/lit/ - Literature

>>18755656
Yeezus. Check the digits.

>>18755656
Read Mysticism Sacred and Profane by Zaehner. Incredibly biased but an interesting take down of perennialists and Huxleyites

>>18755656
Who's that Jewish woman on the right

>>18755656
>Tolstoy
Fuck off

>>18755814
Simone Weil.

>>18755851
This. Tolstoy and Witt were literal atheists, not mystics.

>>18755805
I'll check it out
>>18755871
Tolstoy does describe a mystical experience in a confession. And Wittgenstein more or less is an atheist mystic, depending on how you look at it

>>18755871
What's all that talk about God and faith in his later years then?

>>18755935
>Wittgenstein more or less is an atheist mystic
How?

>>18755805
>interesting take down of perennialists
QRD?

>>18755935
>>18755656
> Witty
The absolute fuck?
>>18755935
No he wasn't. Fuck the American interpretation.

>>18756134
Atheism is inherently mystical.

>>18756200
Basically that they obscure the differences between different mysticisms by claiming that the non-dual experience is the heart of mysticism; Zaehner distinguishes broadly between natural mystical, monistic, and theistic mystical experiences. In doing so, they fall prey to spiritual traps in the mystic's path identified by Sufis and other theistic mystics. Probably his most important example is Ruysbroeck describing a state of tranquil emptiness (which Zaehner equates with the experience of Brahman) as a state on the way to the higher goal of beatific vision, one which can trap people (Ruysbroeck was talking about quietists I think) and lead to spiritual vanity, sloth, and a sort of paradoxical egoism. He doesn't quite address the fact that an Advaitic mystic might also have both a monistic and theistic mystical experience and rank them the other way around to Ruysbroeck but it's an interesting argument. In relation to Huxley, he just says that equating tripping on psychedelics with mystic experience makes it a purely sensual thing and endangers ethics (he also says that Monism endangers ethics). Zaehner actually tripped on the same drug which Huxley took just to criticise Doors of Perception lol.
It's a v interesting book and fun to read, but has some issues

>>18756212
Dumb answer

>>18756134
There was an anon here a while ago who described Wittgenstein's tractatus as a mystical experience because of how it disillusions you with all other philosophy. I've not read it but that's probably what he's thinking

>>18755656
You need to come farther

>>18756212
What is not?

>>18756244
Only dumb people see dumb answers.

>>18756283
Based

>>18756254
It really isn't, the first half is somewhat interesting sentencial logic and model theory, the second half is pure gibberish that excuses you from having to understand anything in the first half because Witty didn't himself remember what he had started writing about.

>>18756134
>>18756254
>>18756306
Witty's mysticism is not really the focal point of his writings, however it is there largely in its abscence.

For Wittgenstein, catagories like ethics, aesthetics, and even spiritual truths are not found in the sense of the world and as such they cannot be spoken about, propositions cannot express them.

For him then, all of the most important truths are essentially ones that we can't put into words. And this shares much in common with what's stated in many mystic traditions.

Also Wittgensteins notes go on to show that religious language atleast played an important role in his life, it's hard to say what the nature of his spirituality was.

>>18756236
>Basically that they obscure the differences between different mysticisms by claiming that the non-dual experience is the heart of mysticism
How is that a takedown? Non-dualism is the common thread between theistic and monistic experiences, that doesn't mean theistic and monistic experiences can't have their own characters and essential hierarchy (theistic generally being lower and more sentimental/emotional because it generally sees God as a being with concrete similarities to humanity, such as "love"). From reading a bit about him, he seems highly intelligent and versed, but suffered from the need to intellectualize (in the Western sense) the supra-intellectual, and often even the symbolic (which is symbolic to begin with because conceptualization and mundane reason is not sufficient to encapsulate what it symbolizes).
>he also says that Monism endangers ethics
This is why the highest doctrines were kept esoteric, and not given to the masses. Ethics are not fundamentally real, or philosophically relevant (considering what philosophy actually is, and not the modern distortion which considers ethics to be a real branch of "knowledge").

Bourgeois 20 year olds LARPing as mystics because they like the aesthetic and have a past history of drug use...

Yike!

>>18755814
she's no jew. She's closer to jesus than you'll ever be.

