some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

continued

>>11816275
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
now watch all of the non-arguments come flooding in

>>11816284
>>11816257
Did Peter exhibit any signs of infallibility when he taught doctrine? Critics might point out that, almost immediately after Jesus commissioned him, Peter fell; he contradicted Jesus, telling him he must not suffer. Jesus then reproved Peter in the strongest terms, calling him "Satan"! Critics note too, that much later in Peter's life, he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. And Paul publicly corrected Peter! Now, how could a man graced with the charism of infallibility endure public correction by both Jesus and Paul?

We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Indeed, they were faulting him for not living up to his own doctrine. In Matthew's passage, Peter had moved from confessing the lord's divinity to rejecting the lord's will. In the conflict with Paul, Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship. Both Jesus and Paul were exhorting Peter merely to practice what he infallibly preached.

Is there biblical justification for our calling Peter the "vicar of Christ"? Doesn't that put Peter in a place occupied by god alone? No, because Jesus himself had said to the apostles: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk 10:16). Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles.

>>11816293
Ty

>>11816262
wow an actual book recommendation

>>11816278
>Catholicism would have to be true is the institution of the papacy by Jesus
Where do you see that this provides Catholicism absolute purity?
Look at the recent times of the Church.
>And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
The Church is the BODY of Christ, every person that has faith onto Him. I am the body of Christ, yet I do not take part in the Catholic ritual, yet I have the same faith of some of their Pupice.

>>11816296
Look when I see your faith I see where it wavers. I impose upon my view that have never had faith into Chirst, but I do sincerely believe you have prayed for it.
Here I stand you fortify you Faith on any Theological idea that I stand.

I pray in this name our discusion will exemplify our Love for God; Christian or Not.

>>11816377
Did you not understand me when I said I wasn't Christian because Catholicism had to be true? To me you're talking nonsense. You said you wanted to correct my assertion that if Christianity was true Catholicism would also have to be true so stop speaking in cliches and make an argument. I'm not interested in your prayers or whether or not you "believe into Christ", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

>>11816404
>Did you not understand me when I said I wasn't Christian because Catholicism had to be true
But this is not the Case dear anon!
Reformed and Orthodox both provide the pathway to God! As does Catholicism.

>I'm not interested in your prayers or whether or not you "believe into Christ", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean
I said this so any burden of prejudice would be removed from Heart, and I said to you see so you see the heart of my responses. I do care for you, and pray that your Soul sees past any unbecomings.
I open with these ideas so are discusio will be free of prejudice and hate.

>>11816425
I confused you with somebody that actually something intelligent to say. My mistake, have a good day.

>>11816030
Stirner says to love people and cooperate in harmony with them if that is what you desire. If it is in your interests to do so, then do it. Otherwise do not make a sacred law out of love and brotherhood; Christian love is not a love of real individuals but a love of the idea of people, that phantasm of human essence.

>>11816444
I see you are too tall and mighty to speak to a low peasant, I see you cannot lower your self off your prestigious stead and get off your horse to talk to a low reformed Calvinist like my self.

One day I fear you will come back and contemplate upon this possible discusion and repent for not taking the humble perspective. Have a good day my friend.

>>11816015
So Buddhism is the snake in the Garden of Eden?

>op seeks some religious criticism
>thread ends up being religious infighting

>>11816756
western boomer versions are. actual buddhism is even more puritanical than christianity

>>11816769
here you go >>11816293
thread is over, his religion is destroyed

>>11816015
The pope isn't christian, though. He's Maryian.

>>11816776
rofl rofl rofl

get the fuck behind me satan

>>11816776
>actual buddhism
volcels, right?

>>11816830
Whats your denomination

>>11816776
>puritanical
Implying
>religous behavior outside of faith exists

>>11815995
the bible

>>11816210
One of Josephus' entries is proven to be an interpolation, in Annals 18 but not Annals 20. Furthermore, the Gospels are a legitimate historical source as proven by testimony there which is embarrassing to the apostles, incidental details, inclusions of Aramaisms, inclusions of personal names, all point to it being in the genre of history. The 1 Corinthians 15 creed probably was learned from James in Damascus in 35 AD.

>>11816102
bait

>>11817425
>Aramaisms
wots that

>>11817434
this chart is such bullshit lol

>>11817434
Based

>>11815995
Credo in unum Deum.

>>11817606
Aramaic words, like the name Peter (Kepha).

>>11815995
Sex Alchemy mhmmmmm <3 this picture is 101% only Sex Alchemy ;333333333333333333333

>>11817964
>Aramaic words, like the name Peter (Kepha).
But this is true.

>>11816232
The point is that, at least according to monotheistic dogma, there is no "difference" when it comes to the correct, true religion. A die-hard catholic would say that the Christian God is the god for everyone, whether you were born in Italy or Qatar or some random Amazonian tribe. The idea that a Qatari following the Islamic God instead wouldn't be valid just because they were "born somewhere different."

