/lit/ - Literature

>>17035960
>Should I rather try to seek God outside of religion?
I respect Christians, but I ran into similar issues with Christianity as you did. I personally found my answer in Traditionalism/Perennialism. Christianity is just one religion expressing and trying to explain the divine to the masses, but I realized I needed to go to the core outside of the exoteric religious confines.

>>17035960
1, he's not entirely mystical it's just that man can't fully understand him (epistemic uncertainty is how we can conceptualize that). If he was fully mystical we couldn't ever even have a relationship w him or know him.

2, for me Christianity is just the most metaphysically consistent in terms of the universe but all religions strive towards God necessarily and you can pick what you think is more spiritually-drveloped in another religion. For that I'm a unitarian universalist Christian.

>>17035960
For number 1, it’s pretty easy to see that a belief in a God beyond the view of an initial mover will follow to trying to understand the will of God for humans. The most basic logic is that humans are pretty unique in the grand scheme of things, and so God may have purposes for us and a desire for us to live and behave a certain way or to do certain things. The idea of God being beyond human comprehension and therefore making his will unintelligible is not overly common, in part because of human tendency to fall for positive reinforcement of events and unrelated consequences, and also because the idea of an intelligible will of God is deeply engrained in many world cultures. Many theologians are conflicted as to how much we can comprehend God’s will, and there isn’t a conclusive answer from the Abrahamic religions (although obviously there is a greater leaning towards taking the source text literally and believing that the word of God is exactly as was written in the ancient texts). Many also claim that knowledge of God’s will can be attained from prayer.

For number 2, the belief in Jesus Christ and his resurrection comes to Christians in many different ways. If you are already convinced of the existence of the Old Testament God and can believe in the witness of the disciples of Jesus, then you can easily accept a belief in Jesus’ divinity. You may also look at the teachings of Jesus and believe that they are the ultimate philosophy, and then take that belief to the next level of accepting the divinity of Jesus. Some other Christians simply do not know anything other than the belief in Jesus and his miracles, but that is still a valid belief according to scripture. I myself would, and by all normal accounts should, reject believe in the divinity of Jesus and of all other proclaimed prophets, but when I pray to the Lord and to my savior I get this transcendent and humbling feeling of bliss and understanding, and I have no choice but to credit it to the truth of the claims of the Bible and to the glory of Jesus Christ.

If you are interested in the possibility of converting to Christianity, I would do some introspection and see if you can accept that knowledge can be ascertained from prayer alone, because from there comes the understanding of Jesus and of the Christian God. Good luck anon!

>>17035960
1) If God is that impossible to understand, why bother talking about Him at all? It is only impossible to fully understand Him because we are human, lacking.

2) Christ is a necessity. Some extant avatar of God is logical -- it is only likely that it is specifically Jesus of Nazareth, but that's good enough.

>>17035960

1. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. To say there is a tension between the, shall we say, "scholastic" Christians who are hell bent (no pun intended) on explaining God in purely metaphysical / philosophical terms and the "mystic" Christians are hell bent on experiencing divine revelation is an understatement to say the least. IMHO there are some things we CAN know about God (that He is good, etc.) , but there are many more things we cannot. I'm okay with this tension, I know that He exists and He is good, fair, just, etc. , but that still leaves an infinite amount of time to truly know Him, which I am greatly looking forward to.

2. This is something I struggled with too. I have no doubt about his existence, but I always found a hard time connecting the dots. How do I know that God chooses to express Himself through Christianity? At the end of the day, I think that Christianity is the best metaphysical framework for approximating what God's will, intention, and nature is. What He wants for us and for others, etc.

>>17035960
>evangelical and prosperity type churches one finds in the US
Evangelicals condemn Prosperity Gospel as heretical.

>>17035960
>>17036089
As a Christian I can't let this answer stand when someone asked for help.

As for question 1. I don't believe that it is so. I think a lot of people have tried to apply philosophy to Christianity with so-so results. Christianity isn't philosophy, it appeals to a real experience and a real truth that one is gripped by. All the doctrines are formed around this.

2. People will try to say any number of things to distinguish their religion above others on this point. But the simple truth is that it all boils down to faith and the natural human state of ignorance; the more impressive a sect's philosophical gymnastics, the less true they are. The more you think you have all the answers, paradoxically the fewer you really do have.

