/lit/ - Literature

>>19067844
>What did I miss?
The Old Testament and how Christ fulfills the prophesies and is truly the savior of mankind.

>>19067844
What did you like about John?

>>19067865
I was surprised he liked John best. It's easily the most abstract of the 4.

>>19067858
No you don't get it, I just don't believe this stuff happened. I know about the prophecies.
>>19067865
It felt more emotional than the synoptic gospels, and I liked the introduction.

>>19067877

>>19067887
Yeah this does absolutely nothing for me. Suicide bombers don't make Islam true. The only recorded eyewitness testimony from what I've read on the subject is Paul's. There's no actual historical record of anyone maintaining their testimony under threat of torture and when afforded the possibility to retract themselves, if you have any such document I'd like to see.
Bottom line is, I'm not swayed by testimonies from 2000 years ago. Historians don't accept that as historical proof either

>>19067877
>I just don't believe this stuff happened.
So he just happened to fulfill all of the prophecies written centuries before and somehow his disciples, despite having every predisposition not to believe so, inexplicably began declaring that this guy had bodily risen from the dead and that they had seen him risen? And even enemies of Jesus had sightings and came to believe?

Check out some William Lane Craig debates on this topic with atheists and read pic related.
https://youtu.be/akd6qzFYzX8

>>19067918
No, he didn't fulfill anything, it was made up. The sightings aren't rigorously documented and aren't accepted by historians.
Look, every religion has good and convincing arguments for it, otherwise it wouldn't survive. But let's not act as if Christianity is somehow exempt from the leap of faith

>>19067945
Yet it is accepted even by skeptical atheist scholars like Ehrman and Lüdemann that postmortem sightings of Jesus can be taken as historical facts. Now that alone doesn’t give us good evidence for believing in the resurrection, but all of the information when viewed together gives us a good rational foundation for believing that Jesus truly did raise from the dead. Not to say that it is 100% irrefutable from this evidence alone, religious experiences will ultimately be more important, but the Christian has a very good reason to believe what he does given the fact that the prophecies were fulfilled, the fact that empty tomb is accepted by many historians to be historical and not legendary and the postmortem appearances. Together these give us a very interesting picture that alternative accounts like body substitution, swoon hypotheses, cognitive dissonance, stolen body hypotheses and others fail to adequately explain

>>19067909
Suicide bombers aren't claiming to be direct, personal witnesses of anything.

>>19067909
The apostles did not kill themselves.

>>19067877
Interesting, and surprising. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone describe it that way, but I think I understand what you might mean. Have you tried reading the psalms? You might like them for a similar reason.

>>19068002
>>19068012
My point is that religious devotion is not evidence for anything. Plenty of people in history have laid down their life for various causes.
>>19067978
>all of the information when viewed together gives us a good rational foundation
It's very shoddy. Not sufficient for me, I think it would sway someone who would already be drawn to Christianity. A lot of ancient history is dubious and I'm not ready to accept a full reworking of ontology based on a single recorded eyewitness testimony from Paul and alleged testimonies from other people.
>>19068013
Is it surprising really? John is described as the most loved apostle so doesn't it make sense his gospel would be the most sentimental one?
And no I haven't, I planned on reading Ecclesiastes next whenever I pick up the Bible again but I might check out the Psalms as well.

>>19068040
No. In the Christian sense, love and sentiment are quite distinct. Christ demonstrates what is meant by love when he says that to lie down one's life for a brother is the height of love. Sentimentalism is attachment, which he preaches against.

>>19067844
>I dont get it
Keep reading, maybe try Romans which is good for a non-Jewish reader to understand the significance of Christ's ministry.

>>19068049
I mean that I found it more emotional than the synoptics. Except some parts of Luke maybe. Matthew was dry, Mark was succinct, John was surprisingly visceral and passionate. Just my own take.

>>19067909
>Suicide bombers don't make Islam true.
Direct witnesses and disciples to Jesus were killed and tortured in the most horrific ways imaginable. Peter was crucified upside down, Andrew was crucified on an X-shaped cross and took days to die, preaching until his last breath, James son of Zebedee was beheaded, Philip was hanged, Bartholomew was flayed by knives in India, Matthew was martyred, Thomas was killed by a spear in India, James son of Alphaeus was crucified and then sawed to pieces in Egypt, Thaddaeus was killed by arrows in Persia, and Simon was crucified as well. Even Paul was beheaded as well and he never knew Jesus when he was in his human form. Them believing something isn’t enough to say it’s true, but they firmly believed it, and when put with other facts we know, it seems like something happened

>>19068040
We have multiple independent sources describing the fact that Jesus was crucified, buried by Joseph of Arimathea, that an empty tomb was discovered by a group of women followers and that many became to believe from firsthand experience that he had been resurrected and were willing to die for it. Even liberal historians will accept these things—what is the best explanation? You’re not going to get 100% solid video evidence of this, that’s not the point

>>19068071
>>19068087
>Direct witnesses and disciples to Jesus were killed and tortured in the most horrific ways imaginable
Is this actually documented, and did they have the possibility to retract their testimony?
I'm not saying these people didn't die painfully or that they weren't persecuted but there is no actual concrete data. The only genuine eyewitness testimony is Paul's. Christianity is the biggest religion in the world, it's been solidifying its doctrine for 2000 years, so I just don't trust this kind of data. Manipulation and distortion of fact are common throughout history and I have no way to know. Taking these shoddy testimonies and concluding that this means Jesus rose from the dead is not the most rational way to look at things imo. If you want the entire ontology of the world to be reworked from the ground up, you need to do better than a few alleged testimonies (even if they're independent). This is just not trustworthy.

