/lit/ - Literature

If you need to ask this, you wont b able to anyways. Not that it matters, this is just a bait thread that a bunch of retards will waste their time arguing in.

Nothing, Jesus is whatever you fucking want him to be, you can turn Jesus into a bloodthirsty soldier, a hippie or anything you want because we don't even know if he even existed

The obvious problem with the argument is that something like "anti-establishment" depends on the establishment of his time. Sure, he had radical ideas for his time, but those ideas are now what conservatives want to conserve. I don't think Jesus believed in being a rebel just for the sake of it.

The problem with progressives is that they believe "change" in general is always good and that no such thing as "degeneration" is possible. It's like, we're always going forward in an upward trajectory and yet this is clearly not the case if you are a proper student of history.

why does it matter? just ignore it. they're not being clever by reducing him down to some vague description that appeals to their politics, it's just pathetic.

>>17496783
>haha yes let's compare 1800 years without the industrial revolution to 200 years of industrial revolution that'll show them deygenretes

>>17496798
Not him, but you're putting way too much weight on technology. To a Christian ethical and moral questions have primacy over technological questions and issues of economic efficiency. To a Christian sin doesn't cease to be sin just because material forces of production have made it abundantly available

>>17496823
Christianity is a dying religion and that's a good for the whole of humanity

>>17496832
Show me on the doll where the priest touch you.

>>17496761
It depends on what you mean by that, OP. If you're talking about the "share everything, don't be violent, etc" aspects, then I'd argue that you're ultimately misguided, since many of the Church Fathers had similar views. If you're talking about the feelgood bullshit that makes no demands of Christians, then there's the rub; the liberal feelgood bullshit appropriates some Patristic ideas but then says you can jerk off nonstop and do whatever, because it's just rebranded pagan "do what thou wilt an ye harm none" shit, which doesn't line up with Patristic views of Scripture.
In any case, it's not really worth arguing with liberals just like it's not worth arguing with tradlarpers. Just read, pray, and if you're presented with an actual opportunity to make a change then do your best, but the internet is incredibly unlikely to be able to actually change.

>>17496865
The most curious defense of Christianity has to be this thing where you imply that all critics of Christianity were molested by priests.

>>17496916
it wasn't your fault

>>17496916
Or maybe its subtle joke that those who despise Christianity are unironic faggots who are upset that they can't openly flaunt their degeneracy.

>>17496761
>liberal progressive
They are liars. They will never admit when they are wrong. Don't waste time or energy arguing with them. Don't throw pearls before swine.

>>17496929
I'm not the guy you were talking about. But if you really want to own the libs by claiming that priests are helpless child molesters, be my guest.

>>17496952
There's not a shred of logic in your post. Do you mean to say that molested children are faggots?

>>17496761
This world was just a mask of reality for Jesus. He was utterly unconcerned with it.

What exactly do you disagree with here?

Yeshua bar Yosef was a radical apocalyptic preacher exhorting asceticism among the Jewish people in light of an imminent eschatological event. If you want BASED CRUSADERS or HECKIN EASTERN ORTHODOX MONKS with ICONS, then you're not going to find it in the Bible. In as much as they are pointing out that what Jesus was teaching is completely divorced from how most Christians conceive of Christianity, they're completely right.

>>17496761
Why not read the Gospels yourself and find out? They're not long.

Anyway, Jesus advocates against divorce, states that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. He also says even looking lustfully at a woman is adultery, and Mark 7:20-23 qualifies adultery as 'evil'. The same passage also talks of sexual immorality, fornication, or sensuality, depending on the translation; however all these words have their root in the Greek original word 'porneia', which is used to donate ANY sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage (Matt 15:19 is another example).

So that's a no to premarital sex, no to divorce, no to looking lustfully at women. Jesus talks about hell more than almost any other topic in the Bible, and he doesn't talk vaguely about a gloomy room like CS Lewis would have us believe, either - it's 'eternal fire' (Matt 25:41) with 'eternal punishment' (Matt 25:46) in the form of 'unquenchable fire' (3:12) filled with 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' (13:42). Hell is so severe that Jesus recommends plucking out your eye or cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, rather then end up there (Mark 9:43-48) and emphasises it is a place that should be feared (Matt 10:28). Fire is constantly used to describe it - a 'hell of fire', 'Lake of fire', 'unquenchable fire', 'fiery furnace' - and this must be taken at least in part to mean actual fire, or at least heat, because Jesus describes the experiences of a wealthy man in hell and says he yearns for a single drop of water to cool his tongue, 'for I am in anguish in this flame' (Luke 16:19-31). You get the point.

