/lit/ - Literature

Unironically Kant. My greatest push towards the Christian faith was believing, really and truly believing by means of reason and philosophy, that all love is predicated on unverifiable faith.

Every day you post this and every day no less than a dozen different posters btfo you.

>>18764720
who cares, we are having fun, plus that ikon is fucking gorgeous

>>18764631

They're literally all wankers. They reject orthodox, Catholic Christianity because they want to keep looking at porn and jacking themselves off.

Sexual degeneracy is behind every heresy there is.

Augustine said, "The faithful must believe the articles of the Creed so that by believing they may obey God, by obeying may live well, by living well may purify their hearts, and with pure hearts may understand what they believe."

They talk about esotericism and all of this high-sounding garbage. But behind it all there is nothing but the drive to wank.

This is one of the things Paul was thinking of when he said God sends a "spirit of delusion" on those who love unrighteousness. For all of their talk of despising "the flesh" they're all completely enslaved to fleshly desires and too weak and cowardly to engage in real spiritual warfare like a real Christian.

>>18764805
>sexual degeneracy is behind every heresy there is

huh?

>>18764843
It's a common christcuck cope where they say everyone who does not believe the God of Israel is the metaphysical principle are just lying to themselves because they want to have sex.

It doesn't make sense since the Christian hierarchy seems to do nothing but have sex with each other

>>18764873
I mean for me I did a lot of God denying because I want to jerk off kek

but it isnt the only reason, there are actual objections to Christianity made in good faith.

This is literally what the modern gnostic would do had the lived in the times of the apostles.
They would try to buy an ""initiation"", much like Guenon himself did.

>When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
>Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”
>Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

>>18764805
>Sexual degeneracy is behind every heresy there is.
Yes, this is what it seems like to me lately as well...

>>18764879
I've actually never contemplated YHWH as I'm about to pull out my dick

>>18764631
>Gnosticism
>Buddhism
Zoomers are a bunch of depressed gender confused castrati so it makes sense they'd be attracted to nihilistic and gnostic stuff. It's an entire generation of Cathars.

>>18764843
I think they are getting this from Augustine, who went from coomer to christer and then in a manner that persists to this day, such people who restrain their oversized passions act holier than thou to normal or otherwise moderate, people since they've caught up to passing as moderate and believe it is some profound quality they have over the outside.

I don't use 4chan but I logged on to leave a couple of Christian comments and I'm glad there's more

I don't think it's as simple as just people wanting to wank, and that's hardly the point of Christianity, sex is overtalked about, just be a chaste man, wait till u marry, like people have done for centuries


I think it may be from wanting to stand apart or be above other people, Gnosticism and Buddhism is exotic and esoteric enough to make them believe it is like so, though they never truly delve into it, as a true gnostic or buddhist would have to be like an evil St Francis if they want any chance of reaching their version of heaven, instead of there being different vocations

They don't realize that Truth is like a light, it's not hidden at all, and they brush away Christianity and the Gospels as something simple and with not much depth because the simplicity of the Word of God carrying such deep meaning confuses them, whereas the pretended depth of esoteric writings makes them believe there's something there

I shall mention these miracles time and time again, St Bernadette's body has not rotten after over 50 years without any treatment and in the 90s many consecrated Hosts bled actual blood, analyzed in a lab, in Buenos Aires. Blessed Carlos Acutis has a good page on it. Convert to Catholicism and you will know joy and be saved

>>18764631

>Guenon, Advaita Vedanta, Hinduism, Esoterism... it's true... all of it

>>18765222
Checked.

I have always seen buddhism as being a coping mechanism for denying the resurrection of the dead. The buddhist hates his body, so the mere thought of having to resurrect in it is extremely frightening to him.

>>18765462
Belief resurrection of the dead is itself a cope. Have you ever seen a body get back up and walk around? No, it supposedly happened a couple of times in the 0030's and then never ever ever ever again.

>>18765480
>Have you ever seen a body get back up and walk around?
Yes.

When you can't become a saint, you go deep into esoteric wankery. Huysmans correctly saw this.

>>18765796
being a saint and being into esoterism are far from being mutually exclusive

>>18765808
ok zoomer

>>18765808
>>far from being mutually exclusive
>Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

(2 Corinthians 6, 14-16)

>>18764631
I've arrived to a Monistic Monotheist realization in my readings. God is reflected in His creations so it is abhorrent and abominable if Man were to worship only a finite representation, for worshipping forms is to worship one's ego projected unto things which are ultimately devoid of properties, instead of the infinite reality that is God.

The fact that OP claims that non-dualism and dualism are mutually exclusive shows that OP is a faggot and like faggots claims non-binaries and binaries are mutually exclusive.

tldr: OP is a faggot.

>>18766016
Unfathomably based. I came to the same conclusion

>>18766016
>>18766023
>t. has not read Pseudo-Dionysios

>>18766028
enlighten me

>>18766036
You have basically expressed the Orthodox Christian position, which is that God is only knowable in reason by apophasis; that is, a systematic denial of all limitations and properties attributed to him. The reason that we make assertions about things like the Trinity and the Christology is that He has revealed these things, which are already literally painful to hold in the mind. We are constantly enjoined as Orthodox Christians to "smash the idols" of God within us, to continually progress to a more perfect knowledge of God through prayer, study, and spiritual practice without seeking to overturn the revealed truths about His own nature that He has given to us.

according to Zaehner who studied comparative mysticism non-dualism is a dangerous illusion:

>There is danger certainly; but only if we mistake the part for the whole, only if we mistake our own soul in its timeless unity for the living God. According to the great Muslim mystic, Al-Junayd of Baghdad, this is not only a danger, but a trap that the Lord himself sets for the mystic who has advanced so far that he has put behind him the fear of God -- who has forgotten that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10. 31). Such a man will mistake his own soul for God, and in very single mystical tradition, whether it be Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim, this will happen; and again in each of these traditions this mistake will be refuted by mystics who have had the two experiences -- that of the "isolation" of the transcendent and timeless "self" or soul and that of the overwhelming eruption into that soul of the love of God. The mistake is so easy to make; indeed, it is almost inevitable, for man was made "in the image and likeness of God", and unless he knows God either by faith or, better still, by experience, he can scarcely fail to mistake the image, once purified by asceticism and a total detachment from all temporal things, from the living God whom the image reflects. This "trap" that God sets for the unwary soul the modern Jewish philosopher and mystic, Martin Buber, discerned and warned against in unforgettable words:...