The best answer really is to look and the life, words and works of Jesus. It is my opinion that mankind is distinguished by talking a big game and doing nothing about it. Jesus was the only one who walked the walk. If you understand how strange he really is, then you know that he is the son of God, and that's really all you need to know to be a Christian.

pic only semi-related.

>>17036089
>Christianity is just one religion expressing and trying to explain the divine
Name me another religion that has 1) the incarnation 2) the resurrection. protip: you can’t. Nothing compares. Hence why I am christian.

>>17035960
>1) If we cannot 'know' God directly, why are religions so specific regarding the will or mind of God? Why do religions limit and restrain the concept of God by trying to explain too much? I would think that mystery would be more important regarding the 'mind' or 'thinking' of God as it lies beyond human understanding.
Divine revelation.

>2) If God exists, how or why does one reason that the Christian tradition is truthful or right? I can accept the possible existence for God, but how does one jump from the existence of God to Christianity?
See above.

>Should I rather try to seek God outside of religion?
You'll find the devil.

>>17035960
read this and talk to a priest

Could you describe your experience with Dooyeweerd and what you found valuable in him? I have been very interested in him lately too but haven't known where to start. Did you encounter Kuyper as well?

Does Dutch protestantism cleave closely to original Calvinism? Or are Calvin's ideas just some of many that Dutch reformed theologians interact with? Obviously the latter is true, but but I mean, does Calvin have centre stage?

Regarding your questions, I don't have definite answers to either, but if you are willing to explore things that might not entirely accord with your friends and family (seriously, be careful about being openly heretical around very devout people, it's stupid and even cruel), I would suggest you look into "para-orthodox" (ok, mildly heretical) avenues of Christian thinking through the ages, particularly mystical, neoplatonic, and visionary dimensions. The eastern Orthodox tradition is much more comfortable with neoplatonism and attempting to reconcile the personal divinity of Christ with direct mystical knowledge of God, and many of the church fathers like Justin Martyr, Clement, and Origen were similar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kcNSs_hBFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5_VgJAceU

I was in a position similar to yours and because of my philosophical and metaphysical inclinations, which I think you have to realise most devout believers simply do not have - and you may even eventually realise that this is not necessarily a weakness on their part, because they remain open to direct experience of things that people like us might get stuck merely speculating about. Anyway, my inclination was, like many others and maybe yours too, to jump ship into an "impersonal" platonism and mysticism. But to be frank, my findings have been that this tradition is unfinished and deficient just as much as a purely revelation-based faith, because it is lacking the revelation of direct experience and personality. It tends to regress to logical exercises demonstrating the metaphysical unity of a meaningless Absolute, with no gnosis. Or it mistakes the very preliminary stages of meditation and mysticism, the initial pleasurable suppression of the discriminating intellect and psychological self, for gnosis tout court. In short, you may end up trading your crisis of faith, which at least contains an authentic desire for knowledge of God, for the "consistency" of an atheistic metaphysical diagram of the Absolute, plus a few ho-hum mystical experiences to wax nostalgic about if you're lucky.

>>17036260
(2)
If you want a preview of what happens to such pure speculative idealism, the pursuit of metaphysics without direct experience, either read the latest dialogues of Plato and about the fate of the Academy - in short, Plato's quest sputtered out into lame, MERELY speculative philosophy, with the vast majority of its practitioners having no direct experience of the divine (like Plato almost certainly had at some point, and perhaps lost), which then became mathematical fetishism and merely "metaphysical" idealism. "Neo"-platonism revived the authentic noetic core of platonism at a later date, and brought it into closer relation with oriental mysticism and asceticism (the Academy was already doing this a little bit in Plato's day), as well as magic and hermeticism.

It also came into contact with Christianity and Judaism, transforming both and (more importantly, and almost never remarked upon) BEING transformed by both. It's not just that the "best," most "philosophical" Christians were "plato-literate," or "honorary platonists." It's that platonism was itself expanded in the hellenistic and late antique eras to accommodate the newly acute demands of Gnostics, Essenes, Zoroastrians, and metaphysical personalists and mystics of all kinds, who demanded personal transformative experience (not just abstract logical knowledge) of the divine in a way that went back to Plato's original mission.