>>18756488
>bourgeois
What are you a noble lmao

>>18755871
>>18755851
Wittgensteinian Fideism is a real thing; and Tolstoy discusses his fideism at length.

>>18756488
>Bourgeois
>2000's
go and read new theory you dumb nigger

>>18755871
Wittgenstein was a self identified mystic, faggot.

>>18755656
>simon weil

>>18756515
>>18756525
Bourgeois hate it when you call them what they are.

>>18755656
More like the fedora in the middle

>>18756564
If you're not bourgeois what are you? Do you think we own large factories or something kek

>>18756532
"I'm atheist, but spiritual." - Tolstoy, Wittgenstein, Sam Harris, Guenon

>>18756363
>How is that a takedown? Non-dualism is the common thread between theistic and monistic experiences, that doesn't mean theistic and monistic experiences can't have their own characters and essential hierarchy (theistic generally being lower and more sentimental/emotional because it generally sees God as a being with concrete similarities to humanity, such as "love").
It's a takedown because it's directly disagreeing with this. He is well aware of the monistic attitude towards a personal God; he is a scholar of Eastern religions and is very familiar with Shamkara and others. His argument, based on what he sees as a hierarchy of mystical experience where the monistic is really solipsistic and preparatory to the theistic, is that the personal God is not in fact a product of the human need to emotionalise/symbolise the ineffable

>Ethics are not fundamentally real, or philosophically relevant (considering what philosophy actually is, and not the modern distortion which considers ethics to be a real branch of "knowledge").
Yes, this is exactly why he says that monism endangers ethics.

Anon, I'm not even saying I agree with Zaehner (I am a monist) but you're sounding a bit stupid.

>>18756564
pseuds hate it when you call them out on their outdated readings.

>>18756572
>Sam Harris
/lit/, a place where one can always laugh

>>18756581
I'm not mad, but between watching anime and making mystic LARP posts on 4chan and twitter you are definitely a loser.

>>18756505
She was very Jewish and it shows in her theology. Even if she hated her identity her influene on theology in the 20th century was disastrous.

>>18756591
come on fag, don't call me a loser, you know how to make me mad, call me a 'Bourgeois' again, make me seethe

Which religions have written the most on the idea of the world being a place of learning, and successive reincarnations being a way for the self to mature and grow? Should I look into Hinduism?

>>18756749
Hinduism generally views reincarnation as negative

>>18756765
So there are no major religions that support this idea?

>>18756773
Ummmm, can't think of any off the top of my head. I guess you could spin the Mahayana bodhisattva path as a bit like that, but reincarnation is still essentially negative because it creates suffering. In Christianity, there's Irenaean "soul-making", which is an affirmation of the world as a place of learning and experience, but obviously there's no reincarnation involved in that.

>>18756798
Strange how this idea is virtually absent in religion.

>>18756749
Not successive reincarnations but unironically Judaism

>>18756876
I'm sure it's in New Age religions or in some obscure, older ones. It just so happens that the major religions which have reincarnation view it negatively and the ones which have the world as a place of learning don't have reincarnation. Maybe there's some psychological reason behind this, who knows

>>18756749
Iamblichean Neoplatonism teaches that there are multiple reasons for descent into embodied existence, one of which is corrective.

“I think that inasmuch as there are different purposes for the soul's descent, this creates differences in the manner of descent. For if the soul descends for the salvation, purification and perfection of the things in this world then it descends purely. But if the soul is turned toward the body for the sake of exercising and correcting its habits, the descent is not entirely without passion, nor is the soul, within itself, released and liberated. And if the soul descends as if being dragged down here for punishment and judgement, the descent is forced.”
– Iamblichus, Stobaeus' Anthology

>>18755656
Christ literally rose from the dead and gave evidence to prove his divinity. This picture is as retarded as you.

>>18756928
Hey, anon, last week I levitated 12 feet into the air. A bunch of my friends wrote about it and they all think I'm pretty cool. Wanna worship me?

>>18756892
I did read something about how some concepts of the Jewish (kabbalistic?) afterlife is about learning and realizing how little you know or something like that.
>>18756896
I'm sympathetic to some New Age beliefs including that one (because of the compiled evidence) but it's definitely strange to me that it has only appeared recently and was never a part of historical traditions.
>>18756927
I haven't read Iamblichus, I should look into his works.