>... The second type of mysticism is the most strange; it is that described "from his own unforgettable experience" by Buber, and philosophically pin-pointed by the Samkhya-Yoga in India: the experience of the unfractionable oneness of the transcendent self, separate and isolated not only from the world of matter and mind, but also from all other "selves" and from all present knowledge of the living God. This we meet with among the Sufis; it is probably what the Buddhists of the so-called "Defective Vehicle" understand by nirvana. It can be tasted by all men, for this is the "image of God" in the human soul which even Original Sin could not blot out. It is this "image" that the mystic, as Buber saw, is almost bound to mistake for the godhead itself, as the non-dualist Vedantis did, and as Vivekenanda has done in recent times. It is the "trap" that a jealous God puts in the way of the spiritually proud.

>>18766123
Can confirm. I am
>>18764689
and it was only through the conscientious efforts of a bunch of Zen writers that I didnt think my one enlightenment experience was the end of my "spiritual journey" which in fact has only just now begun in Christ. I think people should still understand that place of transcendental unity, but only as what it is-- a peculiar metacognitive faulty, or at least the purified metacognitive sense of experience. It isnt God, and it isnt particularly special either, but it does give you a certain amount of perspective on how your own mind works.

>>18766172
*metacognitive faculty lol

>>18766123
>according to Zaehner who studied comparative mysticism non-dualism is a dangerous illusion:
According to many other people who have studied comparative mysticism, dualism is a dangerous illusion

>>18764631
I am transasian Im having onions sauce replacement therapy and squinting all the time so I cant see how gay your kike on a stick religion is from so far away I am going to be in China I cant see your Christcuckery. The brightest philosopher in the history of the West was Schopenhauer and China and India had tons of Schopenhauers ages ago even before Jebus Crust and Crackers walked on Bud Lite and healed the libs from their heroin addictions. Bye bye ameriblubber!

>>18765462
>What starting with the Greeks does to a MF

>>18766061
>trinity
Bhagavad Gita says Brahma's highest form has four arms. Pythagoras said God is a tetrarch. Now Christ said the end of time will be when the Bride of Christ enters the Kingdom of God so 3+1
Either way 4 is important

>>18766362
no no no no no

The Church does not become a Person equal to the other three. At most, human beings are deified by grace and united to the uncreated energies of God, but never to His essence.

>>18766362
>Bhagavad Gita
A form of toilet paper at best.

>>18764631
>nnooooooo why doesn't everyone just blindly accept my dogma?
>reeeeeeee
if your religion has any merit, people will naturally migrate towards it.
I personally find christianity constantly self conflicting and the only answers I ever get are
>lol just wait till you die and ask god himself xD
most christians are a bunch of actual fucking retards.

>>18766123
I'd like to contest Zaehner on this. I think he made the mistake of equating union with God (by means of the death of one's ego) and the apotheosis of the Ego. You just have to look at the /x/ board to see what the latter is like. Fucking incels.

>>18766677
>constantly self conflicting
Examples?

>>18764631
It’s very easy to refute non-dualism. Just show us how the mind/soul and body interface together.

Dualism is refuted by the horrendous notion that the Devil is equal in power to God Almighty and that this dualistic balancing act is somehow eternal. God will triumph and we will all be united with him. Any dualism(s) perceived is only temporary.

>>18766755
No, Zaehner is right. The only way around it is to move the goal posts and start acting like the language mystics use isn't meant to be taken literally.

>>18766472
I don't know for certain (and never will) if someone will go to hell or not, but if you keep going on this trajectory, you will most likely end up having to suffer too much (that is assuming you are not already depressed and/or hate your life and everyone else).

>>18765462
This is ironic given that getting over issues with your body is really big in Buddhism and the Church Fathers were really big on the Satanic Inversion of arguing that the Olympians were evil precisely because they were beautiful and good on account of their glorious bodies. For Chrysostom and Tertullian in particular the Resurrection was precisely the destruction of the body and the demonstration of its wickedness.

>>18765462
I have always seen christianity as being a coping mechanism for denying the passing nature of the body. The christian loves his body filled with piss, hair, and bile, so the mere thought of having to leave it behind is extremely frightening to him.

>>18764631
this is literally copy pasted. same picture and everything

>>18767579
>assuming you are not already depressed and/or hate your life and everyone else
Well, I'm neither western nor hinduist nor idolator, so...

>>18767690
Meanwhile, in gang-raping India...

>>18764631
You made the same thread last week, moron. No one gives a shit about gook religion, fuck off

>>18764631
Scientific materialism and mystical impersonalism are also alike in the way they avoid belief in God and idolize something created to fill the gap. In the one case, this created divinity is an elevated consciousness, and in the other it is a world-order devised by consciousness, and though tthese two sects may despise one another and appear to outsiders as opposite extremes, what they have in common is more important than their differences. Their denial of both God and personality, and their worship of intelligence in one form or another are of the essence of the modern mentality, and keep it in being.

>>18767727
Meanwhile, in deus vult trad Mexico...

>>18767748
???

>>18764631
Those who are attracted by such beliefs usually cannot resist equating the non-dual state with some preconceived idea of what they think it must be like. The mere fact of its verbal expression must give rise to a mental formation which is radically adverse to common sense.

The privation or ‘reality deficit’ must itself be made absolute along with the consciousness itself. Consequently, one has no alternative but to identify with this negation, since a personal God is excluded along with any other reality outside one’s consciousness. The positive function of consciousness cannot balance this because all it can do is focus one’s mind on the negation.

To believe oneself to be committed to a void like this is a more than adequate cause for depressive mental illness, which is most likely to affect those whose minds are healthy and logically seriously enough to react against irrationalities imposed on them.

Those who can stabilize this condition and seem to live healthily on it do so because they are able to avoid mental contact with the ‘absolute void’ which their doctrine logically implies in the midst of their supposedly absolute consciousness.

>>18764631
“As a rule, monistic religion has little or no attraction for those who definitely believe in God and for those who definitely do not believe in God, but those who have not resolved the question as to whether they believe in God or not are often attracted to it, because it offers a simple solution to their dilemma, and which seems to leave them at no disadvantage in relation to those with orthodox convictions. In a similar way, the hard alternatives of either personal immortality in the next life or persona extinction can also be similarly avoided by a conception of divinization which is in effect a compromise between the two, and which, from a personal point of view is a quasi-survival.

>>18764631
It can seem reasonable to believe that a form of religion which teaches the ultimate simplification, the identification of God and man, Creator and creature, must coincide with the most complete truth. The problem with this conclusion is that it is one of those final logical steps which undo those that went before it. Such an extreme degree of simplification becomes self-contradictory because it destroys the things to be united, and thereby the union itself.

>>18767770
Based middle path takers. Feels good to be able to worship the gods while not having to concern myself with the petty minutia of having to lay down definitions regarding them.

