/lit/ - Literature

>>20003338
Ender’s Game
Harry Potter
Artemis Fowl
Spider-Man (the novels)
Catcher In the Rye
The Secret Life Of Bees

>>20003348
Thanks fellow rick and morty fan, but I think this list is better.

Christian apologetics was literally started by converts who were too embarassed by biblical fideism so they pretended Christianity was really just neoplatonic theology, i.e. what educated Romans already believed. In the absence of an elite theological belief system to copy you'll be at a loss to find relevent contemporary apologies, unless you count the dancing rainbow pastors on TikTok

>>20003425
I'll take whatever I can get. Give some stuff, old or new.
I heard good things about William Lane Craig.

>>20003431
May as well start with a survey of Roman criticism of Christianity; it's why they bothered to copy neoplatonism in the first place. After that they banned the works of the their critics, Celsus, Porphyry, and the emperor Julian

>>20003436
Thanks. What's the follow up of these? Books on neo-platonism?
Also, besides the list I posted, are there any other pro-faith books out there that are worth my time?

>>20003338
I highly recommend finding your local Catholic or Orthodox priest and having a face-to-face discussion with them, in addition to the books you read. It's helpful to have someone who can actively respond to your questions and who can serve as an example of what living the faith entails.

>>20003443
Well you could cover the source material from the Platonist side as well before reading the apologists... won't be clear what they are arguing against otherwise. Augustine's "City of God" is also "Against the Pagans"

>>20003338
The Bible.

>>20003362
Highly recommend An Exorcist Tells His Story. Even as a non-Catholic, I found it enlightening, engaging, and edifying.

>>20003338
read the esv, not the kjv.
king james was an occultist.
the books you need are the ones in the Holy Bible, along with the Book of Enoc, which is of paramount importance to understand a lot of the prophecies.
if you are ready to start your journey, be ready to leave all but the search for truth behind.
do not lay your trust on any particular church. they are all corrupt. protestant, orthodox, catholic, and the list goes all. all have been modified by the beasts prophesized of in the Book of Revelations, and in one way or another want you to believe in salvation by works, or in other word, saving yourself, or that another normal man can save you. i hope you see this is blatant blasphemy, for The Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is the only savior of humanity.

Catholicbros, is there ANY a priori proof for the divinity of christ? I want to be Christian again, but relying on empirical evidence such as the historical records of the gospels is just too anti-logos. HELP

>>20003338
NIV Holy Bible
Catechism of the catholic church

/thread

>>20003577
And yet, the only reason you even have to believe is because these apparently degenerate, deceitful, duplicitous churches have been the custodians of revelation. There is nothing outside of them to corroborate prophecies and the myth of resurrection.

>>20003620
>There is nothing outside of them to corroborate prophecies and the myth of resurrection.
>corroborate
have you ever heard of The Holy Spirit?
>myth
repent and be saved.

>>20003431
I like Craig a lot. He has a ton of material on youtube. His Reasonable Faith lectures are fuggin free on there, along with tons of debates and stuff.

>>20003607
im non-Catholic but here’s my understanding: there are two distinct epistemological methods employed by Catholics. the first is logic. logic as we know it in the modern west was first defined by the Greeks; certain truths can be deduced solely through logical analysis. for example, Aquinas’s five ways of knowing God’s existence.

the second method of knowledge is divine revelation. we can know God exists through logical analysis, but specific theological concepts can only be known through revelation. for example, the trinity. you can’t "logic" the nature of the trinity, you can only know it through faith in the gospels.

>>20003338
Anon, what are you talking about? About 65-75% of Americans are Christian. Who exactly is looking down on religion?

>>20003338
Douay-Rheims Bible
Catechism of the Council of Trent
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum
Summa Theologica

>>20003666
nope I have definitely never heard your talking points before and Christianity is an entirely unknown thing to me, an English speaker, in 2022

>>20003338
>>20003755

>>20003726
N-no you weren't supposed to point that out, anonymous strangers told me the end times were near because netflix made fun of Jesus in one of its shows

>>20003820
>larp as a Catholic because it's a solid cope
>it's old so that's how you know it's true
kek

>>20003436
>sigmund fraud
kino theory tho

>>20003577
>ESV
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/esv.htm

>>20003617
>NIV
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm

>>20003726
(((academia))), (((mainstream media))), (((bankers))), (((politicians))), the list goes on... the whole system and the whole world is against true Christianity, even many """Christians""" are against true Christianity.

You probably couldn't even find a new movie that came out that didn't have blasphemy in it for example, unless it was marketed to toddlers. Even so-called Christian politicians will blaspheme. Academia is entirely intolerant to any Christian even mentioning their religion or faith. Mainstream media endlessly portrays Christians, Christ, or God in a negative light like Family Goy or Shabbos Park, as well as the blasphemy I already mentioned.

Even in sports, you have Christians mocked, shamed, or hated for mentioning their faith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAhGhF2wco

>>20003764
>reddit sarcasm
fuck off fedoratard
>>>/his/

>>20003958
>noooo I am being persecuted
>y-yes my religion is the biggest on the planet but that doesn't count
kek

>>20003338
Why read apologetics? The antidote to smug atheists is not smug Christians... there are already too many of those on /lit/. The worst thing you can do, intellectually, is to consume too much 'rhetorical' work that convinces you your worldview is correct (and that those who disbelieve it are dumb and vicious). CS Lewis is particularly guilty of this.

It is better to work out your salvation in 'fear and trembling', so to speak, and to do the honest intellectual groundwork and read the best of what both (or more) sides have to offer (something that we often find ourselves afraid of doing! we won't admit it to ourselves, but we don't want to read the best texts of the 'other side' if we've already formed an emotional attachment to some particular set of beliefs... are you experiencing this already?).

You will find what you want in classic philosophical texts (like Augustine, Cicero, Pascal, Hume, Plantinga, Mackie, etc.) and drier academic ones, not in flashy, "retarded atheist gets PWNED" or "jesus christ resurrection PROVED 100%" books. Become familiar with the genuine PROBLEMS that thousands of great minds have wracked their brains over... don't make the mistake of thinking everything is simple, finished, certain...

Do NOT fall for the CS Lewis + WLC + Scott Hahn grift... It's just as bad as the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris one.

>>20003978
Do 500 people from your belief system get martyred every month?
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/stories/16-christians-murdered-for-following-jesus-every-day/

You are a murdering psychopath 20003978

>>20003984
People from all belief systems get persecuted. You're not special because your own false teaching gets its share of persecution.

>>20003978
>>20003984
During the 2022 World Watch List reporting period (from October 2020 to September 2021):

5,110 Churches or Christian buildings were attacked
4,765 Christians were unjustly arrested, detained or imprisoned
3,829 Christians were abducted for faith-related reasons.

That means each day, 14 congregations were attacked, 10 Christians faced the nightmare of kidnapping, and 13 Christians went through the trauma of unjust arrest, detainment and/or imprisonment.

Not only that, persecution against Christians has risen for 16 consecutive years.

>>20003984
Not that anon. The murder of Christians is tragic and unconscionable. But would you also condemn the executions of Cathars and Jews and homosexuals that occurred under Christendom?

>>20003985
If it were "jews" being martyred, or blacks or LGBTQP+, we'd never hear the end of it in the media or from politicians.

It's Christians, so we don't hear a peep and psychopathic murderers like you scoff and laugh about it.

>>20003987
And?
Still the majority religion in the world. Still the cultural status quo in western countries. Still not the only persecuted community by a longshot.

>>20003991
You're still a psychopathic murderer who laughs at people being murdered who lives in a delusion and believes a lie. All you're doing now is trying to downplay it or divert attention to something else.

