/lit/ - Literature

That's a loaded question.

I blew my load at that question.

>>4769221
We're off to a good start.

>>4769221
How so?

>>4769229
That's another loaded question.

It ight.

I think god is on the side of the big battalions and that's it.

Christianity is a religion that is a bit too hung up on being the one right way to live for everybody.

Not a fan but it's still much better than Islam

>>4769237
>hung up on its own doctrine

>>4769238
Random comparison there.
I suppose I would prefer Christianity to voodoo, in most circumstances.

>>4769218
Christ was onto something
but to sit in a church and eat bread loafs
after a guy in gold robes tells you about sin
is not following christ really it is following nothing but faith.

Love is Salvation. Check
Necromancy. NOT Check

What does it mean to believe in Christ?

>>4769244
Well, they're not content to live the way they believe is right, they want everyone else to do it too. Often by force if necessary.

>>4769249

dont hate on voodoo

christians speak in tongues voodoo explains that with spirits christian explain that with spirits. The only real diffrence is one happens in a church the other in a hut. one by white guys speaking latin the other blacks speaking black

>>4769256
Well Christ is not the same as Jesus.
From that distinction it is a very hard thing to answer.

Christ or Christós, meaning 'anointed' by fire
or the holy spirit. Which is the 3rd part of the trinity being the one God.

Hard question i pass

>>4769250
Blah blah blah I'm the son of God honest

Watch me do some magic tricks I mean miracles. I haven't quite grasped space travel or genetic engineering yet but look I can turn this water into wine. And make this definitely disabled woman walk again. She was definitely disabled.

Ok now I'll die for your sins but you're stilling burning in unquenchable fire forever if you do sin cos my dad is still really mad at the guy for eating that fruit he told him not to do that

>>4769218
"I have shown thee, O man, what is good. And what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly before thy God?"
"Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy might, and love thy neighbor as thyself. On these hang all the law and the prophets."
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love."

Explain to me how there should be any more than just love to Christian doctrine.

Good when you strip it of any strong opinions and coercive power it once held, so I guess its kind of like keeping your monarch around once you switch to a republic, huh?

My views on Christianity are a lot like Thomas Jefferson's. I'm a big fan of Jesus and agree with a lot of the the morals he espoused, but I'm not a big fan of the supernatural bits, and I really don't like all the doctrine that was added later on. Basically, I like Jesus, and am disappointed in how the church handles his legacy/ideology.

>>4769287
In what ways? In what ways did the church handle it poorly?

>please no paul

>>4769283
Christ said more than that. That's why.

>>4769293
Not that guy

But thousands of years of corruption, ignorance, perversion, condemning children to hell, mutilation and genocide

is quite poor

>>4769305
Well said.
Also, bad historical job of:
>love you neighbor
>good Samaritan

>>4769293

Paul is the easiest answer, though. He started the large emphasis on Jesus being divine and imposing strict doctrine that should be followed. Because he took up leadership of the church, the following of a guy whose message was all about peace, love, and spreading the wealth became an organization that (although charitable much of the time) became autocratic and up its own ass with doctines. The core message also changed into being focused on salvation and following the will of God. A bunch of worse stuff came later, like American Evangelicalism's prosperity gospel, which is basically antithetical to everything Jesus said, but it's hard to deny Paul is where it started. Because Jesus's message was fundamentally anti-Roman, he had to change a lot to make it palatable to Gentile converts.

>>4769310
Yeah, this.
Jesus was a cool guy with some deep ideas, and an anti-establishment streak.
Paul was an empire builder and rule maker.

A religion that completely shaped and formed Western culture.

>>4769310
>Paul is the easiest answer, though. He started the large emphasis on Jesus being divine and imposing strict doctrine that should be followed.

Ignoring that he was apparently chosen by Jesus to lead and that weighing on Jesus' opinion, Paul had the position of deciding how churches should act. His position would be by nature strict. I agree with you he's very much at fault for the misinterpetation that is prosperity theology but I don't feel he changed the core message.

>>4769331
Saul was always a secret policeman tasked to destroy Jesus son of Joseph's religion. And he succeeded.

>If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

A great faith with transcendental possibilities for the handful of people who actually follow it, but has been disgraced by the masses of humanity. So, not a lot different than any other faith. Even Buddhism, which has hipsters instead of crusaders, is rendered embarrassing.

The problem is that most of humanity refuse to tolerate esotericism or elitism, but they're also unwilling to make the sacrifices required to be involved in something higher. So the faith of Meister Eckhart or Julian of Norwich or whomever, becomes the dirt-shit common cliches of George Bush or your local huckster.

New Atheism is just the final stage in an unrelenting war that started in the West when Constantine helped turned Christianity into a social club and secular hierarchy. A war of the mediocre against the exception. A war of those who can't (like Nietzsche, who was too physically weak for fasting and dropped out of seminary) against those who can.

That said, I am also among those who can't. But I have seen the capacity of those who can. My personal failures are not an indictment against any one other than myself.

>>4769302
Actually, Jesus only said the middle one.
First quote is from Malaci, third from 1 John.

>>4769278
*Le Tips Fedora*

>>4769367
>chosen by Jesus
He had a vision AFTER Jesus ascended. If anything, Peter was more chosen.
The early church was more egalitarian, however: the ones who had really known Jesus.

I need to read the letters from Paul. What did Paul do exactly that was so bad? Clarify rules, make new rules and use rougher language?

>>4769368
Excellent:
>Paul, the original COINTELPRO

>>4769381
He codified a RELIGION, which is exactly the opposite of Jesus' intent.

