/lit/ - Literature

>read the song of solomon
>"my boobs are like towers"
wOw sO iNsPiRaTiOnAl

why can't this guy stop thinking about cuckoldry

You missed the point. I’m convinced nobody here actually reads anything at all, that’s the only thing that would
explain the lack of understanding or reading comprehension.

>>15183437
>Bad things happen to good people
>You should still obey God though
Wow so enlightening

>>15183443
Again, you miss the point. Read it again, preferably take your time and don’t read just the first page so that you can shitpost on /lit/ about it.

>>15183376
I like Ecclesiastes. Whoever wrote it didn't believe in God

>make tree of knowledge
>tell two people to not to eat from it
>get pissed when they do
>even though you knew all of this was going to happen in advance and you could’ve prevented all of this by not putting that tree there in the first place

Nice “””””god”””” you got there, idiots

>>15183456
>NOOOO YOU SEEE READ MY KIKE FABLE AGAIN AND BRING MORE NIGGERS TO CONVERT
So glad your cuck religion is dying

>>15183376
What did you think the worst verse was?

>>15183471
take your meds

>>15183485
>shut up goy don't expose my kike cult

>>15183491
Why do you hate jews?

>Read book written thousands of years ago and read by virtually every literate person in your language for about a thousand years.
>wtf this is all so obvious!

Why are you people like this?

>>15183539
Why do you try to remove the mote from your brother's eye before you try to remove the log from thine own?

>>15183491
anti-Semitism is a Christian tradition, you only hate jews because of the meme that they killed jesus (the jew)

You're literally obsessed

>>15183564
This is why they kept expelling them without putting an end to their filthy race right? Christcucks are jewish golems.

>>15183564
The way you use meme is confusing to me. What do you mean by it? What do you think a meme is?

>>15183591
What makes jews filthy? Were not the essenes some of the most prolific bathers in history?

>>15183603
At a bris the mohel traditionally sucks the blood away from the baby's circumcised penis

>>15183462
>>even though you knew all of this was going to happen in advance and you could’ve prevented all of this by not putting that tree there in the first place
>Nice “””””god”””” you got there, idiots
they were just nice stories to keep the desert tribe in order

>>15183625
Saliva contains healing properties. Is he meant to just let the infant bleed? I'm not sure what you're getting at. How is this dirty or filthy?

>>15183462
Do you think you're the first person to raise this objection?

>>15183688
And if people were rational the first time would of been the last. But belief in religion is extremely irrational and emotion based and the only way to get through to someone like that is constant grinding repetition and public humiliation

>>15183706
>Hubristic negation with no substance
why am I not surprised?

>>15183706
Hmmm...could you elaborate? Aquinas seems to think that reason and revelations are necessary components of each other. How would you counter? Here is a quote from him:
>It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors.

>>15183730
Brother, have you done any differently? Is it not for the devil to accuse?

>>15183376
>he thinks he's above needing to be reminded of simple truths.
Most people aren't as smart as you are, anon. And you probably aren't as smart as you think you are either.

>>15183706
>belief in religion is extremely irrational
it's based more in rationality than your empiricist drivel that constantly revises itself every couple of years
Christianity has long held the belief that prior to creation there was some sort of primordial chaos, then during the process of creation order was set in place which separated the elements of the cosmos and allowed for the creation of life, and eventually this world will come to an end
Atheistic science for a long while insisted that there was no beginning or end to the world, it is infinite and has always existed, the idea of the big bang only formed in the 1900s

>>15183779
>it's based more in rationality than your empiricist drivel that constantly revises itself every couple of years

If new evidence comes to light or someone comes up with a better theory it is completely rational to change your mind. It is irrational to persist in your old beliefs when they are proven wrong. Obstinately sticking to a belief is not being rational, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

>>15183812
so what was proven wrong then?
besides the beliefs of uninformed atheists

>>15183812
Certainly, reason should be given to the better of contradicting evidence. What do you think is the strong evidence against faith in general, or perhaps certain Christian claims in particular?