>>20003990
kek, you are an absolute clown. Your entire worldview is based on memes.
>s-some people from our 2 billion member religion get persecuted
>when it's other people it doesn't count though lol
>>20003994
No argument, okay. I accept your concession, larper

>>20003991
>Still the cultural status quo in western countries
You are such a fucking liar. A man holding true to his faith has been sued for over 9 years now by people like you because he wouldn't celebrate homosexual marriage (which isn't marriage btw and never will be).

The west is openly antichristian and has been for decades. You are fucking delusional. Go get your fag marriages, abortions, and free promiscuous sex. Christianity is most unwelcome in the ZOG west, you fucking kike

>>20003998
Seething won't make it any less true, larper.

>>20003997
You are a liar and a murderer with no arguments so you pull the internet fedora quips out. Go back, bunkertranny.

>>20003998
>fag marriages
>You are fucking delusional.
>you fucking kike

James 1:26: If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

>>20004005
>no u
Whatever you say, larper. Since it makes you seethe so hard I'll say it again: "your" religion (that you don't really believe in but that's another issue) is by far the majority religion on the planet and has defined the status quo for millennia. You are not persecuted.
Cope :)

>>20004003
>hypocrite crying about "muh no arguments" now just posts 2016 election tourist buzzwords because he can't face the fact he's a lying sack of subhuman shit
Yeah, the 50 states of gay are totally Christian, you fucking retard. Kill yourself ,kike

>>20003958
That Solzhenitsyn quote isn't from the book '200 Years Together' but was attributed to him by David Duke. Possibly he never said it

>>20004010
You're one of those """Christians""" I was talking about

Matthew 7:21-23

>>20004012
>>20004016
Yep, a literal larper. You are underage and just took up christianity because it fits your political extremism (in your mind, of course, while the other 2 billion christians are wrong).
I'm not american, by the way. But keep boiling in rage about strawmen kek

>>20004016
There is a difference between rebuking people out of concern for their soul and swearing at them with rage in an attempt to injure them. If saying "you fool" and "raca" can put someone in danger of hellfire, then certainly so can "fucking" "kike" "faggot" etc. Do you disbelieve in James 1:26 and Matthew 5:22?

>>20004019
No argument, okay. I accept your concession, antichrist shill

>>20004022
Shut the fuck up, fag enabler. God hates you.

>>20004023
>>20004027
Keep seething, larping zoomer :)

>>20004010
>>20004022
Do you not believe James 4:4? Bad enough Christians get attacked from everyone to have their "own" stab them in the back all the time to try to win over the world. People like you are why the world sucks now, refusing to do your job and only attacking Christians for opposing the world

>>20004027
So you don't want to save the souls of homosexuals? That goes against all Christian practice for the past 2,000 years. Penitentials from early Christianity did not give harsher punishments for sodomy than for fornication

>>20004033
Fraternal correction to stop someone from possibly putting off hundreds of people from Christianity isn't worthwhile?

>>20004029
You have to go back, bunkertranny

>>20004036
You are a friend of the world and an enemy of God.

>>20004041
>using Christianity as nothing but a means to vent your anger on other people is being a "friend of God"
you don't care about people's souls or God. be honjest

>>20004043

>>20004045
Yes the only two options in the world are being completely passive and meek and tolerant and being completely vicious and sour and aggressive and insult everyone you make eye contact with

>>20004034
I want them to be put to death per God's Law.

They can repent on death row. Sodomy used to carry the death penalty in the states and it was a much nicer place to live without these perverts going around raping kids and being released from jail by libtard/jew/communist/etc judges.

OP, here is a book series I would recommend: the Jesus of Nazareth series by Pope Benedict. It traces Christ's life through the Gospels and Benedict makes theological observations and prayers throughout. It's like a modern version of the Church Fathers. It will teach you about Jesus Christ. Read all three books.

>>20003338
>apologetics
You're already starting to stray OP. Please avoid arguing with people. Christ doesn't want you to take bait, "fight" trolls and sit on the internet arguing with people that aren't going to change their opinions.
Just read some nice books about Christianity like The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware. We don't need more Internet Christians in the world.

>>20004049
Anon, if you care about Truth, would you be interested in seeing statistics and studies that contradict the absurd claims listed in your attached image? Or would that frustrate your attachment to an easy, simplistic worldview?

I hope you at least agree that adulterers and disrespectful children should be put to death as well.

>>20004049
>I want them to be put to death per God's Law.
>They can repent on death row.

did nietzsche ever respond to thomism/catholic theology, or did he just attack christian morality and dismiss ontology/truth?

>>20004064
>dismiss ontology/truth?
lol

>>20004064
Christianity had already been under attack on the epistemological + ontological front for a few centuries. The Scholastic worldview had fallen out of favour with Christian philosophers since early moderntiy (and was even less relevant in Protestant Germany). It's not that Nietzsche was disinterested per se (he had been a pious child and was very rattled by recent advances in Biblical scholarship), but his main interest was its effect on human behaviour and culture.

>>20004064
Scholasticism is not taken seriously by anyone except internet christians. All of Aristotle/Aquinas' arguments can be readily dismissed by simply not believing in their core assumptions, which hinge on faith.

>>20003338
The bible.
Acts 2:38

>>20003921
>larp as a Catholic because it's a solid cope
I have been a Catholic my entire life.

>it's old so that's how you know it's true
>"Thatthou art Peter; andupon this rockI will build my church, andthe gates of hellshall not prevail against it". Matthew 16:18.

>>20003338
Just read the Bible anon. That is the most important thing.

why do nietzscheans post on 4chan
is it part of the fulfillment of your will to power?

>>20003820
>2000 years

Hear that? That's Gilgamesh laughing in the distance

>>20004101
Oh so you were raised into it. Then it's understandable.

>>20004064
From what I have read of Nietzsche, he never had a sincere interest in Thomism and Scholasticism. The real interest of Nietzsche was the theology of Luther and German Protestantism.

>>20004073
Scholasticism is not just the arguments of Aquinas (which you clearly don't understand), it is a fairly extensive tradition in different academic disciplines. I remind you that these Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market economics five hundred years before Adam Smith, and that Western law grew out of the Church canon law which they developed. And many of the great ideas of modern physics have their origin in Catholic dogmas. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic aether has the same characteristics as the glorious body. Or the dissociation between body and matter that physicists use with such incompetence that they speak of immaterial waves when they deal with the quantum vacuum, but in reality they are incorporeal. These distinctions are those of Scholasticism.

>>20004156
>which you clearly don't understand
Cope harder.

>>20003338
Basic Christian Apologetics Set:

General:
Mere Christianity - CS Lewis
The Abolition of Man - CS Lewis
Miracles - CS Lewis
The Everlasting Man - GK Chesterton
Trilogy - Francis Schaffer
A Certain Faith - Barry Perlman
Introduction to Christianity - Benedict XVI
Atheist Delusions - David Bentley Hart
The Experience of God - David Bentley Hart

Scripture:
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - Richard Bauckman
The Case for Jesus - Brant Pitre
Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition - Craig Carter
Holman Apologetics Commentary - Gospels and Acts


Science vs Religion:
Science and Myth - Wolfgang Smith
What is Physics? - Nigel Cundy
Theistic Evolution - Various
New Proofs for the Existence of God - Robert Spitzer

>>20004177
>reading all this shit to convince yourself instead of just having faith

>>20004182
You can just have faith. If you want to discuss your faith with others you need to understand it.

>>20004195
No, there's nothing rational about faith. All your systems are pure copes.

>>20004177
>Science vs Religion
You are creating a false dichotomy, the sciences are categorical while religion and philosophy are not, they crosses the categories. There can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.

>>20004210
>has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind
Except when it contradicts the teachings, in which case it's dismissed as pride and you're told to not trust your "fallen" reason.

>>20004203
What "systems" are you speaking of here?

>>20004221
Thomism, scholasticism, neoclassical theism, neoplatonism, etc etc

>>20004224
And what makes them more copes than say fideism or reductive materialism?

