/lit/ - Literature

bump

>>16949679
>You just gotta embrace the paradox bro. The bigger the paradox is, the stronger your Faith will become.

I hope one day I will understand what it means to be Christian. It's confusing and disheartening to think about whether God is real or not, but it costs me nothing to believe, and it feels right.

>>16949914
I believe God is real, but I'm not sure the Christian one is.

>>16949960
I'm in the same boat. The brothers karamazov made me believe in God and jesus but most of the bible I cannot bring myself to believe.

>>16949679
the exestential jesus

>>16949679
yo i think jesus got the pinkeye

I think for some people it is an issue of intellectual pride, that they cannot bring themselves to believe something that is "stupid" to the secular world. Their faith needs to be sophisticated enough that no one can mock them for it.

>>16950359
>noooooooo i can't be a christian not a heckin talking donkarino that's like fucking shrrek bro...

>>16950287
You can not believe in the New Testament without believing in the Old.

>>16950361
Jesus resurrected people from the dead but a snake talking is impossible and I won't believe it.

>>16950369
Why?
The God of Job does not behave like a God. His actions seem vindictive and prideful, if not petty.

>>16949679
I experienced this a few months ago. I delved a bit into Christianity again after being exposed to some Christian mysticism. I managed to learn quite a few concepts regarding Christianity and realized it was not as shallow as I thought. Christian apologetics also convinced me at least of the possibility of God. It felt good embracing something that was a part of a former life.

Though I now believe God could exis, I cannot make the link with Christ or Christianity. Christ as a concept, yes. However it is too relative an interpretation. To believe as a Christian one needs to accept and believe the miracles, especially that of the resurrection. I just cannot get past this obstacle.

>>16950378
Read Romans 9 por favor.

>>16950378
Who gave you the power to determine how God should behave? What are you in relation to your creator?

>>16950415
>you don't have the right to question anything
See, this is what I can't get behind.

>>16950418
You don't. Why would you have the right to question a god?
>Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Carl Jung's Answer To Job very much reinforced my beliefs in God and Christ. A difficult book but very worthwhile

>>16950425
This kind of submissiveness and unconditional deference feels profoundly wrong. I understand that it is the result of Jewish legalism at the time, but to espouse those beliefs would be forcing myself to accept something I intuitively consider to be wrong.

>>16950378
I would also definitely recommend you read Jung's Answer To Job too. It very much explains how and why God acted how He did

>>16950439
The gap in knowledge and power and mercy between you and God is infinite.

>>16950439
Have you considered that your intuition is what is wrong?

>>16950442
Doesn't this book implicitly deny the omnipotence of God and further antropomorphizes Him by claiming He is changing (psychologically), which suggests the influence of time?

>>16950378
Jesus IS the God of Job

>>16950380
Miracles are very simple

>>16950380
If there is a god why can there not be miracles?

>>16950448
I entertained the idea and came to the conclusion that it wasn't.
>>16950447
So His actions just happen to coincidentally align perfectly with the human ideas of vindictiveness and wrath, yet his intentions are so far removed from my understanding that this is not an accurate interpretation at all?
Seems like a stretch. The only way the Bible makes sense is through an interpretation that neglects the more obvious explanations, influenced by the historical context, to come to a conclusion that is much more complex. Why wasn't the book written in a way that would make its message less open to such misinterpretation, then?

>>16950380
>especially that of the resurrection. I just cannot get past this obstacle.

Read NT Wright on this subject.

By the way there is no "evidence" in the world that will make the Christian God an inevitability, there can only be evidence that points to it. You will still have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe it or not.

>>16950465
>the book
It is a collection of texts written by men who lived in different times in different languages lol. I can read a comic strip and come up with a thousand weird interpretations, doesn't mean that any of them are right.

Why does Job piss off trannys?

>>16950425
Why should humanity necessarily be subservient to its creator?
Why should humanity's creator necessarily be the transcendent absolute?

>>16950465
>Seems like a stretch

It's not a stretch, it's what happens when finite human minds write about things that are in some ways infinitely removed from their capacity for understanding. The Bible does not reside in an entirely reason-based domain nor entirely in a fideist-based domain, it is the interplay of both and ultimately written by human pencils even if the "dictation" is by God. This is why you need the Holy Spirit to help with understanding and given that the mysteries inherent in the Bible are from God, they will be an inexhaustible infinite source for spiritual growth. There never will be a moment where you finally understand God or the Bible in a hermeneutically-sealed way, though the Beatific Vision should allow one to see the "essence" of God (but this is an entirely gratuitous gift from God, not something you can reach on your own).

>>16950497
So when confronted by doubts arising from perceived inconsistency or incoherence in passages of the Bible, the right course of action is to ignore those feelings and assume that they are due to the flawed interpretation of the writer?
But if the Bible is not entirely reliable, how can we be certain that it is reliable at all for getting closer to the divine?

>>16950479
Sunk cost.

It's hard to let go of your intellectual pride when you think yourself as "intellectually-englightened" by spending hundreds on hours on modern philosophy. Believing in God in a prima facie sort of way ie from a personal Job-like encounter, without having a near bulletproof philosophical reasoning for this belief also terrifies people because they implicitly know that publicizing this kind of belief would mean being ostracized from society at large.

>>16950516
>a prima facie sort of way ie from a personal Job-like encounter
Not everyone will have such an encounter in their lives.
>bulletproof philosophical reasoning
There is no such thing for God. The belief in God requires acceptance of irrationality since it's a leap of faith.

>>16950513
No, the right course of action is not to ignore those feelings but to assume that your own interpretation is flawed.

>But if the Bible is not entirely reliable,
The Bible is entirely reliable, however suffering from the gap between human mind and God's mind. This means that what you can ascertain from the Bible is related to your spiritual development not just intellectual development. You also need the help of the Holy Spirit to understand spiritual truths.

The actions usually prescribed to understand what it means, to resolve doubt, to understand God better etc. have historically been mostly the same: prayer, fasting, almsgiving.

If the idea of doing these things to understand things better causes intellectual revolt in you as I imagine most mostly intellectually-inclined minds would think (oh he's telling me that I should pray harder and fast because I found an inconsistency, that obviously means I am right and he is full of shit) that is a sure sign of pride, precisely what is blocking you from adjoining your intellectual capabilities to spiritual curiosity and opening yourself up for things of the Spirit. This kind of intellectual pride is eminently observable in Nietzsche by the way, he is so enslaved by intellectual pride that he would turn this entire post in an example of delusional slave morality of a snake oil salesman just so he could continue in his idolatry of intellect alone as removed from God. Therefore if you want to understand the Bible and God beyond what can be ascertained purely intellectually, then you must approach it from a different angle, not one that forgets reason or intellect, but one that does not engages in idolatry by worshipping the intellect above Truth. That is, by not rejecting Truth in order that the idolatry of your intellect might be preserved.

>>16950525
The belief in Christian God specifically requires a leap of faith. The existence of God can be proven by reason as Aquinas has done so.