>>15183826
Friend. How do you hope to lift a man up in the faith if you primarily use your words to put him down?

>>15183838
The Lord used sass when appropriate, I merely follow his teachings

>>15183826
It definitely was proven wrong. It's rational to stop believing in something that was proven wrong.

>>15183847
>It definitely was proven wrong. It's rational to stop believing in something that was proven wrong.
what was? you're being unclear

>>15183829
Miracles don't happen, the world isn't 6000 years old, there is no man in the sky watching what we do, and when you die your dead no afterlife

>>15183844
Does he? When?

>>15183759
This. Humility is a good indicator of intelligence and wisdom.

>>15183860
So these are the claims you say have been disproven. Obviously, I don't agree with your assesment. That's why I'm curious for the evidence that disproves them. After all, I would not want to be in error, and it is reasonable to take the better evidence. What is the strongest evidence against these claims?

>>15183858
Old beliefs that passed for the science of the time. The world isn't flat, the sun doesn't rotate around the earth, spontaneous generation doesn't happen, there is no phlogiston or aether, the four elements aren't the basis of matter, there are no dragons or unicorns, you get the idea.

>>15183376
its Jewish scriptures, the christcucks took it and started larping. unoriginal faggots.

>>15183874
Perhaps, but rarely does humility speak its own name.

>>15183862
throughout Mark

>>15183376
>>it's a bunch of obvious statements and maxims like "loud man stupid than quiet man" and "if you do bad thing bad things come to you"
And even though their obvious, you are unable to even follow them.

>>15183891
Can you give me an example? I've never gotten that sense from it.

>>15183878
Any claimed miracle that has been scientifically investigated has been a fraud, a willful misunderstanding or so vague as to be without any verifiable claims. Multiple sources from radiometric dating to examination of geological strata show the world is not 6000 years old. The idea of the heavens as where God is was shot down by modern astronomy, flight, and space travel. Better understanding of modern medicine has given a biological explanation for all the human capabilities previously thought of as mysterious and shown that they cease with death

the vitriol you and others spit will only strengthen a follower of Christ's conviction
you will not be allowed to go on in this way forever

>>15183931
History says otherwise. Religion is dying in the U.S.

>>15183921
So I have seen studies into miracles that suggest that some cannot be explained. I have also seen research that suggest serious flaws in the methods of geological dating. Can you please be more specific with your evidence? I would certainly not want to be won over by weak evidence, so if you have strong evidence, it would be extremely helpful.

>>15183940
Maybe it is, but has Christianity ever died before?

>>15183904
>And when he returned to Caperna-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
>And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them.
>And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
>And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.
>And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”
>Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
>“Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
>And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question thus in your hearts?
>Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk’?
>But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—
>“I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.”
>And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”

>>15183904
>One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.
>And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?”
>And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:
>how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”
>And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;
>so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.”

>>15183942
The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple
The Case Against Miracles by John Loftus

>>15183904
>Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat.
>And he cautioned them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
>And they discussed it with one another, saying, “We have no bread.”
>And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?
>Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?
>When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.”
>“And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.”
>And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

>>15183552
Mate you must be really dim, you aren't even apply that saying correctly. Stop trying to larp as being a holy Christian on 4chan

>>15183991
>>15183969
>>15183953
So certainly the Word of God is good with words, but I struggle to read sarcasm or derision in what he says here. Why should we suppose that he is biting, rather than patient? Do you have any better examples of Christ being sassy?

>>15184005
Christ prays for his crucifiers, for they know not what they do. Sin done in ignorance is made less by the ignorance. To take pride in belief is worse than to take pride in unbelief. If you would cut a man down from his height, first cut yourself down.

>>15183984
I'll try and remember these books, but obviously I can't read them right now. For the sake of our conversation, can you give me the best parts of these books? Or at least the passages you found most convincing, so that I can look forward to them also?

