/lit/ - Literature

>>18444556
It's called the New Testament

What's your problem exactly?
I never found anything all that objectionable until I reached the New Testament

>>18444556
I like reading theological writings more than the actual bible too. I think I'll have to find one of those bibles meant for literary purposes because its quite schizophrenic going through it currently.

>>18444556
Read up about gnosticism, the old testament god is evil.

>>18444577
The Old Testament is canonized and part of the religion, If I want to be a Christian I'm supposed to believe all of the old testament happened

>>18444585
Only read Genesis and Exodus so far. The first thing that bothered me is that he seems to completely control all these main Hebrew protagonists trough the ages, basically tells them everything they're supposed to be doing, to the point where I don't think any of their decisions were made by free will. He also controls the pharaoh in Exodus, forcing him to act in a way that he should be punished. He promises the Jews that he will destroy the people already living in Israel so they can populate it.

Then he dictates laws , with some extremely specific examples like if a sheep gets stolen. Reads some like legalistic document from a primitive country rather than the commands of god. He also allows beating of slaves in his laws. I don't know that's what bothered me so far.

It's like Aquinas wasn't even talking about the same entity. I'm devastated.

>>18444610
Traditionally you would be learning all this while young and a priest would be at hand to beat you if you asked any of these questions.

>>18444556
There is a reason those tradlarpers never quote the Bible. They believe in the God of philosophy.

Really only protestants actually believe in the Bible so you should ditch the others.

You should read Augustine's sermons on Scripture. His refutations of marcionism is what you are looking for. You can also read any book about Holy History, the writer should explain well why God behaved the way He did in the Old Testament.

>>18444556
Thomism is a cope imo

>>18444781
Imagine if Aristotle lived to see his philosophical writings being used to defend jewish fairy tales

>>18444556
>>18444610
I don't believe you've read Aquinas because he addresses literally every point you raise. He, Augustine, and a ton of the other great Church Fathers have line by line commentaries on the OT books, available free online, you'd be better off checking them out. But I doubt you will

>>18444556
>What can I read, how do I cope and how do I recover from this?
Why don't you read their commentaries on the old testament to understand how they interpreted it? Aquinas commentaries on the Old Testament are free to read here:

https://aquinas.cc

>>18444610
>It's like Aquinas wasn't even talking about the same entity. I'm devastated.
Aquinas uses an absolute ton of Old Testament quotes to justify his theological positions. Lets be real here, you've never actually read Aquinas and are just shitposting aren't you?

>>18444610

>>18444556
1. read OT as a cultural or social anthropologist might
2. then read it as a philologist or textual critic might
3. bring these together, and consider the stories as allegorical thought-forms with cultural importance
4. Now read into these allegories what you discovered in 1. and 2. Doing this, you will find a dense, interconnected network of thoughts and etiologies for much of what appears in the New Testament. You will, furthermore, appreciate the importance of such stories as the first and second creations, jacob and esau, jephthah, samson, etc.

you now are free to inquire into how God functions in such stories. How he, for instance, represents a cultural thought-form through communications with Abraham, for instance.

>>18444556
>What can I read, how do I cope and how do I recover from this?
new testament

>>18444556
>What can I read, how do I cope and how do I recover from this?
read the commentaries idiot

>>18446709

>read the commentaries
>meaning read the interpretation of some person that will make the information sound different as to fit your view and cope that it all makes sense

>>18444556
>how do I cope
St.Augustine said the bible had levels of understanding for each level of intelligence.
Just read the comments of the great rather than try to grasp it yourself.
St.Gregory of Nyssa's 'The life of Moses' is great to start grasping the symbology.

>>18444610
God doesn't directly control any of the prophets in Genesis or Exodus. I can't remember exactly where, although I believe it's in Hebrews, but it's mentioned that the actions of Abraham, Moses, etc. were all completed out of faith in the Lord.

Also I can't say I remember getting that feeling while reading the old testament. It seemed more to me like he was telling some people what to do, but they were free not to do that if they really wanted

>>18446745
this lol

Patristic commentaries on the bible:
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home
In this one you just click the verse and related commentary appears:
http://www.catenabible.com/mt/1

>>18444556
>>God in the old testament is absolutely nothing like any theologists describes him and basically all the atheists were right with their objections.
Aquinas answers multiple objections to apparent contradictions with God's goodness.

Also Exodus literally inspired divine simplicity so I'm not so sure what you're talking about.

>>18446758
But then you get to the story of Jonah

Test

>>18444556
You only pretend to believe in the Bible so that society can function otherwise we have globo homo like we do right now. You’re not supposed to believe in it. It’s retarded fairy tale shit. You only go to church and pay apologists to think up ever new and contorted ways to make sense of it in the modern world and pretend that is reconcilable with science. You also never confess what I just said in public. That’s what it’s about. Anything else is retarded.

