/lit/ - Literature

>>2750983
>religion threads on /g/
>religion threads on /b/
>religion threads on /sci/
>this
Fuck off and delete this thread, you cancerous twat.

>>2750983
Blame Dawkins. He gave flimsy arguments to a whole generation of angsty teenagers who otherwise would have just gone through a one year phase of satanism and black metal.

God I hate atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXlI8Wn8J3Q

>>2751014
Why

>>2751014
Good, good. Pop-science is no longer as edgy as it used to be, but is still in favour with the majority of hipsters. Now is the perfect time to jump ship so you can feel smug around your friends for being "ahead of the curve" You can't be a deist, though. You consider yourself too intelligent. You now have to loudly proclaim yourself to be agnosic, and tell everybody how loathsome atheists are.

>>2751014
fret not, a lot of atheists hate this new brand of atheism too.

>>2751028
Not that guy, but what does pop-science have to do with atheism? It isn't science's purpose to disprove or prove te existence of god.

>has horrible plotting
>he thinks the entire bible is supposed to be 1 big story

>>2751037
Huh? shit, I thought I wrote Pop-atheism.

>>2751033
It's not the atheism I dislike, I just dislike morons.

>2012
>theists

What are you guys doing?

>>2751059
Not everyone is an athiest or thiest. There is a much less retarded option..

>>2751063
you talking about apatheism?

to me apatheists are uninteresting. nothing to talk with concerning philosophical affairs.

I have a solution: Every student has their head placed upon a block, and an axe aimed at their neck. If the student is a theist, the axe will bounce off their neck — so we burn them. If the student is an atheist, the axe will simply slice their head off.

>>2751072
Like I care what you think.

>>2751082
you and i could get along.

>>2751063
If you mean agnosticism, that is still atheism, since all atheism entails is lack of a belief in a deity.

The only form of theism which carries itself with any intellectual honesty is impersonal deism, but at that point one might as well be an atheist. Everything else is inexcusable.

It's always a depressing thing when isms become fads.

The new adherents so often spoil it with their ignorance and loose devotion to the ideal. Shameful, really.

>>2751091
agnosticism is the accepting of the fact that you do not possess any objective knowledge of the universe, so cannot either believe or reject a God.

This is different from rejecting the idea of a God because you're admitting that there could be one.

how does agnosticism not inevitably lead into Pascal's wager?

>>2751063

That's right. You can always ride the fence. It'll be easy, once you're up on your high horse.

Agnostics are the worst. They have no real opinion... but they want you to know that they have no real opinion.

>>2751099
Because Pascal's wager was a joke. Literally a joke.

suck it, hipster theists

>>2751097
>cannot either believe or reject a God.

is not believing in god. ergo, atheist.


atheism isn't strictly rejection of god, just absence. stupid faggot.

>>2751099
>Pascal's wager

Oh lol.

>>2751097
>agnosticism is the accepting of the fact that you do not possess any objective knowledge of the universe

That's not intellectual honesty, that's cowardice. One need only pick up a newspaper to realize the universe is impersonal in its cruelty, which, logically, expels the possibility of a personal deity, rendering most forms of theism and its adherents incorrect.

If you believe that you do not have sufficient knowledge of the universe (whatever that means) how can you claim to have knowledge of anything? Why not just babble like an idiot in the mud?

>>2751102

... have you actually read Pascal's wager?

>>2751129
It's not our fault that you live under a rock.

You know, I hear a lot of bitching about these "new atheists." I never seem to meet any new atheists, though.

If they exist, I can only assume you bitches complain more often and far more loudly than they.

>>2751111

Are you this retarded?

>Checks your original post

Yes

>>2751102

Pascal's wager is one of the most logical arguments ever made on religion. If you simply acknowledge the fact that there could be a God and life is shit, then it is almost impossible to not follow Pascals syllogistic argument to arrive at his same conclusion.

>>2751123
>One need only pick up a newspaper to realize the universe is impersonal in its cruelty, which, logically, expels the possibility of a personal deity, rendering most forms of theism and its adherents incorrect.