>>16950525
>Not everyone will have such an encounter in their lives.
It doesn't mean God literally talking to you. If that's what it you took it to mean, it means you've got ways to go.

>>16950525
You are full of pride

>>16950586
Why?

>>16950525
>The belief in God requires acceptance of irrationality since it's a leap of faith.
That's where you're wrong. If someone tells you that the only way to believe in God is to jump of a building and you won't know God until you do, that is to say take a leap of faith, the implication that you should accept irrationality is nonsense

Religion is absurd. I'm going back to Enlightenment style atheism.

>>16950610
>I'm going back to Enlightenment style atheism.
ie., return to paganism

>>16950576
>worshipping the intellect above Truth
Intuition is not backed by intellect though, it is a personal impression removed from rationality. How can you be certain that you are indeed perceiving the Truth and not a distorsion of it?
I don't think I'm engaging in what you call idolatry of the intellect, because I don't claim the intellect to be applicable to all questions. Yet I can't help but see it as dangerous to relinquish my ability to doubt and throw myself into unconditional faith, because there is no guarantee that the path I will have chosen will be the right one. That might make me a milquetoast ephectic, but what's the alternative?

>>16950584
>It doesn't mean God literally talking to you
I took it to mean an epiphany, and for that my point still stands.

>>16950620
>Intuition is not backed by intellect though
It literally is though.

>>16950632
How? Inner insight not based on conscious analysis is irrational.

>>16950629
Stop being so rigid lmao

>>16950615
Except that Aristotle was a brainlet who was wrong ten times more than he was right.

>>16950637
What does that even mean? Why won't you address my point?

>>16950586
I wouldn't say he is full of pride. He has all the signs of someone coming from a background that is flushed with modern scientific and intellectual sensibilities and from a personal position where he places a very high importance on intellectual reasoning (there is nothing in fact wrong with that). So of course when trying to understand the Christian faith there is a tension between his previous sensibilities and commitments and Christian Truth. This is entirely understandable if not inescapable for most people coming from this sort of commitments and the background of modern/contemporary era. Of course in this moment what he needs to do is to forget his commitments to the intellect and modern sensibilities which are fighting in him to occupy the top spot ahead of God (what you rightfully call pride, it is a sort of intellectual pride that is basically idolatry) for a moment and place God first. Then when this burden is taken off his back, can he re-integrate his intellect into knowing more (even purely intellectually) than what he believed before. At the end of this tension, there isn't a fideist end, reason totally discarded, but a re-integration of reason and intellect as God has given them to humanity. The end is not the loss of reason but a refinement of the reason and intellect. So the terror one experiences of losing his intellectual commitments and reason is totally besides the point, what you're losing is the idolatry of the intellect and fruitless modern sensibilities to become a whole being as God intended, relating to him in variety of ways: through faith, through mystery, through reason and through intellect. If then God has given you the gift of the intellect, you might very well continue your intellectual pursuits and in fact by actually being aligned to Truth rather than losing yourself in a vacuum of empty intellectual dead-ends the modern philosophy is full of. Of course, the world might hate you then or discard you from not engaging in what the world wants of you. But that has always been the price the Christian must be ready to pay, or the Cross he must be ready to carry. And if worldly commitments are worth to you more than Truth? Then you are not even a philosopher as secularly understood (lover of wisdom), let alone a Christian because that is also idolatry.

>>16950632
>>16950629

Arational anons, arational

>>16950369
>>16950394
>>16950415
>>16950425
>>16950453
>trying to justify a bloodthirsty jewish warlord god THIS hard

>>16950652
You're making assumptions, I don't place any value on modern idolatry of science or even rationality. As I've stated before, I believe decisions regarding spirituality should be based on personal intuition, which is why I'm hitting an obstacle with the Bible, as I can't reconcile my deeper feeling of what divinity represents with its biblical depiction.

>>16950635
All rational reasoning begins with intuition including the post you wrote. This would mean that you cannot be certain that you are indeed preceiving the Truth in anything, including the post you wrote. If you believe this could in fact be the case, then that should to any rational intellect be a sure sign of the kind of intellectual delusional that is only possible by worshipping the intellect (which doesn't need to be rational) above what we can ascertain is rationally true. This isn't doubt about the Intellect, but the use of Intellect in the first place to come to erroneous conclusions, conclusions that one can hold to not by suspending the intellect but suspending common sense truth in order to preserve the working of the intellect that leads to this conclusion. Skepticism, when properly analyzed, is really an obvious case of Intellect worship.

>>16950643
Because you are at this moment unable to getting the point which is elucidated by how you interpret "a prima facie sort of way ie from a personal Job-like encounter". Most would interpret this to mean from the context of the post to mean that one believes in God from a personal position without any (firm) intellectual position. By personal-relation to God. This is actually abundantly clear in the initial post, but you interpret it literally as being spoken to by God or epiphany, which has nothing to do with the original post.

>>16950716
>that one believes in God from a personal position without any (firm) intellectual position
But I've already said this wasn't a problem, and that my problem was with the God of the Bible.

>>16949679
It's not theology or philosophy, but try Darwin's Cathedral.

>>16949679

You might try reading: Louis Bouyer, The Meaning of Sacred Scripture.

Bouyer explains in a very persuasive way how the Old Testament finds its fulfillment in the New Testament.

World-class scholar, and a fine writer. Used copies tend to be pricey, alas, and I've never seen it on libgen or other such sites (although they have several other of his books).

>no matter what I do, I just can't seem to believe in the Bible. It doesn't feel true.

I don't know for a certainty, of course, but it might just help you turn the corner.

>>16949679
Do you believe in God abstractly and just not in the Bible, or in neither? In the former case, I would recommend maybe trying The Language of Creation: Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis. Certainly it gave me a completely new perspective on these stories, and even if you don't come out of it "believing", you will gain a whole new appreciation and be wiser for it.

>>16950666
Odd formulation. I believe there are only three two positions here, but perhaps you can help me out?

1. Either you're reasoning about what divinity represents and its biblical depiction and about whether this can be reconciled and ascribing the end result to "intuition". But we can see that here there is actually reasoning making the case, not any sort of intuition.

2. Or you're not really reasoning at all whether what divinity represents and its biblical depiction can be reconciled and you are having a feeling about this purely from "intuition". However it is unclear how you could have an "intuition" about a comparison without utilizing your reason to know what those two terms mean let alone how they compare. Otherwise you would have an intution about nothing at all.

>>16950779
This is a fruitless argument, but what I mean is that I have a personal intuition of divinity that I did not manage to find in the Bible. I'm not sure how to articulate it differently, but I don't think the semantics matter.

>>16950815
Can you explain what your personal intuition of divinity is like?