The reason I emphasise hell is because this is how severely Jesus judges sin. He forgives freely and willingly, but admonishes the woman caught in adultery to 'to and sin no more' (John 8:11), rather than giving her carte blanche to act however she likes without fear of judgement. Indeed, the 'judge not, lest ye be judged' soundbite often misses the next part: Jesus is saying the same measure you use to judge will be used against you, so to avoid accusations of hypocrisy 'first cast out the beam out of thine own eye... then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye' (Matt 7:1-5).

So Jesus confirms the existence of hell as severe punishment for sin, lists those sins as evidence of objective morality, gives special emphasis to sexual sin and the sanctity of marriage, and instructs us to live morally virtuous lives so that we might serve as an example to others as the 'correct' way to live. On moral issues, Jesus manifestly tends to the right. (1/2)

Any part of th Bible. Seriously no one who has read The New Testament say this shit. Opening at random will provide enough refutation easily

>>17496968
You were just a child, it's okay sweetie

>>17496916
It's not a defence bit a direct insult. How brain dead are you.

>>17496952
>T. Unironic pedo defender

>>17497097
However, in terms of fiscal policy things get a bit more complicated. Jesus was overwhelmingly anti-materialist and he regularly condemns the wealthy. He tells us it is 'easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God' (Mark 10:25) and places the pursuit of wealth and holiness in contrast to each other, saying 'you cannot serve God and money' (Matt 6:24). The man in hell in the earlier example is damned due to being a wealthy man who did not share his wealth with the beggar outside his gates. Upon being approached by a young man who lives a virtuous life and upholds all the commandments, Jesus tells him to 'sell your possessions and give to the poor'; when he is unwilling to give away his hard-won fortune to beggars, Jesus laments, exclaiming 'only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven' (Matt 19:21-23).

When sending out his disciples Jesus instructs them to take no monetary payment, and instead to rely on charity themselves; this charity is just as much about the giver as the receiver; Luke depicts Jesus' helping 10 lepers, a help that is given despite only 1 returning to give thanks (17:11-19), suggesting that one's virtue, or lack thereof, should not disqualify them from Christian charity. Jesus commands his followers to give money to the poor, with almsgiving one of the key works of mercy to be performed. Simply reading one of the Gospels, let alone all of them, makes this strong anti-wealth stance apparent, and Jesus' own preference for asceticism and simple living.

While I have been taking solely from Jesus' words, it's worth noting that in Acts, we see the very earliest Christian church run by the disciples. Following pentacost, we are to believe that this church is divinely imbued and guided with the Holy Spirit. And what was their policy? 'No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had... from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need' (Acts 4:32-35). This is seen to be God's will for His church - evident when taking the example of Ananias and Sapphira, two early Christians, who sold a piece of their property and withheld some of the proceeds for themselves. Despite bringing the rest to the Apostles, to be given to those according to need, Peter declares that 'Satan has so filled your heart that you... have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land'. As a result, God Himself strikes both husband and wife dead where they stand (Acts 5:1-11). (2/3)

>>17496761
>bleeding heart

no

>long-haired

irrelevant

>peace-loving

no

>anti-establishment

yes

>liberal hippie freak

meaningless oxymoron

>with strange ideas

meaningless in general

>>17497097
>>17497163

So, in summary, Christ in His supernatural office exceeds political categorisation. The teachings He left us likewise elude claims from both conservatives and liberals to belong wholly to them; Christian teaching tends towards the right in matters of morality (marriage, abortion, objective morality and intolerance of sin) while tending towards the left in matters of monetary policy. The most coherent system to try and implement both these aspects was Christian Democracy, which itself was flawed and never really took off. Christian teaching should be internalised as a personal way of living, transmitted faithfully to others through strength of example, and should never be claimed for partisan reasons or politicised in such a way that detracts from its message of salvation.

It's not often I effortpost. My ability to procrastinate clearly has no bounds. In any case, nothing can replace the New Testament in the first instance, supplemented by good works of exegesis.

>>17497103
A direct insult of the church and pedo priests? I don't feel that's what you intended to communicate, due to your profoundly confused thinking, but I won't disagree with the message.

Ofc Jesus was a liberal.
>If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee
Literally the start of cancel culture.

>>17496865
You're more likely to be molested in secular institutions, yet everyone is fine sending their kids to public schools.

>>17497211
last i checked school teachers weren't claiming to be the messengers of an omnipotent deity
also the boss of all school teachers wasn't defending the actions of the pedos in his ranks

>anti-establishment
>”Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”

>>17496761
He hated Jews and overturned their money-making scams on tables that had turned the house of God into a Casino and Bank.