A death cult that has ruined countless lives by not allowing people who bought into it to fully appreciate and live life. Also the downfall of Europe for several centuries.
>But the dark ages weren't actua.....
I'm not only talking about the Early Middle Ages.

>>4769369
And what good is self mastery and asceticism if its not channeled into something pragmatic?

Its a gigantic, lamentable waste of good character. There isn't any transcendence, you don't become some higher being after death by serving the Christian ideal. You could channel that willpower into something that would benefit this existence, not rotting in a monastery like Dostoevsky's Holy Fool.

>>4769390
I'm curious, where is it said it was against Jesus' intent?

>>4769396
Lol, is your pic related?

>>4769391
>overdramatization

>2014
>worshipping a dead kike in a stick

was thinking about this the other day while perusing a religious site for jews.

Atheist "proof" that god can't exist bullshit aside, It's amazing how archaic and dated many of these major religions are in their ideas. It's like stepping back at least a century and on par with the most absurd of superstitions. I guess I've been a bit of an apologist for organized religion lately, citing weber and social cohesion and such, but there is going to come a point where it just isn't efficient to have people going around believing in miraculous sky-gods that prohibit pork and magically cure wounds just by praying to them. Most of this is basically harmless, but what isn't is when you have them actively attempting to obstruct the development of more "modernized" worldviews

It's problematic when a large proportion of people (EG: the states) refuse to be willing to acknowledge the need for adaptation in the face of technological change. At a point like that it is just stagnation

>>4769402
>denial

>>4769381
If I recall, he wanted people to focus on the fact that Jesus was the Son of God, he was crucified, died, and resurrected over what Jesus actually said.

He was the reason why Christianity became more about Jesus and much less about what Jesus wanted.

He's kinda a douchebag in essence.
>>4769402
your literally a faggot, have an argument for once

>>4769390
People need common codes to live by, don't they? We can't all antinomian saints standing outside humanity.

>>4769396
I'm not that anon, so I don't know what he meant, but Jesus never intended to found a new religion. He a a Jew who talked about problems within that religion and his ideas about changing them, but he never said anything about founding a church around him.

>>4769400
Yes, but only as a joke. I'm honestly curious where that comment of Jesus' intent comes from.

>>4769417
>People need common codes to live by, don't they?
Are you saying that people need to be told what to do?

>>4769423
I particularly need.

>>4769419
So what was all this about fulfilling the law and outright changing interpretations of God's Law away from what Moses was given? The whole bit about hearts being too hard.

>>4769423
Of course he is.
The thing is: Jesus was trying to distill everything down to simple, kind, humble living and stop with the dogma and judgementalism.

>>4769423
People need to know what life is. They can come to understand this by common laws and codes in basically the same way people can come to understand nature through physics. It doesn't force anyone.

>>4769396
I've engaged in Paul-hate from time to time, and his interest in establishing himself a centralized power for Christianity does make him a good target.
However, before him Christianity was mostly oral tradition, so it is hard to say what he changed, other than wanting people to quit sticking dicks up butts and such.

His advice not to preach, but just to live well by being Christian is pretty good. His claims of visions might have been a lie or not. Ancient history is complicated because people didn't write enough down.

>>4769392
>pragmatic
>waste
>character

These words are meaningless. Christ realized this.
It is pragmatic for me to have my job, but somewhere out there a Pakistani child is getting blown to pieces because I pay my taxes and those dollars are spent to buy missiles and UAVs.
You don't accomplish anything of value by operating in this world. You don't do anything of value ever, regardless of how you behave.
The point of Christian faith is to complete your relationship with Christ in this world, by believing and holding to something transcendental. Whether this transcendental has objective existence or not is irrelevant, it is an entirely subjective experience.

>>4769430
>changing the Law
Fulfilling yes, but he said specifically that he did not come to change the Law
Do you even gospels?

>>4769430
Law is fulfilled in history, not on a whim. The Christian interpretation would be that God found it necessary to fulfill the law in this way.

>>4769430
>fulfilling the law
Exactly, fulfilling, not creating something new. He thought all of that stuff was corrupted from God's original intent and wanted to restore it. If he wanted to found a new religion there would have been no need to challenge Jewish authority, criticize the Temple, or claim to the Messiah.

Any serious biblical or religious scholar would tell you this stuff.

>>4769426
>>4769435
>>4769438
If I may, that's bullshit. People don't need to be told how to live, they'll figure it out on there own. We use to be nothing but simple homo sapiens living in the bush of Africa and we still found out that rape, murder, theft, and torture are all morally wrong without anyone's help.

People need to experience life on there own, not have it filtered to them through thousand year old prophets or bestselling authors.

>>4769441
>The point of Christian faith is to complete your relationship with Christ in this world, by believing and holding to something transcendental.

As opposed to holding on to the only 'objective' existence you have. Pessimism combined with self-abnegation.

Was Jesus a philosopher? Was Moses?

>>4769449
Are you?

>>4769449
Everyone is. Doesn't mean that everyone's good at it.

>>4769369
It's fun that you would put Nietzsche among those who can't when your opinion is so transparently inspired by Nietzsche.

Not exactly disagreeing with you, though.

>>4769411
deism solves that dated problem.

>>4769423
I'd say we have to have common ideas of what is considered good. Not be forced to practice it. I'd say in many ways we want that of others anyway.

>>4769441
>other than wanting people to quit sticking dicks up butts and such.

I always felt Paul clarifying that was only to elaborate what Jesus meant when he said "sexual immorality" and it was left unexplained.

>>4769443
I said changing interpretation, not changing the law. Don't put words in my mouth.

>>4769446
>Exactly, fulfilling, not creating something new. He thought all of that stuff was corrupted from God's original intent and wanted to restore it.