>>20004203
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth. Faith without reason leads tosuperstition. Reason without faith leads tonihilismandrelativism. They are essential together.

Calvinism and Atheism are two sides of the same coin.

>>20004232
Yes, I agree that in the end it's all varying flavors of cope. But at least fideism is honest about it.

>>20004233
>Reason without faith leads tonihilismandrelativism.
Begging the question. Also, you don't understand what relativism means.

>>20003338
orthodoxy - Chesterton
Introduction to Christianity - Ratzinger

Both very good introductory texts. I would then find a Latin Mass near you. I would not bother going to a novus ordo mass.

You will meet people at a Latin Mass community that will help you on your journey with Christ. The beauty of the mass will also help you to live fruitful and give you succour.

To grow it is essential to go to the Tridentine Mass if you are a westerner.

>>20004214
That does not happen in Catholicism because we accept any theory as long as it is proven. Science does not affect religious doctrines; pseudoscientific claims such as the world being made on the sixth day have allegorical reinterpretations. Those allegories go back more than 1800 years to Saint Augustine, Saint John Chrysostom and Origen, long before modern science existed. That is why Catholics accept the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, the origin of the Solar System, the origin of life, evolution, etc.

>>20004224
What's the problem with those systems?.

>>20004277
>Science does not affect religious doctrines
Yet you believe in miracles and the resurrection. Your interpretation of events as allegorical only pertains to events that are not central to your faith or that make your position utterly untenable.
Also, if the history of western philosophy has shown one thing, it's that debating in a vacuum about the existence of God is the most fruitless and sterile endeavor there is. Two conflicting systems can be logically sound. This is why I don't respect apologetics, scholastics and the like. Only christian mystics are worth a shit

>>20004279
See >>20004288
They lead nowhere.

>>20004241
It is true, the philosophical Investigations got lost in the quicksand of generalized skepticism, and fell into relativism and nihilism.
In the last 70 years we have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines that tend to devalue even truths that have been judged to be true. A legitimate plurality of positions has given way to an undifferentiated pluralism, based on the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of the most widespread symptoms of a lack of confidence in the truth. It all comes down to opinion; and there is a feeling of being adrift. Hence, among philosophers, attitudes of general distrust in the great capacity of human beings for knowledge are observed, with a false modesty, people are content with partial and provisional truths, without looking for more radical questions about the meaning and ultimate foundation of human, personal and social existence.
In short, the hope that philosophy can give definitive answers to these questions has diminished without faith.

>>20004277
>Science does not affect religious doctrines
Yes it does. For example, we don't all descend from a single pair of human beings. This might not impact your version of christianity, but it does impact catholicism for sure.

>>20004288
>>20004288
>Yet you believe in miracles and the resurrection.
Why I shouldn't believe in the resurrection?.

>Your interpretation of events as allegorical only pertains to events that are not central to your faith or that make your position utterly untenable
Isn't my interpretation, the Bible isn't open to interpretation in Catholicism and my opinion isn't valid because I don't have the authority of the Catholic Church for that. I'm just repeating what the Church interpretation says, that's why there isn't conflict.

>Also, if the history of western philosophy has shown one thing, it's that debating in a vacuum about the existence of God is the most fruitless and sterile endeavor there is. Two conflicting systems can be logically sound.
That is correct, although there have been interesting debates like the one between Copleston and Russell, which the former won because of the intellectual dishonesty of the latter. Or Heidegger's ontotheology challenge in which he ended up admitting that Aquinas had already solved it centuries before he even formulated it. Very interesting, really.

>>20004342
>Why I shouldn't believe in the resurrection?.
Because it is contradicted by scientific consensus. You don't get to pick and choose if you value consistency. Why don't you believe in other biblical allegories but believe in this one?
> I'm just repeating what the Church interpretation says, that's why there isn't conflict.
Yes, but that's too convenient and it's what has allowed cults to prosper since the dawn of time.
>there have been interesting debates
The point being that confronting one system to another isn't going to bring you any closer to "truth". In the end, you subscribe to the systems you feel an intuitive, intellectual or even aesthetic proximity to, which is dependent on a variety of factors and none of them are the objective validity of the framework in question. It's why despite spending time understanding the arguments, some people will completely reject thomism while others will feel as if it truly describes "truth".

>>20003764
repente and be saved

>>20004359
Saying this has never once caused anyone to "repent". You are just jerking yourself off

>>20004351
>Because it is contradicted by scientific consensus
How?

>You don't get to pick and choose if you value consistency. Why don't you believe in other biblical allegories but believe in this one?
It is not like that, I did not choose at random what suited me or what seemed correct to me, but like the rest of the Catholics, I give the authority to interpret the Bible to the Church. The allegories in which I believe, are the that the Church has approved, and the Church is very explicit in what is considered allegory and what is considered literal in the Bible.

Protestants never understood that, and fell into subjectivism and a thousand denominations with different interpretations without consistency.

>>20004398
>How?
Show me a single documented example in history of someone coming back from the dead then ascending to heaven after a few days.

Just watch jay dyer videos desu. I’m not completely sold on Christianity but his videos proved to me that atheism/materialism are untenable positions.

>>20004320
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church

>>20004416
Watching a presuppositionalist apologist probably creates more atheists than converts. They're both obnoxious and incredibly ignorant of philosophy in general

>>20004425
None of that contradicts what I've said. Catholics must believe in a first human couple from which we all descend, yet no such thing exists.

>>20004052
Awesome suggestion. Have a good lent anon.

>>20004430
Actually he is right, both materialism and atheism have died in philosophy for quite some time, what atheists in philosophy do is define themselves as agnostics or pantheists to avoid ontological problems, but even agnosticism itself has had problems and that is why atheists had to resort to Spinoza's pantheism and physicalism in order to participate in philosophy.

>>20004365
>never once
quite the claim, don't you think?
many are the called, but few the chosen ones.
my only wish for you is to be saved, I have no intentions of contending in a vain debate over things of the world.
you cannot serve two masters.
choose. The Kingdom of Heaven, or the doomed kingdom of the fallen angels.

>>20004497
False dichotomy, I don't believe in your narrative. You're just yet another cultist with ridiculous beliefs to me, and the smug, oblivious condescension with which you try to get me to "repent" only confirms that.

>>20004408
>le "i only believe in documented peer reviewed studies"
show me one that proves your existance.

>>20004510
>moving goalposts from empirical science to epistemology
I accept your concession.

>>20004430
Jay is pretty knowledgeable on philosophy to be fair to him

Check out Banner of Truth publisher, they have alot of good stuff.

Read All of Grace by Charles Spurgeon

Read Knowing God by J I Packer

Public domain texts, very good stuff at gracegems

>>20004117
The first books of the OT are old as fuck too

>>20003338
>>20004525
check this

>>20003431
William Lane Craig and C.S. Lewis

cute girl at work invited me to her church, but it's a charismatic cringe protestant church neither based nor apostolic at all ,
but she cute tho

what do

>>20004728
fuck her

>>20004728
Take her to your church and gradually pull her away from cringe churches

>>20004731
that would require I marry her, pretty sure

>>20004480
Philosophy was traditionally pantheistic or henotheistic before Christianity required you believe in comic books mediated by wealthy international cult to participate in discourse. It only makes sense that with its decline, philosophy begins to return to the West

>>20004735
don't be a fag

>>20004740
the stories of the henotheists and pantheists are far more comicbooky, inconsistent and petty than Christianity which is rooted in history and divine revelation and actually good for your soul (try it)

>>20004749
>rooted in history and divine revelation
source: dude trust me
>try it
You will never believe me because it goes against your narrative but I tried it and was genuinely miserable.