>>15184039
lol

>>15183950
they do not believe Christ lives, and so they believe His Church can die

>>15184039
This type of tolerant Christianity is fine it's the real aggressive proselytizing type that irritates everyone and makes people call them out on their stupidity. Otherwise whatever floats your boat is ok with me

>>15184047
The gist of them is what I said above about miracles and the age of the earth

>>15184077
But did not Christ also say to go out and spread the good news? Would any of us today have ever heard of Christ if the Evangelists had not evangelized? That I believe is almost certainly due in part to one of my ancestors being proselytized. If I think it is good, then how could it be good for me to keep it private? Doesn't Christ say, let your light shine unto the world? I always understood that light to be the light of faith. I believe that in Christ is salvation. Should I not encourage as many people to believe in him as I can? If I pray for those who don't believe, what greater thing can happen to them except that they believe?

>>15183860
>Miracles don't happen
Wrong
>the world isn't 6000 years old
Correct
>there is no man in the sky watching what we do
Correct
>when you die your dead no afterlife
True by your understanding of the semantics involved.

>>15184123
You can do that but don't get upset when people push back. It's like someone trying to convert you to a pyramid scheme I don't care if they really believe I'm going to tell them to fuck off

>>15184087
Sure. But again, we agree that it is reasonable to take stronger evidence over weaker evidence. If you don't give me the evidence itself, is it reasonable for me to accept it? It may very well be very strong, but I have not seen it. It would be unempirical for me to accept it without seeing it. If you can give me the strong evidence, I will gladly take it. I'll try and read the books, but it may be a long time before I can, and I may find them difficult to understand; it may be that the help you give me now is the only help I'll ever get.

>>15184134
You wouldn't try to help them get out?

>>15184140
Radiometric dating, deposition rates of geological strata, and even archaeological evidence dating back over 10,000 years all point to the Earth being older than 6000 years. Astronomical evidence from the life cycle of stars, cosmic microwave background radiation, and the extreme distance of certain astronomical objects all point to the universe being much older than 6000 years

>>15183745
Well, considering Plato and Aristotle alone got so far without Christianity... Seems like a real lack of what Aquinas would consider the correct "revelation".

>>15184150
Sure but if they're not someone I'm very close with the best way to do it is repeat the same arguments I'm sure they've heard from everyone else and to berate them. After being ground down with that from enough people maybe they will see the light but rational argument will not work since they're not rational to begin with. People don't convert to a religion after disinterested study of the texts.

>>15183461
I'm not in agreement with this.

However.

I remember being the first person to start espousing this book of the Holy Bible when I was in my young atheist phase. I used to remember how pleased I was that I could abstract something from the 'dogmatic theological text' and appropriate for more atheistic philosophical 'gains'. Much like how I didn't read the final book of Leviathan.

But I've seen these tropes repeated on here, and while I do see a lot more religious theological discussion going on, I hardly see a lot of the core tropes I believe in.

Here is what I'm thinking is going on: some kind of insidious atheistic NWO morality, where no matter what you believe in atheistic-wise, these ideas hold more fire, carry more passion, raise people to greater rebellions, than the idea of something inherently God based.

And as if that weren't enough, for some reason, the ideas surrounding God must be multifaceted, MUST have some kind of pre-ordained Roger Bacon learned (I like him, but still) backing in order to reason with and understand the spiritual universe, instead of pure experience and reason.

Clearly something has happened terribly. I'm not even sure why people mandated separation of church and state, and the fact that we're able to have these realizations shows us how important God is, even during peacetime. That although he can be warlike, he also, as Ecclesiastes says, maintains a time for peace. :3

>>15184020
>And they went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.”
>And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.
>And he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.”
>And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
>And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.”
>And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?
>Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
>And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.
>And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer him.
>And he came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
>Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”
One can be both patient and sharp, the Lord need not spare the rod to show his love for us

>>15184173
Alright, so this all sounds like it could be good evidence, but still you seem to simply be describing the evidence and not giving the evidence itself? For example, I've read studies suggesting serious flaws in how the geological strata are used for dating with carbon-dating, in which, when radiometry disagrees with the established strata, the assumed age of the strata is used instead. And, as it relates to the age of the universe, that the red shift is a function of distance is one of multiple theories; through relativity, modern science has largely sidestepped this issue, which is fine for our rocketry work, but doesn't necessarily help us as a matter of natural philosophy. I don't say this to convince you, since I've given you no evidence in and of itself, but rather I say it only to demonstrate that I think I need more. Or perhaps, we do not agree on what we understand by the word "evidence? What constitutes evidence for you?