>>19068094
>Christianity is the biggest religion in the world, it's been solidifying its doctrine for 2000 years, so I just don't trust this kind of data
Luckily we have thousands and thousands of NT manuscripts, fragments, and quotations from Church Fathers which show us that the text is uncorrupted and the same as it was almost two millennia ago. The fact that the Jews have essentially the same OT further supports that the prophecies weren’t just cooked up by the Church either.

>Taking these shoddy testimonies and concluding that this means Jesus rose from the dead is not the most rational way to look at things imo
Only if you have some sort of solely materialistic / naturalistic worldview.

>>19067877
>just don't believe this stuff happened
yeah that's how I feel about the Renaissance

>>19068121
I would expect a religion to be self-consistent and I would especially expect its scripture to back up its main doctrine. I don't see why the prophecies thing couldn't be an invention, but that's not even really relevant.
>Only if you have some sort of solely materialistic / naturalistic worldview.
I don't think so. I don't consider myself a hardcore atheist. I've always been a mostly apathetic lukewarm agnostic for all my life and I accept that physicalism might be wrong even though it currently seems to be the most appropriate model to describe reality. If it were to be wrong, though, I would also assume the true nature of reality to be way outside the scope of any theological doctrine. If you place yourself in a neutral position, why wouldn't it be?
Even if a God did exist, there is nothing to indicate it would be this or that God from scripture. Even if a supreme reality did exist, there is nothing to indicate it would correspond to whatever descriptions have been given of it throughout history. I don't trust mystical experiences either for obvious reasons.

>>19067844
>What did I miss?
You missed nothing. You had the expected response to an old tome that to modern eyes looks like a cross between spam emails and viral memes about everybody on the bus applauding, and has a narrative structure similar to Tails Gets Trolled.

>>19068192
Yeah this is the conclusion I came to as well (less dismissively) but still, am I wrong in giving them a very slight benefit of the doubt? You can meme about it all you want but a lot of people on /lit/ are somewhat intelligent, a lot of people here believe in this book and seem to think it's rational. I'm playing devil's advocate here, personally I think the supernatural parts are not true. But it does seem to sway a lot of people.

>>19067887
It's not a lie if you believe it.

>>19068219
They're not really hurting anybody by having faith and believing it. I still don't really understand them. I think fear keeps them believing. I see the promised punishment aspect of disbelief as a careful bluff that works most people into folding their cards and backing off rather than calling the bluff. Their religion is very adaptable though so it doesn't really bother me if fictions take over, some of them can be quite adaptive and healthy, but it still baffles me that so many buy into it.

>>19068154
>it currently seems to be the most appropriate model to describe reality
Materialism abolishes knowledge, and as a result, science.
>Even if a supreme reality did exist, there is nothing to indicate it would correspond to whatever descriptions have been given of it throughout history.
Something does indeed indicate it would correspond to descriptions. Have you ever read any theology on this subject?

>>19068253
We pretty much see things the same way. The adaptability of Christianity is the part I think makes it so attractive to most because it has a way of taking everything into account. Still, I'm the same as you, I just don't "get" it. I can't see it as anything else than a superstition.
>>19068264
Materialism and physicalism are not the same thing. There is currently no evidence for a metaphysical reality of any kind.
>Something does
What?
>theology
On the subject of mystical experiences? I've read some, but it pertains to Buddhism, not Christianity. I've read a bit about hesychasm as well. I've been wanting to maybe take a look at Eckhart sometime but I have other priorities right now. Either way, regardless of the religion it boils down to the same thing overall. I dismiss mystical experiences in the same way that I dismiss a guy telling me he saw God on DMT. The similarity between experiences can easily be chalked up to neurological and psychological factors.
You're probably going to laugh at me for suggesting such a sulfurous individual but RAW's book on the subject of consciousness and biases (Prometheus Rising), for all its inaccuracies and pseudoscientific statements, makes a good point of stating how deeply ingrained biases are, and how religious experiences can indeed be attributed to a certain kind of nonstandard brain function. I find this explanation satisfactory, same for NDEs.

>>19068285
I'm >>19068253 but I also want to mention that it's probably no coincidence we see things in a similar way and have also both read Prometheus Rising.