>>18756977
>because of the compiled evidence
Which is?

>>18755805
>>18756236
This really seems like another case of mistaking the finger for the moon. All religions have common themes, symbolism and observations, for example regarding the nature of the subtle bodies and energy centers. Nitpicking over the precise metaphysics of the nondual experience is stupid since it's not even something you can verbally communicate.

>>18756928
>>18756932
Basically this, Christ left a sign of His divinity but He did not impose it on us with any reasonable certainty. It's evidence, sure, and it's more substantial than most claims of supernatural abilities. That said there's still room for reasonable doubt, that's why it's faith

>>18756984
Reincarnation observations (look into Ian Stevenson for a primer, there are massive amounts of extremely convincing data), and regressive hypnosis where people made accurate observations on things they couldn't have known and also (almost) unanimously talk about incarnation on this plane being for learning purposes.
I'm phoneposting so I don't have specific links to share right now but I recommend you look into suggestive cases of reincarnation (Stevenson's book) and regressive hypnosis testimonies.

>>18757030
>Nitpicking over the precise metaphysics of the nondual experience is stupid since it's not even something you can verbally communicate.
To agree with that would be to accept non-dualism as the truth. Seeing as Zaehner is trying to a case for a specific metaphysics, "nitpicking" is necessary. All the "bro chill out it's ineffable, finger moon" etc etc is just making a case for non-dualism. Again, I'm not a theist, but you can't just reiterate non-dualist buzzwords about ineffability and expect people to take that as an argument

>>18756932
Are your friends willing to be tortured and killed in the most horrific way possible, by going out into a society where preaching this message would get them gruesomely executed. If not, I don't think your testimonies are worth much. On the other hand, the apostles did exactly that.

Your epistemology is brainlet-tier.

>>18757176
People have been tortured and killed to spread communism. Are you a communist?

>Your epistemology is brainlet tier
You're literally arguing from authority, retard

>>18755656
Am I the only autist who can't cope with this meme because the BELL CURVE IS TOO DAMN FAT? It's not a Gaussian! It's the wrong shape. Look, I tried to overplot a real Gaussian curve. I lined it up at the bottom and it doesn't fit. The blue one is too fat!

Real Gaussians have a beautiful sleek, sharp, tight curve. This meme format has a retarded looking fat semicircle shape. It is triggering my autism so much. Please STOP using this meme format and use one where the curve has the right shape.

>>18757183
tortured and killed in their attempts to spread communism*

>>18757183
People will obviously die for something that they believe in. That the apostles chose to be tortured and killed for their testimony all but proves that they believed that they had seen, learned from, and ate with what they believed to be the resurrected Jesus, over a period of many days.

The question is, why did they believe this to be the case?
>You're literally arguing from authority, retard
I'm literally not, and the fact that you think my argument is an appeal to authority further proved your lack of epistemological understanding.

>>18757194
Oh actually that's not a bad point tbf. I'm sure there must be similar examples though

>I'm literally not
You are though

>>18757187

>>18757194
>That the apostles chose to be tortured and killed for their testimony all but proves that they believed that they had seen, learned from, and ate with what they believed to be the resurrected Jesus, over a period of many days. The question is, why did they believe this to be the case?
There are many many potential explanations other than that which means Jesus Christ is the son of God and Christianity is the one true religion

>>18757211
I personally have looked for counter-points to this line of rational argumentation for a long time. I could not find a single example in all of human history - it is an anomaly. Even the most popularly accepted scholarly hypotheses, like the vision hypothesis, require an event that has never happened before or since - a synchronous multi-day hallucination that happens to 11 people at the same time, where everybody present sees the exact same hallucinations.

>You are though
No, it is an argument from the epistemological weight of differing eyewitness testimonies, based upon external factors which make those testimonies more reliable. An appeal to authority would be that the testimonies are true because those testifying were the disciples of Jesus.

>>18757220
Please provide an alternative explanation, I always love to hear new explanations for this extremely unique event.