>>18444556
anon reading the Bible as one big schizo desert tribe anthology is why it's an entertaining book

>>18446768
awesome

>>18444610
You are supposed to get familiar with the bronze age myths before you go into the cope

>>18444556
>What can I read, how do I cope and how do I recover from this?

Embrace Atheism my child

>>18446758
This. Wtf is op even talking about? There are hundreds of examples of people in the OT disobeying God, to the point where we could make the argument that there are more people disobeying God than actually obeying him. No free will? Really?

>>18444610
>The first thing that bothered me is that he seems to completely control all these main Hebrew protagonists trough the ages
Did you even read it? Because that's simply not in the text. Sarah gave Abraham her servant, Hagar, to conceive the promised child. Except, that son Ishmael was not the Covenant child. God fulfilled the promise through Sarah's womb.
Moses, when he struck the rock in Numbers (at Kadesh), was not doing what he was meant to.
Esau, the firstborn, sells his inheritance for a pittance.
>Then he dictates laws , with some extremely specific examples like if a sheep gets stolen.
Well maybe consider this question further. Could God have spoken in some subjectively modernist sense of universality? Should any text be written like this? Should Plato or Aristotle? Should the fact that they mention things like the Agora or the Prytaneum make their work anathema to our ears? I would hope not. This is a trap for novice, especially in regards to antiquities. The thirst for universality and dogmatic absolutes clouds you from what you can gain from the text. And this would apply to other antiquities, not just the Bible. The book "Sacrifice" By Rene Girard comes to mind. I would suggest you read it, and maybe you'll gain a better perspective on the Old Testament. The Bible is itself not meant to be self-contained, because it makes historical allusions, such as to the Romans or Egypt. It's expected you know something about these things which aren't in the text itself, like the fact the Romans were ruling the region.
>He also allows beating of slaves in his laws. I don't know that's what bothered me so far.
We hear the phrase, "a man of his time." Well you're a man of your time as well. Your cultural feelings are not necessarily absolute truths. You say it bothers you. Would you agree: there are things that bother you now that won't in the future, and things you accept now that will bother you in the future. What bothers you does not bother other people. If anything, this shows that it's a poor standard. Maybe something feels wrong. Maybe you should do a deeper meditation on why that is for you. Sometimes this will lead you to leave behind things you don't need, or take up things you do.

IT IS ALL BLASPHEMY> THINKING IS WRONG

>>18446754
>St.Augustine said the bible had levels of understanding for each level of intelligence
Do you know where he speaks about this? I would love to read it if you do.

>>18447950
yeah, even after being made the wisest man and seeing god twice, Solomon still disobeyed him

>>18448207
>when the old testament warps people's mind enough that they approach the pejoratively postmodern

>>18444610
Read the Gospels. Jesus straight up tells the religious leaders of his day that they’re following the wrong god. They’re following the father of the lie.

Keep reading, and keep your eyes and mind open. It’ll eventually sink in if you’re an honest seeker. There are multiple gods in the OT that pose as YHVH, but are actually deceivers, serpents, Liars. Jesus came from his Father, if the elite of his day came from different father as he said, that means that it’s an entity that has been deceiving for quite a long time, additionally it is by nature blasphemous. Do not be deceived. Keep reading.

>>18444556
The manga is never anything like the anime.

>>18450226
Even the Pagan philosophers thought Gnosticism was a load of horseshit anon

>>18444556
>God in the old testament is absolutely nothing like any theologists describes him and basically all the atheists were right with their objections.
That’s false since he describes himself as the Absolute in his self revelation to Moses, and also because the entire morality they speak of is contained in the OT. Doesn’t mean the OT is infallible, but clearly the God of Aquinas is there.

>>18447267
whoa you’ve seen through it all take the redpill

>>18444556
>hear how ebil the old testament is
>read it
>it's based af

Why are people such fucking pussies?

>>18450475
>Why are people such fucking pussies?
Fucking men like fucking women
How do you fuck men like you fuck women?
No seriously. It is ontologically impossible to fuck men like you fuck women. So what did God mean by this? How is a human sin impossible?

Read Quran next.

>>18450479
>It is ontologically impossible to fuck men like you fuck women
First off isnt ontology bird watching? Second off, you can use the backdoor with women just the same as w/ men. But what is really meant by that verse is sharing the bed for sexy time, whatever that consists of.

>>18450475
It is based but the New Testament is cringe in comparison which is unfortunate for Christians.

>>18450519
>a woman's arsehole is a man's arsehole
REALLY? REALLY?