>>19067909
We know James died at the hands of the Pharisees, Christ's most vociferous and literate opponents in the beginning. Had James denied his faith in Christ at the end, they would have written about it. This is just one example.

The ancient churches described in the NT exist to this day; that's a fact. For these churches to come into being, they must have been founded by Christ's first followers, His disciples. A man can die for something he knows to be true; he can even die for something he only believes to be true... but a man cannot die for something he knows to be untrue. With this in mind, it's hard to imagine the apostles continuing to preach under threat of torture and death if they knew the resurrection did not take place. If any of the twelve denied Christ, news would have spread amongst the early Christians, and, given that the entire enterprise relies on faith, it either would have fallen apart there and then or else it would have fractured and we would have the name or names of those apostles who renounced the faith. Neither the Romans nor the Pharisees record any apostle denying the faith; they only tell us of their martyrdom. Given the fact that both Rome and the Pharisees hated Christians at the time, this seems like an odd detail to leave out if it did occur.

>>19068345
Probably. It's a really good book for learning how to take a step back from your personal biases, if you have any book recommendations in the same vein I'd be very interested.
>>19068392
I know the arguments. But see, everything you're saying is deduction based on vague historical data. The only thing it suggests is that there don't seem to be any glaring inaccuracies in the narrative that would make the story of Jesus' life incoherent.

>>19068409
>But see, everything you're saying is deduction based on vague historical data.
What reason do you have to doubt the narrative? In its broad strokes, at least

>>19068409
>I know the arguments. But see, everything you're saying is deduction based on vague historical data.
You could say this about more of established historical fact than you probably realise. Much of what we think we know about our past is based on deduction. No-one is saying it's possible to scientifically prove every aspect of the account; that's where faith comes in.

The arguments around the resurrection aren’t supposed to what makes you into a Christian. If anything they can arouse interest in Christianity and can edify faith and apologetics in those who are already Christian. For the non-Christian skeptic, indications through prayer will be much more powerful. It was those that brought me to Christianity even despite being familiar with all of the resurrection evidence

>>19068441
>What reason do you have to doubt the narrative?
Outlandish claims about supernatural events with witnesses have been made in the past, and I disregard those as well.
>>19068449
But I do realize. History is far less set in stone than most think. I am skeptical of historical data from antiquity (and beyond) as a whole.
A single recorded eyewitness testimony and a few alleged testimonies would never be accepted as evidence for a man's resurrection in any court or assembly of any kind.
>that's where faith comes in
Absolutely, we agree. I simply don't find the narrative compelling or personally touching enough to have faith in it. Much like I don't have faith in Muhammad, it's not exclusive to Christian claims.

>>19067887
Amazing argument, North Korea must really be the greatest country in the world after all and Kim Il-Sung is watching over us all as the heavenly leader.

>>19068472
>indications through prayer
I distrust this for the same reason I distrust the Buddhist claims surrounding sotapanna.
If you've found unwavering faith though, good for you (sincerely).

>>19068481
>Outlandish claims about supernatural events with witnesses have been made in the past, and I disregard those as well.
A priori?

>>19067844
1 Corinthians 1:18-24
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[a]

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

>>19068492
>a persecuted and crucified Jewish preacher and his followers are the exact same as some fat Korean wannabe god-king wielding the instruments of state, media and military
Okay, buddy

>>19068481
>I simply don't find the narrative compelling or personally touching enough to have faith in it.
Then I encourage you to speak to a priest who you believe to be of good and earnest character. After all, the Gospel is to be preached, not simply read.

>>19068503

Citing scripture doesn't prove anything. The bible is full of poetic "gotcha" self-reinforcing quotes like these.

>>19068521
You just further prove the point of the scripture I shared. It's got nothing to do with a "gotcha" or anything.

>Midwit approaches Gospels through jaundiced perspective and walks away disappointed
Go figure.
>>19068481
Oh, so you're another midwit materialist dullard who's accepted the axioms of his age because it requires the least effort and does not require any personal commitment.
There is more concrete evidence for Christianity than any other metaphysical system.
https://media.ascensionpress.com/2020/05/22/what-can-the-shroud-of-turin-tell-us-about-jesus-final-hours/
https://reasontobelieve.com.au/eucharistic-miracle/

>>19068506
No, Kim Il-Sung really existed and we have the historical records to prove it.

>>19068521
Do you, or do you not claim that you don't believe any of this is real, or happened? And beyond this, beyond what the faith implies, do you even acknowledge the legitimacy of there existing more than what is physically and materially provable? (I'm pointing to the general idea of Spirituality here).

>>19067844

BASED sensible atheist offers a literary opinion which anons are bound to respect (because it involves a poetic sensibility which indicates non-bugman humanity, the idea/reality that an atheist is capable of having such a sensibility is confusing to the believer) but with each attempt at converting him he bats each one away: "Nope, not buying it."