>>20004749
>rooted in history and divine revelation
Yes of course, how very historical that a sorceror proves he is god by returning from death. Your comic book is good and theirs is bad, because reasons.

>>20004756
>You will never believe me because it goes against your narrative but I tried it and was genuinely miserable.
I believe you, because it's very hard to be christian while it's very easy and comfortable to be ruled by sin (for a while...until it catches up with you) but maybe your practice wasn't full and robust enough? Don't know what church and theology you had, some are better than others of course maybe try again, and again, it's the only fight worth fighting in the end, the search for God and becoming a saint

>>20004775
No, I came to the conclusion that christianity was a complete dead-end like other paths I had also tried up to that point.

>>20004740
>Philosophy was traditionally pantheistic or henotheistic before Christianity
Both Plato and Aristotle were monotheists way before Christianity, this is completely wrong.

>It only makes sense that with its decline, philosophy begins to return to the West
>return to the West
What do you consider the "West", because what we consider the Western World is due to Christendom, originally Western Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant Europe. It was the Catholic Church the one who built that Civilization.

>>20004785
>dead end like other paths
how so? I had the opposite problem where I found much fruit and benefit from other paths, but only Christianity had the complete package, the fullness I was looking for, the historical dimension and the person of Christ...

what are you trying to attain or know that you can't seem to find in any religious path?

>>20004803
Our experiences are just different, as are our biases and preferences which have led us to different paths. There's nothing much to discuss, it'll lead nowhere, I know from experience.

>>20004796
They weren't biblical monotheists, you are baptizing them after death, which is typical in some christer movements but doesn't make it true.

>>20003338
right

>>20003958
NIV was comfy and it's how I started reading the bible. OP can switch to NRSV when he wants fancier binding and scholarly approval. NIV works fine for meaning.

Read the rsv or esv translation if it's your first time reading the Bible, whichever is cheaper on a place like ebay.
Jonathan Pageau has a youtube channel that's pretty good at introducing people to the christian view of patterns of reality.
https://youtu.be/gFxu3Q71NvE
https://youtu.be/ZT6Qo146Ncs
Pic is his reccomended reading list from the website he runs with other orthodox christians. You don't have to subscribe to the eastern orthodoxy specific parts, but this list is also good for a general overview.

>>20003338
Patristics, what else?

>>20004918
iranaeus was a monumental brainlet

>>20004850
>OP can switch to NRSV
Bait

>>20004924
unlike you

>>20004941
Yes

>>20004902
Nice list. I also recommend Chrysostom and Naziamzus for beginners, absolutely essential.

>>20004961
*Nazianzus

Typos only prove that I’m not a bot.

>>20004806
>your pic
I can explain to you how the Catholic Church built Western civilization, and you can check everything I say by searching in the internet if you want, I have no problem, important historians of science like Grant and Linberg even agree that the Catholic Church is the institution responsible for the Scientific Revolution.

>They weren't biblical monotheists, you are baptizing them after death, which is typical in some christer movements but doesn't make it true.
Saint Augustine was convinced that the God of the Exodus was the being of Plato. He speculated that Plato must have known about the book of Exodus:
>“But what almost makes me subscribe to the idea that Plato was not completely unaware of the Old Testament is that when the Angel transmits the words of God to the holy man Moses, who asks him the name of the one who sent him to proceed with the liberation of the Hebrew people, the answer is: 'I am who I am', and you must say to the children of Israel: 'it is He Who it is Who has sent me to you.' It was as if, compared to the one that truly is because it is immobile, the one that has become mobile did not exist. Now Plato was intensely convinced of this and was very careful to say so" (Augustine De Civ. Dei 8:11, PL 41,236).
The Being of the Exodus was the same immovable entity of Plato, according to Augustine. He called Plato's immovable being:
>"The first and highest being is he who is entirely immovable, and who can say with full right: 'I am that I am'; and you will say to them, 'He Who Is has sent me to you'" (St. Augustine, De doctrina christiana, I, 32,5; PL 34, 32)

In any case, if you don't believe me, and you don't like the example of Saint Augustine because was a Christian, I can give you the example of Nietzsche, the atheist par excellence. Nietzsche said that Plato in one of his trips to Egypt came into contact with the Semitic culture and from there his monotheism was born and eventually he would teach it to Aristotle:
>Ultimately, my mistrust of Plato extends to the very core of him: I find him so deviated from all the fundamental instincts of the Hellenes, so morally over, so much Christian background, he already has the concept of "good" as supreme. concept—that I would rather describe the whole “Plato” phenomenon with the harsh term “superior swindle” or, if you prefer, idealism, than with any other. It cost us dearly that this Athenian went to school with the Egyptians (—or with the Jews in Egypt?...). In the great fatality of Christianity, Plato is that ambiguity and fascination called "ideal"108 that made it possible for the noblest natures of antiquity to misunderstand and step on the bridge that led to the "Cross". . . And how much of Plato is still there in the concept of “Church”, in the structure, the system, the practice of the Church! (Twilight of the Idols, “What I Owe to the Ancients”)
1/2 cont

>>20004954
No. You’re just a miserable scumbag. You need to let go of the anger friend. Only God can help you. Reach out to Jesus. Use your head, you know its the right thing to do.

>>20004979
What anger? You're the one seething at me because I called your idol dumb. Using my head tells me God doesn't exist, that if he does he's not a jewish demon, and that Jesus was just a man who died

>>20004806
>>20004977
2/2 cont
Nietzsche will not cease repeating that Plato was a Jew:
>“Plato. . . who had already devalued the Greek gods with his concept of the good, which was already marked by Jewish fanaticism (in Egypt?)”
or, again
>“Plato, that anti-Hellenic and Semite by instinct”. (Both quotes from Twilight of the Idols)
End quote. So yeah, it's interesting that Plato was a proto-Christian.

Aristotle on the other hand didn't know or care (I don't know), although he was a monotheist, who did not like homosexuals or polygamy, in a polytheistic society, where homosexuality and polygamy were considered almost the rule. Catholics did not find it difficult to adhere to his philosophy because of this.

Which is funny, because otherwise the two best philosophers of the history came to the conclusion that monotheism is true with rationalism regardless of any religion and without commitment to any of them...

>>20005000
>proto-Christian.
lmfao

>>20004989
My bad, can you forgive me?

>>20005022
I don't hold genuine ill will towards you, you're just annoying

>>20005013
I put several extracts from Saint Augustine and Nietzsche, two totally opposite philosophers; a theologian who spoke about the goodness of God and an atheist who kept saying that God was dead and criticizing Christianity, both having the same opinion, I don't see you showing information proving the opposite so GTFO.

>>20005032
No I’m not. You just don’t know any better.

>>20005000
>plato and aristotle were monotheists, therefore yahweh and zombie jew adventures
when your religion has historically needed to vampirize actually sensible philosophical and theological systems in order to spread beyond uneducated peasants and not be laughed out of actually intelligent communities, it tells you something about the overall worth of its basic doctrines

>>20005050
Your smug condescension betrays your insincerity.

>>20004977
Augustine is coping you like are that someone who did not follow Yahweh was still capable of being a respectable theologian. This is in fact peak apologetics, to baptize a non-christer respected by pagans as one of your own. It's literally "I MADE THIS."
Nietzsche you are reading out of context, and he is entirely devaluating Plato by comparing him to Christian thought, effectively doing the inverse of what Augustine is doing. It is true that Plato was a theologian and that is theology was monistic, and that christers adopted platonic theology instead relying on bare fideism when advocating for the religion against more erudite opponents. Nietzsche is aware of this, that platonism was made to serve Christianity, and Augustine is obviously participating in it. As for Plato's connection to Egypt and Semitic culture, it is quite obvious from the Timaeus that he did not learn the religion of Moses from the priests of Egypt, or if he did, it was a more purebred version of it going back to well before it became garbled in Babylon by those who had left Egypt and later passed their texts to Christianity. Whatever the case may be of Platonism and its relationship to Egyptian religion, what he took away from it was not Yahweh, and any good Platonist after him would not believe God could be killed by men.