Seeing the whole mess about the question about divorce that Jesus was given and teaching that explicitly stand in the way of Moses interpretation of God's law it seems to me he was doing much more than trying to restore the old law. He was deliberately moving against the law as Moses was given it, and that would naturally lead to a split in religion.

>>4769457
No. I'm more of a Zizek

>>4769460
>everyone is a writer
>everyone is an artist
>everyone is a scientist
>everyone is an economist

>>4769447
The church is a common way of experiencing life. In better cases, the minister is someone more qualified to interpret scripture, but it can also simply be someone dedicated to service. Is there something [morally] wrong with going to mass?

>>4769374
Great rebuttal. Really well thought out; you sure showed him, huh?
pic somewhat related

>>4769449
I had to study the testament of John in my intro to philosophy class.
But I went to a Jesuit college, so I dunno. Definitions are incommunicable.

>>4769448
Objective is meaningless as well.
Objectively, I am a constantly changing cloud of atoms held together by forces only perceptible in their interaction with objects that can only be seen under an electron microscope. Yet, I don't think of myself as "this cloud that is 99.999~% empty space, and is only together by chance, that changes constantly, and was every else once and will be everywhere else again, and doesn't ever touch anything, but only brushes against them in chance interactions," I think of myself as a solid object. With a handful of exceptions, everyone thinks of themselves as a solid object with a will and etc, etc.

The subjective experience is the only one that is relevant to the individual.

>>4769475
>moving against the law as Moses was given it
You are dacing on the edge of heresy , my friend.

>>4769467
>deism
face it dude, all organized religions are self-perpetuating institutions dating hundreds of years before the industrial era. For the people in charge it's about control and centralized power, and these institutions are never going to willfully let adherents slip away from the 1 AD mentality they're so strongly invested in. The vast majority of believers are never going to adopt new updated schools of religious thought, these groups simply do not have the organizational sway to overturn the dominant religious authorities

>>4769490
How else would you explain the problem of divorce that was presented to Jesus?

Matthew 19:3-9.

>>4769495
The Law was infallible and given by GOD.
The rigid interpretation is what Jesus was opposed to. He was pointing out that we ought to be compassionate and liten to our hearts in these matters.
Spirit of law vs letter of law stuff.

>>4769463
It was deliberate. I hated Christianity until I read the Antichrist. His version of Christ (particularly that the Kingdom of God was something completed in this life; the radical irony of a man being crucified and saying "I forgive you" to his executioner) inspired me.
The problem with Nietzsche is that most people read Nietzsche in a non-Nietzschean way. You should be judging his valuations and their origins with the same critical eye that he judges the valuations of everyone else.

>>4769486
You're probably being sarcastic, but it is true.
Economist is the best example, as everyone has to manage their own finances, but obviously there are many who are absolutely horrible or lazy at it.

>>4769503
You're not answering my question, I don't think.

>>4769489
>With a handful of exceptions, everyone thinks of themselves as a solid object with a will and etc, etc
Do they think of themselves as such in their personal history? I don't know anyone who would identify themselves as a flux of atoms held together in time; they have memories. And as in Confessions, we're told about being little monsters as children (i.e. through the memories of others) yet no longer ascribe these actions to ourselves as responsible adults.

>>4769475
>Seeing the whole mess about the question about divorce that Jesus was given and teaching that explicitly stand in the way of Moses interpretation of God's law it seems to me he was doing much more than trying to restore the old law. He was deliberately moving against the law as Moses was given it, and that would naturally lead to a split in religion.

Except the phrasing of that passage directly shows Jesus saying he's trying to restore God's original intended order: “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” He's not saying he wants to change laws, he's saying Moses made changes, and he wants to change those rules back.

>>4769509
>Economist is the best example, as everyone has to manage their own finances, but obviously there are many who are absolutely horrible or lazy at it.

The title for that is generally "accountant", not economist. That would be like saying getting along with people makes you a social theorist.

>>4769514
Ahhh. I see what you mean there then. Thank you. However, even then it'd cause a split in the religion but its nature. How are we to take the New Covenant then?

At what part in the early days of Christianity did it technically split into a separate religion? What core thing was needed to make it a new one?

>>4769516
>That would be like saying getting along with people makes you a social theorist.

No, it would be like saying being a social animal makes you a social theorist. Which is true. It is necessary, one cannot live without engaging in this level of thought, gauging where people come from and where they want to get.
Ever had a pakistani hotel manager explain his theory of consumerism to you? Ever had a co-worker propose his own theory on the evolution of rap music from freestyle poets to modern club music, and then someone else derogatorily categorizes his views as being "West coast" because New York has this other history with riots and such? Ever been on 4chan, where every random fucking anon asks you a series of leading "ever ..." questions designed to provoke a "yes, yes" response and prove his superior knowledge of the world? You just did.

>>4769511
The idea that I was a monster as a child is only relevant if I am still the same I who was a child. Otherwise, who would care?
Between now and my four year old self there is nothing in common. The cells that were there once have died, the ideas are gone, and I can't even remember anything that predates my High School years.

>>4769563
>No, it would be like saying being a social animal makes you a social theorist. Which is true. It is necessary, one cannot live without engaging in this level of thought, gauging where people come from and where they want to get.
>Ever had a pakistani hotel manager explain his theory of consumerism to you? Ever had a co-worker propose his own theory on the evolution of rap music from freestyle poets to modern club music, and then someone else derogatorily categorizes his views as being "West coast" because New York has this other history with riots and such? Ever been on 4chan, where every random fucking anon asks you a series of leading "ever ..." questions designed to provoke a "yes, yes" response and prove his superior knowledge of the world? You just did
>muh Gramscian conception of intellectualism

>>4769268
The Catholics really are the worst fucking version of Mahayana Buddhism, aren't they?