>>19068528

It absolutely does (have to do with a "gotcha"), Christianity isn't special (or more true) among belief systems for having tautological proverbs which amount to "we're right, they're wrong, and their being wrong just proves that we're right." It isn't even an interesting sentiment, but it is psychologically useful since it reinforces the delusional architecture: citing scripture is a nice way of feeling like you belong in the in-group. Banalities like these are found in every complex belief system.

>>19068564
Just say you don't understand and move on with your life.

>>19068567
I thought the whole point of faith is that it is something unintelligible that you don't arrive at from an understanding, and is something you have to choose. Why have you suddenly switched gears into it being about intelligibility, what is he supposed to understand but doesn't?

>>19068576
Further proving my point
>you don't understand, move on with your life

>>19068576
>There's nothing more to say to you. Good day.

>>19068576
>I thought the whole point of faith is that it is something unintelligible that you don't arrive at from an understanding,
WHo told you that nonsense? God has always been held to be understandable, just not fully comprehendable because of human limitations

>>19068564
Do you not think its more than a little odd that Christianity was both the world's first globally minded religion and the world's first successful globally minded religion? Is that not a little like dreaming up a plane, building it, and then somehow getting it to fly on the first try? Christ said that the way was like a mustard seed initially, and it was, but that it would grow to encompass the entire world. And it did. No other religious figure had made such a bold claim up until that point. Christ was the first to do so, and He was the first to be right in His prediction.

>>19068599
*it's

>>19068599
If it wasn't them, it would've been something else. And that something else would justify its own spread in terms of its own absolute truth in the exact same way.

>>19068599

One belief system or other was bound to stick and get very popular eventually, simply by chance. Your plane analogy is tortured.

>>19068498
Without compelling evidence, why not?
>>19068516
I'm not interested in converting. I've talked to priests before (casually, not really about theology) but since the very premises of the religion leaves me indifferent, I see no reason to go to one, for the same reason I don't feel the need to go to an imam or guru rinpoche.
>>19068531
kek you're a walking stereotype

>>19068616
>I'm not interested in converting. I've talked to priests before (casually, not really about theology) but since the very premises of the religion leaves me indifferent, I see no reason to go to one, for the same reason I don't feel the need to go to an imam or guru rinpoche.
Your situation is not unique. For many it takes a genuine experience to see the value in the Gospel. I speak from experience.

>>19068609
>If it wasn't them, it would've been something else.
>>19068612
>One belief system or other was bound to stick and get very popular eventually

You're not getting what I am saying. The fact is: Christ was the first to try, and He was also somehow the first to succeed. This is unprecedented.

>>19068616
>you're a walking stereotype
And you're barely moving. Just sitting and passively soaking the two-bit skepticism of the age.
>>19068609
>>19068612
Do you have a real argument or just "dude trust me"? How do you explain how a small system on the fringes of the empire disrupted the Imperial Cult after centuries of suppression?

>>19068632
You know what they say, the lie travels half way around the world before the truth has even got its boots on. Ability to spread is not related to how true something is, just how virile it is.

>>19068644
>How do you explain how a small system on the fringes of the empire disrupted the Imperial Cult after centuries of suppression?
Christianity was always an ambitious political movement that generates power for its elite caste and destabilised existing hierarchies. Christianity *is* the "empire". It's similar to how liberalism/nationalism operated in the 19th century. Once again, this doesn't mean these belief systems are true, just that they are very adapted to their environments.

>>19068285
>What?
Go read the experts sir. I'm just saying that you're wrong in making so many assumptions about the way things are. I find the same thing with so many people "there is no proof of x" t. didn't actually search properly. Go read Edward Feser. Also please stop talking to me as if your words have meaning. Meaning is not a physical thing therefore it doesn't exist therefore your words are... Well I can't say that they "are" something at all actually, under your belief system. Essential you've managed to break down all things to chaos, good job! But there's no proof of order I guess, so we're done here.

>>19068655
>Christianity was always an ambitious political movement that generates power for its elite caste and destabilised existing hierarchies.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Yeah, real ambitious.

>>19068645
If it's simply a matter of virility, why had no-one else before Christ ever tried to be as bold and as globally minded? Why did no-one even think to, let alone actually succeed, as He did? Even as an atheist, this has to give you pause.

>>19068662
Faux humility
>>19068664
I guess no other religion was as blood thirsty and imperially minded as Christianity? Islam gave it a run for its money though. Now liberalism operates in the same niche. As a Christian, this must give you pause. You must look at liberalism's global reach under the American aegis and think, wow this is a belief system pushed by power, therefore it must be correct. That's what you must think.

>>19068694
>I guess no other religion was as blood thirsty and imperially minded as Christianity?
Turning the other cheek is imperially minded? Sending your followers as peacemakers, as lambs, is bloodthirsty? The radical notion of loving your neighbour as yourself is violence? What you are talking about are the actions of a few imperialists centuries down the line, not the Christianity of the Gospels or the Church.
>As a Christian, this must give you pause.
Not really because, again, my point is that Jesus was the first to promote the idea, and He was the first to succeed. Islam and Liberalism are not first in anything. There is nothing original about either.