In all honesty, 4chan christians have done more to completely turn me away from christianity than almost 20 years of living among orthodox proselytes.

>>20005062
I’m a great big sinner and I require a cure for this illness.

>>20005085
ok

>>20005085
You're a big faggot and there is no cure for your sickness. I'm sorry

>>20005039
Yes, and apparently no one in your tradlarp guilt told you that Plato was influenced by Persia and zoroastrianism

>>20004526
Not as old as pretty much anything from Mesopotamia or Persia or Egypt

>>20005137
>sodomy
Why is it always sodomy with you people? You literally have shit for taste.

>>20005215
Well, for one I called you a faggot, so your remark makes zero sense. Secondly, larping as a fundamentalist often stems from being uncomfortable with your own sexuality, and mindlessly assuming that there's some Platonic, 'natural' straightness, which I'm sorry to tell you is utter nonsense. Unless you belong to a species that reproduces asexually, nature will inevitably vary as far as sexuality goes, making this idea of perfect straightness not just idiotic, but also completely pointless.

Once again, I'm sorry that you've build much of your life on lies

>>20005053
>plato and aristotle were monotheists, therefore yahweh and zombie jew adventures
You have not responded to any of the two comments I sent here >>20004977 and here
>>20005000
, and from what I see you did not even bother to read what Nietzsche and Saint Augustine wrote in the greentext.

>when your religion has historically needed to vampirize actually sensible philosophical and theological systems in order to spread beyond uneducated peasants and not be laughed out of actually intelligent communities, it tells you something about the overall worth of its basic doctrines
How's that for, "needed", Christianity has been described as a religion without a need for a philosophic basis. And what do you mean by "vampirizing" philosophical and theological systems, because between Platonism and Christianity there is no rivalry; Plato took ideas from Exodus, Plotinus take ideas from Christianity through Ammonius Saccas, Proclus took ideas from St. Paul and St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and so on. In Aristotelianism, Aquinas gave very important contributions to the Aristotelian tradition, such as the essence and existence distinction that was not even found in the Aristotelian Corpus and even the Aristotelian atheists themselves claimed him as a second teacher.

>to spread beyond uneducated peasants and not be laughed out of actually intelligent communities
Tell me, what do you consider "intelligent communities". If you mean intellectual circles, then I can give you examples, like Dr Samuel Johnson the best literary critic of all time, who considered Christianity a gift for humanity and was a Christian himself, Wittgenstein literally say that Christianity was indeed the only sure way to happiness and so on.

>>20005232
>You have not responded
I'm not the guy you were originally arguing with, I don't care about your autism

>>20005232
>Plato took ideas from Exodus
>mfw this idiot is actually serious

You are completely historically illiterate

>>20005227
Sex = procreation. Anything else is fornication and a deviation from natural faculties. Quit being a filthy degenerate and take your mind out of the gutter.

>>20005255
Tell me about all the kids Jesus had

>>20005250

>>20005275
So it's true because other people said so about Plato.

Once again, you are an utter moron. There's virtually no evidence that Plato was even slightly familiar with the religious cult in some infertile backwater. Never once is anything remotely Jewish even mentioned in any of his works

>>20005260
He did fuck Mary Magdalene to be fair
Though he probably never had kids. Not very trad honestly, kinda cringe. I wonder if Jesus and MM had furbabies instead

>>20005232
I responded here
>>20005066
Also you seem unfamiliar with the context in which apologetics and the christer adoption of neoplatonic theology emerged. "Dr. Samuel Johnson" and "Wittgenstein" were not the community of educated people who the religion was eventually spread to in the early centuries of Christianity. Those would be Roman pagans, whose scoffing views are represented by sources like Pliny and Galen, and later by the polemicists like Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, who began to actively argue against Christianity. The faith was being ridiculed, which is why when educated pagans converted, they wrote "apologies," and much of this literature consisted of denying accusations that christers participated in illicit cults and in claiming their beliefs accorded with the God taught by platonic theology, though were of course, better because of the resurrection, or because pagan practices were un-mosaic

>>20005260
The Gospel does speak about how we can become children of God.

>>20005318
And monks are gods too?

>>20005275
I don't get it. Christers are willing to say the Bible is allegorical when trying to prove it is Platonism (which it must be recalled, used Greek and Egypt myths to express itself rather than a literal covenant with a tribal god taken to be a historical document), but when someone compares Platonism to Mosaic religion using metaphor (Plato is the Moses of the Greeks) it must be taken literally (he based his theology upon the book of Exodus)? Are you really that indiscriminate in grabbing whatever could be persuasive? No wonder the educated Roman population largely denounced you. Only an illiterate person could agree with this

>>20005333
>Are you really that indiscriminate in grabbing whatever could be persuasive?

Yes, he is. Literally the only point of the christian is to get people to agree with him. It doesn't matter how or why, and it can never be successful in the first place, since you'd still be left with what kind of Christianity.

The christian is all about dedicating his entire life to a lost cause

>>20005355
>Literally the only point of the christian is to get people to agree with him.
So wrong I'm amazed. Not any anon you've been arguing with but you don't have to agree with me. Jesus didn't go crawling on his hands and knees after people who disagreed with him. He let them go. Christians should spread the good news, and apologetics is the defense of the faith, but scripture clearly states if people don't want to listen to you shake the dust from your clothes and keep it movin.

>The christian is all about dedicating his entire life to a lost cause
Romantic, but wrong. God is literally the beginning and end of all things. The only way to "win" is to follow him.

>>20005421
>if people don't want to listen to you shake the dust from your clothes and keep it movin.
Then get going

>>20005326
lol no, the clergy are merely here to serve. A monk doesn’t have a will of his own. So a monk prays that God’s will be done through him.

>our Father who be high in the sky, sanctified be your glorious Name, YOUR will be done, YOUR kingdom come, etc.
mighta paraphrased that a little.

>>20005421
>God is literally the beginning and end of all things. The only way to "win" is to follow him.
source: the bibble

>>20005430
I just told you I wasn't anyone you were arguing with dumb dumb. I'm barely in this thread.

>>20005431
A monk has a will of his own. He is under vow of obedience, however. Clergy are indeed servants.

>>20005442
>A monk has a will of his own.
I would say that a monk is at war with his will. A monk only find solace when God is glorified.

>>20004506
what do you believe in, then?

orthodox christian here. ama

>>20005461
>>20005442
monk is the hardest thing to do if you decide to go that way. the gospel was written for all christian is just that if you become a monk is easier to be saved. And yes monks are more free than people living in this world because they don't have anything. is a hard thing to do. I will maybe become a monk by 30 if i don't marry my current gf

>>20005824

>>20005984
That's rounding the corners of your hair btw, it's creating a circle for sun worship

>>20003338
tell me you're still here op.
here's a nice chart
(try asking in the Bible thread too)

>>20003338
>I am ready to accept Christ in my heart
apparently not
you have to go back

>>20003338
RedeemingGod.com/Jeremy Myers

>>20006020
NKJV adds and removes from the word of God, it doesn't only update the language as they claim. ESV is also trash.

>>20006067
Yeah ignore all that, the books are the important part. Bible translations are a tougher spot that this little paragraph doesn't do justice to.

>>20003338
Ah, you've found Christ! So you will be following his explicit moral teachings of selling all of your belongings and giving the money to the poor? After all, Christ was as clear as it is possible to be: camels can't go through the eye of a needle and rich people can't go to heaven. Unless, of course, you actually are mistaking Christian values for the secular-modulated values which allow for a capitalistic, anti-Jesus, sentiment so people can claim to be "Christians" while doing the exact opposite of his teachings?