No that just tells me organized religions are probably a farce, it says nothing regarding the creation of the universe. I fully believe I will never come to understand how the universe was created in my lifetime. The possibility that it was created by something I will never comprehend is a logical option.

>>2751148
>Pascal's wager is one of the most logical arguments ever made on religion.

ha ha, holy shit man, you're nuttin me up.

>>2751148
Which God? What if the God that exists has yet to reveal himself?

>That's not intellectual honesty, that's cowardice. One need only pick up a newspaper to realize the universe is impersonal in its cruelty, which, logically, expels the possibility of a personal deity, rendering most forms of theism and its adherents incorrect.


Thats a horrible argument against theism or organized religion. The "problem of evil" has been "fixed" time and time again.

>>2751161
as someone who hasn't yet studied the debate, what arguments are there against it?

>>2751155

So I take it you haven't actually read it? Tell me why its wrong.

>>2751124
I have. Pascal was too smart a man to be serious.

>>2751170
Why are you instantly presuming that people haven't "read it" when people say that it's wrong? Not that guy, but wow.

>>2751163

The easiest is simply that evil is the absence of good. If God is good, than evil, even natural evil such as hurricanes and death, stems from humans free will, not God. In fact, there is no such thing as "evil", just bad decisions. Basically. It is a bit more complicated than that. Go read Augustine if you want the full story.

There are a number of other arguments, such as the "best of all possible worlds" argument, but they don't carry as much weight as the Augustine one.

>>2751148
What if you're betting on the wrong god? Pascal's wager would force me to believe in and worship all gods. But then some gods wouldn't really appreciate that, especially the Muslim and Christian gods.

If Pascal's wager honestly convinces you to believe in anything, you immediately concede your gullibility for almost anything.

>>2751181
But how can there be free will in a universe of an omnipotent and omniscience god?

>>2751161
> The "problem of evil" has been "fixed" time and time again.

im glad you put that in quotes. because yeah you're right. it has never been fixed. all theodicy doesn't work if you want to have a perfect god. to explain the bad in the presence of a perfect god, you have to make god imperfect or come up with some wish washy explanation like there's a mistranslation in gods design, that we aren't smart enough to know what god intends. none of that fixes the problem
all attempts at theodicy amount to the same thing eventually: justifying evil. . we should be looking to prevent evil, not giving it its appropriate place in the universe.

but here's the thing: as long you dont care about god, there is no problem to fix. there is only evil and how you are going to deal with it. so how are you going to deal with it?

>>2751184

Only christian's have the notion of eternal hell where you die forever. Islamist hell isn't eternal, and Judaism doesn't really have any standard on this issue.

>>2751170
Well firstly it's an argument of simply Christianity vs. Atheism, when there are hundreds of hundreds of belief systems that are left unrecognized.

Secondly since it only addresses the existence of the Christian god, I'll use a Christian god's supposed own words: Revelation 3:16 "And you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I am going to vomit you from my mouth." The Christian god makes it clear that she prefers sincere disbelief over insincere belief. Pascal was either joking or dense to create this logic lacking joke of a "wager".

>>2751184
Pascal's wager would also include all gods that have been forgotten, will be created in the future, or are otherwise unknown. The possibilities become infinite.

>>2751161
Reminds me of people who say "well, I don't believe in a God, but if there is a God he's suppose to be good and loving and should spread instant peace. Why does your God allow evil to happen, why doesn't he spread instant peace?"

How does a religious person even begin to explain their beliefs to a person who doesn't believe there is a God, but has a belief of what God is "suppose" to be?

>>2751189
>hundreds of hundreds
hundreds and hundreds*

Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again

>>2751185

How would that contradict free will? Not only that, but if God knows everything that will happen, he also knows everything that could happen. So it is possible that God beholds all possible outcomes of all possible decisions, and strives to influence you to the best of his abilities without infringing on your free will.

>>2751186

But here's the thing. Evil doesn't actually exist in the theistic framework. Its an absence. A negative that occurs when people cut chose to cut themselves off from God. Its not actually a "thing", so there is no problem.