>>16950878
I'm not a good enough writer to accurately convey what essentially amounts to a feeling based on nothing more than personal impressions. But you're asking me to intellectualize it, so: I'm usually inclined to agree with people who describe the divine or the absolute as beyond existence, therefore externally transcendent (probably? not sure about this one) and not causally or logically conditioned. Which is why I have a hard time thinking of a God as some kind of superior entity that behaves and think a certain way.

>>16950928
>externally transcendent
Actually I take that back, I don't know if the transcendence of divinity is immanent or external.

>>16950928
and you did not manage to find this in Bible in what concrete sense?

>>16951010
Because the Bible tends to depict
>God as some kind of superior entity that behaves and think a certain way.

>>16950928
So for you divinity is just an impersonal totally removed God (or whatever you might choose to call it)?

>>16950928
You are putting limits on God.

>>16951030
I'm not sure what you mean by impersonal. But yes, there's an implication of unqualifiability.
>>16951044
How did you get that from my post? I tried to describe divinity in the least limiting and most apophatic way I could.

>>16951024
What can you positively say about your conception of divinity then if anything at all?

>>16951046
By impersonal I mean that your God neither has any attributes similar to persons nor interacts with the universe in any sort of personal way even by analogy. I would also like to know if your concept of the divine has any positive attributes then, what can we positively say about your God or is it entirely apophatic?

personhood itself is an imitation of God.
God is not like man, man is like God.

>>16951049
Why should I need to say anything about it? My impression is that a God that can be described and qualified in a way reminiscient of a human-like being is no "God" in the most absolute sense.
>>16951064
>neither has any attributes
Yes,
>nor interacts
There's still the assumption that the absolute is the source, I didn't mean to imply it was somehow closed off from existence.
>any positive attributes
I don't know, if you couldn't already tell I'm not very metaphysically literate. But it is my impression that the highest, divine absolute should be apophatic by virtue of being entirely unconstrained by conceptual qualification.

>>16951104
Why can't God have attributes lmao

>>16951122
Something that has attributes is necessarily limited

>>16951127
Why?
Being unlimited is itself an attribute bro...

>>16951136
The God is limited by his limitlessness

>>16951136
>Why?
Because if you have attributes you're constrained by whatever these attributes imply, if you exist then you're constrained by the fact that since you exist, you can't not exist, and this extends to all other attributes you can think of.
>Being unlimited is itself an attribute
Yeah which is why just saying that God can't be described and leaving it at that seems like the best course of action.

>>16951141
Unironically bro... Read a book... ugh...

>>16951156
Attributes are not limiting silly tranny...

>>16951167
Whatever you say.

>>16950928
>Which is why I have a hard time thinking of a God as some kind of superior entity that behaves and think a certain way.

You're not wrong.

>Have any books managed to

Ask God to help you find the right book. "Ask and you shall receive."

>>16949865
You can say that about ANY religion. So what makes Christianity special?

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

>>16949865
I mean to me all this is saying is the dumbest the religion is the harder the mental gymnastics you have to make, which is apparent. The real question is. Why Christianity?

>>16949679
Just watch Peterson's Bible series

>>16949679
>I felt pulled to Christianity for a while, but no matter what I do, I just can't seem to believe in the Bible. It doesn't feel true.
This depends on where you currently stand, if you don't believe in a god, you will never believe the bible. If you believe in a god, then why must Christianity be true and the sayings of the bible be true you may ask?

One good answer is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection (If you are curious, do some research). Even then you may try and say 'well there isn't enough evidence' or 'it could all just be fabricated', if you start going down this route, start reading into apologetics and you will find sound answers to all of these types of questions. If you are one of those fedora atheists who read genesis once and claim 'it doesn't work with science' you are very very wrong and should do some more reading and research. Your doubt and skepticism will only eventually strengthen your faith in the Lord when you come to the truth.

>>16949679
Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes
the historical books i found very boring, only in recent years did i just dump to the above, they're so much better.

>>16950525
>The belief in God requires acceptance of irrationality since it's a leap of faith.
You're a moron who has tripped up on the ambiguous nature of English.

"Faith" means trust in God, not whether or not you accept certain facts as if you're in a court of law or reviewing a science paper.

"Even the demons believe yet quaver".

God doesn't really care whether you "believe" in him or not; if you had an ant farm, would you really care if the ants "believed" in the concept of human civilization or not? Of course you wouldn't, all you care about is that they trust your plan.

>>16951560
Even if Jesus did come back to life, that does not imply that the entirety of the Bible is true.
>do some research
I've seen that 8ch picture about the shroud of Turin, is that what you're talking about?

>>16951574
I don't really give a shit if ants trust my plan

>>16951647
Why the fuck would you have a plan for ants anyway
Is God that bored?

>>16951869
What is this, a plan for ants?!

>>16951884
Is this reality just cosmic shitposting?

>>16951888
Cosmic shitposting all the way down, fren

Also check'd

>>16951232
>what makes Christianity special?
The trinity

>>16949679
I've been reading about some of the harrowing trials men in early Christianity went through lately (pic)
Stories of relentless demonic attack have strengthened my faith, I can't imagine what would have happened had he not invoked the power of God

>>16952167
>I can't imagine what would have happened
he would have ended up in a rekt scroll

I'm a severely depressed athiest. Anyone got any books to convert me?

>>16949679
Who said this?

>>16952332
King James, obviously.

>>16951232
Jesus is totally unique.

First you must believe, then you can understand

>>16952413
>God-King
literally every civilization has had it. Even the stuff he said isn't unique. Love thy neighbour, for example, was said by Confucius 500 years prior

>>16952312
Yeah

>>16950525
>There is no such thing for God. The belief in God requires acceptance of irrationality since it's a leap of faith.
There are sound philosophical arguments (most precisely the Kalam argument) that logically prove a certain all-generating principle which is assigned the status of God. Personally, I believe that such a principle most likely exists but I am doubtful whether it is God in the sense of the term we usually argue about. Such a philosophers' god is a highly abstract notion and I understand if that is not enough to truly believe.

>>16952700
>Personally, I believe that such a principle most likely exists but I am doubtful whether it is God in the sense of the term we usually argue about.
As far as I am aware of most religious books use the term for both

>>16952550
The very nature of The Son and The Trinity is unique dumb retard.
Jesus isn't some pagan caesar or pharoah larping as a god, he is the real deal, a living breathing God-Man

>>16952721
>Jesus isn't some pagan caesar or pharoah larping as a god, he is the real deal, a living breathing God-Man
bwahahaha, Jesus is but a man who spoke of God and they hated him for it

>>16952732
Lol

>>16952762
What does that symbolize? Where is Peterson when you need him...

Imo the path is to become more capable of discerning His presence within you.

It's vaguely physical, in my case some 2 cm just under the sternum but inside.
When i focus on that impression obtain calm and joy. You eventually get used to it and start living and acting from that place. When you do, your actions align increasingly more with the way Christ acted.

>>16950465
>I entertained the idea and came to the conclusion that it wasn't.
Your conclusion is wrong unless you're a saint tier man, and even then all saints think of themselves as very unimpressive.