>>20006085
Are you a Christian?

>>20006085
And as i'll preemptively say, don't listen OP. This seems to be a man trying to drive you away from salvation by means of criticizing how you act. Small steps, friend.
As for pointing out the hypocrisy, it's quite likely he isn't a Christian, and is trying to drive you away from God.

>>20006115
>>20006126
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” - Matthew 19:21

OP, if people are advising you to ignore the direct words of Jesus Christ, they are selling you a secular perversion of Christianity, they are openly anti-Jesus.

>uhh don't listen to these passages in the Gospels they are just there for no reason whatsoever I guess
>now, as for the passages I like, these are based and redpilled, and the Truth and the Way, and will lead you to God
>no, there's no issue with this arbitrary method of exegesis, just agree with me the way i agree with it

>>20006085
>and rich people can't go to heaven
... without the grace of God, correct. Rich people can't go to heaven without God bringing them there. But all things are possible with God. You did read the rest of that verse, right? You did read the whole thing, right? You didn't just cherrypick half a verse just to ridicule Christianity.... right? You're not forgetting about all of the Christian doctrine that explains that verse..... right?

>>20006085
>>20006126
Although, as i'll add, the latter half of that is correct. Don't be a lukewarm Christian.
Revelation 3:16
>So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
>>20006146
it shows the rich man loved his possessions more than God.
>>20006156
>listen to me twisting Scripture to drive you away from salvation instead

>>20006158
>"Buh... buh... What He /actually/ meant is that God is so great he makes camels pass through eyes of needles, not that the rich choose to prioritize worldly wealth over accumulating treasure in heaven and thus preclude themselves from entering heaven!"
GTFO Blasphemer!

>>20006181
Are you a Christian?

>>20006158
Bro, are you seriously advocating for people to spend their lifetime getting rich and serving the master of worldly wealth rather than our Lord in Heaven? And then you basically say as long as you have a deathbed conversion and cry out "I shouldn't have been rich and wealthy, I should have followed Jesus, save me Lord, I repent!" that you can sneak into heaven at the end? That you can merely throw yourself on the Lord's mercy? Well, you should pray for His mercy to save such a spineless, weak, hypocrite.

>>20006181
He meant both that he CAN make camels pass through the eyes of needles, if he so wishes (he is omnipotent, after all) AND that hoarded wealth is a peril to one's soul.
>NOOOO THERE HAS TO BE ONE MEANING AND ONLY ONE INTERPRETATION TO THE VERSE AND WE HAVE TO DISREGARD BOTH ASPECTS OF THE VERSE BECAUSE I WANT CHRISTIANITY TO SEEM CONFUSING AND INCONVENIENT AND DOWNRIGHT SILLY AND I WANT TO EPIC PWN THE CHRISTARDS WHO BELIEVE IN THAT STUFF BECAUSE HECKIN DAWKINS SAYS ITS ALL GOOFY NONSENSE

>>20003338
The ESV Study Bible is everything you need.

>>20006199
Depends, if you consider those in this thread who are absolute hypocrites and spineless liars hell bent on doing the exact opposite of the direct word of the Lord our God as Christians then you might as well consider Satanists and hedonists and every single person alive "Christian"

>>20006176
>quoting Jesus is twisting scripture
seems like a very bad way to defend Christianity if you believe that

>>20006218
>"Bro, like, Jesus meant both one thing and it's exact opposite at the same time so you don't have to change your behavior at all because, like, Jesus wanted to give you an out to be able to accumulate wealth and screw over the poor. Isn't that great that he did that which is exactly in your favor and is also the exact opposite of the words he spoke?"
Pathetic

>>20004850
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm

>>20006235
Okay, give me your own well-written out meaning of that verse. I might be attacking you because i misunderstood.

>"Hmm, Jesus is teaching me that I should sell my possessions and give to the poor, but I'm a weak, spineless, hedonistic hypocritical coward and I want to keep all my wealth to myself and I don't really care about people suffering more than me. How do I twist Jesus's words so I get to keep being an absolutely selfish piece of shit while claiming to be Christian? I know! I'll say he meant that God can make the camels pass through the eye of the needle! Amazing!"
The weakness of man is really quite stunning in it's dedication to selfishness.

>>20006252
You have a passage where he says perfection is giving up all your worldly possessions to the needy to follow Christ. I think that is pretty obvious. The allegory is the camel and the needle, not the directive for you to cultivate poverty in exchange for other-worldly benefits, which is quite literal and accords with the Christian abandonment of the worldly. Now, if you are from the servile caste that this religion originated with, that is also an excellent case of patting yourself on the back since you are perfect for being poor and guaranteed salvation. It is the oppressor who must suffer to join you because he is imperfect by means of his worldly powers, these are in fact what makes him essentially imperfect and your lack of them is what enriches you.

>>20006158
The degree of hubris you need in order to recognize that Jesus says it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven, but then decide to just keep your riches and rely on God to pass that camel through the eye of the needle for you so you can get into heaven is absolutely astonishing. Is this seriously your position? That you'll ignore Jesus's teaching because God has the power to just whisk you away to heaven anyway even though you completely ignored his teachings?

You should probably start at the beginning, i.e. read the Bible. There are two versions of the text, one from latin writings, other from greek writings. These differ in some sentences, so it is best to study them side by side. Study them in the original tongues, but if you can't or prefer an English version, then from the latin translations you can pick King James Version, or Coverdale Bible, or Matthew's Bible, or Purver Bible. For the greek versions you can use Taverner Bible, Douai Rheims Bible, or some other translations like https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/ . There are plenty more of course so do a research.

There are countless debates about which translation is the best, or first but ignore those, and just pick two you find most comfortable and just read them.

After that you can start learning about the history of the church (ecclesiastical history) and the terminology used. The ecclesiastical history is just the continuation of the events that happened in the Bible so you can understand how it spread and what issues it faced.
> https://archive.org/search.php?query=ecclesiastical%20history&sort=date&and[]=languageSorter%3A%22English%22

Then you proceed with the Cannons of the Ecumenical councils, so you can understand what rules apply even for laymen. The rules are still valid today.
> http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0835.HTM

After that, find out which denomination you want to belong to as the rituals, rules, holidays and customs differ in many ways. Before you choose think very carefully, because once you are baptized, there is no going back. You cannot become unbaptized. And don't think about changing denominations like changing clothes. It is best to research before hand than to hop from one group to another. Once you are in, you have responsibilities. It will feel tiresome at times. But there is a reason for it. All the rules and stuff, you discuss them with the priest of the church you choose. Trust him and be obedient. Obediency is the key.

Also, do not waste your time reading literature not written by the practicioners of the faith. Many academics and atheists and whatnot write books on Christianity without practicing it, so they tend to offer misguided views on what the religion is and what the rituals mean. This is because they do not have the Holy Spirit in them. Look rather into literatures written by actual priests, members of a church and holy people. You can find plenty of them depending on which denomination you choose. For Orthodoxy, you have writings like the Philokalia, or The Ladder of Divine Ascent. For Catholicism you can read anything the Popes wrote. For other denominations, consult your priest.

That's pretty much it.

>>20006247
>biblical scholarship cannot advance, all the translation errors, transcription errors, and dubious sources of the 16th century are holy scripture themselves.
This is one reason why fundamentalist protestants are a clown show.

>>20006586
17th

>>20006875
cringe

>>20006765
>The Tyndale Bible generally refers to the body of biblical translations by William Tyndale into Early Modern English, made c.1522–1536.
If you don't know what you're talking about better to stay quiet.

>>20006885
>the Tyndale is the King James
There is no need for you to get "RETARD" tattooed across your forehead because we can tell without it.

>>20007036
>implying the KJV does not inherit the enumerated passages from Tyndale
I'll leave you to your illiteracy. Good day.