>>15184181
Do you think so? I thought that Aquinas was essentially referring to Plato and Aristotle here, since Aquinas was a great admirer of their philosophy. Or do I have that wrong?

>>15184190
Is that really the best way? Is that how you were convinced of your beliefs? Peer pressure hardly seems like good reason to me.

>>15183887
Agreed.

>>15184202
I think you are right about that--God can certainly speak sharply. It would seem odd that the Word of God could not be as strong as either the Will of God or the Breath of God. But maybe we have a different understanding of sass and sarcasm? To me this reads as sharp, but not biting. After all, Jesus loved these men as his brothers and dearest friends. Would he really let even the smallest ill-will fall between them?

>>15184231
This is a common mistake made when talking about radiometric dating, radiocarbon dating is only useful to about 50,000 years ago but the field of radiometric dating includes multiple other elements to use such as potassium–argon or uranium–thorium which have much longer half-lives. As far as red shift being a function of distance there is zero experimental evidence to support that while red shift due to velocity is measurable in a lab. Christian apologetics just throws enough science jargon out there to make it seem respectable see the stupidity of specified information or irreducible complexity

>>15184237
Was Aquinas not a Christian?

If Plato and Aristotle were able to get so far in reasoning, but never reached the key revelation (in Aquinas' terms, as a Christian) that Jesus was the son of God, it seems their reason far outpaced their revelation.

>>15184245
I got my beliefs through rational arguments and I can be made to change them through rational argument. Christians are born into their religion or convert in times of emotional distress

>>15184181
>Well, considering Plato and Aristotle alone got so far without Christianity
Doesn't Christianity include believing in the events of the Old Testament, which influenced Plato heavily, who taught Aristotle?

>>15183882
>The world isn't flat, the sun doesn't rotate around the earth, spontaneous generation doesn't happen, there is no phlogiston or aether, the four elements aren't the basis of matter, there are no dragons or unicorns, you get the idea.
nice, nothing of this has anything to do with metaphysics/theology/God, now i repeat the other anon's question: what was proven wrong?
(btw tesla believed in the aether, science can't and will never be able to define what matter is, protip: because it is unintelligible, all science do is work with bodies which have inherent quality).

>>15184283
The other anon's question was in response to
>If new evidence comes to light or someone comes up with a better theory it is completely rational to change your mind.
which was a response to
>it's based more in rationality than your empiricist drivel that constantly revises itself every couple of years
Taking pride in refusing to admit you're wrong is fucking dumb

>>15184281
The Old Testament absolutely did not influence Plato. Read both and compare the fundamental styles and lessons if you need evidence.

>>15184270
It may be that what you say is true, which is precisely why I'm having this conversation. But here is my dilemma--there is the information I have read and accepted, and there is the information you present. Now, it may very well be true that the methods you describe are accurate in the way you describe and the experiments you are aware of prove what you say they prove. But so far you have not told me of them in detail, only that they exist and are true. How am I to know that what you say is true? So far, it seems, I must simply trust that you tell the truth. If everything is as you say, then of course you would be right. But how can I know that what you say is right? It is reasonable to accept stronger evidence over weaker evidence. But so far you have given me nothing but your word, and the words of a stranger online are not strong evidence. What was the evidence that convinced you? Was there an experiment that finally proved it for you? Is there some single set of data that demonstrates it, or is there a body of research that captures a complex argument? I know you've given me those two books to read, but before I get to them, are there any scraps you can give me so that I know the pursuit will be worthwhile?

>>15184292
>it's based more in rationality than your empiricist drivel that constantly revises itself every couple of years
You mean evolution? lol...

(not arguing with you obv)

>>15184296
>The Old Testament absolutely did not influence Plato.
Very, very many old and new scholars disagree.