My suggestion is read Plato, after reading Plato and Aristotle I can now easily follow along with most biblical and Christian reasoning.

>>16950378
Theological engagement is the answer to doubt. Rather than letting your questions and doubt rule you, eating away like a virus at your soul, embrace them and seek answers which reconcile the issues they raise.
There is a mountain of literature written about every part of the Bible, and ten times that amount for each of the hard-to-understand parts such as Job.
The information is out there waiting for you, but you have to come to it. Even if none of the answers specifically satisfy you, the engagement with the literature should stimulate your interest in faith, at the very least.

>>16952711
Well, what I mean is that such a god feels rather impersonal, not personal. Though I am willing to concede that if the all-generating principle, the actus purus of Aristotle and Aquinas does exist in personal or suprapersonal form, the suspension of physics in the moment of a miracle as the expression of divine will opens up the possibility of such a God becoming intelligible through revelation. Still, I fear I am a doubting Thomas.

>>16952732
>Jesus is but a man who spoke of God and they hated him for it
Why then did all the apostles affirm him as God and willingly suffered persecution and death in his name? Seems like they were convinced and this trope is a modern notion.

>>16952888
>Why then did all the apostles affirm him as God and willingly suffered persecution and death in his name?
Same reason the followers of Muhammad suffered persecution and death in his name, even though he never claimed to be God, but he spoke for God and people respond to that.

i dont know about the metaphysical stuff but reading a little bit of stoicism and "right wing" philosophy made me understand just how accurately grounded in the realities of the human experience christian philosophy is and gave me a pretty huge respect for the teachings of the bible specifically related to the history of man and the various rules it proclaims we should live by

>>16952899
Don't move the goalpost, you claimed before that Christ only spoke of God and did not say he was the son of God.

>>16952915
I don't get your point?

>>16949679
***DISREGARD ALL OTHER POSTS***
If you want more understanding on a mental level, read:

>Phaedo
>Phaedrus
>Symposium
>Republic
Then
>De Anima
>Nicomachean Ethics
>Metaphysics
Then
>Confessions
>City of God
>On Christian Teaching
Then
>Aquinas' philosophy

You can probably Google the gist of these, if you're too lazy to read all the books. Familiarise yourself with how the concept of Forms, Divinity and the Soul proceeds from Plato into Aristotle's thought, how Aristotle builds on these concepts, and the concept of Aristotelian Teleology.

If you want greater understanding on a spiritual level, read
>The Bible, esp NT and psalms, with commentary by Church Fathers. Free online
>Introduction to the Devout Life
>Imitation of Christ
>Story of a Soul
>Interior Castle
>Ladder of Divine Ascent

If you want fiction that will change your perception of Christianity, read
>The Brothers Karamazov
>Diary of a Country Priest
>The Power and The Glory
>The End of the Affair
>Father Sergius
>Death of Ivan Ilyich
>Viper's Tangle

That should get you started

>>16952960
HIGHER TIER ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:

https://carm.org/atheism/transcendental-argument

>>16952967

>>16952976

>>16952983

>>16952988

>>16951104
>But it is my impression that the highest, divine absolute should be apophatic by virtue of being entirely unconstrained by conceptual qualification.

You're on the right track. You need to pray. Frankly, the Catholic Church is where you will find spiritual sustenance and sound guidance. I know that can be a big leap for some people. Do try the Bouyer book I mentioned earlier in this thread, if you can get ahold of a copy. Your above, green-text sentence suggests to me that your sensibility is in tune with Bouyer's spirituality, and my intuition (inspiration?) in suggesting that particular book may have been sound.

>>16952960
>The Bible, esp NT and psalms, with commentary by Church Fathers. Free online

Where do I find this?

>>16953047
>>But it is my impression that the highest, divine absolute should be apophatic by virtue of being entirely unconstrained by conceptual qualification.


Thinking about that remark a little more, and your original post, there is no question in my mind that Bouyer, The Meaning of Sacred Scripture, would help.

You really need to pray and ask for God's help and light and guidance. It is clear to me that He has already given you much help.

>We should pay great attention to inner inspirations and follow them faithfully. And faithfulness to one grace attracts others.
- Sr. Faustina

>"To everyone who has will more be given, and he will have abundance." For one grace that I received faithfully, he granted me a host of other...
- Therese of Lisieux

There is no doubt that if we thank God with all our heart for each grace received, especially for inspirations, he will grant us more.

>What most draws down graces from our dear Lord is gratitude, for if we thank him for a gift, he is touched and hastens to give us ten more.
- Therese of Lisieux

>>16953085
This is the Cantena Aurea, the Bible with extensive commentary compiled by Aquinas:

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-111.shtml

This page has commentaries on issues including, but not limited to, scripture:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

>>16953149
Isn't that just the Gospels?

>>16953243
Yeah it is, full bible including OT is out there somewhere, I saw it posted in a previous thread. Do some Google fu anon

>>16953249
http://catenabible.com/gn/1

This looks like it might be good?

Quick survey:
How many people in this thread have Spanish or Portuguese as their first language?

>>16953282
>http://catenabible.com/gn/1

Very cool link, thanks.

>>16950287
If you are still in this thread, can I ask you to explain the Brothers Karamazov comment. I have just recently read it and did not come to same insights.

>>16953047
>>16953128
This may sound like a dumb question, but what is the right way to pray?
I'm a bit doubtful of strictly following liturgy, not out of defiance but because I fail to understand its purpose. Can meditation in the form of contemplation be a form of prayer?
And thank you for the book recommendation, I'll check it out. I didn't think there were Christian theologians who also espoused the idea of God as undescribable.
What's the consensus on Meister Eckhart, by the way? I read a couple things about his ideas which seemed interesting, but I didn't get very deep into it.

>>16953355
Not him, but I really recommend reading Liturgy and Personality by Hildebrand to gain a different perspective on liturgical prayer.

Prayer itself can be incredibly rich and deep. Most of the world is only dimly aware of verbal petitionary prayer. However, there is verbal and mental prayer, meditative prayer, and contemplative prayer.

I would really recommend reading around this. Books like Introduction to the Devout Life, and Imitation of Christ, have meditations to incorporate with increasing complexity. However, for now, try Lectio Divina. Collect yourself somewhere quiet with no distractions and try to place yourself in the presence of God. Ask God to help you pray. Pray the Our Father, and really focus on the words and what they mean.

Once you are sufficiently still, open up to a passage of Scripture. Read a few sentences, or a chapter, but read it as if it were written only for you. Close your eyes and try to meditate on that passage, see how it applies to your life and what lessons you can gain from it. Imagine the scene, imagine yourself there with all the rest. If you're reading the words of Christ, read them as if He Himself were speaking to you. This is a good link with more info on Lectio Divina:

https://www.ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-prayer/the-what-how-why-of-prayer/praying-with-scripture/%3famp

>>16950371
The Old Testament is not to be taken literally.

>>16953397
Thanks for the help, I appreciate it.