On the other side of the spectrum, the same urge that drove certain people to become platonists, the desire for metaphysical knowledge and a life lived in accordance with ultimate truth, could also lead them to become mere stoics - fundamentally temporal, essentially atheistic "philosophers" who believed that philosophical knowledge simply was abstract knowledge of ultimate being (stoic metaphysics, which justifies stoic ethics), and philosophical living was life lived in acknowledgment of the abstract necessity of atheism and the quasi-nihilistic desire for eudaimonia (a glorified consolation prize for gnosis). Despite calling themselves platonists, many modern seekers are really stoics in this sense. They confuse abstract logical knowledge of the divine for truth, and then confuse practical accordance with this knowledge for instructions on how to live the "best" life.

The trick is to satisfy both the platonists and the personalists in a higher synthesis of both. The platonist sin is to tend toward empty abstract knowledge, the personalist sin is to emphasise experience, direct personal "faith," so much that knowledge no longer matters. The platonist lapses into arid mathematical diagrams, the personalist goes to church every day for 50 years and feels God's presence but has no container to put it in, and consequently can't either draw himself closer to God or draw God closer to earth (which amounts to the same thing).

>>17036204
As opposed to fake experiences and fake truths which is everything but what you're talking about, and which is entirely exclusive of everything else too of God's creation.

>>17036271
(3)
Who has come close to effecting this synthesis, if we accept its desirability? The first thing we have to accept is that the quest for it is so subtle that no rigid or simplistic divisions like "Christian" and "neoplatonist" can contain it. Each philosopher may have had his own brushes with it and intimations of it. Christianity and platonism can't be distinguished, it's not a matter of one being a subset or mutation of the other. Gnosis is gnosis, as the Academy under Plato itself believed, and even worshiped in its later phases.

There is also the possibility that the spiritual plane, the very thing we are supposed to be experiencing and exploring through gnosis, is itself differentiated and has its own needs and ongoings, which we are only receiving like sleeping people, in a dream, "receiving" sounds from around their waking body by integrating them into the dream's logic. Perhaps the personal experiential impulse blossomed and made itself felt at a "mass" level later than the impersonal, universalising impulse of speculative metaphysics for a reason.

The only thing for it is to study all the traditions and texts at a level beyond mere fact memorisation, true study, and to carry out the most rigorous asceticism that is possible and safe, all without losing the initial impulse of either the personal or impersonal. Don't lapse into the platonist or the personalist sin, try to overcome them both. A good way to do that is to stay in touch with people and books that strongly represent one or the other tendency (in lieu of both), so you never become forgetful of either, simply leaning to one side until you fall permanently into the one that comes more natural to you (in your case, likely speculative metaphysics).

Sorry for the wall of text, something about your post just sparked my own feelings and experiences on the topic, and I didn't want to do it a disservice by canning my answer.

tldr Read Origen's Contra Celsum, and read it not as a definitive answer, but as an answer by a man himself seeking and not sure of his own answers, but driven toward them (and their improvement and perfection) by something inside him that he can't abstractly articulate - platonic eros toward the Christ-logos

Approaching Jesus as a man to emulate firstly as a role model, mentor, teacher.

I saw how practical He was today, and I was reading olde English, I saw a power to the pages.

After I read the whole book I decided Jesus was good, and the son of God. Then got baptized, been practicing hebrew and became connected with Russians, Koreans, Ukrainian, Chuuk Catholics.

I try to read everything from everywhere, and I follow Jesus teachings specifically like beautiful boolean if->then logic.

>>17036207
That's because those are specific to the christian expression of the divine. It's not better than the islamic or hindu conception of the divine, just a different expression. You value those, I don't.
But if you want to be pedantic, those are elements that were initially taken from pagan concepts and adapted to a universalistic form of judaism.

>>17036089
>I personally found my answer in Traditionalism/Perennialism
>Christianity is just one religion expressing and trying to explain the divine to the masses
There is no perennial truth like there is no "mere christianity". That's prelest and comforting yourself with "truth" you made up in a spiritual vacuum. Might God be working through other religions, sure, but we don't know that and can't know that. Christianity is so unique in the scheme of both world and Abrahamic religions that it kind of undeniably is the Truth. Read Chesterton, he deals with this perennial nonsense pretty well.
>>17036320
Universalism is a heresy in the Christian faith, you're espousing nothing more than the allotted theological knowledge of a new age perennialist who's convincing himself that he need not look for the Truth in the Church. Don't be a Christian, that's fine, but Christianity is not comparable in the scheme of comparative religion. You're just showing your lack of knowledge about theology, especially when you describe it as a;
>universalistic form of judaism

>>17036385
Yes, that's exactly what a good christian would say. Good for you. But this
>Might God be working through other religions, sure, but we don't know that and can't know that.
We can, you just haven't taken the time to look into other religions. You're probably culturally attached to your religion, that's fine, but very one-sided.
> You're just showing your lack of knowledge about theology,
I didn't describe christianity that way, but a stage in the development of christianity. Christianity has its basis in judaism whether you like it or not, and on its path of becoming its own also absorbed many pagan elements. That's fine, it's now its own religion with its own denominations.
>Read Chesterton, he deals with this perennial nonsense pretty well
I'll check him out sure, recommendations?