>desperately trying to turn Christianity into the western version of Islam, when the central narrative of the New Testament explicitly doesn’t call for violent struggle

Deus Vult LARPers should really get rid of their swords, bucket helmet and Sabaton playlists, find a job and move out of their mom’s house

>>17496986
what's this from?

>>17496761
How does one argue against this?
http://livinginthenow.net/2013/12/19/the-illogicacy-of-christian-homophobia/

>>17497306
im not even gonna bother just quote Romans

>>17497282
Who are you even referring to? Nobody has argued that in this thread lmao

>>17497306
Christ's message of love did not equal tolerance of something that is clearly a sin. Even if Aristotelian Teleology and the works of Aquinas and the Church Fathers are left out of it, the argument against gay marriage can be made from Christ's condemnation of any form of sex outside of marriage

>>17497388
*gay sex I meant to say. Gay marriage is a nonentity since Christian marriage is understood to be unitive and procreative

>>17497172
Thanks for the effortposting, friend. I definitely agree with your conclusion, that Christ and his teachings are beyond political categorization. Christian teaching really should never be highjacked for sublunar, political bickering, as His teachings should apply to all, universally, regardless of political positions. Also, you seem a fair bit knowledgeable on the topic, so I’d like to ask if you know of any Christian books, that deal with the topic of sexuality and abortion? I come from a very, I suppose it’s called “liberal” country, where the abortion and pre-marital sexuality and such is rarely, if ever, stigmatized. It’d be a breeze of fresh air, if you would have any suggestions, beside the Gospels themselves

>>17497395
Specifically on that subject, Humanae Vitae is worth a read. In terms of abortion, you can check out this link:

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/abortion

And I think this one is useful, too, talking about the early Church beliefs on abortion:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/abortion

If you're interested in the philosophy and theology behind it, I'd recommend at the least familiarising yourself with Aristotle's main ideas, particularly Teleology, and then reading Augustine and Aquinas. Aquinas is a bit heavy, but you can easily skip the full Summa and read Feser's 'Aquinas' introduction, then go onto Kreeft's 'Summa of the Summa'.

Pic related is my philosophy and religion bookshelf, with books I've found of varying degrees of helpfulness

>>17497376
No, but I know what the current Christcuck fantasy is. It’s Islamic State but with crusader knights, while The Last Stand plays in the background.

By the way, just a heads up, all of that stuff is extremely cringe, and doesn’t impress anyone. Fuck, even muzzies moved on from bows and arrows

>>17497435
absolutely based, thans for making our experience of /lit/ a lot brighter

>>17496761
>anti-establishment
How so if he did nothing against the Roman Empire? So much the jews decided to kill him and save a rebel thst wanted to fight, or so they say, against that empire.

>>17496832
And the islam are taking control of this world. Unlike Christians, Islamic people do not fear killing those they consider degenerated.

"Go and sin no more"
In the gospels he is willing to forgive sinners and tries to bring their souls to better health but still will hold them to the fact that they should be avoiding sin rather than indulging in it.

>>17497292
Egon Friedell's A Cultural History of the Modern Age, Volume 1.

>>17497442
Yeah I know, I agree with you. Bizarre that you felt the need to post it without anyone displaying that behaviour though lol

>>17497097
>>17497163
>>17497172
>>17497435

Unfathomably based.

>>17496761
>anti-establishment

Conservatives and Christians are more anti-establishment than any left wing faggots breathing today

>>17497097
>>Why not read the Gospels yourself and find out?
gospels are not canon you nonce

>>17497519
I barely even need anyone confirming this, you people are so unimaginative that I can easily guess what the Christian traditionalist wet dream looks like

>>17497282
>i will tell you what Christianity is even tho i hate it
yea how about you fuck off

>Mathew 10:34

>>17497607
Ahhh apologies apologies I didn't realise you were a retard with a chip on their shoulder. As you were

>>17497631
>barely had he pressed ‘post’ to epically defend his faith, sancte et sapienter, when he began to scratch his neck
>to his surprise, a beard was growing rapidly, as he thought to himself ‘Lo, I becometh a true defender of the faith’
>when his neckbeard had nearly grown out, he noticed something outside, a bright light, and music that was getting louder
>he looked up in the sky, and saw but the holiest of holy levitating towards him: the Fedora of the Holy See
>he did not believe what his eyes were seeing, but he could slowly make out the lyrics to the music
>”It was 1527”
>“Gave their lives on the steps to heaven“
>he knew what this meant. Destiny had chosen him, as the Fedora slowly rested on his head, the music intensifying
>”Thy will be dooooooooooooooone!
>and then, he spoke the words as they were prophecized: “Verily, m’Lord, I tippeth only...”
>”...to thee.”
>FOR THE GRACE FOR THE MIGHT OF OUR LORD FOR THE HOME OF THE HOLY