>>18757194
Raud the Strong was tortured to death for refusing to convert to Christianity and abandon Odin, even when he was offered the king's friendship, wealth, land and followers just to be baptised. There were also numerous Saxons who preferred to be slain by the Franks than to convert, and the English populace of the Isle of Wight. Is this a good reason to believe in the divinity of Odin?

>>18757247
This proves that Raud the Strong truly believed that Odin was a divine being, and this is very understandable, as this is his native and ancestral religion. The question of "why did he believe this?" is very understandable. However, in the case of the apostles, the crux of the argument lies in that question - why did these 10+ firsthand witnesses believe that Jesus had risen physically from the dead, and stayed with them, eating fish, for several days?

So, in conclusion, it is not a good reason to believe in the divinity of Odin, but it is a good reason to believe that Raud the Strong believed Odin to be divine. The question is, why did the apostles believe that Jesus had appeared to them for several days, after rising physically and bodily from the dead?

>>18757236
>Please provide an alternative explanation
It could be:
(1) the man called "Jesus" was in fact an extraterrestrial and his death and resurrection were a ploy to spread the worship of an alien mind parasite
(2) Jesus was in fact the son of the Demiurge and the resurrection is a trap to prevent souls from reaching gnosis
(3) after the crucifixion and the collapse of Jesus's eschatological hopes, the apostles (who were still convinced of the truth of the rest of his teachings) agreed to pretend that Jesus was resurrected in order to help spread the gospel
(4) somebody paid off Longinus or whoever and the crucifixion was a sham
(5) Jesus Christ is the son of Zeus, another in a long line of demigods. The apostles misunderstood his message because of their Jewish background

Some of these are outlandish. That Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos and incarnated to save mankind is as outlandish: if you had never heard of Christianity and someone offered you two stories, yours and (5), you'd be hard-pressed to say which was more reasonable. Some are just meant to show why someone might doubt.

>this fucking autist again
I am crushed by your epistemological weight

>>18757264
Doesn't this presuppose the historicity of the Gospels? They are full of anachronisms and things that don't appear to be true, like the entirety of Jerusalem's dead walking the streets for all to see (something that there are no references to from Romans stationed there, or local Jews, or even the other Gospels), or the census happening during the reign of Herod (the census was done because Judea was being integrated as a province after Herod died), or the idea that someone would have to move to a village their ancestors lived in for a Roman census (something nonsensical that would ruin the specific data that the census was performed to collect, nullifying the whole purpose of the census).
Much of what's in the Gospels is shrouded in allegory, like Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. I'm not trying to suggest mythicism, but rather that the Gospels themselves were almost definitely intended to be interpreted in some way and not taken at face value, and were written by anonymous authors half a century after the events, and thus the exact beliefs of the apostles regarding the incarnation are not as clear-cut as you seem to think. There is also not much of a reason to believe that the book of Acts is accurate, and not exaggerated extensively to make Christianity look better (like the incident with Simon Magus).

>>18757290
>(1) the man called "Jesus" was in fact an extraterrestrial and his death and resurrection were a ploy to spread the worship of an alien mind parasite
This is more irrational than the resurrection, because it requires the addition of many extra complexifying factors to explain the event, thus transgressing against the basic rational principle of Occam's Razor.

>(2) Jesus was in fact the son of the Demiurge and the resurrection is a trap to prevent souls from reaching gnosis
See above.

>the apostles (who were still convinced of the truth of the rest of his teachings) agreed to pretend that Jesus was resurrected in order to help spread the gospel
This would be the only case in the entirety of human history of people who were willing to be brutally tortured and executed for something that they knew to be a 100% false lie. It is an entirely extraordinary proposition with no historical antecedent, or subsequent occurrence.

>(4) somebody paid off Longinus or whoever and the crucifixion was a sham
The crucifixion is the most historically accepted event in the life of the historical Jesus, and so this argument runs directly contrary to the vast majority of historical studies, even among secular scholars.

>(5) Jesus Christ is the son of Zeus, another in a long line of demigods. The apostles misunderstood his message because of their Jewish background
Because Jesus specifically testifies to the truth and existence of the monotheistic God of the Hebrews on multiple occasions, as well as His eternal coexistence with Him, this hypothesis is extremely unlikely, even moreso than the resurrection.