>>17036278
Oh I don't doubt that non-Christians can experience God, and experience of God is to be found in everything, for He is the Creator. But if you want to end up in heaven, then none of that stuff is going to matter. You have to build upon the right foundation.

>>17036474
I agree w that

>>17036385
>mom found the tree chapel

>>17036474
So how do muslims and jews fit in here? They believe the same thing about islam and judaism.

>>17036434
>>17036244
The Everlasting Man is a phenomenal read, really sifts through paganism and what makes Christianity unique. It's the essay that converted C.S. Lewis to Christianity.
>>17036484
>hey kid wanna buy some theosis

>>17036260
>Could you describe your experience with >Dooyeweerd and what you found >valuable in him? I have been very >interested in him lately too but haven't >known where to start. Did you encounter >Kuyper as well?

I have not read Kuyper yet. Concerning Dooyeweerd, for me it was his 'Aspects', that things are not flat or two dimensional. Existence is complex and intergrated. This includes our perceptions and reason.

>Does Dutch protestantism cleave >closely to original Calvinism? Or are >Calvin's ideas just some of many that >Dutch reformed theologians interact >with? Obviously the latter is true, but but >I mean, does Calvin have centre stage?

The Dutch Reformed tradition does have strong elements of Calvinism, but I doubt that it is close original Calvinism. To be honest I know too little regarding the topic. I have a great journey of learning waiting for me.

Thank you for your time and diligence. I really appreciate it.

>>17036502
MOM HELP THE GREEK IS TRYING TO SELL ME SOMETHING I THOUGHT YOU SAID THERE WERE NO CATHOLICS IN THESE WOODS

>>17036502
>The Everlasting Man is a phenomenal read, really sifts through paganism and what makes Christianity unique. It's the essay that converted C.S. Lewis to Christianity.
Alright, I'll check it out. I don't think it'll sway me towards christianity but maybe it will give me some new perspectives which is also good.
Next time though, if someone is respectful towards your religion, don't call their tradition "nonsense" just because you don't understand or like it.

>>17036571
Are you implying there are traditions/religions that are not objectively nonsensical?

>>17036571
Perennialism is not a tradition though, elucidate if I'm wrong but it's a school of thought which I'm pretty sure most world religions hesitate to adopt. I think Guenon is pretty chill, my priest respects his writings, but people like schuon and huxley are frauds from a time already deracinated from any tradition. I have little respect for many perennialist thinkers and believe they are reductionist and supplementing tradition for a mostly traditionless modern world. Have at it though, Chesterton is a delight my groovy fren

>>17036320
>it’s all the same bro
>point out major metaphysical differences
>actually it’s not the same but it’s all about your perspective bro, nothing is objectively more true than another
>basically it’s pomo relativism

wtf i hate perennialism now.

>>17036791
based

>>17036791
>brainlets thinking postmodernism is relativism
go back to watching Peterson on reddit you absolute faggot.

>>17037207
>not being able to distinguish between ‘postmodernity’ as broader cultural tendency we are living and his precious french obscurantist faggots that are MISREPRESENTED by muh evuhl alt-right lobsterman

Write me again once you’ve graduated, sperg.

>>17035960
>1) If we cannot 'know' God directly, why are religions so specific regarding the will or mind of God? Why do religions limit and restrain the concept of God by trying to explain too much? I would think that mystery would be more important regarding the 'mind' or 'thinking' of God as it lies beyond human understanding.

Mystery is central to many aspects of Catholic doctrine. Thus, the doctrine of the Incarnation developed through the crucible of controversy, but at its core it remains a mystery. Likewise, the Trinity, the Eucharist, etc.

For example, from the Catholic Catechism, 237:
>The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God". To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

>2) If God exists, how or why does one reason that the Christian tradition is truthful or right? I can accept the possible existence for God, but how does one jump from the existence of God to Christianity?