>>4769447
You're talking about ethical systems, and they're all based on the conceit that we can live easier if we work together. Rape, murder, theft, and torture developed into socially unacceptable actions specifically because there was a conviction and movement for community, and from there came the idea of properties and possessions, culminating in the sort of boasting ignorance of the phrase "I own this piece of land." We're very good at naming things and justifying why we should have particular material goods over other people using words. We're still simple homo sapiens living in the bush of Africa; we've just got more people elsewhere now.

Anyway, Jesus was a pretty cool cloud of swirling atoms. >>4769489 mah nigga

>>4769570
I did use working class examples, but that was only in response to the perceived classism of the post I was responding to. Larry Page is a philosopher and Bill Gates is an economist, and it is impossible to escape their influence on society.

Existence is inherently subjective (limited to ones own experience and senses in the world) meaning that everyone has to do all things for themselves. Even the dumbest, dirtiest, schizophrenicest, illiteratest hobo you've ever seen had some theory about human interaction and morality and epistemology and etc, etc.
Their sources might not be as varied as yours, their research might not be as in depth as yours, their reading might not be as critical as yours, etc, etc, but they do have to obtain information, form theories/systems, make a hypothesis based on these theories/systems, test the hypothesis based on their action, and then repeat the cycle based on what they perceive as the result of their hypothesis.

>>4769381
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity#As_a_pejorative_term

>>4769391
>death cult
that's not buddhism

>>4769218
folk platonism

>>4769618
>Original sin
>Making Jews the villains
>Making Jesus divine
>Transubstantiation of bread and wine into actual flesh and blood
>Jesus' death being seen as atonement for human sin
>Making Jesus the Messiah
>Shifting the emphasis from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom
>Enlarging the chosen people to include anyone who accepted Jesus as Saviour
>Making salvation a matter of belief in Jesus almost regardless of the demands of the Torah
>Establishing a hierarchy (literally a holy order) to create and control a Church and more importantly to create and control the beliefs of its membership

Did Paul seriously start all of this?

I mean we can all agree that panentheism is the only acceptable idea of a god in the modern age. It basically incorporates all doctrines into one and isnt refutable by the scientific method. The problem with you euphoric fedora tippers is that you try to seek materialistic explanations for that which is immaterial, above and beyond, within and without. Your personal path to understanding the divine is only hindered by the material, religions provide some truth but the rest of your grasp for the eternal is up to you. The incomprehensability of the natural and what is beyond it is not figured out by studying books or chanting hymns, it is much more than that. Yet i fear the days of the great prophets are over and the dark age of unquenchable decadence are upon us. Reach for the eternal anon and accept that which is immaterial.

>>4769636
Well it sure as shit isn't in the gospels.

>>4769680
>Jesus kills a fig tree
>Paul is the one to pronounce his divinity

>>4769488
>criticizing a stupid meme response by using a meme

>>4769715
>implying all types of holy men aren't ascribed supernatural powers without being the son of god himself

>>4769740
Do they also use phrases like "my kingdom" and claim they themself could forgive sin?

I don't think Christianity involves thinking.

>>4769768
What makes you think that?

>>4769770
>HUR HUR HUR HUR

This is you speaking out loud. Fucking hurhurian skum

>>4769770
It's blind insult. Ignore it.

>>4769218
Judean slave morality. 100% inferior to Dionysian/Appolonian balanced society. Drug-fueled sex orgies are good for society.

>>4769756
Citations please.

>>4769826
John 18:36
Matthew 9:1-8

Christianity is a religion. Religion is an exclusively human concept.

No other creatures on the planet have the intelligence to comprehend religion. The plants and rocks don't even have requisite organs to begin trying. Lacking brains and all.

If humanity is the only thing that follows religion, and then Christianity is only prevalent in the west with small pockets elsewhere...

What does that tell me?

That this is an entirely human construct? But there is so much else to life and nature that is not human that has no concept of God or the Bible. The animals and the plants don't obey the rules set down in a book written by the hand of a man.

Why should I?

I'm happy to continue in my agnosticism for now, OP. That is all. I'm more likely to lean towards Buddhism than Christianity, but even then not enough to really believe in it or do anything.

Some men wanted to make an ideal man, so they made themselves gods. They were called the Greeks.
Some men wanted to make all men ideal, so they made people gods. They were called the socialists.
Some men wanted to make other men weak so they could be god, so they made god from their imagination. We call these men Jews.

some dehydrated ass niggas thought they saw some magical shit but naw they was hallucinatin out in the desert

>>4769788
Nietzsche pls
Although I mostly agree with the idea of Christianity as a slave morality, and the Appolonian idea is only really supposed to apply to aesthetics.

Religion is bad but it comes from a bad place in people's minds, and convincing people that it's a lie doesn't make that bad place go away. So I'm indifferent to Christianity. It might as well exist until people are ready to stop believing.

>>4769218
es prty good

>>4769218
es pretty good, if you separate the institution from the ideology.
>>4769788
>reading neitzche, claiming to be neitzche
I don't think you get it

Primitive epistemology

>>4769257
People who believe that what they hold to be true is true frequently act like this. This is hardly a criticism of Christianity.

>murdering is wrong
>"how dare u force me to adopt ur lifestyle"

>>4769940
>some dehydrated ass niggas thought they saw some magical shit but naw they was hallucinatin out in the desert
VIP quality post, will tattoo on my shin

as for OP yeh it's okay I guess

The word of God to men. The ladder to transcendent, higher reality. The way to make sense of the wild, indescribable things we experience according to faith.