A MANS ARSEHOLE IS A MANS ARSEHOLE
A WOMANS ARSEHOLE IS A WOMANS ARSEHOLE

>>18450519
The OT fundamentally defines absolute categories. Look into Leviticus Deuteronomy and Numbers. Seriously read them. God demands categorical purity.

It is impossible to lay with a man as if you lay with a woman. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. If you lay with a man you lay with a man. If you lay with a woman you lay with a woman. They are categorical. Therefore, to lay with a man as if you lay with a woman is categorically impossible. When you ejaculate inside a man's anus, there is nothing like impregnating a woman's uterus happening at all. They are not alike things.

>>18450534
>Going to hell for semantics
your decision, I guess.
>IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. If you lay with a man you lay with a man. If you lay with a woman you lay with a woman. They are categorical.
Or maybe God thinks trans people are valid ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nah jk you're just being silly. Repent immediately or ngmi to heaven

>>18450534
The power analytic philosophy.

>>18450558
>I know the mind of god
I know the words claimed to be of god, and the words claimed to be of god in their historical and absolute meanings are clear: category errors are abhorrent, but, the errors specified by non-greek aramaics are clear: man arse and woman arse are different. The nature of laying with someone is gendered, and the genders are absolute (but not genitally defined).

>>18450558
I'm sure the guy in the pic has really good objections to the evidential problem of evil or divine hiddenness. I'm totally sure his answers don't rely on really bad epistemology that would condemn you to total skepticism.

>>18450534
>>18450574
Not even retarded labcoats would take affront at this. Clearly the statement means
>lying with a man like you would with a woman in every respect EXCEPT that which pertains to the person being laid being a woman
>>18450575
And you'd be correct

>>18450575
> I'm totally sure his answers don't rely on really bad epistemology that would condemn you to total skepticism.
There's over two thousand years of writings on these topics. I don't know why you believe these are meaningful problems.

>>18450575
He'd direct you to one of the hundreds of theologians who adequately addressed these "problems" made up by retarded Enlightenment babies

>>18450586
>And you'd be correct
Then he could publish this stuff. Because the literature of the topic is sadly lacking.
>>18450595
>There's over two thousand years of writings on these topics.
There's over two thousand years of writings on the evidential problem of evil? Mate, do you even know what you're talking about?
>>18450606
Enlightenment babies? The evidential problem of evil? Are you the other guy?
Also, exactly, what are the so good answers to this problem?
CORNEA? Soul building theodicies? lmao

>>18450586
>my salvation is a matter of specious interpretive capacity as if I'm an engineer.

Nice one cunt, enjoy hell.

>>18444556
Which biographies of Augustine and Aquinas did you read? Would you recommend them?

>>18444556
That’s exactly why Catholics didn’t let the lay people read the Bible. Being a Catholic is about worshipping theologians, not god.

>>18450622
>There's over two thousand years of writings on the evidential problem of evil?
Why don't you go ahead and express what you think evil is.

>>18450568
>The power analytic philosophy.
t.picrel
>>18450595
>I don't know why you believe these are meaningful problems.
Well they are meaningful problems, some of the most important ones there are. But what you mean (I hope) is there are answers which we have simply forgotten.
>>18450575
Good and evil are not equal opposites. Goodness is so to speak "itself". It can be done for its own sake. Evil never can. Even sadism, cruelty, whatever else, which appear to pursue evil for its own sake, are actually the pursuit of some kind of goodness (sexual pleasure, agency/power to act, ...) in a degenerate and twisted way. Evil itself is never desirable to anyone in the same way that goodness is. And thus evil was not created by God, just like darkness is not created by the sun. Shadows are the absence of its light. Similarly evil is a void where by right there should be goodness but through the choice of man or another free willed being (i.e. lucifer) there isn't.
>>18450622
>Then he should publish this stuff. Because the literature of the topic is sadly lacking.
Ask me how I know you've never read a word of Christian apologia in your life. Mere Christianity will take you 2h to read and bring you up to speed on the basics of what all your ancestors for the past 2000 years have know intuitively or after thinking about it for 2 seconds and then you can still be an atheist and get excited for the newest edition of quantum infinite multiverse string theory, but at least you wont embarass yourself on a Christian board like /lit/.

>>18450652
Why don't you go ahead and state explicitly that you actually believe there is two thousand years worth of literature on a specific topic that is 40 years old.
>>18450660
Literally everything you wrote from "good and evil" to "there isn't" isn't even relevant to the topic. Then we get:
>Mere Christianity
Mere christianity, written in the 50s, addresses a problem that wasn't formalized until then 70s and has seen most development in the last 20 years?
Guys, do you actually read contemporary philosophy of religion? Because your correligionists who actually write in the field agree with me. Plantinga infamously said that all theodicies fail. And basically every other theistisc philosopher of religion agrees that the only way to successfully refute the POE is by giving stronge evidence in favor of God and then some possibilistic argument in favor of compatibility between evil and god. Objections on their own don't stand up to scrutiny.