>>19068694
>Faux humility
Okay, faggot. You've got me genuinely curious now. How is "pay your taxes and don't chimp out" faux humility?

>>19068616
>Without compelling evidence, why not?
Inductively sure it might be improbable but there’s no reason one can say that it can’t happen

>>19068714
You're having trouble with the disconnect between real meaning and formal meaning. James Burnham talks a lot about this in The Machiavellians. There is stated preference and revealed preference. There is what you say, and what you do. There is what the text formally means, and what it actually really means. When Christians say turn the other cheek, they are communicating that they are not the aggressor. In reality, they wage wars to ensure their religion is supreme and dominant. The crusades were not turning the other cheek. Don't ask us to contend with the internal propaganda of this system, and to entirely discount how it actually acts in the real world.
>>19068718
Because he claimed he was the direct Son of God and had a personal connection to the creator of the universe. He claimed he was a divine messiah and openly challenged the political authorities of his time. That's not humble, bro!

>>19068741
>Because he claimed he was the direct Son of God and had a personal connection to the creator of the universe. He claimed he was a divine messiah and openly challenged the political authorities of his time. That's not humble, bro!
And yet he still didn’t chimp like all the other wannabe Jewish messiahs of his era

>>19068770
He chimped in the temple.

>>19068741
>openly challenged the political authorities of his time.
Except he didn't. He told people to get along with the system they were in and pay their taxes.

>>19068741
>In reality, they wage wars to ensure their religion is supreme and dominant.
The vast majority of wars waged by Christians were against other Christians so this falls to pieces.
>The crusades were not turning the other cheek.
The first crusade was a long overdue response to centuries of Muslim aggression. By this time, the Muslims had already conquered Spain, had very nearly conquered France, and were routinely raiding and slaving up and down the Mediterranean coast with impunity. The rest of the crusades were either about protecting what had been gained from the first or else attempting to help local allies. This did not always go as planned, but little in this world does. Christendom has also brought education, medicine, vital infrastructure, running water, an end to slavery, and access to the wider world to many who could never have dreamed of having these things otherwise.

>>19068778
>Oy vey! My lost shekels!

>>19068778
He had to fulfill scripture there

>>19068741
>Christians say turn the other cheek, they are communicating that they are not the aggressor. In reality, they wage wars to ensure their religion is supreme and dominant. The crusades were not turning the other cheek
“To everything there is a season,
and a time for every purpose under heaven:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to break down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to cast away stones and a time to gather stones together,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to count as lost,
a time to keep and a time to discard,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

>>19068779
What's your explanation for why the Pharisees were absolutely freaking the fuck out and trying to track him down and kill him, if he wasn't challenging their authority?
>>19068780
Pivoting away from the issue. You know very well Christianity did not ascend to dominance through turning the other cheek. Just accept there is a difference between what groups (usually political groups) say and what they do.

>>19068741
For once, I wish you people would look up what "turning the other cheek" actually means.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/turn-the-other-cheek

>>19068778
The text itself implies he only directed the animals out with the whip and overturned the tables of money; it doesn't actually say He whipped the money changers themselves. Using a whip on such animals would have caused no damage or pain due to their thick hides.

>>19068810
>What's your explanation for why the Pharisees were absolutely freaking the fuck out and trying to track him down and kill him, if he wasn't challenging their authority?
The Pharisees were one of many sects with no real authority. They were Edomite pretenders who were paranoid through their tenuous situation.

>>19068810
>You know very well Christianity did not ascend to dominance through turning the other cheek.
I would argue that they did. The greater ingroup co-operation and loyalty fostered by such compassionate principles are part of what enabled European nations to stabilise and become leading lights in the world.

I argue on the basis of what Christians tell me a passage or an event or a phrase means, and then when I use their definition in an argument, other Christians chime in and say that I am using those things incorrectly and they actually mean something else (the opposite of the first meaning).
>>19068824
They had no authority yet they managed to kill the messiah, and also you're still arguing Jesus wasn't a threat to them? It honestly hurts to post in this thread, nobody can keep track of what is actually under discussion. It's just a short term back and forth sniping over tangential issues where the substance of discussion is immediately forgotten or ignored.

>>19068828
That's just what globally dominant groups tell themselves so they feel better about their world conquest.

>>19068567
>y-you just don't get it
kek
Precisely. That's why I don't buy your shit. A cultist would say the exact same thing.

>>19068841
>snarky conjecture and ad hominem
Whatever, man. You began arguing in bad faith a long time ago. I think I have been pretty generous with my time here. God bless.

>>19068599
Buddhism came before it

>>19068835
They were a special interest group using public pressure to force the Romans to execute him or risk open revolt from Zealots like Barabbas. Their attitudes were the anti-thesis of "Render unto Cesar".

>>19068854
Do you also think the Roman Empire grew to the extent that it did because they were so compassionate and loving?

>>19068854
Good on you. Some people are here simply to attempt to disturb your inner peace. Know when to say enough.