It is as though we lived in a cave all our lives, and men came down to tell us of the sun, but we did not believe them. But then, one day, a man came with a sledgehammer, and battered a hole in the ceiling of the cave, letting in the sun so that it might bathe us all with its radiance. We hated the man for blinding us, but in hindsight, how could we help but love him? The sun is beautiful.

>>4770371
Lel rip off Plato harder faggot

>>4769218
It's the only religion I've seen that can both acknowledge and transcend man's fundamental alienation and understand his uniqueness. Chesterton was right when he said man is as a stranger on earth.

That aside, the more I read about it the less criticisms I have of it. Most of the criticisms I see from people result from a (occasionally deliberate) misreading of misunderstanding of what Christianity is.

>>4770426
>That aside, the more I read about it the less criticisms I have of it. Most of the criticisms I see from people result from a (occasionally deliberate) misreading of misunderstanding of what Christianity is.

This intruiges me! What is Christianity?

>>4770432
That's an very broad question that can only properly answered by recommending you to read books about it, e.g. the New Testament and various works of apologetics. There's no simple answer, but briefly it's a complex transcendental religion that extends Greek philosophy (in its idea regarding the Logos among others), Aristotelian teleology and metaphysics, that also rests on a tragedy and a sense of sadness. It grasps that man is unique and lonely on earth, the only creature as abstract as he is and as driven by the desire to be creative and that this is peculiarly unique. It's also a religion driven by intense self-questioning. I don't want to sound like an asshole waxing poetic though, I can try to answer any specific questions you might have or point you in the right direction if I can't.

>The Christian faith holds that those who are able to look on the crucifixion and live, to accept that the traumatic truth of human history is a tortured body, might just have a chance of new life

Does anyone have any resources for someone that wants to study the Bible. I don't trust all of these editions someone HELP ME

>>4770476
new life

I can smell the fresh air

I think that in America it has become an excuse for laziness or something. I don't know.

>>4770365
No, that's exactly what it makes it. A criticism of Christianity. Lots of people murder others, but that doesn't mean we can't actually dislike individuals for murdering. Oh but other people do it too so we're not discussing the individual. What the fuck is wrong with you.

>>4770562
>Does anyone have any resources for someone that wants to study the Bible. I don't trust all of these editions someone HELP ME

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/2_learn.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/

There are some people who argue that early Christianity reduced infanticide and abortions (by poisoning the mother, often killing her) in the Roman empire, and that it gave more liberties to women, the latter part being arguably wrong for anything but patrician women.

It's functioned as a sovereign power justification in a heavily fragmented Europe for a couple of hundred years, with the pope winning the ''investituurstrijd'' as we call it over here. So I guess that isn't too bad.

If you mean what I think of the actual religion, I think they went wrong at the council of Nicae where they decided Arianism should be persecuted, because from what I've read even Thomas Aquinas should be an Arianist, seeing as he ''prooves'' God in many ways, but he can not for the life of him explain the holy trinity, and just throws it upon the ''take God's word for it'' pile. So Thomas Aquinas, or Saint Thomas Aquinas I should say, ''proved'' all monotheistic religions, except Christianity, because the only thing that makes Christianity stand out is the holy trinity. The first mover, creator of morality, all powerfull being etc, applies to all other monotheistic religions.

Modern day Christianity is nothing but a pseudo hippie new age peace and love garbage movement, and the only people getting true Christianity right are the Westboro Baptist Church, and look how everyone fucking hates their guts.

>>4770649
Aquinas basically "proved" Judaism.

It'd be fascinating if it wasn't still current

It's bunk.

boring mythology. way too dogmatic. pagan religions are superior

>>4770649
The Holy Trinity isn't in the Bible, and some sects don't believe in it anyway

An outdated way of looking at the world

>>4770757
That's exactly what I said in my post. Arianism makes more sense than classic catholicism, which is why:
>' I think they went wrong at the council of Nicae where they decided Arianism should be persecuted'

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-The-Holy-Trinity/
Some scripture on God being multiple beings while supposedly being indivisible, a lot of them are not very clear in my opinion, however:
John 10:30 - I and [my] Father are one.
Is pretty clear.

>>4769218
I think it would no longer exist were it not for Constantine, that bastard!

>>4769877
Using that same logic, why follow any law? Why use language? Why use utensils to eat? Why think past the most basic and primal thoughts?
It's fine if you don't want to be a Christian, but to justify it with "if the animals don't, then why should I?" is really fucking stupid.

>>4769924
Some man wanted to write a post that sounded intelligent, but actually just ended up writing one that was really fucking stupid. We call this man you, faggot.

>>4771592
Well, we know men made eating utensils. Christianity asserts different origins.

>>4770798
Certainly marginalized at least.

>>4771592
Presumably, not that anon but I think I feel what he said, because it benefits your subjective existence to use a fork. Man-made structures, such as tools or religions or governments, only exist in your world because you choose to use them and support their existence in the world.
For example, a hammer can't pound nails through wood unless you choose to pick it up and use it as a hammer. If nails going through wood wasn't beneficial to your existence, or if it was even harmful, then there would be no obligation to use a hammer. Even if you were surrounded by hammers, if you couldn't take a single step without tripping over a hammer, if hammers aren't what you need then there is no reason to pick one up.

Similarly, if religion or governments or whatever don't benefit you in some way, there is no reason or obligation to hold to them. They, like everything created by humans, are just tools.