>>18767770
What about religions where one can become a god, like Buddhism?

>>18767747
So they're both alike in their need for objectivity?

>>18767816
Pretty much. Guenon was very big on objectivity, what he would call 'pure metaphysics' completely detached from emotion, feeling, humanity etc. And both reject a need for faith. A Guenonian doesn't have to believe in the Christian resurrection, or in the prophethood of Muhammad to be an adherent of those faiths. He understands them esoterically, which is a form of rationality, that although it rejects naturalism, it is still wholly rationalist.

>>18767810
buddha was not a god, he did not become a god and neither can you
he only rediscovered a path to nirvana, one of many

>>18767834
>wholly rationalist
Do guenon shills really? You mean to tell me you are trying to make him into an anglo bug in order to sell people on him? You've either not read him or didn't understand him. I don't even like Guenon and know that's obvious bullshit, that nothing made him seethe more than reducing everything to reason, that this very attitude is what he castigated everyone else for doing in his two dozen jeremiads against anyone who wasn't his brand of indo-sufist tradlarp

>>18768075
Where is the element of non-rationality in his espousal of Shankara's doctrine? Like I said, it's non-naturalist, but it's still very rational, even if Guenon may have been opposed to that nominally.

>>18768217
You're mistaking scholastic theology for rationalism. There's nothing rational about starting with divinely conjured sacred texts as authoritative.

>>18768275
Like I said, non-naturalist. There's also a strong argument to be made for the Kantian nature of perennialism as a whole, which again, would send perennialists into a seizure but it's really quite a fair comparison.

>>18766860
>It’s very easy to refute non-dualism.
No, it’s not, and your argument is a classic example of a failed attempt at refutation
>Just show us how the mind/soul and body interface together.
They don’t, it’s completely top-down, there is no bottom-up interface/interaction. There is only a problem if you hold to a view where the physical body interacts with the non-physical mind/soul; but this is exactly what Advaita Vedanta rejects. The Atman is completely unchanging and unaffected by anything, hence it never interacts with anything; hence there is no problem which needs to be solved of how the Atman and non-Atman interact because they don’t.

>>18768331
>No, it’s not, and your argument is a classic example of a failed attempt at refutation

It is very easy to refute, it's just that you're mentally ill and will move the goalposts to protect your philosophy while making hundreds of posts.

>>18768331
AV sucks at non-dualism. How do you have an atman that never interacts with non-atman? You've added something to your philosophy that adds nothing, and for what, to avoid being called a buddhist? Sounds like a serious case of brahmin breaking.

>>18764631
>>18764720

MOREOVER, every time someone points out that those excerpts neither refute nor even pertain to non-Dualism he just copy-pastes even more unrelated stuff. At least change the damn excerpts once in a while, OP, you might accidentally post the right thing one day.

>>18768417
He appears to have pulled a bunch of quotes against idolatry, which is highly lazy, because these are aimed at abrahamists living among infidels, exhorting them not to defect from the religion and not to go native among the "nations." But said infidels will be unconvinced by being told they are not following the covenant with OT/NT God, because they have no such understanding of exclusivity.

>>18768348
>It is very easy to refute
give one (1) example then, and no, the interactionist problem is not a refutation of Advaita Vedanta because that's only a problem where you have two mutually interacting things, its not a problem where one thing is totally unaffected by the other (because then there is no interaction/interface).
>it's just that you're mentally ill and will move the goalposts to protect your philosophy while making hundreds of posts.
No I'm not mentally ill and I don't move goalposts, I just point out the flaw of other peoples arguments.

>>18768378
>AV sucks at non-dualism
disagreeing with Buddhism's sophistic relativism =/= sucks

>How do you have an atman that never interacts with non-atman?
Because 'interaction' means 'reciprocal action or influence'. a top-down relation whereby the lower element is impacted without that lower element impacting or changing the higher element in any way is not an interaction because there is nothing mutual about it.

You can have this without any theoretical, logical or philosophical problems because the Atman is the ultimate source or transcendental ground of all existence. The Atman remains as the ground which sustains the non-Atman of phenomena to take place via the Atman's power maya, however the Atman is never changed, impacted or interacted with by that maya and the phenomena which it comprises. There is nothing problematic or illogical about this whatsoever.

>You've added something to your philosophy that adds nothing,
I didn't "add anything" you blathering fool, the Brahman/Atman is the very foundation of Vedantic philosophy, you can't get anywhere or even begin without it. And the Brahman/Atman indeed has value as a logical concept in metaphysics, because among other things it provides a logical account for why there is the universe at all, which cannot be accounted for otherwise, as the universe is unable to cause itself. It's very illogical to posit any spiritual Absolute or liberation from samsara while also not admitting the existence of anything that is different from the universe/samsara.

>>18768631
>It's very illogical to posit any spiritual Absolute or liberation from samsara while also not admitting the existence of anything that is different from the universe/samsara.
I mean what you're basically saying is that noumenon is untouched and transcendent to phenomena, and iirc the indo-thomists think they can patch back into noumena by saying they were noumena all along but were under the illusion of phenomena which is a power of noumenon. And this is close to a number of Buddhist schools which effectively teach that phenomena ARE noumenon, but the Vedantist obviously has to comply with the Vedas. So for one it's realizing phenomena were just illusions and you are noumenon, and for the other it's that phenomena are noumenon and any other view was due to delusional mentation. Thus I conclude Buddhism to have to more consistent nondualism.

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>18768719
>And this is close to a number of Buddhist schools which effectively teach that phenomena ARE noumenon, but the Vedantist obviously has to comply with the Vedas.
No it's not. The Buddhist is violating the law of non-contradiction by affirming two mutually exclusive things (that it is both Samara and Nirvana, both conditioned and unconditioned, both suffering and bliss) about phenomena while the Vedantist isn't; so the Vedantist position is more logical.
>So for one it's realizing phenomena were just illusions and you are noumenon, and for the other it's that phenomena are noumenon and any other view was due to delusional mentation.
Is that delusion itself part of the phenomena or the noumenon? If it's part of the phenomena then it's made into noumenon by the reassigning of the phenomenal to the noumenal and then it cannot be negated or overcome but you have insurmountable delusions. If that delusion is the noumenon to begin with it leads to the same issue.
>Thus I conclude Buddhism to have to more consistent nondualism.
You never provided a reason in that post why one should be regarded as more consistent than the other.

>>18768804
It is more consistent because the Buddhist says to just B.E. yourself, while the Vedantist says yourself is actually some hyperreal being that forgot it was you and so you forgot you were it since you were so busy with its power of illusion, it of course being you and you being it.