I do appreciate that you attempted to provide examples, but none of these hold up. The messianic lie hypothesis, (3), is the most compelling attempted explanation, but even then it is ultimately irrational, and fails to explain the events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. I do appreciate your intellectual honesty in admitting the majority of these hypotheses are outlandish, and this, combined with the addition of further complexifying factors, is why I do not believe them to be more compelling than the resurrection hypothesis.

>>18757325
I'm not autistic. I'm just a human passionate about the Lord Jesus Christ. =)

>>18757367
>This is more irrational than the resurrection, because it requires the addition of many extra complexifying factors to explain the event, thus transgressing against the basic rational principle of Occam's Razor.
If we're really going to use le Occam's Razor, then believing in a resurrection, i.e. a transgression of the laws of nature, requires more explanation than an alien coming to earth

>See above
How does a Demiurge-Christ require more explanatory factors than the whole theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation from a Christian perspective? It's literally the same, just with a different cosmology

>This would be the only case in the entirety of human history of people who were willing to be brutally tortured and executed for something that they knew to be a 100% false lie. It is an entirely extraordinary proposition with no historical antecedent, or subsequent occurrence.
Yeah tbf

I think you need to address (2), because the main point is that, even if you accept that Christ was resurrected, it does not follow that all of the theology behind the resurrection as an item of Christian belief is true. That's the main point.

>>18757214
kek

Is there any actual definitive proof of the brutal fate of the apostles outside of Christian sources?

>>18757462
There are Roman sources showing that Christians were executed, sometimes horribly (lions and cruicifixion come to mind), but not for many specific martyrs or early saints. You have to take the Christians' word for it that they bore these tortures gladly and didn't scream and cry and beg Jove for forgiveness once the lions came out.

>>18757367
>Doesn't this presuppose the historicity of the Gospels?
I begin with weighing them with equal epistemological value as any other contemporary firsthand (or secondhand, as in Mark and Luke) eyewitness testimony.
>the entirety of Jerusalem's dead walking the streets for all to see
Anachronistically imposing our idea of a materialist historical biography on the ancient Judaean community ignores the reality of the biographical genres of the time. I believe that events like the resurrection of the dead in Matthew point to the use of apocalyptic imagery in order to depict what the author believed to be a spiritual reality (namely, the harrowing of Hell after the crucifixion). This passage proves that Matthew believed this to be a reality in some manner, and does not contradict the main argument that he believed the contents of his testimony so strongly that he was willing to be tortured and killed for spreading it.
>Much of what's in the Gospels is shrouded in allegory, like Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.
There is no reason to believe this is an allegory, as the gospels paint the image of Jesus as somebody who frequently uses actual miracles to represent spiritual realities (in this case, the frustration of God with the Jews).

>were written by anonymous authors half a century after the events, and thus the exact beliefs of the apostles regarding the incarnation are not as clear-cut as you seem to think.
The Corinthian Creed is almost universally dated to the period between ~A.D. 30-35 - and having doubtless originated from the apostles, who shared it with the early Jerusalem church, it provides an extremely early evidence to the unanimous belief of a physical resurrection of Jesus among the apostles - decades prior to the earliest Markan date.

>There is also not much of a reason to believe that the book of Acts is accurate,
Besides the fact that this is only tangential to the main argument, I am interested to hear your reasoning for why you believe that the book of Acts should not be taken at face value as a historical narrative depicting the events of the early Church.

>>18757394
There are many cases of people coming back to life after being pronounced deceased in a clinical setting. There is, however, no evidence of the existence of aliens. Thus, the resurrection is, on its face, an immediately more plausible hypothesis than the existence of a race of spacefaring aliens, who are able to take the form of a human, and who have the goal of spreading a mind parasite.

>How does a Demiurge-Christ require more explanatory factors than the whole theology of the Trinity
Keep in mind that my argument is not that the trinity is true, but only that the most likely explanation for the disciples believing that Jesus had physically resurrected is that He had physically resurrected and appeared to them.

>even if you accept that Christ was resurrected
So, do you? If not, we should keep going until we reach an impasse.