>>4770798
>>4771652
In the wake of the Roman empire's collapse, there was a need for some unifying, transcendental force in Europe.
Christianity might not exist, but then we'd have Mithraism or some other religion all over the place. It wouldn't make any difference, other than the artwork displayed in people's weekly social clubs.

>>4771719
Utility is not sufficient to explain Xianism. Please read Dawkins on viral memes.

>>4769677
word

>>4771754
>Dawkins

If I wanted to kill brain cells ... well, do want to kill brain cells, but alcohol makes me happier.
Dawkins theory of memetics is nothing but pop science designed to fill the role played by God in the 18th century. He will be relegated to the same ash heap as his the men he pretends to antagonize.

>>4769677
>completely unfounded assumption of immaterial existing in the first place

kek

>>4769677
>isnt refutable by the scientific method.

That's not actually an advantage, that's more of a disadvantage

>>4769677
Garbage doo doo. No one thinks emotions and such can be experienced by describing them scientifically. That's as absurd as thinking the equations that make up an atom, is an atom. How could anyone be so stupid to think this is what the elegance of the fedora world view is?

Pardon the cliche, but it's the best way to describe this: that's a straw man of reductionism or materialism, and its retarded.

>>4771882
Its a theoretical framework in the vein of continental works. Its not predictive, its not science, its philosophy. Sorry you can't get into that, but philosophy is pretty cool and you should to understand modern critiques of Xianisms.

>>4771735
>there was a need for some unifying, transcendental force in Europe.
Which never happened. Ever. And if you want to make a claim that Christianity did that, I'd say the results were mixed and ineffectual at best. The whole concept of a book that had all the answers and couldn't be questioned lead to a massive societal hangover. The only thing uniting about it. You can't even make one church/doctrine out of that mess.
>but then we'd have Mithraism or some other religion all over the place.
We would. Lots of pockets of local faiths and silly myths, that might have been questioned by the more learned, who would have sought out more substantive answers in the philosophies. (And this is were I start to wonder about a first millennial enlightenment, or a rolling renaissance movement from about 600AD on)
>it wouldn't make any difference, other than the artwork displayed in people's weekly social clubs.
What a flippant thing to say. The absence of Christianity in Europe all this time would have been profound and I believe quite beneficial.

There OP. That's what I think of it. It's been a stunting force in human development and a colossal waste of time.

>>4771754
>>4771906
What in the name of fuck is "Xians"?
Are you really so goddamned lazy you can't type out a simple fucking word?

>>4772010
>(And this is were I start to wonder about a first millennial enlightenment, or a rolling renaissance movement from about 600AD on)
>The absence of Christianity in Europe all this time would have been profound and I believe quite beneficial.
>There OP. That's what I think of it. It's been a stunting force in human development and a colossal waste of time.

Not that poster, but comments like these betray how little effort you've put into conceptualizing religion, history, and the complex relationship between them. Or maybe you just aren't very bright.

>>4772498

It's a term that's meant to be vaguely demeaning but mostly just comes off as inane and bizarre. Like when people consciously use the antiquated spelling "Moslems" to refer to Muslims. It's an attempt to be edgy that falls flat because it really isn't inflammatory.

It is a religion for peasants, cowards, and the sorts of intellectuals who prefer nonsense over speech which tends toward knowledge.

>>4772010
>dat nose

I mean both of them.

>>4772567
"Not that poster, but..." You slam me for not being bright but you leave that asinine post alone?
"Posts" Al they are, after all, are too brief and we are unprofessionals.

>>4772833

>>4772860
*All
I swear I added the second "L" twice

>>4772604
Well some might use it demeaningly but Xtian, Xmas, Xpn (Chi Rho) have a long history as a simple, neutral abbreviation.

>>4772648
What is so wrong about a religion for peasants? What's so terrible about sharing a faith with the lower classes, the less intellectual, and the less fortunate?

Christianity's power, and the reason it will never go away, is its promise to the poor and the weak that God is specifically on their side. Not in a way that enacts sweeping political and economic changes- not in ways that can founder and fail the way so many thought movements and economic policies have- but in a way that transcends all their struggles and suffering. The meek shall inherit the Earth. Blessed are the poor. Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. In Christianity, those who toil and struggle, those who suffer and face anguish, are destined to sit enthroned with God in eternal paradise, not because they've done anything to earn it but because their suffering is not forgotten.

And this is why Christianity deserves to be true. Those who are last deserve to be first, and those who are first deserve to be last.

>>4772604
my xXxianxXx lifestyle is too radically meat free drug free and fag free than your tiny bran could ever realize

I want to be Christian very badly, but I just have to agree with Nietzsche when he says that "religion is dead, only religiosity remains." There's just the vague underpinnings of liturgy, maybe a limp-wristed revival, and nothing more. It's on a slow decline. I'd advise anyone who disagrees with me to go to a service or two at a major modern church. The "sermons" are insecure, weak-willed, fluffed up with pop culture references and absurdly self-conscious about feeling relevant in the modern world.

>>4769218
It's good but I have to stick to the historical and scholarly side of it. The thing in practice these days is a disappointment.

>>4772010
>I'd say the results were mixed and ineffectual at best
But the spread of religion was basically the reason why a lot of the places in europe were industrialized and affected by Roman standards

>>4773228
Try that again.

>>4773233
No. My claim still stands.

>>4773105
>I want to be Christian very badly, but I just have to agree with Nietzsche when he says that "religion is dead, only religiosity remains." There's just the vague underpinnings of liturgy, maybe a limp-wristed revival, and nothing more.

I wouldn't know what "religion" is then.

>>4773105
Have you ever given it a try? Even something as simple as praying?