>>18766061
>a systematic denial of all limitations and properties attributed to him
If Christian theology actually followed this consistently it would mean the denial of any limitation that regarded God as different from the soul of living beings. But some Christians instead want to deny all limitations attributed to God while also attributing to Him a limitation that establishes a limit between Him and us; despite this being a contradiction.

>>18768769
>Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree
Whatever gave you this idea? Shamkara is widely acknowledged as the most important Advaita theologian. The only people who think he's a crypto-Buddhist are those who haven't read him.

>>18767747
>Scientific materialism and mystical impersonalism are also alike in the way they avoid belief in God and idolize something created to fill the gap.
This line relies on a fallacy of circular argumentation whereby you start out from the unfounded claim where the God of "mystic impersonalists" isn't God, which they would disagree with and which you have only circular presuppositions to support.

>In the one case, this created divinity is an elevated consciousness, and in the other it is a world-order devised by consciousness,
That's wrong, the world order in scientific materialism is the product of natural laws, nature etc instead of being devised by consciousness.

>and though tthese two sects may despise one another and appear to outsiders as opposite extremes, what they have in common is more important than their differences. Their denial of both God and personality
Advaita Vedanta doesn't deny either the existence of God or that God is a person in the sense of having first-person presence/being.

>and their worship of intelligence
In contrast to Christians who evidently worship unintelligence according to you

>>18768769
Where is the quotation underneath the central image from?

>>18768819
>It is more consistent
No it's not, because the Buddhist is violating the law of non-contradiction while the Vedantist isn't. The Buddhist premise violates logic, the Vedantist premise doesn't.
>because the Buddhist says to just B.E. yourself, while the Vedantist says yourself is actually some hyperreal being that forgot it was you
That's not true, Vedanta doesn't teach that Brahman/Atman forgot anything, forgetting involves change but the Brahman is changeless. You either have no idea what you are talking about or are deliberately lying.

>>18768902
If you are a non-dualist at some point you have to get to x and y being nondual. The Vedantist does not do this, he makes phenomena into maya, into nihilism, and says only his transcendent god is noumenal reality, because he needs to ultimately comply with the Vedas.

>>18768858
take meds

>>18768929
>If you are a non-dualist at some point you have to get to x and y being nondual.
Says who? Where is the basis for that statement? That's completely unfounded, baseless. Moreover it's a contradiction, you are contradicting yourself when you say "a non-dualist has to accept two different things and then accept them as the same", non-dualism has to do with the absence of dualities. You are not arriving at an absence of dualities by accepting two different things and then trying to assign them to a shared category which unites them. This is preserving the difference and then trying to laminate them both under a layer of film which unites them while keeping intact their difference, leading to irresolvable duality.

Vedanta is not saying "x and y" are non-dual, which is contradictory and illogical, Vedanta is saying "a and a" are non-dual because A = A.

Atman = Brahman, A = A. Something can never be non-dual or identical to something which has a different nature or characteristics than it.

>The Vedantist does not do this, he makes phenomena into maya, into nihilism, and says only his transcendent god is noumenal reality, because he needs to ultimately comply with the Vedas.
Advaita Vedanta isn't nihilism because nihilism = nothing exists while in Advaita Brahman exists which is mutually exclusive with saying nothing exists. Buddhist """"non-dualism"""" is full of logical contradictions.

>>18769042
take your mothafuckin meds

>>18769056
I'm not prescribed any, nor do I need any

>>18769042
If nothing exists except Brahman and everything is just Brahman casting illusions you are denying the world and you are a nihilist, not a non-dualist. Simple as.
>nooooo it's not x and y it's and a and a even though i'm calling a by b and c
Mayavadin cope.

>>18769386
>If nothing exists except Brahman
Yes, if "exists" is taken in its absolute sense
>and everything is just Brahman casting illusions you are denying the world and you are a nihilist, not a non-dualist. Simple as.
Wrong dumbass, because ontological nihilism means nothing whatsoever exists, not that something underlying the world *DOES* exist.

Stupid Buddhists don't even understand the meaning of the words they are using.

>>18769386
Maya is not unreal because it is experienced and it is not real because it changes and is sublated.

>>18769541
nice dualism, mayavadin

you cryptobuddhists are the most confused sect ever

>>18769511
I didn't say poopeepoological nihilism, I said world-denying nihilism, wherein the mayavadin surveys the world and says "this is just Brahman wielding his power of illusion for some reason and I am actually Atman which is Brahman and my jiva is only due to being ignorant of being Being."

>>18769546
Yeah this just sounds like it could have been lifted from the Lankāvatāra, which the Vedantists can't cope with so they insist it was in the Vedas all along, which may actually be true, but if so why do they seethe so much about Buddhists getting away with doing Veda-less Vedantism? Mistaking the finger for the moon I suppose.

>>18769541
this is just mumbo jumbo zen poetic nonsense. THE OPPOSITE OF WISDOM.

>>18769560
There is nothing to seethe about even if Advaita derives from Buddhism since Buddhism is just moralfaggotry anyway. Advaita solves the Buddhist contradictions.
>>18769570
Not really. It is meant to explain that Maya is not said to be an illusion because it does not exist. To exist is to be eternal and unchanging. This is of course why Buddhism have been accused of nihilism since it doesn't give existence to anything

>>18769614
Buddhism got the Beyond Good and Evil Seal of Approval fron Nietzsche so don't be so sure about the moralizing.

>>18769546
That's not dualism. Brahman remains alone as the only non-dual reality. Dualism means two equally opposed principles or realities, maya isn't an eternal reality like Brahman so it's not dualism.

>>18769549
>world-denying nihilism
That's not an actual meaning or definition of nihilism but is just your own made up concept that doesn't correspond to any accepted meaning of nihilism. Hence it's not actually nihilism but this is you just coping and not knowing the meaning of words like a dumbass.
>>18769560
>but if so why do they seethe so much about Buddhists getting away with doing Veda-less Vedantism?
Advaitins don't seethe over this, they just attack Buddhism where it departs from Vedanta by taking what Advaita sees as philosophically/logically unsound positions.

>>18769714
>maya isn't an eternal reality like Brahman
So maya wasn't always in existence? Then it was created.

>inb4 no
Then it's coeternal with brahman, mayavadin.

>>18769714
>it's not nihilism to say the world is fake and that only God's special untouched transcendental realm is real
You must only read English translations of French commentaries on indo-thomism to think this

>>18769723
>So maya wasn't always in existence? Then it was created.
It is beginningless for the same reason that the production of time by God/Brahman took place outside of time. It is not eternal though because it can be ended/sublated while the eternal can never end. God projects the illusion of time and maya while remaining transcendent to time/maya, this maya cannot have an origin that is understood in temporal terms because temporal terms are a part of maya and don't exist independent of it, there is no temporal space within which maya was created. That doesn't make maya eternal though.