>implying the KJV does not inherit the enumerated passages from Tyndale
Look them up and compare for yourself, Tyndale and KJV are both available free online. I'll leave you to your boorish illiteracy. Good day.

>>20005291
>So it's true because other people said so about Plato.
You are forgetting that the people I am referring to are Platonists who have studied the dialogues. Rather I know this thanks to various scholars of Plato that I have read.

>There's virtually no evidence that Plato was even slightly familiar with the religious cult in some infertile backwater.
>Never once is anything remotely Jewish even mentioned in any of his works
Lol this is wrong, see Exodus 3:14 in the Hellenistic Greek translation, where God calls himself ὁ ὤν. It is very curious that a Greek philosopher characterizes The First Principle of All with language drawn from the Old Testament. And not only is the first principle αὐτοόν, but it is ὁ ὤν, “he who is”, which makes the reference to the book of Exodus even more evident and obvious.

>>20005333
Read above, I made a comparison with the book of Exodus. I paste it here:

"See Exodus 3:14 in the Hellenistic Greek translation, where God calls himself ὁ ὤν. It is very curious that a Greek philosopher characterizes The First Principle of All with language drawn from the Old Testament. And not only is the first principle αὐτοόν, but it is ὁ ὤν, “he who is”, which makes the reference to the book of Exodus even more evident and obvious".

>>20007171
Isn't the Septuagint from Ptolemaic Egypt? In other words, well after Plato? In other words, the Book of Exodus had not been translated into Greek when Plato was writing? In other words, the choice of Platonic vocabulary to translate terms in the Book of Exodus owes to the spread and influence of Hellenistic culture? And more importantly, whatever commonalities there are would owe more to an older Egyptian influence, certainly in a story whose protagonist has an Egyptian name and was raised as an Egyptian prince.

>>20005066
I didn't see your comment.

>Augustine is coping you like are that someone who did not follow Yahweh was still capable of being a respectable theologian.
I explained the relationship with the Judeo-Christian God of the Exodus in a comment above:
>"See Exodus 3:14 in the Hellenistic Greek translation, where God calls himself ὁ ὤν. It is very curious that a Greek philosopher characterizes The First Principle of All with language drawn from the Old Testament. And not only is the first principle αὐτοόν, but it is ὁ ὤν, “he who is”, which makes the reference to the book of Exodus even more evident and obvious".

>This is in fact peak apologetics, to baptize a non-christer respected by pagans as one of your own. It's literally "I MADE THIS."
With the explanation above it is already clear that it is not an "I made this", but that the same philosopher took ideas from the Exodus. Also pagans doesn't like Plato that much because his entire philosophy is a response to the father of paganism, Homer.

>Nietzsche you are reading out of context, and he is entirely devaluating Plato by comparing him to Christian thought, effectively doing the inverse of what Augustine is doing
Obviously, I know, but that wasn't the point of my post. It was just a comparisson.

>adopted platonic theology instead relying on bare fideism when advocating for the religion against more erudite opponents
Some Christians adopted, others don't. And who are those "more erudite opponents" you are talking about? Where are they now?. Because I see Christians everywhere so those opponents weren't so smart after all...(lol)

>Nietzsche is aware of this, that platonism was made to serve Christianity, and Augustine is obviously participating in it.
Correct

>As for Plato's connection to Egypt and Semitic culture, it is quite obvious from the Timaeus that he did not learn the religion of Moses from the priests of Egypt, or if he did, it was a more purebred version of it going back to well before it became garbled in Babylon by those who had left Egypt and later passed their texts to Christianity. Whatever the case may be of Platonism and its relationship to Egyptian religion, what he took away from it was not Yahweh, and any good Platonist after him would not believe God could be killed by men.
I don't see anything here that contradicts everything I've said.

>>20004408
>Show me a single documented example in history of someone coming back from the dead then ascending to heaven after a few days.
Jesus Christ

>>20004310
> A legitimate plurality of positions has given way to an undifferentiated pluralism, based on the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of the most widespread symptoms of a lack of confidence in the truth.
Conservatives say this all the time but I don’t see it. We live in an extremely rigid and dogmatic time. Deviation from the woke party line is tolerated less and less, and the consequences for it grow more and more severe

>A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

>Confirming previous conclusions, the new analysis showed that the correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs in college and noncollege samples ranged from -.20 to -.23.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/

>The negative association between cognitive intelligence (CI) and religiosity has been widely studied and is now well documented.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31748923/

>Recent research has indicated a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23784742/

>Participants more willing to engage in analytic reasoning were less likely to endorse supernatural beliefs. Further, an association between analytic cognitive style and religious engagement was mediated by religious beliefs, suggesting that an analytic cognitive style negatively affects religious engagement via lower acceptance of conventional religious beliefs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22481051/

>Our results indicate that the association between analytic thinking and religious disbelief is not caused by a simple order effect. There is good evidence that atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27054566/

Christbros…. we got too cocky

>>20007313
Atheists post "studies" instead of reviewing the biographies of the best scientists in history who actually changed the world (pic).

Also this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
GTFO

>>20007313
>mfw the best scientists of all time were Christians

>>20007280
>those opponents weren't so smart after all
Without pagan opposition there would not be an ounce of intellectual thought in Christianity; it would be entirely reduced to "just trust me, I heard this other guy say this other guy say you get to LIVE FOREVER if you pray to Jesus Christ, the real Lord (not the stinky Roman lords who conquered us)." The fact that educated pagans thought this was a retard religion for slaves, women, and criminals prompted the non-slave, non-female, and less-impulsive converts to mount a defense of their new religion, and that defense was to pretend it was actually platonism, but better because of the magic show and easier route to eternal life than metempsychosis. Beginning in the 300s, Christians captured the state and then began to eradicate paganism by degree, something the Romans had not done thoroughly enough to them, nor could they have, because the early Christians introduced the innovative idea that getting killed for Christianity was the ideal way to die.

>>20007323
>>20007330
Many of the best writers were sodomites, should we all be sodomites?

>>20003998
There's literally a church on every street corner in America

>>20007374
Dante put the Sodomites in a hell where some had to run in circles for all eternity, and others were rained down with fire from heaven for going against God. Not very gay from the greatest poet in history.

Also, I wasn't arguing, I was just pointing out how ridiculous those studies are compared with the religion of the best scientists and where Western science came from.

>>20007344
>pagans good! Christans bad!

>>20007344
>pagans good! Christians bad!
Catholics: (pic)

>>20007344
>not the stinky Roman lords who conquered us
Ah yes, the Roman Empire, we improved it and made (pic). Which is funny because Catholics are the true heirs of Rome, in the rest of the West didn't even bother to learn Italian, and some of us even learned Latin to understand the doctrine of the Church and the Latin Mass, we even revived the Romans and the Greeks with the Renaissance and surpassed them and ourselves with the Baroque, the climax of Western civilization. Where were the "educated pagans" trying to rebuild Rome when we did all this?.

The "retarded religion for slaves, women, and criminals" built the Spanish Empire without the need to enslave the indigenous people unlike the English did, the "retarded religion" invented the first universities and the university system, the "retarded religion" developed the idea of free-market economics five hundred years before Adam Smith, that "retarded religion" humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. Even Western law grew out of Church canon law.

>>20007422
Dante was sympathetic to sodomites, among whom he included his literary mentor. He puts sodomites in Purgatorio as well

>>20007621
You would agree that Islam is a retarded religion, yet much good has come out of it

>>20007746
The Quran is a masterpiece, and more if you read it according to the rules of recitation, it is wonderful to recite and it sounds so mellow that it gives me goosebumps, even those who don't know Arabic can also feel its power. A text in which only the voice of the God of the Muslims speaks, amazing. Muslim culture is also very interesting. In any case, I prefer my Catholic culture, the Bible and the Divine Comedy (which I find difficult for Muslims to like lol).