>>16953400
Says you

>>16949679
O God! My eyes! My eyes!

Wait.. am I still on 4chan?

>>16953407
I just snapped an example of a basic guided meditation from Introduction to the Devout Life.

>>16953422
>Wait.. am I still on 4chan?
You are about to enter another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop—The Twilight Zone.

>>16953412
No. Says the entirety of the Catholic church. You would be hard pressed to find a Catholic priest that says Adam and Eve are historical figures.

A large bulk of the OT are merely inspired texts. They are religious texts that have been edited and changed through centuries, but the Church still believes they have theological value so its in the cannon,

>>16953422
Yes, you died and now suffer the punishment of hell, to browse 4chan for all eternity.

>>16953453
Isn't hell a metaphor

>>16953435
God invented everything, lof.

>>16953432
What exactly defines the relationship we should be having with God? I understand the Bible states the nature of the relationship man should have with his creator, but what is the reason for it? Does God "want" to be worshiped, if so, why?

>>16953506
God doesn't *want* to be worshipped, per se. Certainly not in the way you might think, anyway, like a tyrant. We are called to share in eternal life with Him, to share in the perfect love of the Trinity, and yes, to worship God, as He is our Creator and rightly deserving of worship. These are deeper theological questions than can be sufficiently answered in a 4chan post, but a quick Google search should give you a bit more detail (if less than a good book, like previous Pope Ratzinger's "Introduction to Christianity"). This is what I found with a quick search:

https://forums.catholic.com/t/why-did-god-create-us/40350/2

https://www.learnreligions.com/why-did-god-make-me-542065

https://www.catholic.com/tract/gods-love-for-you

But they will lack the sort of detail that Ratzinger's book or other such sources may have.

>>16952960
This is what I did except more Plato and also Aristotles Politics. I would also suggest you add Gorgias to the list there. I am almost done with Confessions and I was going to read Summa of the Summa next, I do have City of God but it is so big I kinda wanted to jump into Aquinas first. What do you think?

>>16953448
If there is no Adam and Eve there is no original sin and fall of man you idiot.
Jesus spoke of Adam as a historical person, this is nonsense. Also citation needed on that malarkey about priests not believing Adam existed

>>16951575
>I've seen that 8ch picture about the shroud of Turin, is that what you're talking about?
hasn't the Shroud of Turin been robustly, without a shadow of a doubt been classified as a medieval-era forgery?

>>16953617
No

>>16953448
For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

>>16953485
From my understanding as a theological hobbyist, it's a metaphor for how your soul reacts to its presence in God after it loses agency in death. If the soul lived contrary to unity with God, it is ill prepared to be in him but since it only had agency in life it can no longer change its maladaptation, that's why it becomes eternal torment. Now in principle, God may elect to forcibly adapt even those souls to himself but this doctrine of apocatastasis is highly debated.

If I'm wrong somebody please correct me on this.

>>16953591
City of God is worth it, although it is bulky. Maybe you could spark notes it and return to it later on? For Aquinas, I found Feser's book a good introduction, Marshall's "Aquinas in 50 pages", and Chesterton's guide if you want more info on the Saint as well as just his philosophy. God bless you on your journey, anon. I'm going to include you in my prayer tonight. Please say a prayer for me, too.

>>16953581
>We are called to share in eternal life with Him
I don't think the Bible really elaborates on what the kingdom of Heaven is actually like, but people often talk about it like it's just a physical place removed from time where suffering doesn't exist. I'm assuming that what you mean is more like henosis?

>>16953648
>after it loses agency in death
What does that mean? Does death somehow remove sentience?

You just need to know where to look for ideas that challenge but refine your faith. For instance, I found this very provocative, actually got me to rethink aspects of my faith:

>” The image of sacrifice embodied by Christ is the formal institutionalization of pride: the martyr sacrifices in the image of Christ, e.g. with the promise of redemption. How easy it is to deny a kingdom with the knowledge of another waiting to be gained; the judgment of God ensures that sacrifice is met with reward. And so pride is refolded, grounded, made central. Sacrifice this life and win eternal life—and so many Pascalian wagers and forms of logic surface in the wake. But what if this wasn’t the case—what if one knew only sacrifice? Here pride recedes behind the possibility of redemption; here man only knows how to give and does not seek to receive. Who among you would sacrifice yourself in this manner? Who among you loves this world so entirely that, in redeeming it, they would not fear the coming flames? Who among you would want to know self-cruelty like this? Who among you would willfully go to hell in order to save another—to trade your spot not with the hope of reclaiming it? What constitution was born to shoulder the impossible—to suffer so that others may live? Heaven is over brimming with the prideful. Heaven is the state, the nationalism of pride. The true redeemers of this world rest amidst fire and brimstone—would we recognize our savior as he truly is, as the charred one, the embered one, the burned-over one? The false idol descends from heaven just as the true redeemer ascends from hell.”

>>16953652
I don't really want to spark it. I will start it alongside Aquinas (Peter Kreeft's 530 page rundown of the Summa) and see which one I want to do first. My friend is reading Feser's book soon / now. I have listened to 1-3 hours of youtube content from Feser and he's clearly a great source of very difficult technical information and a very intelligent man.

I appreciate your prayers, and I really need them because I am constantly failing to use my time wisely but instead to do pleasant and easy things. If I do manage to stop being lazy and evil I will pray for you as well sir. Thank you! :)

>>16953662
So heaven is one thing, the real joy of which is (I think) the Beatific Vision. The nature of heaven and hell is fleshed out in theology-- Aquinas has a few things to say on Heaven here:

https://digilander.libero.it/monast/paradiso/inglese/tommaso.htm

However, its worth noting that the Bible speaks of a new Earth, free from sin, as it was meant to be in the beginning; and that we will populate this new Earth in our resurrected, perfected bodies.

>>16953662
The Kingdom of Heaven is multiple things
The Body of Believers (The Church)
The Restored Earth after the last judgment (The New Jerusalem, The City of God)
The "Throne Room" of God where the angels and saints are gathered and worshipping and singing before God etc.

>>16953628
that's what it says on Wikipedia at least, that it was dated to sometime in the 2nd millennium and that every argument in the contrary has been thoroughly refuted

>>16953698
Thank you friend. Don't be too scrupulous, either- better to spend your time doing pleasant and easy things while semi-regularly reading, than throwing everything into reading, burning out and stopping altogether. I'm suffering greatly these last few months due to physical illness, your prayers would be appreciated.

>>16953715
More then likely the cloth is just thoroughly contaminated from centuries of being handled and touched and being around candles and fires and whatnot

>>16953648
>it's a metaphor for how your soul reacts to its presence in God after it loses agency in death
I think its more like how the soul reacts to the absence of God.

>>16953670
It means you go from becoming to being. You can no longer change, you still feel and perceive.