>>2751187
>eternal hell
Depends on how you interpret the New Testament. Jesus is a man of parables and metaphors, he references being restricted from God's kingdom as being sentenced to Gehenna, which was a burning dump outside of Jerusalem.

So perhaps Jesus literally meant that you will be sent to Gehenna if you are rejected by God.

>>2751205
Omniscience implies that God knows everything that will happen, past present and future. Not just possible outcomes, but the outcome which will occur. If the outcome is already known, it is predetermined. So either there is limitations to God's power and knowledge, or there is no free will. You seem to choose limiting power and knowledge. If that's the case, then why even assume it is a god? It could just be a higher entity of some kind. Possibly even relatively weak to what is possible.

>>2751211
So if I do something that is not good, it is evil? Perhaps I don't remember my Catholic upbringing that well, but I don't believe things are painted as being that dualistic.

>>2751211
But then it's just a matter of saying that anyone who does evil is away from God. What about a person who saves a thousand lives by killling a hundred? Evil, or not? What if the hundred he kills would have saved two thousand, and now that they're dead, two thousand more will die?

You can ascribe goodness or evilness to anything, but it's all manmade whether you like it or not.

>>2751187
I believe in a God that sends you to Hell if you believe in him and sends you to Heaven if you don't.

>>2751211
>A negative that occurs when people cut chose to cut themselves off from God
But Jesus tells parables about the importance of people who don't follow God, or claim not to follow God, but still does God's work.

>>2751189

And there you go. You didn't read the damn thing. First of all, Christians are the only major religion at Pascals time to acknowledge eternal damnation. So, no, its not "Christian vs. Atheism" its "Christianity vs. Not Christianity". Secondly, Pascal has a large section devoted to targeting your lukewarm objection. Why don't you go read that, and come back?

Since I know you won't, Pascal says that the believer must strive to overcome his doubt through intense prayer and discussion with the clergy, as well as living a life full of good-doing. At the end of the day, God will either recognize your intense desire to love him despite your doubts, or you will be wrong and reach oblivion at death, but you will have led a good life anyway, and would have performed many good deeds due to you striving to be a good person.

>The Bible
>cornerstone of Western literature, as well as in art, music, cinema etc.
>herr derr it stanks XD

Harold Bloom he is not.

>>2751211
actually, no. evil is a thing in itself to theists. it's the consequence of free creation or the consequence of love


defining evil as absence of good is far from sound. do you really think it's appropriate to reject rape and murder solely because it's not something good like god or eating ice cream in the park? no, i rather think rape and murder are bad because they are positive actions.
again it takes away agency. when people turn away from god, they dont inevitably lapse into evil. it's not that kind of dichotomy. you can be good without god. thats because there is god and there is morality. god isn't morality. although god may be wholly good.

>>2751214
>You seem to choose limiting power and knowledge. If that's the case, then why even assume it is a god? It could just be a higher entity of some kind. Possibly even relatively weak to what is possible.
I'm a different poster, but this is an issue I see many atheists misunderstanding. Though atheists don't believe in a God, they believe that a God must be perfect and omniscient.

Would you be satisfied if people simply stopped using the word God, and stirctly used Lord, Yahweh, Allah, etc?

>>2751231

I spent my life worshipping a non-entity for no reason, but at least now I have a future of eternal nothingness to look forward to!

Here are two good videos on Pascal's wager. Watch them in this order, as the second video is about responses to the first video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXSjzCf1waA

And once again the Gnostics sit back and laugh at you fools as you argue. Ha ha! You're all the result of imperfection!

I will be here riding the waves of emanation.

ITT: people really insecure about their beliefs

>>2751194

>If the outcome is already known, it is predetermined

No it's not.

>>2751213
But we're just discussing mainstream Christian belief. And most Christians believe in eternal hell.

>>2751216
Something can be amoral without being moral. But, in a Catholic sense, the only way to do something TRULY good is with the grace of God. Without that grace, all of our acts, while having some good in them, will also have some ounce of selfishness to them. It is only with God's freely given grace that one can do good. And now we're getting into specifically Catholic theology, though.

>>2751221
>What if
>What if
>What if

Only God and the actor know if an action was truly "good" or a sin.