>>17496761
>a bleeding heart
True. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with this in the right context.
>long-haired
We don't know this, but even if He was, who cares? There are plenty of long haired people on both sides of the political spectrum. They just threw this in there to add bulk.
>anti-establishment
>"Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
To add to this: Christ willingly let Himself be taken in when it was time. Hardly the actions of an anarchist in the Leftist sense of the term.
>liberal hippie freak with strange ideas
Word soup that weirdly acts as more of an ad hominem than anything. His ideas were never strange; by definition they were expositions on existing laws.

>>17497721
>His ideas were never strange
That must be why no one accepted him as the Messiah

>>17497631
You have a lot of very cold takes on things you hate. What's with all the stone casting, sinful man?

>>17497721
>His ideas were never strange; by definition they were expositions on existing laws.
Not really. A lot of what Yeshua said flies right in the face of Rabbinical wisdom and teaching that had been in place for over 600 years. The fact that he isn't the messiah that the Torah says will come alone is a huge point of conflict. The whole "I am the logos" thing alone is an enormous upending of Judaism's entire conception of what Judaism, the law, and Yahweh even are. Hell, at a broader point, the theology of the early Christians is people taking the Jewish holy books and then interpreting them however they please completely independent of how the Jews had been up until that point. THAT is very fucking weird by Jewish understandings of hermeneutics and exegesis.

>>17496761
>Which verses of the New Testament refute the literal reading of His teachings?

FTFY

>>17496761
The establishment was a godless synagogue of Satan. So. Pretty easy.

>>17497728
Huge numbers accepted Him as the Messiah.
>>17497770
> that had been in place for over 600 years
Rabbinical Judaism as we know it is actually a product of the destruction of the second temple. It came after the advent of Christianity and the Talmud was first written down after the Bible. Whilst modern Jews may claim that it was based on oral laws that are much older, given the nature of oral transmission and the conflicting nature of the Rabbis themselves, this claim is fraught.
>The whole "I am the logos" thing alone is an enormous...
The term used to describe God's unity in the Old Testament is echad. It actually refers to oneness in a unified or composite sense rather than an absolute unity. The Hebrew term used for absolute unity, yachid, is not used to describe God's oneness in the Old Testament. To add to this - the prophets anticipated a messiah who would be called "god with us."

I really hate this normie logic, baseless abstraction and over simplification, then find the hypocrite. What the hell happened to rating things intrinsically? The morality of the Bible is anything but liberal

>>17497435
Thanks for the answer, friend. And that is a wonderful collection, you have there; am pleased to see Kirkegaard there as well, since I myself am reading through Either/Or currently. I have a fair bit of secondary knowledge of Aristotle, but was originally frightened awry by his Organon - I suppose teleology and such would be primarily be tackled in his Metaphysics? Also, I see Hildegaard’s Aesthetics - have you read it, and if so, is it worth reading? I have been eyeing it myself for some time. Much obliged, and God bless you, friend

>>17496761
What serious christian isn't anti establishment at this point?

>>17497306
>yes i know christians have absolutely proscribed homosexuality for the last two thousand years but they were all wrong and REAL christians blah blah blah
just don't even bother, you can't talk to these people. ask yourself this - why do they want to believe that you can be a christian and engage in homosexuality? i'll give you a hint - it's not because they read the bible and church fathers really carefully and concluded that that was what they meant all along. it's because they believed first that homosexuality was acceptable, and then afterwards tried to reconcile it with christianity, and threw out whatever didn't fit
they believe in something else, that takes precedence over christianity, and so trying to convince them of things by relying on scripture or whatever isn't going to work - their real beliefs lie elsewhere

>>17497811
What about turning the other cheek?

>>17496761
Tell them that Political Jesus only saves from criticism, but pretending that their politics makes them right with God is not going to end well for them.

>>17497811
>I really hate this normie logic, baseless abstraction and over simplification, then find the hypocrite. What the hell happened to rating things intrinsically? The morality of the Bible is anything but liberal

It is just a game of stealing the flag at this point. Centrists knows that conservatives care about the Bible as a signifier, so stealing that flag will hurt them or trigger them.
Meanwhile if you actually look at the social plan of the Catholic Church, no one nowadays except some tradcaths larpers on this site would accept it in its entirety. Marxists would go nuts at the insistence on the importance of labor hierarchies, Conservatives would go nuts at the pacifism and de-armament. Libs would go nuts because they can no longer abort. And for so many more reasons...