>>4773105
>I'd advise anyone who disagrees with me to go to a service or two at a major modern church. The "sermons" are insecure, weak-willed, fluffed up with pop culture references and absurdly self-conscious about feeling relevant in the modern world

Protestant?

>>4773105
>I'd advise anyone who disagrees with me to go to a service or two at a major modern church. The "sermons" are insecure, weak-willed, fluffed up with pop culture references and absurdly self-conscious about feeling relevant in the modern world.

go to a black church

>believing in a personal god
> occam's razor / pascal's wager
The definition of god described by christianity is so illogical and appealing to human emotion it's pathetic to realize people adher to its doctrines. You guys dissapoint me.

>>4773284
Could you explain as to why it's illogical and it's appeal to emotion pathetic? I don't mean to harass or anything. I'm honestly curious.

>>4773256
>go to a black church
OK, fine, or it's shouting and clapping and dionysian revelry like some cathartic pagan ritual and then immediately put out of mind after the service is over to enjoy the church sunday fried chicken barbeque

>>4773239
Convincing yourself (in a group) you have information about (per definition) unknowable things. Because humans.

>>4773105
>>4769218


reminder that eastern orthodoxy is the masterrace of christianity.

>>4773300
It's knowable if you receive it through divine revelation.

Literally the only problem with it I had is I can't justify sex only for procreation as a good within itself.

>>4773304
Soo, do you hear voices often? Is that a male voice or a female one?

>>4773290
Simply apply babby's formal logic to the personal god described by christianity; all powerful and all knowing. (And more nonsense).

The whole idea of a father-figure god is emotionally soothing. It's intellectually void of reason. There isn't a whole lot i need to say about it that you couldn't figure out for yourself, unless you have specific things you want me to talk about / refute.

>>4773308
>the only problem
well damn

>>4773228
>But the spread of religion
What religion? Christianity I'll assume.
>...was basically the reason why a lot of the places in europe were industrialized and affected by Roman standards
A lot of places in Europe (and Asian and Africa) were taken over by "pagan" Rome and this industry was spread there. Christianity had nothing to do with it. By "Roman standards" I suppose you mean things like aqueducts and roads and such. Post-Constantine, the region didn't do much advancing on those things.

(Before Mr Historian comes to bite my head off about his precious dark ages, all of this is all just surfacey basics)

>>4773304
You've hit intellectual rock-bottom.

>>4773308
I'm sure a Catholic here could bullshit something

>>4773299
>OK, fine, or it's shouting and clapping and dionysian revelry like some cathartic pagan ritual and then immediately put out of mind after the service is over to enjoy the church sunday fried chicken barbeque

Literally every part of that sounds awesome though.

>>4773303
>Eastern Orthodoxy
>Not just a more decadent Roman Catholicism

Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism are three prongs to the same schism from the Oriental churches.

>>4773378
>not realizing christian in-fighting is worse than console fanboyism and shouldn't even be replied to

That dumb shit would be iconoclast too if it wasn't for the meddling of evil aristocratic whores.

>>4773378


>implying modern catholicism isint decadent as fuark

nice 'pope' you got there fags LOL.

>>4773343
Give me a minute, I'm looking through the Summa.

I think you can have sex for pleasure just fine, you just can't totally cut off the possibility of having kids. If kids don't happen, but you left the possibility open, it's not a sin.

I do think the Church's position on birth control is due for a reexamination, not because its intentions are bad but because it's based on some outdated conceptions of human biology. Ditto for the position on wanking.

>>4773105
Orthodox Church, brah.
>>4773360
It really does.

>>4773339
Nigga we're in a Christianity thread. This religion is based on the idea that a man was the supreme God of all the universe, yet he was killed, and yet again he rose from the dead and came back to life. You can't exactly dodge the supernatural when it comes to Christianity.

>>4773308
Church Doctrine has lead to a better solution for Africa to stop the spread of aids. It's a generally safer practice for the population.

>>4773414
>implying open sexuality doesn't lead to corruption

>>4773408
>>4773408
Are you implying those orthodox patriarchs are austere men of poverty? Biggest joke 2k14

>>4773303
Turn of the century pogroms destroyed Russia's chance of ever having Natalie Portman. Ethnic nationalism still going strong. Only fit for orientals.

>>4773422
Supernatural boogaloo is the dumbest shit one could ever even consider

>>4773323
>The whole idea of a father-figure god is emotionally soothing. It's intellectually void of reason.

Nigga what. Are you just trying to refute the supernatural or are you actually going to critique the character of god?

>>4773473
Critique of the character of people who need a sky daddy. You need to be real to have your character critiqued.

>>4773408
They've always had a pope. They've all always been corrupted.

>>4773485
>making the assertion God isn't real
I'd like proof please.

>>4773408
>tfw no one even knows about Oriental Orthodoxy

>>4773473
I don't have to refute anything. My critique lies core in the implausible nature of a personal god.

>>4773485
>need
The discussion of 'need' is always used by those who try to dismiss Christianity when there is no evidence to the matter.

>>4773495
0/10
Might have a slim chance in /b/ tho

>>4773448


no, im implying that their ideological beliefs are more adaptive for the host than adaptive for the meme.

i have more respect for sedevacantist catholics though, but pretty much all other mainstream branches of christianity are subsumed by populist pandering, or more properly, pandering to the popular discourse. pressure to survive in the ideascape of modernity/gnostic progressivism/universalism, and other assorted synonyms.

of course there is a good reason this happens more often than not, since christianity from very early on carries in it seeds of modernist/enlightenment modes of thought that can easily imply universalism upon casual reading (which is why protestants are almost universally solipsistic).