>>18450679
>Plantinga infamously said that all theodicies fail
Plantinga is a Protestant analytic philosopher who denies Divine Simplicity. He's hardly an authority on anything outside his own little field that breaks continuity with 1900 years of Christian philosophical tradition.

>And basically every other theistisc philosopher of religion agrees that the only way to successfully refute the POE is by giving stronge evidence in favor of God
There is no problem of evil that cannot be defeated by simply pointing out that if God doesn't exist then no objective definition of evil can be brought to muster in the first place. The idea of evil presupposes God exists, if there is a "problem of evil" then God exists. Period.

>>18450679
>1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
>2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
>3.(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979: 336)
Premise 1 cannot be demonstrated without knowing the mind of God. Argument defeated. Fuck that was easy, this is your big trump card?

>>18450679
Ok all I'm hearing is
>if God real why do I like to tske it up the butt
Mere Christianity addresses many things. Are you saying the problem of evil wasnt formalized before the 70s? And all that other crap: why would I care about "theistic philosophers" whose moral foundation is post 1968 secular humanism and who just keep up their religious appearances for old times sake and because they had nice grandparents that were also Christian?
>the only way to successfully refute the POE is by giving stronge evidence in favor of God and then some possibilistic argument in favor of compatibility between evil and god
I reject your thesis and instead reitarate that good and evil are not equal opposites but one is light and the other its absence. I dont find this contradictory or unsatisfying. I'm sorry that I lack the words to make you see it this way too

>>18450709
>Plantinga is a Protestant analytic philosopher who denies Divine Simplicity.
Divine simplicity has several problems, in and of itself and when associated with christianity, would you like to talk about them?
>There is no problem of evil that cannot be defeated by simply pointing out that if God doesn't exist then no objective definition of evil can be brought to muster in the first place.
This is really bad for two reasons: A) let's say that without theism evil can't exist. This is irrelevant because the argument can be construed as an internal critique of the theist position, showing it to be incoherent or extremely unlikely on its own. B) because there's actually no good reason to think theism is required for objective morality, given that there are several non-theistic views that fall under the umbrella of moral realism (including but not limited to belief in abstract objects of moral character, and moral naturalism).

>>18450709
>if God doesn't exist then no objective definition of evil can be brought to muster in the first place
What makes you think there is an objective definition when god exists?

>>18450679
>Why don't you go ahead and state explicitly that you actually believe there is two thousand years worth of literature on a specific topic that is 40 years old.
All problems of evil require a specific ontology that Christianity does not believe in. No matter what you rephrase or modify in them so long as they retain the belief that evil "is", then they are all equally refuted by various writers who argue that evil is not.
>Plantinga infamously said that all theodicies fail.
A branch of protestantism raised up a theological incompetent? What a surprise.
>And basically every other theistisc philosopher of religion agrees that the only way to successfully refute the POE is by giving stronge evidence in favor of God and then some possibilistic argument in favor of compatibility between evil and god.
Their all equally worthless. First off, the POE needs no possibilistic argument - it is an ontological failure. Secondly, it is intolerable to accept that the belief that there is any compatibility between God and evil. The light has no part in the dark. God makes no evil, so evil is not. If evil is not, there is no problem of evil. End of story.

>>18450723
>Divine simplicity has several problems, in and of itself
Absolutely ridiculous. Why do people who know nothing of Christianity and make no attempt to understand it believe they can spout off like this?

>>18450722
>Ok all I'm hearing is
Then there's a lot of problems with your ears and or brain.
>Are you saying the problem of evil wasnt formalized before the 70s?
The evidential problem of evil wasn't formalized until the 70s, yes. If you don't know this, you know very little about philosophy of religion.
>I reject your thesis and instead reitarate that good and evil are not equal opposites but one is light and the other its absence.
This is literally irrelevant to the problem that I'm raising. Do you actually know anything about the evidential problem of evil from Rowe on (schellemberg, draper, oppy) or are you just pretending you do? I'm betting on the former.

>>18450726
>What makes you think there is an objective definition when god exists?
Because God is identified as goodness itself you can then identify actions that draw a person away from God as "evil", as in moving toward non-being rather than being. Remember that evil is only a logical being, like a hole in the wall. It has no substance of its own it can only exist parasitically by being an accidental property of something that does have real being. The wall exists but the hole "exists" only because the wall is there, without the wall there can be no hole in the wall

>>18450723
>Divine simplicity has several problems, in and of itself and when associated with christianity
Oh no you're not one of those people who think the Trinity is incompatible with Divine Simplicity are you? Don't tell me you're here talking about some insurmountable problem of evil and you got filtered by Thomas Aquinas of all people.