>>18757362
>Doesn't this presuppose the historicity of the Gospels?
I begin with weighing them with equal epistemological value as any other contemporary firsthand (or secondhand, as in Mark and Luke) eyewitness testimony.
>the entirety of Jerusalem's dead walking the streets for all to see
Anachronistically imposing our idea of a materialist historical biography on the ancient Judaean community ignores the reality of the biographical genres of the time. I believe that events like the resurrection of the dead in Matthew point to the use of apocalyptic imagery in order to depict what the author believed to be a spiritual reality (namely, the harrowing of Hell after the crucifixion). This passage proves that Matthew believed this to be a reality in some manner, and does not contradict the main argument that he believed the contents of his testimony so strongly that he was willing to be tortured and killed for spreading it.
>Much of what's in the Gospels is shrouded in allegory, like Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.
There is no reason to believe this is an allegory, as the gospels paint the image of Jesus as somebody who frequently uses actual miracles to represent spiritual realities (in this case, the frustration of God with the Jews).

>were written by anonymous authors half a century after the events, and thus the exact beliefs of the apostles regarding the incarnation are not as clear-cut as you seem to think.
The Corinthian Creed is almost universally dated to the period between ~A.D. 30-35 - and having doubtless originated from the apostles, who shared it with the early Jerusalem church, it provides an extremely early evidence to the unanimous belief of a physical resurrection of Jesus among the apostles - decades prior to the earliest Markan date.

>There is also not much of a reason to believe that the book of Acts is accurate,
Besides the fact that this is only tangential to the main argument, I am interested to hear your reasoning for why you believe that the book of Acts should not be taken at face value as a historical narrative depicting the events of the early Church.

>>18757394
There are many cases of people coming back to life after being pronounced deceased in a clinical setting. There is, however, no evidence of the existence of aliens. Thus, the resurrection is, on its face, an immediately more plausible hypothesis than the existence of a race of spacefaring aliens, who are able to take the form of a human, and who have the goal of spreading a mind parasite.

>How does a Demiurge-Christ require more explanatory factors than the whole theology of the Trinity
Keep in mind that my argument is not that the trinity is true, but only that the most likely explanation for the disciples believing that Jesus had physically resurrected is that He had physically resurrected and appeared to them.

>even if you accept that Christ was resurrected
So, do you? If not, we should keep going until we reach an impasse.

>>18757156
>to accept non-dualism as the truth.
well, yes. Dualism is a cope

>>18757194
There is literally no evidence for that and one of the most important christian apologists who wrote phd about it is sceptical, if you don't believe me watch this video
https://youtu.be/9CHV6dXZRUc
It's all apologist bullshit and church tradition (so pretty much also bullshit)

>>18757594
>There are many cases of people coming back to life after being pronounced deceased in a clinical setting.
So you're saying Christ was "resurrected" in that sense, which does not break the laws of nature? How is that a miracle then?

>Keep in mind that my argument is not that the trinity is true, but only that the most likely explanation for the disciples believing that Jesus had physically resurrected is that He had physically resurrected and appeared to them.
The issue we're discussing is why you're a Christian. The point I'm making here is that the resurrection (if we take it for the moment as something which did happen or was believed honestly to have happened) is not enough of a reason to be a Christian

>So do you?
No. And, if I did, as I have been arguing, it would not be sufficient to make me a Christian

>>18757693
>there is literally no evidence for that
There is no evidence for what? My argument does not depend on the apostles actually having been martyred (although Clement is an extremely early source who testifies to Peter's martyrdom), but only that they chose to willingly testify to the narrative of the resurrection of Jesus, knowing that they could be tortured and killed for doing so, and indicating that they truly believed that they had seen Jesus physically appear to them. The fact that they testified to this is beyond criticism, as it is the only explanation for the formation of the church of Jerusalem beyond the circle of the 11 apostles - how then does the argument not stand, when we still have firsthand witnesses willing to face torture and martyrdom for preaching that they had seen Jesus physically resurrected after His crucifixion?

>>18757715
>So you're saying Christ was "resurrected" in that sense, which does not break the laws of nature?
No, I am saying that on its face, the explanation of the resurrection is markedly more epistemologically sound (via Occam's Razor) than positing the existence of x alien race with y motivation and z shapeshifting ability. I do not personally believe that Jesus rose through a biological process similar to the modern day Lazarus phenomenon, only that the possibility of such a biological occurrence is much more likely than the existence and visitation of the alien race with the previously described characteristics. Hypothetically, however, even if Jesus had resurrected from the dead in this manner (which I do not believe is likely), the miraculous nature would be that He prophesied His own resurrection from the dead long before it actually occurred (as recorded and testified to by the firsthand eyewitnesses).