>>17497244
That's right. Claiming vs actually being.
You too can claim to follow Jesus's words and then diddle kids.

>>17496772

He definitely existed, this is settled among both religious and secular scholars of antiquity. Whether or not he did all the miracles is a matter of debate, but near-universal consensus is that he did in fact exist.

Nice /lit/ topic dude.

>>17497969
sorry i bumped another genre fiction/"where do i start with philosophy" thread off the board you faggot, if you really want to read those you can probably find several thousand of them in the archives

>>17497097
Right except that Jesus points out the strictness and severity of God's judgement while providing us with an out; he says forgive, and it will be forgiven to you (Matthew 6;14). If we should cut off our hand if it causes us to sin, then surely we should cut off our desire for retribution, and burn the stump of our anger.

It is both easier to forgive than to cut off your hand, and it does open up a more liberal interpretation of the Gospels. What we're really talking about is the conflict between the law and grace, not about left/right.

>>17496771
these threads aren't about argument they're about attention
one guy argues with some other random guy because he responds to every point in greentext
someone could write 300 words that answer every question in the universe but because it isn't a (you) it will go unnoticed

>>17497172
You write well. Thanks for this.

Jesus said some heavy things, for example when talking about rejected preachers.
>14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment. than for that town. Matthew 10:14-15
And the whole concept of the second coming and final judgement is based on the extermination of evil, which is contradictive with the liberal views on war and genocide.
>41 The Son of Man(AN) will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41-42
>"So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, were released to kill a third of mankind." Revelation 9:15
Jesus was a Jew, and he made the commandments of the mosaic law extensive to anyone.
>For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Matthew 5:18
And liberalism is born of the right to choose, and the right to have different educative perspectives, "sex education", "let's teach islam in religion class", but Jesus talks about those who drag away the children from his message. Liberals have interpreted this message as sexual molestation, but it say "to sin", whatever sin, so it's more appropriate to talk about corruption and deviation from Jesus.
>Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
The problem with liberalism is that it cannot be refuted entirely with the Gospel, since its roussseaunian view on human nature is the main obstacle against the Christian worldview, which is something that Jesus didn't deeply examine as he was taking for granted the jewish tradition on that regards.

>>17497172
Good post man

>>17496761
it's pretty easy.
Jesus said things in a context different from ours, and when we approach what Jesus said we usually take the evolution of thought from him on for granted.
In short Jesus for instance is not a socialist, rather socialism is an Heresy (that is a selective evolution: most of the:christian thought excised to focus uniquely on one aspect which made sense in context, in Socialism's case "helping the needy) of Christianity; for the simple reason that Socialism wasn't even possible before Him.
This also transforms ne, which in pagan arguments such as "Christianity is a revolutionary ideology" into a criticism of Christians that weren't efficient enought in fighting heresy, which in itself is funny.
So when they tell you stuff such as "Jesus would agree on single payer healthcare" you just answer them that Jesus would say to care for the sick Asif you were yourself sick, which in an age when they were thought as deserving of their sickness for having angered the gods and usually sent to leper camps was absolutely unheard of.
Obviously "altruism" by itself in the sense of considering helping the needy as virtuous already existed as one of the requisites of society, and Zeus was said to take human form to test if people would respect the laws of solidarity, but Helping and uplifting the needy as a good in itself litteraly starts with Jesus therefore ascribing to Jesus an ideology which takes it for granted is at best an anachronism and at worst dishonest.

>>17496761
You argue against it by quoting the fucking bible.

>“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

>>17497809
>Rabbinical Judaism as we know it is actually a product of the destruction of the second temple
Judaism as we know it comes out of the Babylonian exile in 600BC. The cope that Jewish philosophy and theology didn't exist before the birth of Jesus, or that it was just Christianity (somehow, before Jesus?) is just that: a cope. Jewish theologians quote Rabbis and priests and Jewish thinkers going back centuries before Jesus. Do you seriously just believe that the Talmud is just concocted ex nihilo? How can the Talmud cite Rabbis from 200BC and earlier if there was no Jewish theology before Jesus?

All you're doing is coping for the Jews.

>>17497809
>torah says to smash gentile statues, then smear piss and shit on them
>jews go out and do pisschrist and smear shit on statues of mary
i dunno man, just looking at these peoples holy books its pretty clear that they haven't changed at all in 2600 years.

>>17496761
Minus the long-haired part, which is more indicative of the time than anything, im all of those things and people think im a nazi