>>18450733
>All problems of evil require a specific ontology that Christianity does not believe in
No, they don't. Please actually read papers and books on the topic.
>Absolutely ridiculous.
Not at all. Do you want to talk about the problem between for example free creation and classical theism?

>>18450741
Actually I was thinking abou the problem of reconciling divine free creation and divine simplicity.

>>18450743
>No, they don't. Please actually read papers and books on the topic.
Yes they do. Please state why you believe that a genus of arguments that assert evil is are applicable to a belief that evil is not.
>Not at all. Do you want to talk about the problem between for example free creation and classical theism?
Divine simplicity is absolutely not problematic. Please go ahead and state why you believe it is.

>>18450752
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2018/09/16/aquinas-and-divine-freedom-the-willing-god/

>>18450734
Who cares about formalization, thats for homosexual labcoats. Slapping "evidential" on it doesnt make the gist of it different from the Epicurean paradox.
>This is literally irrelevant to the problem that I'm raising
No its not. Read it again and again until you get it or starve.

>>18450736
who identified god as goodness? god?

>>18450756
>Please state why you believe that a genus of arguments that assert evil is
That's the problem, they don't. They can all be rephrased as something else (horror, suffering and so on).
>>18450759
>Slapping "evidential" on it doesnt make the gist of it different
Yes it does. Out of all the theists in this board you're the worst lol.

>>18450761
Plato

>>18450765
>Yes it does
It really doesn't. Your argument is literally "If God why bad things happen". That's it. There's nothing that makes slapping "evidential" in front of the problem of evil suddenly make it novel or insurmountable for the already existing theodicies. And it still has the same problem that the atheist needs to presuppose God exists to even make the argument in the first place.

>>18450765
>They can all be rephrased as something else (horror, suffering and so on).
They really cannot, but feel free to state why you believe they can. Or is your only response "Would you like to discuss X instead"?

>>18450766
so much for your 'objective' definition of goodness, then.

>>18450776
Plato identifying God as goodness itself doesn't make it less of an objective fact than much like first person to discover a mountain exists doesn't make the mountain suddenly a subjective existence.

>>18450757
That's not even the right article on it on that blog.
God is purely actual, without contingencies and unchangeable.
There is a possible world in which God doesn't create at all
If he didn't there's an explanation for it.
The explanation can not be in the world because there is none.
The explanation must then be in God.
But this explanation would be contingent, given that God doesn't behave like this in all possible worlds.
But God can not contain any contingencies.
Therefore free creation and divine simplicity are incompatible.
>>18450770
>your argument is literally "If God why bad things happen". That's it
Dude, just write "i'm stupid and ignorant", it's quicker, there's no need to keep showing that you haven't read anything on the topic aside from a few really bad apologists.

Atheists hate him! Problem of Evil destroyed by this one weird trick!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkIjQEn7lEE

>>18450765
the logical problem of evil
>hypothetically, if there was evil, how could there be God?
the evidential problem of evil
> I just looked outside, there was evil :O how can there be God?

>>18450775
>They really cannot,
That's literally what they're called dude. What's the last paper and book from an atheist philosopher on the subject of philosophy of religion that you've read?

>>18450795
Do you think those are charitable interpretations of the form of the arguments currently available? If yes, why don't you write a nice article and send it to a decent journal? I'm sure they'd love it.

>>18444556
It's simple, anon.
You become an atheist.
Because even if a god exists, he doesn't deserve any veneration.

>>18450789
So what makes 'god is goodness' an objective fact? Surely it is not an objective fact because a greek philosopher said so.

>>18450815
What do you think would be above goodness that goodness would participate in?

>>18450802
Really? I was under the impression all people involved with modern philosophy and university intelligentsia in general were spiritual homosexuals who hate Christ.

>>18450811
>Because even if a god exists, he doesn't deserve any veneration.
Only applies to the god of the Bible. Pre-Christian gods deserve veneration on aesthetics alone.

>>18450815
Objection 1. It seems that to be good does not belong to God. For goodness consists in mode, species and order. But these do not seem to belong to God; since God is immense and is not ordered to anything else. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.

Objection 2. Further, the good is what all things desire. But all things do not desire God, because all things do not know Him; and nothing is desired unless it is known. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.

On the contrary, It is written (Lamentations 3:25): "The Lord is good to them that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him."

I answer that, To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."

>>18450811
Ethnicity?

>>18450827
Including the various christians, catholic and protestants and orthodox, who either own or work for those journals and keep on publishing good papers on philosophy of religion from a theistic perspective?
But I love it, you just admitted you don't even read the subject.