>>16953670
Not really sentience but imagine what it would be like to be you but without a body, given that the brain is the interface through which the soul interacts with the body, the absence of both poses a problem for the fulness of consciousness. That's why Judaism and Christianity maintain that there will be a resurrection where the soul is reunited with the body.

>>16953730
>I think its more like how the soul reacts to the absence of God.
But isn't God omnipresent? Given the principle of causation it's probably wrong to assume that something could be without him.

>>16953728
>>16953715
>>16953617

Something you anons might find interesting, even as a springboard for further research.

>>16953738
Yes, unlike the failed gnostics, Christians believe in the holiness of the Body and all of creation itself

>>16953670
You can only change in time, after death time ceases to exist. This is why the fall of the angels was irrevocable, it was- from our perspective inside time-instantaneous and cannot be undone.

>>16953764
I believe hell is a place created for those who do not want to be with God. His presence has to be there because otherwise it would literally not exist (as he is existence itself), but in another sense he has withdrawn from that place - love is gone, strength is gone, light is gone, etc.

Great question though I have been meaning to get the solid rundown on this myself, so don't quote me on what I said lol. Pretty complicated stuff.

I do personally like your take on it though, the problem is God can not contain imperfections, so he could not accept hellbound souls into himself either.

>>16952967
Confessions to a priest is retarded. Only God can resolve sins not man. Otherwise I agree.

>>16953831
The Apostles shrived people though

>>16953831
God forgives through the implement of a priest. Bind and loose, forgive and don't forgive, etc etc. If you died before you got to confession, but fully intended to and had repented, I'm sure you'd be fine. But you should still try to go as it's a sacrament and a great source of grace.

>>16953334
My insights may not be the common insights of readers nor that of normal Christians. After reading I understood Christianity to be similar zosima's teachings which just ended up being love God and your neighbour and these are the primary goals.
This in my mind basically means to accept and love the world as God made it because its so full of joy and wonder. I feel as though I explained this poorly but honestly it's a hard concept to think about you just gotta feel it. This is why I'm struggling to understand the rest of the bible, because right now I feel like one of those "spiritual Christians" who use God as an excuse to do what you want without judgement.

>>16953334
TBK did two things for me. Firstly, it drove home that active love is one of the most important things a Christian can do. All philosophy and theology falls down next to genuine love in action. Secondly, it almost startled me in its hope for the salvation of sinners. Anyone who gave an onion, has the potential of making the feast. A simple act of kindness can transform even the most hard-hearted sinners, and it's through genuine love- rather than metaphysical debate- that will save people. This is why Christ's response to the Grand Inquisitor's argument is a kiss- signifying unconditional love- that results in the Inquisitor sobbing and letting Christ go, his worldview crumbling to pieces.

>>16953725
I'm not that anon, and I'm sorry that I'm not a Christian, because I wish I could pray for you as well. I have too much doubt in my heart so I don't think your God would answer an athiest's prayers, but I genuinely hope your illness will end soon. Nobody should be in pain for too long of a time.

>>16953881
You see I'm inclined to think this way. I believe priests can absolve sins of course but this surely can't be the main way God forgives sins.


>>16953848
I agree they did. I'm sorry if my comment made it seem as though priests are incapable of doing so. I meant only that the idea that priests exclusively could forgive sins.

>>16954030
I'm the original person he replied to but you actually explained it better than I did so thanks.

>>16953730
>You can no longer change
But to be conscious is to change, since awareness is a transient process, it is not static.

>>16953773
How can the body or the material world in general be holy when it's so imperfect?

Reading and interpreting the bible yourself while having a personal relationship with god=based
Giving in to installed interpretations of the bible while having a proxy relationship with god=cringe

the bible is cool. christianity is not

>>16954169
How is awareness transient?

>>16953815
>God can not contain imperfections
Then why does evil exist?

>>16954098
You never know, anon, it's worth a try. It's either an ulcer of some sort or cancer. Obviously hoping for the former. But even if it were the worst case scenario, I wouldn't blame God. We all leave sooner or later and I'm blessed to have been given an opportunity to know Him in some small way, even if I'm only 24.

>>16954204
It's a process. It flows and changes, your awareness as you're reading this post changes as it incorporates the experience of reading it into itself.
Something that never changes cannot be aware.

>>16954193
>"Sir Arthur St. Clare, as I have already said, was a man who read his Bible. That was what was the matter with him. When will people understand that it is useless for a man to read his Bible unless he also reads everybody else's Bible? A printer reads a Bible for misprints. A Mormon reads his Bible, and finds polygamy; a Christian Scientist reads his, and finds we have no arms and legs. St. Clare was an old Anglo-Indian Protestant soldier. Now, just think what that might mean; and, for Heaven's sake, don't cant about it. It might mean a man physically formidable living under a tropic sun in an Oriental society, and soaking himself without sense or guidance in an Oriental Book. Of course, he read the Old Testament rather than the New. Of course, he found in the Old Testament anything that he wanted—lust, tyranny, treason. Oh, I dare say he was honest, as you call it. But what is the good of a man being honest in his worship of dishonesty?

>>16954106
Bear in mind confessing to a priest encourages humility, as well as greater self-awareness.

>>16954179
Not that anon, and I can't speak for the material world, but when in a state of Grace your body becomes a living temple for the Holy Spirit.

>>16954212
Evil is the privation of good rather than a substance in and of itself.

>never prayed before
>decide to give it a try
>pray sincerely for someone dear to me
>two weeks later they're having serious business issues out of nowhere even though things were going pretty well
Am I cursed or something?

>>16954245
>Evil is the privation of good
Why is it allowed to exist?

>>16954267
Did you pray specifically for their business to do well? Their current troubles may benefit their immortal soul in one way or another.

>>16954267
You aren't a wizard lol stop being superstitious

>>16954278
Why does nothing exist?

>>16954291
it doesn't

>>16954281
My desire was for them to be happy, secure, and free of sorrow and suffering as much as possible. So not specifically I suppose but it was implied.

>>16954278
You are misunderstanding, evil is literal absence. It is not a substance or a Its a void

>>16954212
Because God gave us free will and we chose to do bad things, and he allows it.

Also: >>16954245

>>16954222
>It's a process. It flows and changes, your awareness as you're reading this post changes as it incorporates the experience of reading it into itself.
In my current state - within time - this seems to be the case.
>Something that never changes cannot be aware.
I struggle to accept that you can't just be aware of the same truth constantly when you exit the confines of time. Where did you get this idea from? Is it a genuine philosophical proposal that is written about in detail somewhere so that I can understand it better?

>>16954278
Bigger minds than mine have grappled with the question, anon. You'd be better served by turning to Augustine or Aquinas.

However, human evil seems an unfortunately necessary byproduct of free will. Natural evil is a bigger issue that I struggle with myself, but it's important to separate evil from suffering. Suffering itself isn't strictly good or bad, it simply is, existing as an unpleasant state which all experience to varying degrees. If temporal suffering helps someone attain salvation, was the suffering in vain? We must simply trust that suffering plays some inscrutable role in the plan of salvation that we will know someday, but don't right now.