>>19068856
Buddhism is not truly a religion, nor does Buddhism have an accepted or strong tradition of proselytising.

>all the grasping at straws ITT
"If Christianity isn't true then how do you explain [historical event]?" Come on. You can spin everything to fit the narrative. I could take Indian or Iranian history and nitpick enough to show why Hinduism or Zoroastrianism are the truth.
>>19068627
Okay. I'm still not interested, though. As was said earlier ITT, it's easy to delude yourself by repeatedly training your mind, a "genuine experience" to me is delusion. How do you explain the Buddhist stream enterers who have seen a glimpse of Nirvana and are now 100% convinced of the truth of Buddhism? For you it's demonic deception, for them it's genuine truth. For me, it's delusion in both cases.
>>19068644
Yeah bro I should become an epic ideologue like you posting links to Christian blogs on an anime imageboard and calling non-believers midwits. You're a meme, pure and simple.
Also, your "small system" tickled the curiosity of a Roman emperor and from there it's history. The fact that you seriously think this is an actual argument is laughable.
>>19068658
Your ramblings are utterly incoherent. There is no "proof" of God. Proof is something that exists in logic and math. What you mean is evidence and there isn't any either.
>>19068729
Sure. Hence agnostic atheism and not militant fedora atheism.
>>19068895
It is very much a religion, only people who've never engaged with Buddhism say this.
And the fact that it has no history of proselytizing (yet still spread like wildfire outside of India) is telling.

>>19067945
>>19067909
>not accepted by historians
I seriously doubt you know the standards for proof used by historians or else you're being selective in your standards
The Bible is an historical document, whether you like it or not, just the same as the Koran and the Bhagavad Vita and the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Beowulf, just the same as Tacitus and Anna Komnena and Ahmad ibn Fadlan and Marco Polo. The degree of accuracy vs myth is debatable, but the minute you deny the value of the Gospel as a primary source, is the minute you claim that Julius Caesar never even existed.

>>19068923
>the Bible is the only source for Caesar's existence
Please stop.
If the Gospels provided compelling historical evidence it would be treated as such, but alas we only have Paul's testimony, and then a few alleged testimonies. Even if the Gospels were not scripture, this would never be accepted as reliable data.

>>19068915
You are extremely defensive. I don't care that you don't want to convert. I basically said I was where you are at and there was no argument that could convince me either. In this situation, you have to experience it yourself to understand.

>>19068915
>yet still spread like wildfire outside of India
Centuries and centuries ago, perhaps.
>Buddhism is a religion
It doesn't regard a belief in God as important and some traditions are explicitly atheist. I wouldn't call it a religion.

>>19068915
Like the other anons said, you are being stubborn and defensive.

>>19068850
He who does not want to understand will not understand. Just look at your answer, there's no sincerity behind it, just cheap mockery.

>>19069017
>>19069037
I'm defensive against the insecure larper calling me a midwit because I don't buy that a man came back to life 2000 years ago just because the book says so. I've engaged honestly and without hostility with those who would do the same ITT.
>you have to experience it
What is your take on what I said earlier about the possibility for self-delusion?
I suppose it's a moot point. If you convince yourself, then it's not delusion anymore.
>>19069023
You don't need belief in a creator God for your religion to be a religion, there are other criteria.
>>19069053
Sincerity? I've been engaging with sincerity so far, you accuse me of what you're guilty of. No need for the condescension.

>>19069077
>You don't need belief in a creator God for your religion to be a religion, there are other criteria.
Without God, you have a belief system, not a religion.

>>19069099
>Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements; however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
Let's not argue about words though, it leads nowhere.

>>19068472
Blessed

>>19069143
That's more like a creed or a confession. Religions means having a relationship with the Absolute.

>>19069077
It's not about convincing myself of anything. It was something consistent, not a one time thing. And I denied it a lot but it kept happening. Not in a repeated manner, but through multiple facets in life. And I'm not that person that's calling you a midwit, but thanks for clarifying that. Now your defensiveness makes sense.

So again, it's going to take for you to have one of those experiences. And if you do, you will see for yourself that it has nothing to do with any delusions or anything like that. Good day.

>>19069143
Great. Now give me a definition from before the rise of ecumenicalism and globalism.

>>19068472
Good post.

>>19069190
>great, now let's move the goalposts
Yawn
>>19069177
Buddhism would see Nirvana as the Absolute anyway.
>>19069188
I think we're arguing past each other. Consistency and denial aren't really relevant in the case of such an experience, the fact is simply that it remodels your personal biases, so to speak. A diehard atheist can take psilocybin and become a monist who sees God everywhere. It's a change of perspective. Is this change of perspective indicative of truth in itself? That's unverifiable, so I'm inclined to disregard it. We are all slaves to our biases, I choose to not purposefully induce any further biases on myself (via prayer or devotional practices, or even drugs) because I feel like it'd be another filter on truth and I don't need any more of them. We're both biased and our biases are irreconcilable.