>>18450836
>>Including the various christians, catholic and protestants and orthodox
They're all cucked. Last great Christian philosopher was Garrigou LaGrange

>>18444556
There are a few resources you can use
>St. Bonaventure - Breviloquium
This is his introductory manual he prepared for his students so they would know how to properly tackle theology, very scripture/exegesis orientated
>St. Augustine - On Christian Doctrine
basically the former but purely focused on sciprtural interpretation methods
>Ignatius Study Bible
Fantastic for the New Testament, only a few Old Testament commentaries but nonetheless great for what there is
>Ludwig Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Well sourced patristic-scholastic compendium of every point of doctrine and dogma clarified with copious references to scripture. Use it in the inverse by looking through the verse you've read and see how its expounded.
>https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home
Massive library of commentaries on the Old and New Testament books by patristics and the like. Every line of scipture has some explanation on this site.

Also remember this, there are four levels of biblical interpretation:
>Literal/historical
>Allegorical/Symbolic
>Moral/Imperative
>Anagogic/Mystical
>>18444774
this is good advice
>>18444692
tradlarpers don't read theology at all
protestants have a shit hermeneutic and hence they don't understand the OT significance of Mary as the Davidic Queen Mother, the New Eve and the New Rachael, let alone the Papacy as the Davidic ministry visibly headed by the Prime minister.

YHWH means aseity, which is the principle characteristic of God that scholasticism rests on. It is linguistically derived from hawa, a related form of haje = to be.
Uncaused because He is the "to be" of beings. The Being of beings, but not a being amongst beings.
Another way to think of it is in relation to the broader context of Ex. 3:14.
God says that, in response to the question of what his name is, that "I AM WHO I AM".
Which is to say that, he avoids naming entirely. If you met a man in the dark at a bus stand and asked "who are you?" and he replied: "I am who I am." he's evading your question. But for YHWH, as he is both what beings are derived from hence the first reading of his name, and none of them (all things in all things and nothing in any) is also properly speaking ineffable and truly beyond names, as Ps. Dionysius following St. John Chrysostom pointed out, but protestants reject.

>>18450841
Whatever you say, non-reader of philosophy.

>>18450844
That etymology of YHWH is from Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
>>18450841
Nah we still got good ones kicking
>Eric D. Perl
>Wayne J. Hankey
>Jean Luc-Marion
>Jean Borella

>>18450854
I agree with all but Jean-Luc Marion. Phenomenology is a scam.

>>18450796
Why are you so unable to answer a question? Do you think that citing some well known author is a get out of jail free card? That calling others not well read means you never have to justify any of the garbage you type?
If you're as well read as you claim, shouldn't all this be as easy as posting some quotes from your impressive collection of articles and research on this topic?
Could it be that you're simply a pseud who is unable to understand what they are talking about? That is just to unbelievable to be happening on /lit/. It must be instead that you are so intelligent that writing even one sentence of defense for your claims would be to divine for us to look at. Indeed, to read even one word from that sentence would cause our minds to melt and our world to collapse as we comprehended to true genius of your arguments anon. We should all thank you. If you posted anything other than "do you read" we would not be alive to tell the tale. Please continue to keep your knowledge hidden inside your mind - never let us find out what you actually have to say!

>>18450831
>Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him
The aspect of evil and undesirableness, however, does not belong to him at all. Of course.

>>18450861
>Why are you so unable to answer a question?
Yes, right, why don't you answer a question, what's the latest paper/book from an atheist philosopher of religion that you've read?
>never let us find out what you actually have to say!
Except that when people don't say really stupid inane things I reply with something productive, like here >>18450791
But if my interlocutor says stupid shit like "akshually no argument from evil works because of this one weird trick the philosophers don't want you to know" I don't bother with much more than asking if you've actually read the relevant literature.

>>18450888
Of course since evil is a privation of good and in God there can be no privation of good since he is wholly and simply good with no composition. Your statement makes as much sense as complaining that "Of course there's no darkness in a lightbulb, right". The existence of light means darkness cannot exist since the definition of darkness is a privation of light.

>>18444556
There's nothing you can do except recognize the god of the old testament is really the demiurge.

>>18450856
Marion's phenomenology is like icing on the cake, don't consume too much of it otherwise you'll feel queasy.
In small doses its ok. cf. "God Without Being" which is far more metaphysical even if couched in phenomenological language.