>>11815995
Good art!

>>11817434
lol Christians want to point to how few pagan manuscripts survived antiquity and the bonfires of ignorance to sell their religion

20,000 manuscripts aren't attestations for much if they are all after the 10th century

>>11817434
Also, looking at the numbers, Tacitus only survives in TWO manuscripts, so this is bullshit and bait http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=4199

All religion ultimately boils down to aesthetics. Even superficial beliefs such as heaven, hell, the resurrection of the body, etc. are just aesthetic mental imprints on experiential phenomena that can't be verified by a "believer" until one has gone through the process of apparently getting there.

That is not say this negatives the religious pursuit however; in fact, the sheer power aesthetics has on our minds makes it almost a necessity that the aspirant seeker will be drawn to one form of devotion or another at some point in their life. The Hindus even have a term for this - bhakti yoga - the pursuit of the Divine and egoless awakening through heartfelt devotion to one's deity or avatar of choice.

So, OP, you may continue or not continue to "believe" in the Christian God and pursue Christianity as you see fit. Always keep in mind, however, that these are just your temporal projections of Divinity onto the True Divinity that lacks any colour, shape or form. And perhaps, if you keep an open mind and open heart, even your devotion to Christ shall lead you to higher states of exaltation.

>>11818000
>All religion ultimately boils down to
Stopped reading there

OP, what you're looking for is A Confession by Leo Tolstoy. It's a book about faith actually, and why he left the church but still kept his faith.

>>11818005
Keep in mind, "religion" is not synonymous with "spirituality", "metaphysics", "ethics", etc. Religion refers to the very specific socio-cultural manifestation of these psychic trends in a way that appeals to certain groups of people according to time / place.

>>11817995
Savage snowrunes.

>>11816102

What does this have to do with God or faith therein?

>mythological Jesus theory
We have more evidence of Jesus than 90% of people from classical antiquity whose existence is never called into question. Maybe Hannibal was a myth historylets

>>11816858
converting to orthodox Christianity

>>11818053
I'm a Chink, so someone is going to ha e to explain this to me. This guy is mocking his ancestors and his culture as being inferior before foreigners came along and fundamentally destroyed huge parts of it, right?

And he's... Proud of that? He's proud of the fact that he's nust tossing his heritage in the garbage bin? Is he a Leftist, or a Liberal?

Any books to help me understand this?

>>11818373
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13785

>>11815995
Unironically the Bible, provided you read it cover to cover.

>>11816102
>Historically, Jesus didn't exist

>>11816228
>>11817986
What are you, 15? You're reciting Dawkins soundbites and have the same degree of understand of religion as he.

>>11818592
more like
>Historically, Jesus didn't exist

>>11816030
>>11816098
oof

>>11818554
>Richard Carrier
Wow. I guess David Icke's website proves the reptilians are real

>>11816232
most brainlet post in the thread

>>11818000
>True Divinity that lacks any colour, shape or form
Wrong. The True Divinity is flesh and blood, suffered, and died upon a cross.

>>11818686
So sayeth you.

>>11818619
>implying

>>11816469
>Stirner says
His statements violate the NAP. Even though men like Jesus did it too, it doesn't make statements of that sort automatically valid.

>>11818406
>This guy is mocking his ancestors and his culture as being inferior before foreigners
Who were these foreigners? The vikings themselves converted and united their tribes.
>came along and fundamentally destroyed huge parts of it, right?
Hardly. The runes were lost two centuries into Christianity, likely because of the upper class thinking latin was cool.

>>11818406
because memes.

>>11815995
You don't need any book. You just have to think about WHY you believe in God in the first place, even when he has the same proof of existing as Santa Claus.

If that doesn't convince you, read thoroughly about other religions. And when you start thinking "lol how did these retards thought a wolf will eat the moon", reflect on your own religion.

Having said that, I which I was religious and needed to be actively argued with to break my faith.

I believed in God until the age of 10, but even in those first ten years my faith was fragile as fuck.

>>11818919
>I believed in God until the age of 10, but even in those first ten years my faith was fragile as fuck.
Before societal programming, humans believe in God.

>>11818851
What's their pose supposed to convey

>>11818406
>Is he a Leftist, or a Liberal?
Worse, he’s a christcuck

>>11816444
You should talk to an Orthodox priest. Attend the Divine Liturgy. Just see what happens

>>11816228
Genetic fallacy
How he arrived to the answer can't be used to discredit the answer.

>>11818053
Someone needs to edit this to have Paul talking with the Stoics and Epicureans, ending with the Church banning the schools

This bad boy contains the best arguments against christianity.

>>11819090
This the most lazy shit ever and it's why Christianity is dying.