>>18769734
Yes, it's not nihilism under any accepted meaning of the term. Advaita doesn't say that either everything is meaningless or that nothing whatsoever exists/is real.

>>18769778
>Yes, it's not nihilism under any accepted meaning of the term.
I'm not buying it. If Brahman is just casting illusions everywhere then none of it is real. If it isn't real and what is real is what isn't even present but what is not experienced, if what is NOT is what is REAL, it is nihilism.

>>18769778
You are making the same argument for maya/brahman that Christians make for the trinity, except at least they deal with the problem of three aspects of the same thing not being three or more things. You just say maya exists eternally (except it doesn't).

Mayavada is the worst religion ever conceived.

>>18769734
Kek that has to hurt.

>>18769801
>If Brahman is just casting illusions everywhere then none of it is real.
You do not understand what the Advaitin mean by illusion. Illusion does not mean it isn't there. What you think Advaitins mean with illusion is basically a square circle, but Advaitins reject this idea of Maya numerous times.

A mirage in the desert is an illusion but it is still there and even if you would recognize it as a mere mirage it still remains, except in your intentionality towards it.

>>18769883
>A mirage in the desert is an illusion but it is still there
no it isn't

>"the world is like a mirage in the desert, it's not real but it also is"
and like the rope that becomes the bird, the tree that sheds its leaves is still there, the sun's rays reflected off the water are both birds in the eyes of the rope

>>18769801
>I'm not buying it. If Brahman is just casting illusions everywhere then none of it is real.
Brahman alone remains real as the immortal Entity, so that's not nihilism
>If it isn't real and what is real is what isn't even present
Consciousness is always present, it's just often not fully understood/realized.
>if what is NOT is what is REAL, it is nihilism.
Consciousness IS, and is REAL, so it's not nihilism

>>18769810
>You are making the same argument for maya/brahman that Christians make for the trinity, except at least they deal with the problem of three aspects of the same thing not being three or more things.
No I'm not, that's a completely separate discussion.
>You just say maya exists eternally (except it doesn't).
No I'm not, I'm saying maya "exists" for an indeterminate duration which has no identifiable beginning within time but which has a definitive end, anything which has a definite end can never be eternal.

Knock knock

>>18769895
>no it isn't
t. nihilist
>"the world is like a mirage in the desert, it's not real but it also is"
I've already explained to you what is meant by real. Real have a really specific meaning. But you keep wanting to equate "illusion" with "nothing".

If you do not want to read eastern philosophy then you still could have avoided your confusions by having read Parmenides.

>>18769903
who's there?

>>18769934
Maya

>>18764805
Christianity was the first degeneracy by repressing all forms of sexuality rather than healthily implementing them.

>>18764631
This whole post is just a schizophrenic criticizing the madness of a drunkard

If you are not gnostic you are, either: agnostic, or atheistic; if you truly believe that all humans are innately evil/sinful, and/or that the two main deities featured in the Old Testament are God, you are a latent psychopath.

>>18769883
No I am not referring to square circles or to examples in whatever bhasya you have open. I am referring to everything but the kitchen sink (but also the kitchen sink). Either experience is real or it is not. The Vedantins say it is all Brahman wielding his power of Maya, yes? Therefore, everything and the kitchen sink is just something illusionary for the jiva but reality is unconditional Brahman, yes? In other words, all the objects are unreal, they are not affirmed, they are denied participation of reality, they are not Brahman, they are illusions. The only reality is your metaphysical postulates? Sorry, it's nihilism. I happen to like my cosmic granite.

>>18769900
>Consciousness IS, and is REAL, so it's not nihilism
I too have sympathy for cittamatra as a pedagogical tool but everything arising due to the mind does not make the mind an eternal absolute god that we have no experience of.

>>18770048
>muh granite
You have to quit it dude

>>18770072
There is no granite to be abandoned, only the radiance of Indra's Home Depot.

>>18770064
>but everything arising due to the mind does not make the mind an eternal absolute god that we have no experience of.
That's not the reasoning Vedanta uses and so that's a strawman. In any case the Vedanta position is inherently more logical than Buddhism by not containing any infinite regress and by not violating the law of non-contradiction, Buddhism fails on both of these accounts in most cases but always at least one.

>>18770234
You're making the same exact points in two threads to the same person. There is nothing more bad faith in the world of philosophy than pretending you're following laws when your assumption behind them is a magical being modeled after the king that used to fund priests and philosophers to propagate his cult.

>>18770048
>The only reality is your metaphysical postulates?
the formless light of sentience by which you experience changing phenomena is not some unknowable hypothetical metaphysical postulate but is the undeniable (to all but the fool) ground of one's conscious being, the necessary fact of which allows anything else to be predicated about anything whatsoever, without which all claims, views, agreement and disagreements would be unintelligible.

>>18770261
>You're making the same exact points in two threads to the same person.
because you repeat the same sophistry in different locations
>There is nothing more bad faith in the world of philosophy than pretending you're following laws
I'm following logic, Buddhists don't
>when your assumption behind them is a magical being modeled after the king that used to fund priests and philosophers to propagate his cult.
The lower is modeled on the higher, not vice versa. What you are proposing is basically a materialist conception of symbolism.

>>18770282
There is no logic whatsoever to an absolute god having done something or been the cause of something. We don't even get these kinds of metaphysically monistic gods until vast empires are created by men, after that we have their scribes start centralizing theology until it becomes hydraulic-despotic. Prior to that gods are half animal, or have families (i.e. parents and children), and all emerge from primordial blackness. That is to say, even they have cause.

>>18770304
>There is no logic whatsoever to an absolute god having done something or been the cause of something.
It is logical because it doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction or contain an infinite regress, while Buddhism does.
>We don't even get these kinds of metaphysically monistic gods until vast empires are created by men, after that we have their scribes start centralizing theology until it becomes hydraulic-despotic. Prior to that gods are half animal, or have families (i.e. parents and children), and all emerge from primordial blackness.
You have no way of knowing or proving that's true.

guenonfag getting brahmin BROKE itt

>>18770324
>You have no way of knowing or proving that's true.
Yeah and you can't prove god so you can't get rid of the supposed infinite regress (which is solved by emptiness anyway but then there's no Vedas and Shankara needs to get a real job)

>>18770344
How does emptiness solve it?