>all religions are dumb
>picks on the bible

I fucking hate this shit. Fags who call themselves atheists or antitheists and declare open season on Christianity alone.
To me, this is the biggest indicator that said atheist is just a bitch crying about his "horribly oppressive" upbringing.

>>2751258
>most Christians believe in eternal hell.
True, along with believing many things that go against the teachings of Jesus, or believing things that never existed in the bible
*cough* purgatory *cough*

>>2751266
To be fair, sola scriptura is a relatively new concept. Don't let Protestants influence your critiques too much.

>>2751243
I think it's because most arguments for god's existence are coming from Christians and Muslims.

>>2751266

Derp. Christians shouldn't be people of the book. Catholics/early Christians wrote the New Testament. Not Jesus. They wrote it so that it would back up their beliefs. Thats why the gnostic books weren't allowed in they didn't make any fucking sense .

>Average new atheist
>OMG CHRISTFAG LOL REPUBLICUNT
>MUSLIMS STONE WOMEN AND APOSTATES LMAO
>Buddhism should be respected. Free Tibet.

Crazy cunts.

>>2751294
uhhhh jesus wrote nothing

>>2751305

... That's my point.

>>2751305
probably illiterate

>>2751304
new atheists dont have any opinion on buddhism or tibet, positive or negative. it's not in their cultural sphere. it's understandable. the same way american know more about benjamin franklin than tony blair.

>>2751028
>You can't be a deist

You probably mean "theist". Deism is the view that there is a god and he doesn't intervene.

>The Bible is poorly written
>The Bible is poorly plotted
>The Bible is irrelevant or unimportant

If you hold these opinions you do not belong on a literature discussion board. There is no better way to put that. You are ignorant of literature.

>>>/b/408215957

>>2751635
There are too many anachronisms and inconsistencies for it to be a good piece of literature.

>>2751653

That has never disqualified a piece of good literature before. I understand that it's hard to find something to criticize when you know nothing about it, but please put in a little effort. It was written by many different people over more than a thousand years, of course there are going to be inconsistencies and anachronisms. You, having never read the Bible (or so I assume given your ignorance), are of course unaware of how revolutionary the book really was.

It is the cornerstone of Western literature and culture. Dismissing it isn't even edgy, it just makes everyone who has done their homework think you're an idiot child.

>>2751653

"Good" doesn't really apply to the bible. It IS literature. If you don't know it, you might as well have never read anything.

Being an agnostic, I have a lot of problems with atheists. The problems with Christians have been stated far too long (mainly by atheists), so let's just dwell on the whinier of the two.
First off, no one has yet to prove or disprove the existence of god or lack thereof. This really just makes them bad as Bible-humping Christians, but they're worse for one other reason. They're so in-your-face and argumentative it borders it's more reminiscent of a child's behavior than an adult's.They have absurdly puffed-up egos and these idealized images of themselves that they loudly project outwards because they honestly believe not believing in God is a valid rebellion from the norm.
They're basically your average 4chan-goer: whiny, argumentative, and childish.

>>2751669
> Dismissing it isn't even edgy, it just makes everyone who has done their homework think you're an idiot child.

Agreed.

>>2751691
>First off, no one has yet to prove or disprove the existence of god or lack thereof. This really just makes them bad as Bible-humping Christians

0/10

>>2751705
Quick being such a fucking baby. Do you not understand that others hold opinions that might be different from the ones that you hold so dear?
And tell me, what scientific report proves that God doesn't exist? Nietzsche isn't a scientist, you whiny teenager.

On the topic of the Bible, what does working out salvation "with fear and trembling" mean? I heard it recently out of context and I'm curious.

>>2751709
Atheism does not require proof that a god does not exist, nor does it necessarily claim to know that a god does not exist.

>>2751674
guy in OP's pic is judging the Bible by the standards of a movie review.

which he's allowed to do, obviously, but it's missing the point about ancient literature.