>>11816278
>>11816284

What makes you think the Catholic Church is the church Jesus alludes to?

>>11816030
Now THIS is heresy!

>>11819479
1. The key imagery of Matthew 16:9 indicates that Peter will be given the office of prime minister in Jesus' Church.

2. The power to bind and loose gives Peter and his successors the power to absolve sins and to make definitive judgement in matters of faith and morals.

3. Therefore Peter and his successors are protected from teaching error, because God who is truth binds and looses in heaven what Peter binds and looses on earth.

4. During the last supper, at the very time Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial, Jesus also reminded Peter to fulfill his office by strengthening his brothers after he repented (Lk 22:31-32).

5. After the resurrection, Jesus confirmed Peter as the head of the church when he commanded Peter three times, "feed my lambs ... Tend my sheep ... Feed my sheep," then Jesus added "follow me" (Jn 21:15, 16, 17, 19).

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]--of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
-St. Optatus, “The Schism of the Donatists,” c. 367 A.D.

“They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.'"
-St. Ambrose of Milan, “On Penance,” 388 A.D.

>>11819528
>>11819479
In case you're unfamiliar with Isaiah 22 let me explain

In the Davidic kingdom, the king appointed a cabinet of ministers (1 Kgs 4:1-6; 2Kgs 18:37). Of these ministers, one was elevated to a unique status. His authority was second only to that of the king, who gave him the authority over all other minsters and everyone else in the kingdom. This was a common practice in the Near East. For example, when Joseph became the prime minister of Egypt, Pharaoh said, "You shall be over my house [dynasty and kingdom], and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you ... I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" (Gen 41:40,44). The Symbol of Joseph's office was the signet ring that Pharaoh took from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand (Gen 41:42)

Now let's fast forward to David's kingdom. David ruled from 1010 to 970 BC. However, his dynasty continued after his death. Hezekiah became the king of Judah at the age of 25 approximately 265 years after King David's death. Hezekiah's rule from 715 to 687 was marked by a great religious reform. It was during his reign that Shebna, the prime minister or royal steward (Is 22:15) was removed from his office:

Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man ... I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station" (Is 22:17, 19).

Eliakim will be installed in his place as prime minister (Is 22:20-22). The symbol of that office is "the key of the house of David" (Is 22:22).

The point of Jesus' reference to Isaiah 22 is to indicate that Peter will also be given an office in Jesus' kingdom, which is his Church. That office will continue as long as Jesus' kingdom on earth continues. Jesus is the new Moses. Like the first Moses, Jesus established a priestly hierarchy in his kingdom. Peter and his successors are the chief ministers in that kingdom, the rock upon which Jesus will build his Church.

>>11818000
Trips of revelation.

>>11815995
>Recommend me books that will destroy my faith
idk bout you, but this thread has destroyed my faith in /lit/

>>11819901
Brutal

>>11819378
Read him and weep.

>>11816293
when's your sweet sixteen

>>11818968

> Before societal programming, humans believe in God.

Can you back up your claim?

>>11820020

His arguments aren't that strong. Begging the question and assumes that linear time is real.

>>11820104
>being this retarded
Read him first.

>>11820130

I did.

>>11815995
If you truly believe in God, why do you wish your faith tested? Do you have some doubts, perhaps?

>>11816293
I know you meme, but his sources for his cute little blogpost are something else.
http://www.christianism.com/articles/1.html

>>11820130
>banal criticism against Hart
>"y-you haven't even read him, retard!"
I hope that you'll escape your biases one day.

>>11821292
But he hasn't read him, he admitted as much.

>>11815995
>believe

There you go, that's what YOU believe, it doesn't have to be real, true or false, you know you BELIEVE that, even if all the evidence is against your belief then you are gonna keep believing that, there's just not point, the real thing you have to do if you want to stop believing that is to change you whole mind set, and even then you can still find loopholes to your beliefs like William Lane Craig or Jordan Peterson, so it's all up to you and your own decisions, you need to think about your whole perception of "reality" and what does that word mean to you.

>>11815995
If you take your studying seriously, then Nietzsche's bibliography is all you need. There is no other author out there who shatters the Christian philosophical viewpoint better than he does. As far as philosophy goes, he is undoubtedly The Antichrist.

>>11821551
God punished him by slowly eating away at his brain, the vessel that contained the intellect he arrogantly misused. Really gets the noggin joggin

>>11821562
Doesn't that just further solidify the idea that Nietzsche was right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7589jm65JBs

>>11821746
I mean not if the actual God above was doing the punishing. If anything it would make me join the priesthood.

>>11822082
>not if the actual God above was doing the punishing.
But if he felt the need to do it, N must have been right :)

>>11818860
Stirner doesn't care about the NAP, he simply suggests you may be free to think for yourself on most issues.