>>18770348
All things being empty of a self-nature and interdependent, with causality only appearing to exist. Under such view there is neither arising nor cessation blah blah blah. The question of "what about the uncaused cause" only matters to a theologian. I have never once encounter such a non-thing and see no reason to affirm it as such

all the guenon shilling has thoroughly turned me off all pajeet religion

just seeing how the guenon larpers act is enough to tell me this religion is fucking retarded

>>18770375
It's odd but the best Guenonians are always non-Guenonians who admire Guenon

The worst Guenonians are the card carrying ones, they are either creepy Muslims who you can tell are trying to manipulate you into converting, or they are extremely paranoid people who worship Guenon to the point of idolatry

>>18770344
>Yeah and you can't prove god so you can't get rid of the supposed infinite regress
You don't need to prove God, you just need to provide a contradiction-free account which eliminates the question of a reason for an infinite regress to begin with, which is what Vedanta does and what Buddhism fails to do.
>(which is solved by emptiness anyway but then there's no Vedas and Shankara needs to get a real job)
It's not because the sunyata leaves unexplained what provides for the sunyata, ignorance, experience etc to exist emptily despite being non-eternal.
>>18770367
That doesn't solve the infinite regress, that's just denying that it's a problem to begin with, but this doesn't solve the contradiction in the Buddhist metaphysics since the Buddhists still posit dependent-origination/ignorance which they are unable to account for without their explanation containing an unresolved infinite regress.

>>18770382
>It's odd but the best Guenonians are always non-Guenonians who admire Guenon

like who?

>>18770375
Literally just something picked up by theosophists and presented to the west as bigbrained Hinduism, such that generations of western intellectuals, everyone from Schopenhauer to William James to /lit/'s favorite frog, think it is such a big deal, but then again most of them largely think Vedantism is a pantheism like Spinoza's, which in all likelihood is probably not even a good comparison just a useful one for communicating with a 19th-early 20th century western audience.

>>18770367
Seems to only describe how things are, not why they are. Things already have to be present for this to explain anything.

>>18770390
Why wouldn't you need to prove god? You aren't arguing with a fellow Hindu. When you tell me god solves an infinite regress, you are saying nothing solves it. Then you proceed to affirm that nothing and base everything on it, as if you were a nihilist. Which you claim you are not, because you have made a non-real thing real. The Buddhist doesn't need to prove god because the absolute god has no role in his religion. Perhaps AV really is crypto-buddhism then after all.

>>18770409
But yes maybe it is just ends up in theological mumbojumbo. I don't remember Parmenides giving any explanation of "why" Being.

>>18770409
I mean you can go deeper down the rabbit hole and start arguing against time and causation if you want to, and Buddhist philosophers have done this. And such Buddhists are the very same who distilled all that into verses on sunyata.

so the core of hindu theology is based on talmudic squabbles calling each other buddhists, is that it?

>>18770473
I mean someone is going to say nuh-uh actually it's based on exegesis of the Upanishads as if they didn't understand what you were getting at, but yeah.

>>18767690
imagine thinking that your created flesh is a prison and not a gift

>>18770409
>not why they are
It absolutely answers why things are, the infinite historical chain that precedes them. What you really mean is that that chain never ends. In that sense, yes you're absolutely right, Sunyata boldly implies that there are limits to what man can know.

There's no reason to do otherwise in good faith, of course. The only reason that Abrahamics argue for a Created universe is to circularly defend the cosmology of the Torah. Aristotle and Plato both used the kind of "one day for no reason everything popped into being from nothing" argument that Abrahamics posit as an example of the precise ludicrousness that a Created universe would entail.

>>18767795
>Feels good to be able to worship the demons
Cringe.

>>18771310
You will never be a woman.

>>18771321
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

>>18769900
>Brahman alone remains real as the immortal Entity
Okay, so in other words... nothing but him has meaning... so the world I actually LIVE in is nihilistic? epic religion brother!

>>18764631
I always thank my God the Holy Spirit for leading me away from non-dualism.
In the end, it's all an experimentalistic Americanist cope for losing Christ. There is no certainty in it. All the non-dualist has is his fragmented and incoherent dabbling in multiple contradictory ideas/religions. It's like a 'buffet religion', wherein you pick and choose what intellectual/spiritualised McDonald's fast-food fits more with your preconceived denial of Christ.

>>18771690
>everyone is coping except ME
Do you even go to church or are you just posturing about being a holy based christer to anonymous denizens of a filipino rotoscoping forum? Your religion is the original fast food, served entirely to the slave population of the Roman empire, promising them all the bad rich people were going to suffer for eternity while they could be blessed with eternal fried chicken.

>>18771735
seething hindu larper

@18771735
>promising them all the bad rich people were going to suffer
The empire itself accepted Christ, which includes rich people like the emperor...

>>18771878
Nope. Seethe all you like. Better to have dabbled in things than to be a 2016igger who thinks posturing as a pious Christian on a haitian mudpile forum makes him superior.

>>18771908
Yes after the entire servile population and the army had been converted and the average tenure of an emperor was down to six weeks, they assumed (incorrectly) that embracing Christianity would hold the Roman empire together.

>>18771735
I'm not that anon but I'm an altar server and help run my parish bookstore. As evil as this site is, it's the only site I enjoy visiting

>>18771735
>Do you even go to church or are you just posturing
That's what I'd like to ask the non-dualist. Do you guys actually do any worship to your idols, or just post on 4channel?

>>18771991
Good for you but he's basically projecting that everyone else is a cafeteria catholic except him. Very transparent and insecure, the tinge of American culture-war panic also gives it away a bit. A serious Christian would know not to rely on the comfort of the herd especially in the United States, which has never had a consistent denominational majority beyond vaguely Protestant anyway.

>>18772038
>cafeteria catholic
All of hinduism is literally this though. You either pick the intellectualist rationalist sects if you're inclined that way, or pick the fornication-magick sect if you're even more depraved.

>>18764631
Yeah I don’t know why people (even types like Evola) are interested in literally every spiritual doctrine besides their own native one (Christianity). Christianity is far more interesting, richer, and epic than any of these other weird foreign joke religions.

Ironically I was fully converted to Christianity in a philosophy class in college reading Rudolf Otto. First 5 pages blew my mind at a young age

>>18772046
Yes that's normal on both sides of the old world before the Christianization of the Roman empire and the rise of Islam in the Middle East. Christianity comes from an extremely insular tribal culture that somehow made the transition to urban living and then merged with hellenism to become a totalizing imperial religion, then it coped with this by allowing every town to have its own saint or marian cult so long as they rolled back to Jesus and paid taxes to the pope.

>>18766123
If people read the greeks, they wouldnt fall into this trap. people who fall into the "trap" are midwits and brainlets and have no buiness exploring these modalities. They should stick to basic religion and know thier place.