'The Iliad' has inconsistencies and anachronisms. some of them are internally contradictory! descriptions of important characters' attire/equipment are different in certain parts. iron wavers disconcertingly between being a precious metal, and being ubiquitous enough for use in mass-produced arrow- and spear-tips. the work assumes some familiarity with a bit of back-story about Paris and a golden apple. and i don't think that a long digression on a shield would fare well against the standards of good/horrible "plotting."

>mfw clearly 'The Iliad' is just Bronze- (and occasionally Iron-) Age asshattery!

>>2750983
It's okay to be an atheist now so they don't have good representatives. Everyone is permitted to be known as an atheist. It's like when being gay used to be cool. Gays were artists and writers because a handful them were known to be gay and didn't have to cover up as much because of their cultural input. It was excusable. Now any slob can (come out as) be gay. Now any slob can be an atheist.

>>2750983
>When did atheists get to be so inane?
>Inane
>Adjective:
>Silly; stupid; not significant.

>not significant.
I personally think the Atheism vs Theism Debate is mostly a waste of time because both sides are usually ignorant / loathsome of the other!

Take Sir Richard Dawkins for example; he continues to refuse a discussion with Dr. William Craig. Even though Craig has good responses to Dawkin's books / comments, he refuses to debate / talk with him at all!

Then when Richard Dawkins finally sits down with someone, its a Cardinal / Bishop with no more than a high school education in biology (being generous). That doesnt mean Dawkins is any better, he has virtually NO education or understanding of Theology or Logic!

It's like having a Blind man debate with a Deaf man about if a movie was good or not!
>I thought the sound was very loud!
>Special Effects were cool!

>>2751730
>Take Sir Richard Dawkins for example; he continues to refuse a discussion with Dr. William Craig

That's always good for a laugh. I am an atheist but it's pretty obvious that Dawkins won't do it because he'd get smoked.

>>2751721
>Clearly 'The Iliad' is just Bronze- (and occasionally Iron-) Age asshattery!

>MFW 'The Iliad' contains real-life locations, events, persons, and accurately describes weak points of Troy's walls...

>>2751735
>>MFW The Bible contains real-life locations, events, persons, and accurately describes the building of Noah's ark...

>>2751721
Few people, if anyone, base their lives around the people and events described (real or not) in the Iliad. There is no super-organization bent on world domination using the Iliad as its foundational text.

>>2751733
>I am an atheist but it's pretty obvious that Dawkins won't do it because he'd get smoked.

Not necessarily, I'm a Catholic / Theist and I think Dawkins just needs more "Peer-Review" on his arguments.

For example in the movie 'Expelled' I thought Dawkins held himself very well in the interview...
I was honestly disappointed with Ben Stein, his questions were actually really poor.

>Now back to Dr. Craig
There isn't really a big problem, I just think Dawkins has to nod with Craig and say; "Well sure, we DONT know how the universe came into being, we know what happened in the first nano-seconds thanks to SCIENCE! But about what was the actual "First Cause" for the universe we simply don't know, and YOU dont know either!"
>Dawkins reads the next line on his 3x5 card, it says, "Pause for dramatic applause"

>>2751746
Cities in the Middle East
Rulers of Egypt
Multiple historical events in the old testament
Historically accurate descriptions and 'testimonies' from the new testament

FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS FOLLOWS EVOLUTION!
>You're in the wrong neighborhood... So I'll help you along your way!

>This Thread: TL:DR
My opinion is that those who argue online about religion or the lack-thereof are equally retarded considering they all waste hours of their time pointlessly insulting each other.

Saging for not literature.

>>2751763
The framework hypothesis is rather controversial among Christians.

>>2751763
yeah, the bible actually chronicles the ancient history of the Hebrews & Judea—intermingled with myth, of course, but that's just what 'history' was, back then. it also has some history of the beginnings of Christianity cults.

>>2751769
>your usual kid who tries to be above the debates by claiming they are pointless

>>2751730
>Then when Richard Dawkins finally sits down with someone, its a Cardinal / Bishop with no more than a high school education in biology (being generous).

In order to be a priest you need a minimum of 8 years of college (4 of philosophy, 4 of theology).

Jesuits get much more, and they get their doctorates, but they can't be made Bishops and whatnot because they belong to an order.

Well actually they can but it only happens very rarely.