The last thing I read on the topic was an article on JP2 views, which can be read here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-popes-answer-to-the-problem-of-pain

I also recommend reading this excerpt from the Imitation of Christ, which illustrates how suffering may in fact be embraced and used for our salvation:

https://biblehub.com/library/kempis/the_imitation_of_christ/the_twelfth_chapter_the_royal.htm

And, lastly, a little bit on redemptive suffering, which is deep theology and spirituality and which may be inscrutable. Nonetheless, you may find it of some use:

http://www.religious-vocation.com/redemptive_suffering.html#.X8wTALenzN6

>>16949679
As a Catholic who now identifies as Gnostic:
The bible is subjective. Translation, Interpretation. The Bible isn't even complete, with hundreds of Gospels being written, including by Mary herself. The opening of the Bible, and everything up to Abraham is obviously not true: the Semites would not come around till long after him, with Judaism following. The Bible is just a guide, like the Torah and the Quran. Choose what you wish to believe. I became Gnostic after reading about Mysticism because I was bored, and what I learned is that there are only two things in this world:Life and Death. The material world is death, and life is not of it. We never die because we are a part of God and thus are infinite, but our bodies will waste away. Our actions in this world will always be Life and Death; never one nor the other. But our goal is to fill our brief lives with life(Virtue, Love, Kindness), and to reject the Death that is the Material world(Vice, Hate, Sin). Christianity is just one path, and like Judaism, Islam, and all the other world religions has many maps. I advise you make your own by yourself and see where it lines up.

>>16954303
Then keep praying for them, anon. Perhaps their current troubles will serve to benefit them in the long run, in some way you can't see yet. I prayed that my ex girlfriend would be converted, so the rift between us would be healed. However my prayers weren't answered. Eventually, after a particularly painful conversation where she sobbed and told me how much pain she was in, and how much she hated God for taking me away, I prayed for her to be at peace. Our relationship ended. Now, ~4 years later, she is at peace with herself and has overcome her social anxiety, and I have been with the woman of my dreams for 3 years. At the time I thought my heart would never recover from the pain, now it knows joys it never would have otherwise.

>>16954371
Cope, Gnostic larpers are LOSERS lmao

>>16954278
Evil is Death. Death is nothing. It does not exist. Everything evil; the Material, Vice, Hate; does not, will not, and will never exist. It is an illusion of Satan, the first and the last being in the universe to die.

>>16954371
>Choose what you wish to believe
Pride is truly the worst sin

>>16954392
God created the material world fool. It will be restored. Gnostics have such a limited and rigid view

>>16954388
Eh, your choice. Doesn't really matter.
>>16954392
It's not prideful to choose your path, as long as that path follows life.
>>16954411
God is Life, and Life created Death. But that does not mean we are Death. We simply live in it.

>>16949679
Try Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling

>>16953728
that's one of the theories they explicitly refute, if I'm reading that article correctly
or is Wikipedia wrong?

>>16949679
Why would you believe in something which doesn't offer any confirmation whatsoever? If I came tomorrow at your house and told you a detailed story about the nature of reality you wouldn't believe me so why is it different with this book? Both me and the bible make empty unverifiable claims, no reason whatsoever for you to invest into something like this. In fact there's nothing for you in it.

>>16949679
>I felt pulled to Christianity for a while, but no matter what I do, I just can't seem to believe in the Bible
Get as far away as you can. They are a cult, whenever you are weak, they will be there to take advantage of you.

>>16954597
Wikipedia is run by globohomo fascists

>>16953355
>what is the right way to pray?

the Catechism of the Catholic Church has an entire section on prayer. It is straightforwardly written, an easy to follow. Here is the beginning of that section:
>http://w2.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1c3a2.htm

Please read some of that, without anxiety -- relax and trust that God is good, and He wants to draw closer to you. I do not think you could be having the thoughts you are having if God was not working in you.

You might also try the book New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton.

>I'm a bit doubtful of strictly following liturgy, not out of defiance but because I fail to understand its purpose.

I haven't read the book the other anon recommended, but Hildebrand is very good (I am thinking of his amazing book Transformation in Christ, in particular), and so I would suspect that book is also.

Liturgy is hard to wrap our modern heads around, because it is an ancient form that is really quite alien to our modern sensibilities. I know I have had a rather hard time with it - with trying to understand and appreciate it.

Essentially, liturgy is a form that developed for purposes of approaching the sacred, with appropriate piety and reverence, in the context of rational religious belief. It surely has its deepest roots in the religious practices of the Israelites, including the use of liturgical vestments, incense and the like.

Consider the case of the Catholic Church. At each Mass the Eucharist is confected -- the Son, in sacramental form, offers his body and blood to the Father just as he did on the cross: an eminently sacred event. Human religious instinct and proprieties necessarily surround this event with the gravitas of liturgical form.

A helpful book for me was: Thomas Howard, Evangelical Is Not Enough. Howard was an evangelical who converted to Catholicism. This book explains how he came to understand the initially alien-to-him Catholic liturgy. It's a very well-written and enjoyable little book. Comfy.

>Can meditation in the form of contemplation be a form of prayer?

Absolutely, 100%. See: Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation.

> I didn't think there were Christian theologians who also espoused the idea of God as undescribable.

There is a whole apophatic tradition, of which, in the Catholic tradition, John of the Cross is probably the greatest exponent. This is not a subject I have a deep knowledge of, however. Earlier today, however - probably prompted by the contents of this thread - I came across this interesting link on the subject of John of the Cross:
>http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/dubay_stjohncross_dec06.asp

>What's the consensus on Meister Eckhart, by the way?

I know very little of Meister Eckhart. It is my understanding that, from the perspective of Catholic orthodoxy, he has to be approached with a certain caution, but that said, I know that many find a great richness and depth in his writings.

>>16955636
That link to the Catechism puts you into the middle of the prayer section rather than the beginning. Here is the correct link:
>http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1.htm

i had a year or so where i was very interested in catholicism and christianity. i can't remember what caused the initial spark, but i remember schuof being important and kierkegaard, and some general longing for transcendence and tradition. i couldn't believe it though, ultimately, not in the church as it stands today nor in the historical basis of it.

>>16949679
So WHY do you want to believe in Christianity? If you really think about it, you will probably realize it's all about feeding your ego. You enjoy the idea of having a Christian identity, because of how it will make you look in the eyes of other people.

You're in it for the wrong reasons. Just accept reality for what it is. Don't force thing. Go with the current, don't swim upstream.

>>16950432
Read Aquinas commentary on Job instead

For me it was the intro bit to les mis, and the novel generally, which communicated a dynamic Christian society and made it appealing.

>>16955636
>the Catechism of the Catholic Church has an entire section on prayer. It is straightforwardly written, an easy to follow
>straightforwardly written
>easy to follow
Nigger what?