Plato knew Hebrew.

>>15184276
I don't understand. Revelation is revealed knowledge. Plato and Aristotle did not have it. How could they reach it? To the extent that they had no revelation, it could be said that their reason outstripped their revelation, but what does it mean and what does it matter? I'm not really sure how you're either agreeing or disagreeing with Aquinas here.

>>15184280
All Christians? I'd be very curious to see how you've proved it.

>>15184297
I don't understand what you're talking about do you want me to spell out the techniques of radiometric dating or what? I'm no expert it would be better to read the book I listed. As far as proof of the universe being older than 6000 years I like the fact that there are stars you can see through a telescope that are further than 6000 light-years away and the light from them must have been traveling for longer than 6000 years

>>15184306
Can you cite me anyone? I have never heard this, and it sounds preposterous.

Alternately, can you cite me a passage in Plato where it is declared that the Jews have the only real God, and that fearing him is the only source of wisdom?

>>15184326
I personally interviewed every Christian on the earth. How do you know I didn't? I may have even interviewed you and you just forgot. You're saying that it is impossible for a person to do that. How do you know, what proof do you have? It's telling that when confronted you retreat behind an even more extreme skepticism than that you're trying to fight.

>>15184313
I am disagreeing that reason and revelations are components of each other (in Aquinas' argument).

If Aquinas believes that, how does he explain the Greeks having great reason, but little revelation? In that case, reason and revelation are not components.

>>15184292
>It definitely was proven wrong. It's rational to stop believing in something that was proven wrong.
what are you on about, i want to know why is it irrational to believe in something which was never proven wrong

>>15184333
But you read the books, yes? What do you remember from the books? It is true, there are many starts in the sky, as there have always been, and we can measure their luminescence; it is also true that scientists have over the course of centuries tried many methods for determining the size and distance of stars by their brightness; but, as you've said, the speed of light is variable, whereas, out of mathematical convenience, our physicists treat the speed of light as a constant and make time and space relative to light. Now, this practice has been very good and useful for many applications, and clearly the methods developed by Einstein work for normal scales of observation; however, doesn't this complicate our understanding of red shift and what it means for size and distance? What's more, we can't observe other stars up close; by their assumed distance, we determine their sized based on luminescence, but size itself affects luminescence; all we currently have is the received brightness of light and then various (and often disagreeing) theories of the particular way that light gets to us. I feel like I've been relatively specific in my questions, given the general nature of our conversation; what are the particulars of your understanding? What experiments and discovers are essential to your perspective? How were you convinced that the proposed explanations for these natural phenomena were true?

>>15183564
Jewish behavior alone throughout history is enough to be an anti-semite without muh jeebus

>>15184355
No, my question was genuine. It's quite a lot to claim that all Christians arrived at their faith under the same conditions and for the same reasons. It is not that it's impossible, though. After all, post traumatic stress disorder only occurs under certain kinds of conditions. If belief is considered a psychological condition, it wouldn't be absurd to consider that all believers passed through the same environmental and situational influences. If this could be demonstrated, it would certainly be worth demonstrating. You seem to have accepted this view, so my question was honest--how and why?

>>15184348
Eusebius, Augustine, many others..

p.62 Opus Majus "But Augustine thinks that owing to his desire for knowledge he learned Hebrew and read through the books of the Old Testament, as he shows in his account of the creation of the world which he has represented in conformity with Scripture, and by the name of God which God himself gave in Exodus, "I Am that I am," when Moses asked him what his name was. This is the name used by Plato, who states that it is God's name.

All of this makes me feel good and all, but even if you don't grant this, you have to realize that Plato does refer to a singular god in The Republic. This is extremely important because of the philosophy behind this.

If you spend too much time in an atheist echo chamber, you'll start to think you know everything, bud. Just a tip.

>>15184357
Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that Aquinas is saying that they are dependent on each other? In fact, I thought he was explicitly saying that by reason, one could arrive all the way to the boundary of that information which required revelation. Perhaps I misspoke when I said components; what I meant by it was a sort of intertwining between the two, that each cooperated with the other and strengthen each other. That said, given my anonymity and Aquinas' great influence, wouldn't Aquinas' writing itself be more important than by bad summary of it?