And has Dawkins really had debates with Bishops and whatnot?

Are we discussing science vs. religion here?

Shall I be the first to point out NOMA?

Also lets not confuse creationism with Christianity. Creationism is a uniquely Protestant phenomenon. The whole thing comes from Sola Scriptora after all. Roman and Orthdox Catholics have never ascribed to a literal interpretation of the Bible, or at least not any of it besides the Gospels.

The only path to heaven is through "god's grace," as in giving you something you don't deserve. This being said, there is no way to earn your way in by way of good deeds. Also i don't really think it's fair that we're thrown into this world and expected to believe something from the word of other human beings, who's to say people aren't fuckin lying? I mean seriously, i was just spit on by some fuck face because i'm not throwing my entire life away trying to meet the specifications of how i have to act according to his religion to get into a heaven that may not exist. And how am i supposed to believe him? because he and his priest father said so? because of some old ass book that was written by man? I believe maybe there could have been some solid evidence supporting religions of any sort at one point, but we're left with nothing but faith now, and what kind of forgiving gracious god leaves us without a solid ass reason to believe he's there?

>>2751815
Haven't you ever heard of "Invincible Ignorance?"

Christians believe that redemption and eternal life can only come from God, but you don't have to be a Christian to receive that.

>>2751821
Sure, but being part of Christ's Church is the normative path to salvation. You can't look at a Muslim or an atheist and think that they're going to be all right. They're on perilous ground.

I see.... actually that makes slightly more sense lol. and i quite appreciate your ability to correct me without being a prick, or spitting on me like some crazy ass pile of asshole.

>>2751834
>You can't look at a Muslim or an atheist and think that they're going to be all right. They're on perilous ground.

Nooooo... look into Invincible Ignorance again.

A Muslim isn't on "perilous ground." It's like C. S. Lewis wrote, a Buddhist who actually practices what Buddhism teaches is far closer to Christ than a Christian who doesn't follow what Christianity teaches.

As for atheism, I can't say. I suppose it would depend on the reason for being an atheist, and how altruistic said atheist is or whatever.

>>2751800
>you need a minimum of 8 years of college (4 of philosophy, 4 of theology) **SNIP**
B I O L O G Y
Did you read? Thats the point! The Priests and Cardinals are seasoned in Theology and Philosophy, but then they sit down with Dawkins who's a pro at Biology!

Then they go back and forth; The Priest / Cardinal wins on Philosophical issues, while Dawkins brings up Biology and wins on that!

Like I said;
>Blind man debates a Deaf man over a MOVIE!

>>2751855
Oh, right.

Well Jesuits can have their Doctorates in whatever. I'm sure that there are plenty of Jesuit biologists out there.

And not just Jesuits have advanced degrees either. I've heard of one Priest who was an undergrad at Harvard and got his Doctorate in mathematics or something somewhere else.

>>2751855
It seems like the priests would have the advantage just because arguments about God entail discussions about theology and metaphysics but you don't necessarily have to even bring up biology.

>>2751849
C. S. Lewis is not an authority on anything theological. Being part of another faith per se does not make one invincibly ignorant.

Anyone know what correspondence Dawkins and Gould had over NOMA? Like letters or debates or something. I hear that they argued over that point quite a bit.

>>2751869
>C. S. Lewis is not an authority on anything theological.

Why not? He knew his stuff.

>Being part of another faith per se does not make one invincibly ignorant.

But... that's exactly what "Invincible Ignorance" is.

>>2751855
You... you realize that Jesuit universities are very rigorous with required sciences being taught right? My wife was premed at a very well regarded Catholic university, and all her friends in the sciences eventually got doctorates in something or the other. One of her friends in biology actually went to seminary afterwards, went to medical school, and became a psychiatrist for the catholic church.

>>2751878
Well that's the Jesuits, who apparently Dawkins isn't talking too.

Has he had any debates with people who are very religious and very well trained in the hard sciences?