>prayer is a surge of the heart; it is a simple look turned toward heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and joy
>Prayer is both a gift of grace and a determined response on our part.
>We pray as we live, because we live as we pray
>prayer is a mystery that overflows both our conscious and unconscious lives

Do these words even mean anything? They seem to be empty buzzwords. I read that whole fucking thing and still have no idea what prayer is, or what it is supposed to accomplish.

That's because your reading dumb stuff like le talking snake, moses, and samsung instead of stuff like ecclesiasstees, the profits, and the book of siracha.

>>16949679
Everything I've read by Carl Jung and Erich Neumann.

>>16949679
read: book of matthew

>>16949679
you don't need the bible just know that jesus was real the rest of its basically larp.

>>16953596
I don't have citations on me, but you can ask your local priest.

Also, notice how I never said Adam and Even have not existed. Just that they have not in our historical timeline.

>>16953634
The Bible is much more dense than you think it is. The idea that all sin is passed on throughout generations is not at all implausible. Whether Adam was the actual individual that was the sole and first human ever created is not really relevant. Whats more important is the theological value the story provides.

>>16952960
What is it about The Brothers Karamazov that really changes peoples view on Christianity?

>>16954371
Some paths diverge greatly. Abrahamic religions and Dharmic religions can never be reconciled.

>>16952967
this list is dumb when u realize that half the church fathers disagreed with each other and that the other half changed there mind about things

catholics love to quote Augustine when he says he believes Peter is the rock of the church yet conveniently leave out that he changed his mind on it years later. he also believed that Mary was born with original sin. to the Christian anons in here the most important writings u can find on what early christians believe is the writings of the apostles aka the Bible

>>16952993
lol I was in that thread. if u screenshot the replies u would see prots bringing up the actual quotes in context or showing the writings of those same church fathers in their later years recanting what they say

>>16954224
sauce on this? breddy cool writing

>>16957069
If you don’t understand such basic spiritual expression, then I’m sorry to say your soul is in truly tragic state and in urgent need of help.

>>16954356
This only applies to evil acts done by humanity, but what about natural disasters, sickness, etc?

>>16949679
Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus has debooooonked Christianity.

Wtf is up with all the gay pseuds wanking over what some incel mystic thought, how is that relevant to whether the core tenets of Christianity are true.

>>16955873
>muh ego
Buddhists are annoying

>>16954601
But they are verifiable, dumb materialist.

>>16957866
>Richard Carrier
lmao

>>16954030
>>16953983
Thank you both. I am what Dostoyevsky would probably refer to as a European nihilist but I realise that its not the most fulfilling worldview for me to have throughout my life. Reading through his works have helped me.

About to start reading Demons, which I hope will create some room for argument about God and my own spirituality inside myself. It's hard living in a hyper scientific age and attaining spiritual peace.Or rather I find it hard to do so.

>>16958163
No they're not. If the bible is verifiable then my astral projection claims are as well. There's zero incentive for a human being to believe in something like the bible just because it claims to be the truth. I believe astral projection to be true yet I don't except other people who never had similar experience to agree. It's impossible to prove my claim, I don't give them anything to work with. It would be extremely retarded for them to just believe me.

>>16958577
>If the bible is verifiable then my astral projection claims are as well
yes

>>16958577
If you've experienced AP then you should know that foreign entities stop bugging you when you invoke the name of Christ.

>>16952167
>I can't imagine what would have happened had he not invoked the power of God
The boy might have started rapping, or god forbid talking in jive!

>>16957069
>I read that whole fucking thing and still have no idea what prayer is, or what it is supposed to accomplish.

Fair enough. Here's a different approach.
>God is your loving Father in Heaven, and He wants to hear from you. You can reach out to Him by praying to Him. As His child, you can ask your Heavenly Father for help and guidance in your life.
>Praying can be done out loud, or in your mind.
>You can speak to God like you would any other person. Your words do not have to be eloquent or memorized. It is more important to open your heart and not hold back.
>Believe He is there and listening, because He is. Believe He will help you, because He will.
https://www.comeuntochrist.org/beliefs/god/how-to-pray

>Prayer is conscious, personal communication with the God of the universe.
>You can pray anytime and anywhere.
>Jesus met a woman beside a well who thought we all had to go to a particular place to pray and worship, as God’s people had prayed in the Old Testament (John 4:20).
>But Jesus says to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father... The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4:21–23).
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/prayer-for-beginners

Asking in prayer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdVGuQjyUts

Prayer of thanksgiving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqY1lWZLUAQ

Prayer is a dialogue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAovHLIGvJU

Contemplative (advanced) prayer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeMheOdUjd8

Finally, do not neglect the Our Father. When one of the disciples asked Jesus, "Teach us to pray," Jesus replied with the Our Father.

>>16952312
Sheldon Vanauken, A Severe Mercy

Thomas Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain

Sr. Faustina, Divine Mercy in My Soul

C. Bernard Ruffin, Padre Pio: The True Story

Pray, if only experimentally, and ask God (or God, if He exists) to lead you.

>>16957714
>catholics love to quote Augustine when he says he believes Peter is the rock of the church yet conveniently leave out that he changed his mind on it years later. he also believed that Mary was born with original sin. to the Christian anons in here the most important writings u can find on what early christians believe is the writings of the apostles aka the Bible

There have always been disputes and disagreements in the Church about doctrinal matters that have not yet been defined or in some other way resolved.

Indeed, this begins with the apostles and disciples as recounted in Acts 15, the first Church council.

Historically, the process is always the same, following, as it were, the model of Acts 15. Thus, for some reason or another, a disputed matter reaches a crisis point, and *has* to be resolved. It is at that point that the matter is then resolved and defined.

John Henry Newman, Development of Christian Doctrine, goes into the subject in great depth, as do many other theologians writing on various discrete topics (e.g., the various Marian doctrines).
>http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

Why Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy (or the opposite)?

>>16959367
Read this:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

The case for Catholicism in brief.

Because it isn't true, these religions are just large cults there is no real difference. You wouldn't believe some random ass cult so why the hell do you want to believe this one?

>>16959425
Unironically the Catholic church is the standard bearer of Christianity.
They still have faithful followers in Europe despite the decades of anticlericalism leading to atheism, they are growing massively throughout Latin America, Asia, and Africa, carrying on the international tradition of the middle ages. Protestant sects are shrinking as predicted, it is possible the Church of England will be defacto extinct in the next couple centuries. I am hoping for a general religious revival in America and Europe, it might take a tumultuous period of disaster to make people realize how much they need Christ.

>>16959482
Cults don't last this long and don't get that many followers.

>>16949679
Well, how do I answer this? My own experience was reading Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. That was the first book I read on Christianity and then it just made sense to me.

Currently I'm writing a book on how to see Ecclesiastes as essentially biblical, and not philosophy and I think it's a new take.

>>16952732
that's moving goalposts. original point what "christians thought of christ"

>>16959502
>what is buddhism

>>16959367
Orthodoxy is more mystical.