>>4773504
>need would imply force and no want
>force would imply no faith
>no faith would imply hell

You dodged god this time you clever badger

>>4773501
>all powerful and all knowing are too implausible a concept

I don't get what is so hard about this. If you secularize it it's an incredibly optimistic worldview.

The universe is made in a set plan, humans exist as emanations of God seeking redemption so they may be one with God once again, (with God could be taken in different ways, it's pointless to figure out which) our life on Earth is a test to see if we can be made "good", all natural evil is a test for us to overcome, prayer is a method of meditation on understanding those tests, and knowing the tests and being able to see/know if one's soul has been tainted he knows all of humanity.

It's not a Santa-esque understanding but of course you need to build a bridge to suspend some form of supernatural thought to grasp it.

>>4773485
>You need to be real to have your character critiqued.
>saying this on a literature board
I fucking swear, this is some tryhard shit. Better inform /lit/ Hamlet isn't real.

>>4773529
>talk about people needing religion
>someone questions your use of need
>jump to needing to adhere to faith because of the threat of hell

Well shit, if I were to assume you're not jumping topics entirely that would mean everyone needs the sky daddy, right? So you're critiquing yourself as well?

>>4773414
>Give me a minute, I'm looking through the Summa.

And we never saw this one again. The closest you'll get is the humanae vitae.

>>4773698
You never saw me because I was looking for my copy of the Summa. It turns out I don't have it, it must be back at my parents' house across the country.

I could always be a pleb and just google 'Aquinas on sexuality'...

>>4773653
>humans exist as emanations of God seeking redemption so they may be one with God once again

Huh, this reminds me a great deal of Maximus Confessor's writings. He's a saint of the Orthodox Church, and the Eastern Christians are REALLY big into the idea of Heaven being a oneness with God.

I feel like in the West, individualism has become so pervasive and all-important that the conception of ourselves as almost a piece of God- little fonts of godhood, as it were- has no currency. You get a little of it in Catholic mysticism, but nothing like Orthodox theology.

>>4773726
I'm the guy who you're quoting. Could you expand on that mysticism a bit? I don't follow Orthodox stuff. Or, at least, tell me where I could find it.


>>4773715
I'm also the guy asking about sexuality so I'll try that in a bit.

>>4773741
Rooting around for sources, I actually managed to find this Question from the Summa Theologiae, where Aquinas addresses the necessity of the Incarnation. Aquinas mentions, as the fifth reason why it was:

>Fifthly, with regard to the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ's humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): "God was made man, that man might be made God."

So, not even mysticism- even the great legalistic thinkers of Catholicism conceive of a union with God. It's just that it's intensely emphasized in the Orthodox Church.

And of course here he's largely referring to Augustine, so I need to look into that, too.

>>4773789
Here's a summation of Maximus' thought, which includes this very concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximus_the_Confessor#Theology

>>4773789
>>4773795
Based anon

>>4773726
>>4773741
>>4773789

Maximos is building on the central Neoplatonic idea of emanation from the One, which entered Christianity mainly through the writings of Pseudo-Dionysus. Neoplatonism has been a major influence on mystical theology in all three Abrahamic religions.

If y'all are interested in Eastern Orthodox mysticism specifically, read about the Hesychasts and St. Gregory Palamas.

>>4773819
>Maximos is building on the central Neoplatonic idea of emanation from the One, which entered Christianity mainly through the writings of Pseudo-Dionysus.

wasn't it previously in kabbalah?

>>4773824

As in sephirot? Unfortunately I don't know enough about Judaism to say whether they had a clear concept of 'emanation' before encountering Neoplatonism or not. In any case, I don't think there was much conscious Christian borrowing from Judaism during the middle ages. Pseudo-Dionysius' infuence on later Christian theologians has been pretty thoroughly documented.

But I don't think it matters. Neoplatonism was able to make its way into these religions in the first place because the same ideas were already latent or partially developed in them.

>Aquinas rights a lot about sex in Summa Theologica
>says basically nothing
this is all you need to know, anon that was asking

>>4773880
>I don't think there was much conscious Christian borrowing from Judaism during the middle ages.

I should add that I might be completely wrong about this because I know very little about it.

Bump for the lord

Sage for Satan

>>4774261
>Satan works for the lord
>sage post bumps

I like Jesus but I always get the feeling that Christianity is trying to be like Jesus literally (follow word for word what he says. Worship him as divine) instead of in spirit (be wise , compassionate and anti-materialistic)

the world would've been a better place if people took the words of jesus, or the bible as a guidelines towards live

but that implies morality needs to be taught, which is bullshit because I never needed someone to tell me not to pick up an axe and flail away like a decapitated chicken

>ctrl-f fedora
>3 results

I'm proud of you, /lit/.

>>4774434
>be wise , compassionate and anti-materialistic
Jesus was neither wise, nor particularly compassionate, and definitely not anti-materialistic.

You're basing your fake expectations of Christianity on new-age hippie gurus, not the actual source material.

It's an extremely efficient form of control.

>jesus was condemned to death for preaching that the letter of the law was not important but the spirit

>there are actually christians out there who think the bible should be taken literally

mein sides, and i'm not atheist

>>4769218
i think it's a precondition for communism

Remember that time when Christians would burn "witches" as a form entertainment and then allow the spectators to come up and collect fragments of the charred skeletons to use as keepsakes? Those must have been really fun times.

>>4774874
>Remember that time when Christians would burn "witches" as a form entertainment
You mean the Enlightenment?

It's nice.

I don't have to stop being a piece of shit and Jesus forgives me.

>>4775064


>average protestant

>>4775072
>tfw le average

>>4775087
devil's pie

Baby steps