>>2751821
>>2751849
>>2751834

"In order to be saved you must be baptized."
You will hear this alot along the bible belt, but we forget there are THREE forms of baptism.
>Baptism of Water
(Normal baptism, any layman can do it.)
>Baptism of Blood
(Someone makes you deny God or Convert on pain of death, you refuse=one way ticket to the Beatific Vision)
>Baptism of Desire
(This is for those that are 'ignorant' or 'never met a missionary'. If you WANT to know more after life, and if you WANT to know if there is more to existence, then you have a 'Desire' to know God.)

The denying factor comes from "Mortal Sin"
Sin=Disobedience of God
Mortal=Grave (or very serious)

In order to commit a 'Mortal Sin' you must fulfill ALL three requirements;
>1. You must be doing something that is very wrong.
(Calculated Murder for personal gain, destroying the lively hood of hundreds of families, Rape, etc)
>2. You must KNOW you are doing something wrong.
(If you cause a wild fire that kills thousands, but its from you throwing a cigarette butt out of your car, then you're ok.)
>3. You do not regret your actions, and would do it again if given a chance.


>Wait a second! How do I know I'm saved!?
1. Do you want to know more after death? Do you WANT to meet God even if you think he doesnt exist?
>Pssh, sure I guess, I'm dying anyway right?
2. Have you done anything really bad, that you knew was bad, and you don't regret it?
>....I ran over a dog... And I'm pretty sure I've masturbated a million times...
Did you kill anyone when you masturbated?
>NO!
Oh Kay, please take a number and wait in purgatory for X days. After that you get to meet god face to face and explore the universe if you want!
>...Ooooooh Kaaaay....

>>2751878
>One of her friends in biology actually went to seminary afterwards, went to medical school, and became a psychiatrist for the catholic church.

Like the guy in The Exorcist? I wonder if he has any Jesuit friends who are archeologists...

>>2751875
St. Thomas Aquinas:

>Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, Who has believed our report? This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies. If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are not condemned for the sin of unbelief, but they are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith. (Summa Theologica 2, 2, 10, 1)

>>2751862
>>2751865
Yea, debates are funny like that, you'll have the "Mediator" bring up topics, you have audience questions, then you'd have the Athiest / Theist questions.

I'm kinda tired of the debates anyway ><

>>2751892
>After that you get to meet god face to face and explore the universe if you want!

Somewhere in one of the letters of the Apostles Paul or Peter or whoever writes that we will become like God because we will see him as he is.

Heaven isn't supposed to be something that's comprehensible, but if we become like God then I guess we'd be some kind of super consciousness like what's his face from 2001.

The age old idea is that "Heaven" is some kind of earthly paradise and that raises all sorts of questions. What will we look like? Ourselves? What if we're ugly and want to look different? Will we age? How old will we be? Will we have to eat and drink, will we get hungry and thirsty, can we get injured, can we have sex, will we get to eat animals? Will animals eat each other? Will we be happy all the time or will we be able to experience a wider range of emotions?

>>2751895
St. Louis De Montfort:

>My heart is penetrated with grief when I think of the almost infinite number of souls who are damned for lack of knowing the true God and the Christian religion. The greatest misfortune, O my God, is not to know thee, and the greatest of punishments not to love thee. (Love of Eternal Wisdom)

>>2751908
>What will we look like?
Whatever you want.
>Will we age?
Nope? Do you want to?
>How old will we be?
How old do you want to be?
>Will we have to eat and drink, will we get hungry and thirsty, can we get injured, can we have sex, will we get to eat animals?
Your body won't need those, you will be impervious to temperatures and other injuries, you could walk on the sun if you want (Think, Dr. Manhattan)
>Will animals eat each other?
Maybe
>Will we be happy all the time or will we be able to experience a wider range of emotions?
You won't be sad, I'm not sure if God would deny sadness, but I think we've experienced enough of it on earth.

>>2751922
>>2751908
>>2751895
>>2751875
>>2751805

Wow! Smart people on 4chan that cite quotations, sources and works! Is this even possible!? I thought everyone on the internet was an atheist!

>>2751895
>Those who are unbelievers in this sense are not condemned for the sin of unbelief, but they are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith.

Okay so I guess that Aquinas is counting atheists out, but he didn't specifically say "faith in Christ."