>>15184414
>But Augustine thinks
>thinks
WOW

>>15184433
It was important because theologians and historians at that point, if they were closely acquainted with God, are thought to have superior knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence than their contemporaries. So unlike today, where everyone thinks they are better than everyone else, you actually had respect for people who were close to God.

>>15184441
That’s nice

>>15184414
I'm the guy you were responding to.

I'm not an atheist. The fact that you made such a massive assumption, and then dropped an insult off right after it, has made me lose most of my interest in this conversation. I am here to find truth. I am not here to get mired in nonsense and rude behavior.

A quote that says that "so-and-so thinks" is not great evidence. It is a citation, though, so thank you for that. It's interesting to know that Augustine made such a leap.

There are myths all over the world, on every continent, that sound similar to the Greek and the Old Testament's accounts of the creation of the world. This includes sources older than the Old Testament. Unless we'd like to consider the Babylonians or someone else the "true account", we're better off recognizing that as an anthropological matter.

And of course Plato refers to a singular god. But there is extremely little reason to believe it is Aquinas' god, the Christian god.

>>15184481
You mean the Hebrew God right? I mean this is Plato we're talking about, you know BC Plato? Good ol' Before Christ Plato?

I don't believe the Bible is a collection of myths, but lets agree on one thing shall we? We are both in agreement that this singular God is what's important here. This idea, this philosophy, was remarkably different than the Greek mythology circulating in some circles at the time.

>>15184384
I never said the speed of light is variable that goes in the face of modern physics. I believe that the explanations are true because they accord with the observed data that's the way it is for all science

>>15184426
But I think Aquinas would agree that Aristotle, of all philosophers, got the farthest in reason (I do believe Aquinas heavily admired Aristotle)? And yet, the person who got the farthest in reason (and therefore, should be reaching the "boundary of that information") did not receive the revelation that "Jesus Christ is the son of God". It seems a very problematic paradox.

However, I agree with you at the end. I have not read a lot of Aquinas, and have really been debating with your summary of one of his ideas.

>>15184481
I'm a totally different anon than the one you're responding to. One phrase here though has caught my attention, and I'm curious: when you say "we're better off..." doing something, how do you determine this? Who are "we"? "Better off" in regards to what? Where is it "we" are going, and what are "we" doing, to what end? This is not something I considered at first, but as I have lived in the Catholic faith, I have been pleasantly surprised to discover it is a complete system. When I compare other beliefs I've held, they were always incomplete systems. In a cursory study of other religions, most of them also seem incomplete to me. I don't know that this can be considered as any kind of evidence, so I don't mean to persuade you by any of this. Rather, I'm genuinely curios; it seems to me like your current system of thought is incomplete; how then do you ever feel firm in your morality or confident in your world-view? For me, it is very reassuring to discover that everything has its right place, and I remember being very unsettled in my mind when things did not; do you think everything has a right place; if so, how do you find out? If not, why not?

>>15184384
And as far as working for normal scales of observation that's as good as we can get we just have to assume the laws of physics we observe are constant across the universe and throughout time. Otherwise we fall into Last Thursdayism or the universe just popped into being last Thursday or any other explanation you can come up with

>>15184500
But you said the red shift was due to a change in velocity, no? And unless I'm terribly confused, I thought there were many experiments that showed ways that light could be slowed down? Doesn't it travel significantly slower through fiber optic cables? If I've misunderstood you and the red shift is not an artifact of a shift in the velocity of light, perhaps you can explain it to me better?

>>15184523
This is a very involved topic, so I won't be giving the full explanation you'd probably like. This is what I'll say.

There are a number of thought systems that I would consider as "complete" as the Catholic system. The works of Plato (and leading into Neo-Platonism), Aristotle, the Buddhists, Hegel, and Jung are various examples. All of these systems (and others besides) come as close as possible in their frame of referencing to describing "absolute truth", but cannot be complete because the "absolute truth" is beyond words. For myself, I find that I come closer and closer to this truth by studying many different systems, seeing where they agree, where they disagree, and what I observe of them in my life.