>>18772071
>Christianity comes from an extremely insular tribal culture
Based

>>18772071
>Yes that's normal
But it's not true. Truth isn't found in relativistic McDonald's and KFC style inquiry and dabbling.

>>18772049
>everyone is full of shit but me
You should read Jan Assmann. Monotheists invented this idea that god can't even be depicted and then they pride themselves on having discovered him and consider everyone else to be retards. They also set up the world for the spread of atheism by denying other peoples' gods to be real or translatable to theirs. It wouldn't take long for Christians to begin denying their own god. Polytheistic religion has lasted all of recorded history. Christianity is on life support at 2000.

>>18772095
Religion isnt a funkopop popularity contest. Christian God is the One. End of discussion.

>>18772087
Christianity itself is not tribal the way its Old Testament characters are; it has only retained the most superficial traces of this, which are to treat Christians as in and non-Christians as out.
>>18772093
You're right of course. Truth was only ever found in a violent eastern Roman province in 33 ad.

>>18772095
>denying other peoples' gods to be real
We don't deny the reality of demons though.
>Polytheistic religion has lasted all of recorded history
Polytheism only began after the fall. Monotheism has existed ever since the first human (Adam) was created.

>>18772113
You are literally doing the funko pop bit with your super limited edition run of god. Then there's a new saint to collect every few decades until people stop believing in miracles and the church is too embarassed to canonize more people.

>>18772116
>they're just evil demons
This is exactly my point. This is like the Macabbean revolt. Same attitude. How dare you call YHWH "Zeus." That's who you are larping as.

>>18772095
>Jan Assmann
>Assmann suggests that the ancient Egyptian religion had a more significant influence on Judaism than is generally acknowledged
>NOOO JUDAISM WAS ORIGINALLY PAGAN SEE THIS PASSAGE WHERE ISRAEL IS CHIDED FOR MAKING SACRIFICE TO PAGAN GODS PROVES IT!!!

>He too no longer holds this theory,
oh no no no

>>18772136
>This is exactly my point.
That is literally what they are though. They don't even claim to be anything more when you commune with them and learn it from them directly.

>>18772166
In Hellenic theology the gods communicate through daemons. Since christers only read one book, they morphed these into demons and have claimed pagan gods are just demons ever since, while their own god never talks to them except through angels. But those are totally not demons.

>>18772160
Literally a case of the "they hated him because he told the truth" meme

>>18772181
>have claimed pagan gods are just demons ever since
These gods were claimed to be demons before Christianity though. Any being demanding sacrifice that is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is necessarily a demon, since such behaviour is repugnant to God only a demon would try to subvert you into practicing it.
>while their own god never talks to them except through angels.
This is blatantly false. I don't know how/why you believe this.

>>18772181
>never talks to them except through angels
That's the Islamic heresy, not Christianity.

>>18772160
not him but I'm just gonna mention that in t he egyptian mystery schools it was taught that the gods were just different aspects of the One.

>>18772207
The god of Abraham had a temple cult centered around sacrifices until the Romans destroyed the Temple for the second time in abrahamic history. You are completely dishonest or ignorant.

>>18772095
>ASSman
you've gotta be kidding
>Monotheists invented
Polytheists invented a gay LARP and now read fake authors like ASSman
>pride themselves on discovering him
WAHHH people they they're own views are correct WAHHHHh im a big fat fucking baby
>monotheistic religious people caused atheism!!!
holy fuck, is this why polytheistic people are becoming atheists too??? wow monotheists did all that
>Christians to begin denying their own god
oxymoron
>Polytheistic religion has lasted all of recorded history
>RECORDED history
ASSman told me!!!!

grow up stupid faggot

>>18772215
Ah yes they're wrong too, even though by Christianity's own logic of completing its predecessor in terms of monotheism, Christianity has no defense against the successive Islam except militarily. Wherever the latter is planted and not removed swiftly it eventually replaces the former.

>>18772113
You think God revealed himself only to the Jews?
No, I wouldn't trust a (((Paul))) to tell me that salvation only comes from the Jews.

>>18772237
Telling christers to read Assmann is the greatest guaranteed replies post of all time. Your response is exactly as I said it would be earlier, call everyone else a retard and say you've got the real religion, then pat yourself on the back.

>>18772223
Nowhere did I say that sacrifice is bad. Sacrifice to a created being (like a fallen angel) is bad, but not sacrifice to God.
>>18772243
>Christianity has no defense
Islam is just a punishment for us falling away from the faith. The Day of Judgement shall be our defense against anyone who spreads it unrepentantly.

>>18772095
>You should read Jan Assmann.

>>18772263
>let me just see what my copes are for this, oh yes God is just testing me with Islam... need to trust in the plan
How is that working out in the cradle lands of Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt?

>>18772247
>You think God revealed himself only to the Jews?
Adam, Noah and Abraham weren't Jews though?

>>18772272
>don't read that it says a thing that makes me sneed

>>18772260
>le' based history channel-tier ASSman egyptologist!!!
you dont know about how the elites like to do wordplay to laugh at their subjects do you
>Your response is exactly as I said it would be earlier, call everyone else a retard
just you

>>18772283
Holy kek get a load of this cope

@18772278
God literally does this all the time in the Old Testament. Whenever Israel falls away from God, it gets punished by invasion, exile, etc.

>>18772095
>They also set up the world for the spread of atheism by denying other peoples' gods to be real

>the historical Jesus and (((Paul))) are in conflict!!! Look! This modern Bugman Israeli Research Center paper proved it!

>>18772263
>Islam is just a punishment for us falling away from the faith
Not the same one you are talking to, but how is islam any different from judaism
with its emphasis on the oneness of God and the acceptance of all the prophets
What is islam doing wrong exactly that judaism isn't doing? Rejection of jesus as God? Jews already do that even worse, look at the talmud. At least muslims say that he was a prophet.
Christianity was a psyop by the jews to subvert the gentiles and pin all their sins on them, and islam came to correct that.
I don't agree with most of this video but it gives an overview of the early history of christianity.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AGqrli7cdC3Y/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jTog0C2X0cPh/

>>18772292
>muh elites
Tell me who do you think thumbed through the bible, saw "render unto caesar" and ran with it all the way?

>>18772324
>Rejection of jesus as God?
Yes, it's not enough to just say that he was merely a prophet. You still end up away from God if you distort the Gospel Christ preached even slightly, which Islamists constantly do to suit their own needs, agreeing with it when it says something vaguely Islam-like (Christ saying that God is One) and denying it as a false Gospel whenever Christ claims to be this same One God.