C. S. Lewis and others have compared religion to a mathematical equation. The right religion has the right answer. Other religions get close to that answer but they're still slightly off.

The idea is that God endowed all faith with certain fundamental truths, and some have more of those truths than others, i.e. they're closer to the right number. And even if you're following a religion that has the wrong number, you're still headed in the right direction.

Anyway, the idea that Christians or whoever else believe that people who don't belong to their group will be condemned forever by God is kind of a flimsy straw man. How could God be perfect and just if certain people aren't born into the right religion and never have a chance at knowing the right answer? Obviously he can't.

>>2751938
St. Thomas Aquinas:

>Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equalled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord. But why He delivers one rather than another,--“His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out.” For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret. Since, moreover, He could not will anything unrighteous.

>>2751955
Left out the source:

>(Predestination of the Saints 16)

>>2751938
Also there was this big deal in the 40's or 50's when a Jesuit was excommunicated for preaching that only baptized Catholics can be redeemed by God.

I remember reading over it in the Catechism somewhere. Basically the stance of the Roman Catholics is that 1) Christ is the only means of salvation and 2) you don't actually have to believe in Christ to be saved through him.

I assume that Orthodox Catholics and most Protestant sects think the same way, because of course a God that condemns those who never had a chance to know him is not just.

>>2751958
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. All people are condemned because of original sin. God does not have to save anyone, or give anyone a chance to believe. He would be completely just to leave us in darkness. That he saves anyone at all is a great blessing.

>>2751963
Well yeah as imperfect creatures our very existence is blasphemous, but the whole point of Christianity is that God will overlook our human weaknesses if we act altruistically and whatnot.

>>2751975
I think the problem you are having is that you are emphasizing God's love at the expense of his holiness. If you are Catholic then I think you should spend some time looking at what the doctors and fathers of the Church have to say on these topics rather than Anglican lay theologians like Lewis.

>>2751988
Well I've not read to much Aquinas or Augustine but I'll get around to it sometime.

I suppose that God's perfection and holiness are infinite while his love is not quite infinite.

>>2752001

I'm with you on everything you were saying. Altruism was the way of Jesus, so isn't following that same example essentially following Jesus, even if you were born in a place that hasn't heard of him? That through these good deeds you come to know Jesus?

Has this been a thread of atheists arguing like theists?

>>2752014
>even if you were born in a place that hasn't heard of him?

Or even if you had heard of him, but didn't believe that he was God, you could pursue faith and altruism and be united with him somehow.

I mean it wouldn't be fair either if Invincible Ignorance applied only to those who had never heard of Jesus, ever. Many devout people in non-Christian places are familiar with Jesus but they don't really have any reason to believe that he was God.

>>2752016
Some of it, maybe. Otherwise there are theists on the internet.

People turn to religion because of questions such as

is there life after death?

do our sufferings have meaning?

and is there final justice?

Even here on 4chan there are people who want answers to those questions.

>>2752001
Sorry, I was taking a shower and couldn't respond.

All are infinite, but in our conception of his attributes we can overemphasize an attribute in relation to another. You understand what I mean, right?

>>2752014
>>2752017
You cannot be saved through good deeds alone. You have sinned, and if your sins are not forgiven, you will be punished for them.

>>2752020
>You understand what I mean, right?

Yup. Some infinities are bigger than others, or whatever.

What I meant was that God's patience has a limit.

>You cannot be saved through good deeds alone.

Altruism and some form of faith then.

>>2752023
>Some infinities are bigger than others, or whatever.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just going to give up on this point. Please read the authorities of your Church.

>Altruism and some form of faith then.

Faith in Christ.

>>2752020

Ok so what if someone turned to altruism, and they had sinned in the past and fully regretted misdeeds they had done in life, does that count as forgiveness, or would one have to go to confession and be forgiven through Christ?

>>2752028
>That's not what I'm saying.

No I get what you're saying, I just didn't word that quite right. Anyway,

>Faith in Christ.

It flat out says in the Catechism that faith "in Christ" isn't necessarily essential, that although salvation can only come through God, it doesn't have to come quite directly.