>>19068915
>deductive arguments cannot be found outside of logic and mathematics

>>19069237
I had plenty of experiences of the supernatural prior to ever considering reading the Bible. I came into reading the Bible already accepting that the supernatural is real. The Bible points to a lot of that supernatural, and a lot of what the Bible is trying to construe is written in a way that provides multiple layers of understanding. You are currently at the surface. With experience comes deeper understanding.

>>19069244
A "proof" is mathematical. There are no proofs in science, only evidence. This isn't an opinion, it's vocabulary.

>>19069237
>Yawn
Are you denying that there has been an obvious, liberalising shift in recent history that seeks to homogenise and sanitise much of our lived experience? Do you not think that the meaning of certain words has been changed as a result? I can all but guarantee that a definition of the term "religion" a century ago would have required some belief in God.

>>19069263
Words can have multiple meanings, bro. Your reluctance to use the word "proof" outside of a mathematical context is probably a case of overcorrection. Proof is synonymous with warrant and evidence. And since we can cogitate about metaphysical things, we can know the divine.

>>19069261
>You are currently at the surface
According to your personal biases. According to mine, you've bought into delusion. I'm trying to make you see that your point of view is not any more objective than mine, no matter what your brain may be telling you.
Acknowledging bias is difficult but it's one of the most liberating things I've chosen to do. It's easy to convince yourself you've reached a level of understanding superior to others' on the other hand. It's why I also dislike militant atheism.
>>19069270
Highly doubt Buddhism wouldn't have been called a religion in Asia (or Europe) even before globalism.
>>19069280
>since we can cogitate about metaphysical things, we can know the divine.
Huge leap in reasoning. This Aristotelian/Catholic doctrine about reason serving to grasp the divine has always seemed extremely lackluster to me and I don't agree with it. I can imagine things that don't exist, that doesn't make them exist.

>>19069307
So we don't agree. Okay. Have a good day then.

>>19069307
>This Aristotelian/Catholic doctrine about reason serving to grasp the divine has always seemed extremely lackluster to me and I don't agree with it. I can imagine things that don't exist, that doesn't make them exist.
It has nothing to do with imagination, but with reasoning. Don't confuse the two. Anyhow, I would like to get to know your opinion on this matter a little better. Do you even admit the possibility of our knowing there is something divine?

>>19069307
>Highly doubt Buddhism wouldn't have been called a religion in Asia (or Europe) even before globalism.
It might have been called a belief or a belief system.

>>19069315
You as well.
>>19069342
>reasoning
Reason is constrained by logic. Except under certain alternate states of consciousness where it seems like other "systems" become possible, that are not logical yet exist. But this is something I can't talk about.
>Do you even admit the possibility
As I said before ITT I'm admittedly a lukewarm agnostic bordering on apatheism. As such I won't say I know for sure, but I lean towards an emphatic "no". Mainly for the reasons exposed earlier (bias, etc).
>>19069359
Maybe.

Since you haven't read the Old Testament you really weren't well grounded in understanding the significance of a lot of the Gospels.
t. read the entire Bible this year
That said you are indeed correct that John is the best one

>>19069386
I understand the significance of fulfilling the prophecies but as I've stated before it's not really of any consequence either way.
>John is the best one
Maybe also because of how hellenized it is.

>>19068915
I know I'm rambling a little. I'm not interested in making a complete point to you, nor am I even capable possibly (it's hard to repeat Aristotle even if you've already read him). I don't really care, what I'm saying is still true even if you don't understand it.

>What you mean is evidence and there isn't any either.
There isn't any evidence that the Greeks and the Catholics are wrong.

>>19069428
>what I'm saying is still true even if you don't understand it.
Not very convincing, but whatever you say.
>There isn't any evidence that the Greeks and the Catholics are wrong.
There isn't any evidence that the Hindus, Buddhists, Stoics, Zoroastrians or atheists are wrong either.

>>19068915
God damn. You blew these christ-cucks out of the water anon. Good job! I like your calm demeanor and the way you write.

>>19069519
It doesn't even matter. I know full well I'm not going to convince any sincere Christian with my arguments, nor are they going to convince me with mine, I guess the exchange is mainly a way for me to confirm and possibly refine my own position (and biases, inevitably) rather than try to "convert" anyone to my point of view.

>>19069541
convince me with theirs*

>>19067844
Going to church and integrating with a community. The bible is just a book.

>>19069393
There's a lot more than just "X prophecy was fuliflled". Its how the themes of the Old Testament carry over into the New and how Jesus reflects on and modifies them, also the significance of his statements on Old Testament figures.
>Maybe also because of how hellenized it is.
Yeah partially but I like it because its the most "spiritual" imo.

>>19069592
Yeah, I'll get around to reading the OT eventually but not right now. It'll probably make the NT more interesting in retrospect, you're right, if only Matthew which was too judaized for my taste.