As someone once described it, these are different paths going up the same mountain.

>>15184558
You are confused red shift is cause by the velocity of the object emitting the light. You can not change the velocity of light, the slowdown in different mediums is due the constant absorption and re-emittance of the photon. Red shift is a decrease (or increase for blue shift but never heard it called that) of the energy of the photon which is related to the frequency which determines the color of visible light. Light emitted by a star moving away from us will be red shifted while stars moving towards us will be blue shifted and measurement of the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation(light) will show the velocity of the star. Light always moves at the same velocity no matter the velocity of the emitter.

>>15183376

>>15184528
So, that wasn't the point I was making, but it does raise an interesting question to me--though it certainly is a reasonable assumption to say that the laws of physics are constant, can an assumption be counted as strong evidence? Certainly, if we were to say that the laws of physics changed at some point, we would need to have a reason for saying why they changed, otherwise we would fall into Last Thursdayism, as you rightly point out. But at some point, we have to have a beginning of the universe; and necessarily the physics at the beginning were somewhat exception, or otherwise we would have a new universe every day. So, though it is generally a safe assumption to say the laws of physics remain constant, it still remains an assumption. This is of course a weak argument, and I'm not trying to suggest it as a counter to what you've said. Just an interesting thought. At some point and in some place, things must have been different than they are now, because things as they are do not demonstrate the necessary properties of things as they must have been before. Anyways, my main purpose for bringing it up was only that Einstein's theories are mathmatecially excellent and practically useful, but are without good explanation of natural philosophy. They don't describe what's happening so much as allow us to continue working through physics while we still try to figure out what is happening.

>>15184558
This is related to why physics got rid of the aether by the way. Look up the Michelson–Morley experiment to measure the speed of the earth through the aether and how it lead to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

>>15184591
Oh good, that does clarify it a little. Now I have two more questions:
1. I'm still confused on how the changing velocity of the light source changes the energy of the light, but not the speed of the light?
2. My understanding was that the red shift observed in stars is universal and constant; how does this work if relative velocities between earth and other celestial bodies are not universal or constant?

>>15184609
>Just an interesting thought. At some point and in some place, things must have been different than they are now, because things as they are do not demonstrate the necessary properties of things as they must have been before.

Why couldn't things have just have popped into being? Look up Munchausen's trilemma a self-justifying axiom is what is called circular logic

>>15184642
I think you're saying what I'm saying. It is not within ordinary physics for entire universes to pop into being, and we have no explanation for how it could happen. So maybe everything did just pop into being, but if so, either the laws of physics at that time were different, or else our current understanding of physics is so insufficient that we cannot really extrapolate much beyond our current space and time, no?

>>15183376
>>15183437
Much of its poetry owes to the KJV translation.

>>15184630
1. This is what Special Relativity is all about. Sound travels through the atmosphere at a constant speed no matter the speed of the source and it was assumed that light was the same traveling through the aether. When the aether was disproven Einstein had to come up with the much stranger Special Relativity with time dilation. It's hard to explain in a comment and honestly I've only ever take a single class that covered it I'm not a physicist.
2. The red shift is definitely not constant different stars and galaxies show different red shift. This is one of the main ways that they determine the velocity of those things. You may be getting confused with the cosmic microwave background radiation which would of been at a higher frequency earlier in the universe and is approximately constant frequency across the sky. I think that the decrease in it is due to inflation of the universe but that is just a popsci level understanding.

>read

Woah pal

>>15184673
Yeah that is definitely true modern physics is not complete quantum mechanics and relativity contradict each other at certain scales. And no one knows what came before the big bang a complete theory of physics would have to answer that.

>>15183462
The story shows that Man is inherently rebellious, even when he knows he is going to be punished. I.e. Man forgets God in comfort, but remembers him on Earth in suffering

God wants us to worship him and temptation makes that worship worth more