Anon, consider reading read McDowell, More than a Carpenter.

It's not great literature, but it's a fine exposition of the evidence that strongly (if not conclusively) supports an inference in favor of the truth of Christianity, particularly to the extent that inference depends on the truth, vel non, of the Resurrection.

Now, if you read that, well, then consider the plausibility of e.g., Islam = one man saying he's had a private revelation that the New Testament is wrong on various subjects. Ask yourself: does M's claim of a private revelation trump the evidence in More than a Carpenter?

And do pray, anon, for it's all a matter of grace.

Ask God to enlighten your mind, and keep asking. Cf: "Knock and it shall be opened unto you." Mt. 7:7. Note that the verb tense of "knock" is the present imperative; it could be fairly translated as *Keep knocking* and it will be opened unto you.

So keep knocking. And "if today you hear His voice, harden not your heart."

>>17035960
>Why Christianity?
Because Jesus the Christ actually resurrected. That's the QUID of the matter.

>>17035960
1) to know the Son is to know the Father.

2) you seem like a thinker. The first 5 books of the Bible contain a code. Chuck Missler does a fantastic job presenting poignant pieces of it. In particular the translation of names to english.

Also read a short page or 2 from the Bible Hebrews 11

>>17036490
How do you think?
Jews reject the notion that Jesus was the Son of Man, and tried to supress the fact that he died and rose again because it didnt jive with their agenda.
Muslims are nothing but revisionists with nothing to back their claims. "Jesus was a prophet, here's why he wasnt the son of God". Yeah sure.
Not everyone who feels enlightened, or believe similar things to Christianity will find the truth.

>>17035960
The thing that personally get me to apreciate it, if not beoieve it, is its focus on a transendental truth. If you think through a godless stance far enough everything gets into a muddled quagmire of perspectivism, nothing is resolved, and everything is arbitrary. I cannot honestly find things moral, only moral from a specific perspective, or simply seeming surface levely moral, and makes me think of the ring of gyges and makes me become jadded.

>>17035960
Christianity is a giant cope for death. Avoid it. Instead seek scientific knowledge. It's a good life path.

just read the new testament. if you believe the man was God, you are christian. if not, keep looking

>>17037791
>>17035960
This.
There's a lot of evidence pointing towards Jesus' resurrection.

>>17036385
I wonder what wisdom orthodox tree chapel priest is waiting to bestow upon us

>>17038972
The majority of humanity is a cope for death -- including advancement of technology/science and talking on internet forums.

>>17037837
qrd on 'the code'?

>>17039505
He might be talking about this, but from what I remember its not very legit.

>>17036207
There are tons of religions involving a "dying and rising deity"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity)), and in fact the Jesus story was mostly poached from older religions, see: Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus.

>>17038972
>>17039294
This is true, which means in so far as it provides comfort against death anxiety, I don't begrudge people who turn to religion, but it is objectively speaking a childish thing to do in the face of an uncomfortable reality.

>>17035960
There are certain philosophical, intuitive and religious maxims which from them one assumes the perfection of Christianity and as the greatest Religion (though it's a different question as to whether its suited to the East or not), and that Christianity comes the closest to God, and at the least, the spirit of Christianity.

>>17036204
Good post, anon
Appreciated

>>17035960
People who “become” atheists usually never had religion in the first place, they’re just finally old enough that their parents can’t force them to go to church

>>17035960
Try to look for God i traditional catholicism. Read St. Augustine ;)

>>17039294
Seeking scientific truth is not escaping death though. It's just doing something that is interesting. Wouldn't you like to know the origins of the universe?

>>17035960
>1
You can "know God directly". There is some mystery there, but it's not all mystery.

>2
The most straightforward argument for Christianity is that it holds that God is "personal", i.e. that he has a literal personality -- even body -- unlike being a completely ineffable and incomprehensible prime mover. If you believe this is a necessary aspect of God (for instance, because being embodied is good and God must necessarily be as good as possible -- this is just a quick example) then you're a Christian and the rest is just details.

>>17035960
For the second question, this video is really good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp7gAm6TxFw

>>17036244
Thank you for the suggestion. I have already obtained a copy for reading.

>>17037746
>Anon, consider reading read McDowell, More than a Carpenter.

Thank you. I am currently reading it as per your suggestion. As jou said, not a work of literary art. It does however provide basic insightful and thoughtful ways of approaching the topic. Ways I have not considered or realized before. I am enjoying the read very much.