>>19068915
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting the idea of 'God' entirely just because Christianity doesn't seem convincing to you. At the end of the day we still need to explain the existence of reality and the problem of consciousness. You don't have to call it God if you don't like, but it seems short sighted to me to just totally discount the idea of things outside the universe.

>>19069393
>>19069592
Wish I just included this in the previous post but figured it would be a show of faith to give a couple examples of what I meant and maybe entice you into reading the Old Testament, because it is really good.
>themes of the Old carry into the New
For example one of the biggest themes in the Old Testament that I detected was the spilling of blood and its consequences. In Genesis God says something like "and if a man spills another's blood, then his blood also shall be required, for in the image of God made He man". Basically God is saying that He values a man's life because man was created in God's image, and He also indicates that the spilling of blood creates an imbalance which can only be repaired by the death of the murderer (his blood shall also be required). This concept is known as a "blood debt" and its influence on society is obvious.
But there's a moment in the New Testament when Jesus says
"And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."
This doesn't come out of nowhere but Jesus is remarking on an idea that was developed throughout the entire history of Judaism and the OT when he says this. In another part he assigns the blood debt of the killing of the prophets to the city of Jerusalem itself, the significance of which will probably be missed if you don't know the OT.
>also the significance of his statements on Old Testament figures.
For example, when Jesus says "look at the flowers....not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of these" this statement carries a lot more significance when you know details about Solomon such as his great wealth, power, and wisdom and how he was supposed to be the most perfect king to surpass even David, but lost his way despite his wisdom. There's a lot of implication to what Jesus is saying there if you were a Jew who was aware of all this for example.

>>19069616
Fair enough, some parts definitely are boring but there's a lot of really good stuff in the OT, hope you enjoy it

>>19069645
As I said I'm not a hardline dogmatist, I won't claim to know that the "idea of God" is an impossibility. The true nature of reality and consciousness seem unknowable to me and what I said earlier about everyone being inherently imprisoned by their own perspectives means I find it unlikely answers could ever be found. But maybe they will.
Either way, I don't totally discount the idea, I just disregard it in the absence of compelling evidence.
>>19069667
I see. I was unfamiliar with the blood debt thing, I'm aware of a few things in the OT, mainly characters (Solomon, David, Samson etc) but it's true that I generally lack the background to fully place Jesus' parables and allusions to prophecies in their proper context. Thanks for the explanation.

>>19069715
God in the Hermetic tradition is defined by its ineffable nature, anybody who claims to have any knowledge of it is a liar because knowledge of it is impossible. (mfw Jesus falls into this category)

>>19069769
The Godhead in most traditions is defined by ineffability and described in apophatic terms iirc, it's not exclusive to Hermeticism, correct me if I'm wrong. But in parallel to that, those traditions all make specific truth claims or hold some dogmatic doctrines to be absolute. There is no religion that goes "it's unknowable and that's that", since it wouldn't really be a religion then.

>>19069446
I just told you I'm not trying to be convincing I'm just telling you Aristotle's conclusion about your beliefs. He made a lot of sense, it's in his book Metaphysics, but I know you prefer not to read otherwise you'd have to stop asserting that there isn't any evidence.

>There isn't any evidence that the Hindus, Buddhists, Stoics, Zoroastrians or atheists are wrong either.
Yes there is.

>>19069875
>you'd have to stop asserting that there isn't any evidence.
Yeah. "The evidence is all in the book, just read it". I might get around to it sometime but I'm not expecting anything. I know about the thomistic reinterpretation of Aristotle for their metaphysical demonstration of the existence of God so if that's what you're talking about I'm not even going to bother.
>Yes there is.
Cool, very compelling. Good thing you're not trying to convince me because everything you're saying is having the opposite effect.

>>19069875
>Yes there is.
lol go ahead then
I guarantee you're bullshitting

>>19069923
>he refuted Aristotle and Aquinas
To tell Edward Feser on his blog and see what he has to say then if you're interested in high level online discussion. You could become a prominent public intellectual for your discovery.

>>19070359
>To
Go*

>>19070359
I don't have to refute anything. There is no evidence for the existence of God no matter how you want to spin it. "I don't believe" is a sufficient "refutation".

>>19070359
kant already refuted aquinas
do christards not read any philosophy after the medieval ages? what sort of gotcha is this suppose to be?

>>19070374
>There is no evidence for the existence of God no matter how you want to spin it.
It blows my mind you aren't at the very least saying the evidence is unconvincing, but no, you say there is none. Truly unbelievable behavior.

>>19070432
>Truly unbelievable behavior.
I believe such behavior exists. I have evidence of it right here >>19070374
brainlet christfags BTFO yet again

>>19069715
>I see. I was unfamiliar with the blood debt thing, I'm aware of a few things in the OT, mainly characters (Solomon, David, Samson etc) but it's true that I generally lack the background to fully place Jesus' parables and allusions to prophecies in their proper context. Thanks for the explanation.
My pleasure bro. Hope that did something to entice you a bit. There's a lot of literary beauty in the OT.