>The point I'm making here is that the resurrection [...] is not enough of a reason to be a Christian
I understand, and this is because I have not provided you with the arguments which follow, because you have not indicated whether you believe that the most likely explanation for the resurrection is Jesus' physical resurrection. If you do accept that rational conclusion, as I believe is the only epistemologically sound option, I will gladly share with you the arguments that follow which prove the further claims of the Christian faith. If you do not, it would be useless for me to share the following arguments with you, because they hinge upon the acceptance of this first premise.

>No.
So then, if we continue, hopefully we can come to a further understanding of each others positions, and I can continue to explain why I feel my position is the most logically sound, and in fact the only rational position to take on this issue. I am confident that, if we both act in an intellectually honest way, I can provide you further airtight rebuttals and arguments that lead to the acceptance of the resurrection, and following from that, further arguments for why Christianity is the only true religion.

>>18757774
I have to go and do something irl now. I'm not avoiding the discussion, I want to be able to write out a proper reply. Hopefully this thread is still up later on.

>>18757774
We do not have any first hand evidence for any magical mumbo jumbo you are claiming, all your arguments can be applied to any existing religions. Face the truth and stop lying to yourself

>>18757846
This dude will keep going and ignoring everything you say while reiterating his own opinions over and over. He's derailed several threads with his bullshit already, just stop responding.

>>18757861
True enough, i don't know why I bother

>>18756283
>doesn't even understand how distribution charts work

>>18757846
>We do not have any first hand evidence for any magical mumbo jumbo you are claiming
We have firsthand eyewitness testimonies. If you do not accept these as at least being "first hand evidence", even if you do not believe it to be epistemologically convincing in and of itself, you are running contrary to the entire field of historical science.
>all your arguments can be applied to any existing religions
I am interested to hear this, as there are no religions which have even close to the epistemological weight of Christianity. If you do decide to back up this conjecture with any argument, not just a hypothetical one, I will gladly dismantle it.
>Face the truth and stop lying to yourself
My position is epistemologically consistent, and so far, nobody has been able to provide any rebuttal which challenges any of its basic arguments. In lieu of that, I must admit that your conjecture that I am "lying to myself" and not facing the truth is, in fact, best applied to my opponents, in this case. I welcome any arguments, but as is usual in these types of threads, most people will just run away instead of actually subjecting their arguments to scrutiny.

>>18757861
>i can't provide any arguments for my position, so I'll claim that the other person will ignore what I would hypothetically say, if I hypothetically had an argument
I have responded to every rebuttal levied at my arguments, and I don't think you could point to a single instance, in this thread or another, where I did not do so. Your conjecture is thus dishonest, and belies your lack of a compelling case in favour of your position.

Somebody confident in their case should be happy to come and make me look like a fool, exposing the irrationality of my arguments. I eagerly await this person, but they never seem to come.

>>18757894
>We have firsthand eyewitness testimonies.
So you are just going to keep lying? Thanks for nothing i guess

>>18757953
Do you have any argument as to why we should not consider the gospels of Matthew and John to be firsthand eyewitness testimonies, although they have universally been testified to be so from the very beginning of their authorship discussion? Extremely early figures like St. Irenaeus testify to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel of John - and seeing as Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who himself was the disciple of St. John the Evangelist, I don't see how you can get any more of a direct confirmation of the apostolic authorship of, at least, the Gospel of John.

>>18757894
I don't give a fuck faggot, I'm not "arguing" with your autistic ass about events that never happened. Fuck off

>>18757979
>i have no arguments to support my position, so i'm going to use ad hominem attacks to rationalize my fear of subjecting my ideas to scrutiny
My friend, there's no need to stay in a thread that's making you seethe so hard. You should go take a walk and do some deep breathing, because high concentrations of cortisol are very bad for your cardiovascular health. =)

>>18757994
Didn't read, go have your pathetic mental gymnastics somewhere else
>b-b-but it happened
Ok retard

Careful people, we got some real epistemological weight over here.