Like Christ said,
>Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

>subvert the gentiles
Giving the gentiles a share in the eternal kingdom of the God of Israel sure seems like a great way to subvert them. Jews hate Christianity because it reminds them of their loss, they lost their high position of the only nation with a covenant with God.

>>18772313
>jewish man who hated the christians' guts and genocided whole sects is now the number one authority and is the one who wrote 13 books out of 36 of the new testament.
>Oh you need to abandon all the laws btw just because I said so
This is a very old jewish technique of infiltrating any movement, become its leaders and then subvert it.
It's like trusting Ben Shapiro to save the future of the white race.

>>18772324
>acceptance of all the prophets
Also, what good is accepting Christ and King David as prophets when they can't even show you the prophetic works associated with their prophethood? Why did God let these books be distorted or lost without trace? Quranic "prophets" are fanfic OCs at best.

Why are pagan larpers always seething? Go jerk off on a dead rabbit in a forest or something. Stop thinking about monotheism if its so painful for you.

>>18772375
There is nowhere Islam coexists with Christianity that Christianity does not decline. It always has to be removed by military force or it eclipses Christianity. It is the automobile to the Christian buggy and represents the most efficient form of monotheism. There are entire tracts of western civilization that were permanently lost to Islam. Christianity lives on borrowed time under atheist governments and there has a vigor-less zoological existence.

>>18772387
>jewish man who hated the christians' guts and genocided whole sects
Paul repented after witnessing Christ's light and God forgave him. It's as simple as that.
>then subvert it
How does he subvert it? Why does the Holy Spirit not intervene and teach us about this subversion prior to the modern Israeli age of new critical "scholarship"? The Paul being in conflict theory is literally predicate on unbelief.

>>18772403
This would be applicable if Muslims werent forcing converts with the threat of death.

>>18772413
Yes they literally took the facts of life, death and taxes, and baked them into the rules for governing outgroups. Tax them and yeet them over the city walls if they complain.

>>18772403
Being fast-spreading isn't an argument for the truth of Islam. It only means that it's well suited for the current anti-Christic spirit of the world. Paganism was also like this in the old world. Christianity is prophesied to decline over the ages until only a small majority is left before the end times and Christ's return, so even if most of the churches get destroyed right now it wouldn't be a reason to believe in Islam.

>>18772375
Jesus isn't the "son" of God, because we are all God's sons and have his divine essence within us, and this essence can only have one source which we call the One and True God.
>distort the Gospel Christ preached even slightly, which Islamists constantly do
Examples?
>only nation with a covenant with God
That's not true. Do you even know how they got the covenant in the first place? All of their knowledge was stolen from other civilizations like Persians and the Babylonians, even their language was a debased version of a the sacred language which the Celtic druids used in their rituals. They literally stole it. Even described in the symbolic story of Jacob and Esau.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAAmwtdP1bE
>inb4 celts were hebrews
out of africa tier argument.

>>18772439
Oh no I'm not debating truth here I'm viewing religion as a sort of medium or technology that people use to fulfill various needs and wants. Buddhism has the same copes about being steamrolled by Islam but the mountain ranges of central Asia were a decent buffer. That being said, supposing monotheism were true, Islam doesn't have to deal with God incarnating as a man literally just once and raising himself from the dead to prove a point and then it never taking place again, and having that whole sequence of events be crucial to one's faith. Islam can just say, one god, one prophet, and that is literally what they recite and print on their black banners and have done so for 1400 years.

>I'm viewing religion as a sort of medium or technology that people use to fulfill various needs and wants
only modern bugmen do this.

>>18772390
You don't seem informed about the grand jew game of exterminating the gentile guardian angels by taking advantage of the spiritual advancement they made (which resulted in all the prophets you mentioned). Jews really are only special in the sense that they preserved the knowledge and ways to communicate with God and the Angles, and they are abusing it by taking the path of the left hand.
Ever heard of the Septuagint? The torah was corrupted too to fit a Kabbalist vision for a future where only they exist and everyone else is either dead or their slave.
They had this idea that each verse in the torah should correspond to a year in the jewish calendar and manipulated their scriptures as such.
Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRI1TToxKjQ
Literally the jew's only advantage is that other traditions were lost or overpowered by their new summoned golem they falsely called "christianity"
There is a reason a verse like this exists in the Quran:
"And they [i.e., the disbelievers] planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners." Quran 3:54

>>18772499
The other theory for the Islamic outcompeting of Christianity is
>god is just testing us and will save us from our rivals at the end of days
Which explains nothing.

>>18772531
>Islamic outcompeting
Your presupposition of different religions being different technologies to pick from is a false one, so it naturally leads to this mistaken notion of Islam and Christianity being in some kind dualistic competition. Christ will always find a way to join the people who seek Him to his Church, so we could lose literally all land to Islam and live under Islamic states and it would not mean Islam outcompeting Christianity in our view.

>>18772563
It's not "false" it's how this works over the larger scale of history. Were the crusades, the reconquista, or colonialism not competitions? You personally believe in Christianity so you have to deny anything that challenges your faith as an institution, but that won't change the fact that it will be largely gone from the Middle East (and Europe) over the next century or so.

>>18772410
>paul repented
You just don't go around killing all other sects of christianity who might have preserved some knowledge about jesus and then proclaim yourself to be a prophet and write a third of the bible without even seeing jesus.
Sounds like similar behavior we see in our modern time.
Why should I trust Paul?
>How does he subvert it? Why does the Holy Spirit not intervene and teach us about this subversion prior to the modern Israeli age of new critical
It did and Gabriel appeared to Mohamed and revealed Islam and the Quran to him.
"Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. The Messiah ˹himself˺ said, “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah—my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever associates others with Allah ˹in worship˺ will surely be forbidden Paradise by Allah. Their home will be the Fire. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers"
Quran 5:72
>inb4 why does God let Christianity be corrupted in the first place
God gave everyone free will, jews tried to kill their messiah (because they didn't like the idea of "loving their neighbor" or gentiles sharing with them anything) and have it their way, they also try influence the world and push certain agendas by relying on literally satan and demons (which they must continue to fuel with sacrifices and "rituals")
That's why the last prophet wasn't from israel signalling the end of their covenant and basically God throwing them in the trash bin.

>>18772527
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRI1TToxKjQ
WTF!!!!!
Does that mean they will start a war before the end of september??

>>18768331
Great, then the question of dualism is completely pointless. Either everything I experience is a product of the soul, or everything I experience is a product of matter.

>>18773677
The internal light and presence by which you experience matter differs from matter

The brahmin breaking lately has been quite devastating. It's almost too hard to watch.

>>18772649
> This faggot thinks he can judge St.Paul
Fuck off.