>>18450890
>Yes, right, why don't you answer a question, what's the latest paper/book from an atheist philosopher of religion that you've read?
Why do you keep dodging? Do you think anyone falls for this? It's obvious you don't even know the topic you claim to be so well read on. If it weren't so, you wouldn't be so insistent on not answering even the most basic of questions.
>ings I reply with something productive, like here
Let me correct you then, for your own benefit
>There is a possible world in which God doesn't create at all
Why do you believe this to be the case? What proof do you have of this statement being true? What is the justification that God does not create? Also, possible worlds arguments are weak and not really worthwhile to address since they allow the author of them to create any nonsense they would like and wrap it up in a neat bow. The definition of possible is, like with all other species of probabilistic arguments, rooted in ill-defined and ultimately subjective notions of what is and is not possible or what is or is not more likely. Probabilistic arguments are worthless and prove nothing - so while you are explaining why you believe there could be a world in which God does not create please also form it into a proper argument. Thanks. I'm going to work so I'll give you the next 10 hours to work on it. Feel free to make a new thread if this one still isn't up so I can continue to provide assistance to you.

>>18450861
Anything he writes, no matter how reasonable, you would reject out of sheer ignorance, regardless of how irrefutable his argument is (this is the history of philosophy from post-Greeks down to the modern day). That's why he doesn't bother. One does not cast pearls before swine, because the swine will trample and muddy them. There is no reason for him to present any argumentation, both because you have given none, and he knows you are not here to reason, just to obfuscate and create confusion among those you dislike.

>>18450856
>>18450925
Being Given is quite a headache

>>18450933
>Anything he writes, no matter how reasonable,
It's hard to be reasonable and wrong at the same time ;^)

>>18450940
Not for you it seems.

>>18450929
Why do you keep dodging? Answer my question and I'll answer anything you want.
>Why do you believe this to be the case?
Look mate if you want to paternalistic at least get your head out of your ass. It's literally the point of free creation. If I'm freely creating it means I could have not done so. Which, in S5 terminology means "there is a possible world in which I haven't created". That's it. It can be reformulated in other ways but the point doesn't change.
The level of intellectual ability and knowledge of theists in this board is so fucking bad lol.

>>18450903
>since evil is a privation of good
A fanciful view of morality, too bad Christianity disagrees. In the bible, evil is presented, not as a mere absence of good, but as a opposite force which continually contradicts good. Therefore, god is as much a cause of evil as he is of good, since he is the 'prime mover', so to speak. As it turns out, there is indeed darkness in the lightbulb.

>>18450933
Thank you mate. It's so often the case that theists on this are all talk about how intellectually rigourous they are but when you actually ask them about anything they ought to have read, they shirk away.

>>18450850
>reader of philosophy.

>>18450965
>these are the people saying "new atheists are really not intellectually respectable"
Amazing

>>18450530
>>18450479
God meant that gays go to hell. What is so hard to understand about that.

>>18450765
>>18450743
The problem of evil is actually entire besides the point. If you can prove the existence of an omnipotent first cause, specifically aseity, regardless of goodness or the existence of evil, you have proven the existence of God.
The problem of evil as some kind of retort, in order to refute God, first has to presuppose that he exists, which is quite the irony I would think.
Because regardless of your ails, or of the accusations you lay upon Him, if it stands to reason that there is a Being of beings which is uncaused and all the rest, he still remains to be God.

A Platonic addendum to this point would be that God is the Form of the Good, the standard by which all judgements of evaluation (which all utilise the predication of good, whatever the manner). He is the "measure of all things" as Plato says in the Laws. This is his solution to the Euthyphro problem.

All moral inquiry is governed by what we might call a sovereign concept that is “The Good”.
| Do X instead of Y
Because X is more conducive to the good than Y.
| X is more desirable than Y
Because X is more conducive to the good than Y.

Even lots of non-moral thinking is governed by the Good.
| We should implement this infrastructure project
| We should create this app and pursue its development as an entrepreneurial project

Why? Because to have this infrastructure project, this entrepreneurial pursuit and so forth, is ‘Good’ in some sense. In a sense, when posited with the question, “Why?”, the answer is implicitly, “Because it is Good.” Because it is desirable, it is “good” in some manner or another. All desire thus is accompanied by this qualification of goodness in some manner. So when one desires, one desires some form of goodness. So we might say, that all that desire, desire the good.

>>18450765
>>18450743
>>18450972


But very quickly we run into another risk of infinite regress. If we posit some given thing as good/desirable, and then have to qualify why that is good, and then have to qualify why that is good, we have a potentially infinite string of premises to qualify what we desire without termination, and so can never truly call it good at all. “I want to start working out.” “Why?” “Because I want to get fit.” “Why do you want to get fit.” “Because it’s good for my health if my cardiovascular system is more functional.” “Why is being healthy good?” “Because then I do more things with ease.” “Why is ability to do more things good? Why is doing them with more ease good?” Even when we desire to do horrendous things, we desire to do them because they are good in some manner. Perhaps self-gratifying in some way, and so we must ask “by” what do we call them good?