>btw that there are so many Muslims in Europe is the fault of the Protestants, the Catholics in Poland have not had the same problems...

>>20007621
>we
>we
>we
>we
stupid larper thinks he's actually a conquistador, amazing... play too many video games perhaps? Also the natives were enslaved and put to work in mines, and it is very obvious from the people who live there now that an enslaved African population was also imported to Catholic South America. What is your point exactly, that after Christianity became a state religion it was employed for based and redpilled violent imperial conquest? That doesn't seem to have gone all that well against more, uh, civilized opponents—why are Egypt, the Levant, and North Africa all Muslim today instead of Catholic? Is it because they weren't stone age tribesmen like the conquered Aztecs and Incas, and too advanced to be reconquered?

>>20007860
>stupid larper thinks he's actually a conquistador, amazing
You were talking about pagans like pagans gave two fucks about you. At least i'm a Catholic from Spain.

>Also the natives were enslaved and put to work in mines, and it is very obvious from the people who live there now that an enslaved African population was also imported to Catholic South America.
That's false, slavery was prohibited. The evangelizing imprint of the presence of the Spanish in America prevented this institution. This concern for the dignity of the indigenous population did not exist in the later colonial era. Only in this framework could the inevitable abuses be denounced. In this line, the Ordinances for the treatment of the Indians or Laws of Burgos were issued in December 1512. The Indians had the status of free men. Later, in 1542, the so-called New Laws were promulgated, also on "the governance of the Indies and good treatment and conservation of the Indians", in which the encomiendas were abolished and indigenous slavery was abolished.

>What is your point exactly, that after Christianity became a state religion it was employed for based and redpilled violent imperial conquest?
What do you mean by "after", Spain have always been Catholic. And Hernan Cortes was a fervent Catholic who forced the indigenous people to convert as Isabella ordered.

>more, uh, civilized opponents
>Is it because they weren't stone age tribesmen like the conquered Aztecs and Incas, and too advanced to be reconquered?
Pic

>>20007926
I was talking about early Christianity and the criticism of it by pagan Roman writers like Galen or Celsus, and you brought up the Spanish empire from 1400 years later, as if it had anything to do with the discussion, as an example of a Christianity that wasn't bitter enslaved people but the people doing the conquering. It's as if you are trying to prove my point, that the original religion is so unlike your medievalist thomism-and-crusaders concept of it that you are indebted to pagan criticism of it to have produced a synthesis that wasn't entirely "let me get myself executed so I can have eternal life." And to some extent, I am sure losing half the Roman empire to Islamic invasions encouraged Christianity to rethink itself

>246 replies
>no mention of The Imitation of Christ

>>20003338
falseflag.

>>20007962
The Imitation is Christ is not a book on apologetics. It's for people already fully committed to the Christian way of life.

>>20007323
>>20007330
>>20007422
>he thinks that pointing out that most scientists were christian in a time period during which everyone was christian is somehow meaningful
kek, cope

>>20003980

If only you knew what the average christfag believed, you wouldn't be so eager, OP.

Go ahead, just ask them how old the earth is, or whether species change over time, and witness a myriad of fallacy bloom like meadow flowers in the most exquisite performance of mental gymnastics you've ever witnessed.

>>20003338
It's wonderful to see that you have come to the point in your life where you're willing to repent and believe on Christ, fren. It seems to me that you're overintellectualising the whole thing though, it's not about arguments and reason really. Faith is not something that you think yourself into, there's more to human beings than thought after all. I'd recommend that you find yourself a church near you which preaches from the scriptures as they are and follows God dutifully. Overintellectualising can lead you to soul - and mind - destroying heresies like gnosticism for example. So, read your Bible and attend church that you might grow stronger in the faith. If you haven't already, you should get baptised.

Here are a few good bible translations in different languages that I can think of
>English: ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB(1995)
>French: Louis Segond's Bible
>Polish Gdánsk Bible
>German: Luther Bible (a bit archaic but it works)
>Swedish: 1912 Bibel, Svenska Folkbibeln (1998/2015 either is good)

No clue what your native tongue is so I'm just shooting buckshot here from what I've heard is good and from what I know is good. The ESV and NASB can be a little wooden, because they're more literal translations from the original texts. Whatever the case they should work. If you have any questions on scripture, a study bible written by someone who wasn't a flaming heretic would be good for you to read from, either that or just talk to the priest from the aformentioned (as of now hypothetical) church.

Good luck, fren, God bless you and God be with you.

>>20009132
>good goy, don't think
christianity is a fucking joke

>>20009132
Fellow Christian, how old is the earth? Is it as >>20009118 says?

>>20009158
The methods we use to ascertain the age of the earth are incredibly faulty and turn up highly unreliable results. It literally matters 0% whether or not Holy Scripture goes against "le ebin science" because that in and of itself is clearly a religion. You have to BELIEVE in it even when it goes against good reason because it has no actual real world merit - it's all just faith. There's nothing inherently wrong with something being inherently faith based, it's that science is just another religion which is - by default - false.
What differentiates Christianity from science is the fact that there's more evidence for Christ than there is of ancient Greece, whereas evolution cannot even explain how the "Cambrian explosion" happened so quickly. Even evolutionary theory and the various ideas about the different stages of the Earth's lifespan are based on absolutely NOTHING. Theorisation from the rings of trees and the aformentioned faulty carbon dating method. It's all speculation, unlike the life of Christ or the word of God, which time and time and TIME again has been proven right.
Faith in the One who created all the world is more legitimate than faith in a theory that you have to cope and seethe about to ignore it's obvious and debilitating faults.

>"WAIT, YOU MEAN YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN LE EBIN SCIENCE!?!?!?!?!?!? WOAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW CHRISTIANITY MUST BE STOOOOOOOOOPID"
Yes believe it or not I'm a Christian and not a science (read: s*tan) worshiper.


TL;DR Check your mailbox, >>20009118

>>20009188
Christian trolls are the best trolls although you should consider getting a real hobby

>>20009188
10/10, absolutely immaculate performance, and he even stuck the landing. You don't see mental gymnastics like this just anywhere, folks.

>>20009188
Still a bit too on the nose but you're getting there.

>>20003338
>I'm tired of how faith is looked down upon and the smug satisfaction that overcomes people by dismissing religion without even understanding it.

If you're in it for the social status yngmi. Esteem will not save you.

>>20007330
Every single one of them is a heretic according to church dogma, but christians turn a blind eye because it helps with the image.

>>20003338
Holy Bible, by Stephen King.

>>20007330
>laughs long and hard in Persian and Babylonian

>>20007171
>Lol this is wrong,
>then quotes a Greek translation from the Bible
>and not Plato, which is literally what I said

Beyond parody

>>20010290
based King Stephen Version enthusiast

>>20003577
The esv was translated by calvinists retard.

christians. what is the moment of Christ's transfiguration to you? why did he flex?

>>20004177
>David Bentley Hart
Socialist atheist.
>>20004177
>Theistic Evolution - Various
This is an anti evolution book written by protestants. Totally worthless.

>>20004114
Why do Christian’s post a board full of porn and racism? God tells you not to consume porn and to love everyone as your brother. Not to shitpost on 4chan about how Jews (a group Jesus was a member of) are conspiring to destroy the white race and turn men into trannies.

>>20008429
What about the last century?

>>20009118
>>20009188
The Catholic Church accepts any scientific consensus, and Catholics accept the scientific consensus on theage of the Earth, theage of the universe, theBig Bang, theorigin of the Solar System, theorigin of life, andevolution.

>>20010529
The world is a "board full of porn and racism?"
>get thee out of this world
We're workin' on it
Go FUCK YOURSELF

>>20010537
If anything this makes the jews seem way more impressive.
Society was also massively christian still until the mid 20th century at least.