>>18758015
>seething so hard that he isn't even able to read three sentences
It's okay bud, take some deep breaths and calm down, nobody is going to hurt you. Know that I'm always here for you, if you change your mind and want to talk. God bless you!

>>18758038
Didn't read, seethe harder christer, your entire religion is a lie lmao

>>18758029
>people said magic stuff happened so that means it happened
Whoa... I think the tradcaths have a point, bros...

>>18758056
I used to think Christianity was false too, until I started being rational and willing to engage with arguments from the other side. I'm sorry that you aren't there yet, but as you grow in your intellectual capacity, I'm sure you will become more interested in engaging with people you disagree with.

>>18758098
Seethe harder

>>18758098
>until I started being rational
>he's a Christian
kek
Is there a single group on this website more delusional than Christians?

>>18758029
>>18758097
>>18758117
>mocks what they don't understand, without providing any argument
I think the lurkers can see that the other side of this discussion mostly relies on conjecture and ad hominem attacks, without any real arguments - so thank you for helping to make my case stronger. You are doing a great service to Christendom!

>>18758124
>he's seething so fucking hard the only thing he can do is keep up the womanly passive aggressive "I'm not angry :)" facade
Embarrassing. That's what false doctrines do to you I suppose.

>>18758098
You are still on your journey

"For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge."

>>18758346
As we all are. I am in the ancient Church of Jesus Christ, following the words and teachings of the saviour and His holy martyrs and saints, and aiming towards theosis and sainthood. Rather than attempting to combat our brothers in the faith, we should focus our efforts on this board, to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).

>>18757880
based meta-ironic retard

>>18755871
Wittgenstein, if you reads the bits that were excluded from the Tractatus, was a Pantheist in the style of Spinoza. The World as a finite whole is like an alien Will (like God) and being happy means to be in conformity and agreement with it and its natural laws. Of course he may have later changed his mind but he wasn't a full flown athiest or Christian either way.

>>18757975
Brother. I can see your faith. Why argue with these strangers? There is no way to save these degenerate materialists. I am saying this sincerely. Focus your mind on other work. The time for direct proselytizing is over. We do this now through our work. Find something to express yourself with and weave what you feel you have to say into that.

>>18755656
Are there any good books on pagan mysticism?

>>18758949
>pagan mysticism
thats quite a large range. Having any specific tradition in mind?

>>18758967
Norse preferably, but European religion will work.

>>18758987
any*

>>18758939
I appreciate your words, brother. I do disagree with your statement that there is no way to save these "degenerate materialists" - although I recognize that I will not be doing the saving. That is the Lord's work. All that I seek to do is plant seeds in the minds of those who are reading, the lurkers; and if the seed takes root in any, the Lord will be the one doing the harvesting, not me. We are called to evangelize as a necessary part of our everlasting covenant, and on the day of judgment, I pray that if my words stirred even one person within, that they might testify to the Lord on my behalf - for as St. James says, "My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins".

I need all the help I can get, because I am among the worst of sinners.

>>18755656
I thought mysticism/esoteric stuff was generally considered heretical/sinful?

>>18760241
Only if you're gay.
Read Meister Eckhart and Jacob Boehme.

>>18758124
based orthanon back in the arena

Xristos anesti ek nekron, thanato thanaton patisas, kai tis en tis mnimasi zoin xarisamenos!

>>18756932
le ebin, what a witty skeptic take.
you belong in a septic tank.

>>18761033
Seethe harder christnigger. Your religion is a falsehood and the world has moved on

Read Manly P Halls Secret teaching of all ages

>>18755656
so this is a chart where everyone from left to right is on the same dimension, because they are all equally retarded

>>18758098
>it's another Christian usurping non-Christian symbols and myths thread

>>18761342
id hardly say that degeneration is moving on, but to each his own.

SOVL

https://youtu.be/IMeS0HfjQNw

Sufis are signing and dancing how religion isn't necessary to reach divine, just an experience of divine lover.

>>18756749
Read rudolf Steiner

>>18761675
>Review from an astronaut on the front page
Instantly I know this is a pseud book

>>18756749
Mormonism

>>18756283
kek!