This entire inquiry can go to some pretty insane lengths. And if such lengths are infinite, then we can’t traverse them, and so cannot reach any qualification for any action we make, or anything we desire at all. Thus, we must posit a good-itself, the Good, that satisfies the termination of this regress. This is Plato’s form of the Good, which is the measure of all things. The standard of evaluation that accompanies all moral utterances, and all desire, even when not explicitly invoked.

So, if we were to try and evaluate God, we would be engaging in a gross circularity, applying the criteria of goodness to judge the Good itself.

Ergo, the problem of evil is a nonstarter.

>>18450972
>The problem of evil as some kind of retort, in order to refute God, first has to presuppose that he exists, which is quite the irony I would think.
Is there anyone on this board who actually read philosophy? First of all, no, it's not "ironic" to presuppose God and then refute his existence, it's called an internal critique. As a second point, no, it's not even necessary to presuppose him, you can just compare the predictive power of naturalism vs theism when it comes to suffering and horror and so on.
Come on, this is so bad. This board used to have actually intelligent people on the theist side.

>>18450955
>too bad Christianity disagrees
The one you've made up in your head maybe. Thats not how Augustine or Aquinas exegete scripture so you'll have to address the specific Christian interpretation of sacred scripture and not your own personal interpretation that has no relevance to Christianity proper. If your aim is to debunk a christianity that doesn't exist go for it but the old atheist trick of exegeting scripture poorly then claiming this is what Christians SHOULD believe won't work here.

>>18450994
Oh no the irony was that you presuppose existence and then try to present a moral paradox in the belief in God.
The point being that this argument doesn't go to sufficient ontological depths to be taken seriously.

>>18450994
You acn't refute Gids existence with an argument that requires the presupposition that God exists to work. I would've thought this is obvious. If God doesn't exist the argument doesn't work, the conclusion of the argument can't undermine the very axiom that the argument requires for its conclusion to be valid.

>>18450994
Also you just read one line, which wasn't even my argument but rather a passing comment, and then just ignored the rest of the actual substance.
Stop acting exasperated over the deficiency of good interlocuters when you're just as inept as those you accuse.

>>18451016
There's no irony. It's an internal critique.

>>18450994
Please present an argument. If not, I will just tell you to go and actually read some real philosophy, not whatever drudge is pumped out of the German philosophical sweatshops from the 19th century.

>>18450994
You can't refute Gods existence with an argument that requires the presupposition that God exists to work. I would've thought this is obvious. If God doesn't exist the argument doesn't work, the conclusion of the argument can't undermine the very axiom that the argument requires for its conclusion to be valid

>>18451031
>not whatever drudge is pumped out of the German philosophical sweatshops from the 19th century.
Draper and Rowe are from the 19th century? What?
>>18451035
>You can't refute Gods existence with an argument that requires the presupposition that God exists to work
Mate it's called reductio ad absurdum. You literally describe how it works. You assume two things and then you show incompatibility between the two. Are you just trolling me?
And again, it's not even necessary to do that in order to make the argument, you can just compare worldviews and their predictive power.

>>18451006
Why god and satan instead of god and the void? Why heaven and hell instead of heaven and the void? Why angels and demons instead of angels and the void? I'm surprised that this blatant duality, this representation of good and evil as very real forces in conflict, has flown completely over your head. Either that, or you don't want to dispose of your headcanon, and so you will deliberately turn a blind eye.

>>18451054
>you can just compare worldviews and their predictive power
I prefer to compare worldviews based on their coherence and atheism has sever pronlems with philosophical incoherence between what they say is true ontologically and what they claim in epistemology and ethics. Largly the three can't be reconciled in any satisfactory way in the materialist worldview. Whether you can predict the behavior of an atom is of far less importance than ensuring you can properly ground ethics without undermining that grounding with metaphysical positons that are incompatible. Materialism is fundamentally irrational for this reason.

>>18451082
Its predictive power in terms of expected suffering, horror and so on, not in predicting the behavior of atoms.
>Materialism is fundamentally irrational for this reason.
Sure. I love when anonymous people on the internet make sweeping statements about hypotheses that are considered perfectly respectable by actual philosophers. It's totally not hubris.

>>18444577
New testament is even worse,
>fewness of the saved
>eternal torment for majority of mankind.

>>18450969
They're not.

>>18451095
>that are considered perfectly respectable by actual philosophers
I wouldn't consider anyone educated after 1950 an actual philosopher.

>>18444610
>God hardened the Pharaoh's heart
Read Origen any time

>>18448234
Confessions, maybe elsewhere too

>>18451030
>>18450994
The internal critique is not on God’s existence but on God’s “character”.