/lit/ - Literature

>>5297724
>reformed
How many knights have you killed this week?

Fucking princes woos.

>literary elitism
I really, really hope you guys don't actually do this in real life.
Especially if this shit is what you base it on.
Those are literally 10 books.

>>5297729
those are... literally 10 books

>>5297729
Jealous? OP is the life of the party at Tulsa Upstairs Baptist Bible College.

It certainly would be nice to believe that you have all the answers. Disingenuous and quite sad, but still, it would be nice

*tips fedora*

>>5297729
>not being a literary elitist

I mean, OP is nothing special, but don't you love rubbing it in people's face you're well-read?

>>5297796
No because people find that arrogant and annoying and are rarely impressed by it given that most people choose to pursue other hobbies and passions are rarely judge people inferior or superior based on their own personal interests.

tl;dr I'm not an insecure teenager.

>protestant
>jim beam
Why would I want to share those levels of Hell? There are far better sins to commit.

>>5297724
Holy shit, to throw your life away like that.

>>5297821
Priesting is a good job if you enjoy the fires of hell.

>>5297813
Did you, uh, even read the, uh, titles of the books?

>>5297868
Yes, and outside a bible college or a church no one is going to be impressed if you tell them how much systematic theology you have read. This isn't 16th century Geneva. Your passion and your intellectual curiosity are your own concern, don't expect everyone else to share them and don't treat them as idiots if they don't.

>>5297891
I'm impressed with the reading, but not with the absence of killing knights.

_Q_

>>5297724
Keep them doors to outside world securely shut.

only_in_usa.bmp

A Jesuit held my balls once.

True story.

>>5297891
this, you're basically reading philosophy of a fairy tale.

>>5298028
It isn't the text, but the reading.

Read it in Latin or Koine Greek then we'll talk, heretic.

>>5298027
There, there. At least you wrote a book so universally loved and riviled, and I'm not even talking about Dubliners.

>Jim Beam
>asking for respect

>>5297724

>mfw your collection is essentially the same thing as my stack of secondary LOTR lit.

Why does God claim to be the God of love when he is so obviously sadistic?

>>5298453
If you have to ask that question then you've never experienced true love.

>>5298477

>true love is abusive

I bet you like SM as well

>>5297724
How about you get on mine

I wrote:
>>5297891

And I loath fedora wearing manchildren like:
>>5298028

I respect that OP takes his faith seriously and wants to know more about it, but he needs to understand that it's an individual choice that he's made and he cannot judge the moral worth or intelligence of other people because they have different interests and passions that he does.

>>5298502
It offers some new possibilities but it's mostly redundant.
As you grow older you just have to accept that you hate the people you love.

>>5298502


good and nice are not isomorphic.

I imagine you look like Ryan Gosling and like to wear tweed jackets with elbow pads.

Do you also smoke a pipe?

>>5298520

And infinite punishment for finite crimes is neither

>>5298477
I have never experienced true love. Please answer my question now.

>>5297724
*Tips foreskin*

Middle eastern death cult. I've been on your level and it sucks.

>>5298509

>And I loath fedora wearing manchildren like

Why has it become so popular to make fun of people for criticizing religion.

A lot of people believing in something doesn't make it any less stupid. Yes, smart people can be religious, but their religion is still stupid. I'm not going to pretend that believing in God is even remotely rational just because of

>muh feelings

>>5298520
Saying isomorphic outside of a mathematical context is stupid and pretentious, in my opinion

>>5298573
Well how do you know hat even reality exists outside of your feelings (sense experiences)?

>>5298573
>Why has it become so popular to make fun of people for criticizing religion.
Memetic warfare.

>>5298507
I like how you put Nietzsche next to the bible.

very pomo

much irony

>>5297724
>mfw Karl Barth

>>5298563

>>5298512

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel#Heraclitus

>>5298580

How is that relevant?

If anything, it adds to the atheist side. If reality isn't real, then clearly God, who is a part of reality according to you, is also not real.

>>5298601
I was making a reductio ad absurdum, but if you deny reality, that's OK too

>to be religious you have to think everything in the Bible/Koran/Torah is completely literal!
>to believe in God you must think there is a guy that lives on the moon with a remote control for your mind!
>that's not rational!

There are actually people on the literary board that don't know what symbolism and metaphor are?

>>5298585
Encountering a patrician, the pleb relapses into meme usage to feel superior.

>>5298597
>For Hegel, the inner movement of reality is the process of God thinking, as manifested in the evolution of the universe of nature and thought; that is, Hegel argued that, when fully and properly understood, reality is being thought by God as manifested in a person's comprehension of this process in and through philosophy. Since human thought is the image and fulfillment of God's thought, God is not ineffable (so incomprehensible as to be unutterable) but can be understood by an analysis of thought and reality. Just as humans continually correct their concepts of reality through a dialectical process, so God himself becomes more fully manifested through the dialectical process of becoming.

Is any of that rooted in the bible?

>>5298620

>if it's wrong, it was a metaphor all along

>>5298580

>U CANT NO NUFFIN!!!1

>U R NOT AS PROFOUND AS ME, THEREFORE UR WRONG

>#REKTM8

>>5298655
>lessons that promote kindness to others and promote peace
>wrong
Sorry, nowhere in any of those books is there any objectively wrong information. You should read them sometime.

>>5298690
>lessons that promote kindness to others and promote peace
Whitewashing alert.

>>5298507
I only see translations

>>5298626
He draws on John heavily, but mostly he is pretty heretical to the point of many claiming that he was a crypto-atheist, following Solomon

>>5298626
Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians has that dialectic process after death, and some allowance that God is not ineffable in this plain, but not in the total sense that Hegel viewed it.
Chapter Thirteen, I think. It's the one about charity is patient & kind etc

>>5298901
>plain
plane

>>5298573
>Why has it become so popular to make fun of people for criticizing religion.
Because annoyingly arrogant, antisocial and alienated young men have been plaguing online forums like 4chan the last few year aggressively starting arguments and insulting people in an attempt to prove their own unjustified sense of superiority. They invite mockery.

>>5298901
>ἀγάπη
>charity

>>5298690

>lessons of peace and kindness

Yeah, like that time God flooded the entire Earth because people weren't worshiping him enough, or massacred two cities for enjoying sex (and then proceeded to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for instinctively looking behind her at a city being completely fucking annihilated).

Cherry-pickers annoy me even more than the Fundamentalists. The Bible does not promote peace and kindness. It promotes blind worship and obedience and threatens endless pain and destruction if one does not completely dedicate themself to said blind worship and obedience.

>>5298930

Thank you for proving my point.

>It isn't okay to criticize stupid ideas if those ideas are popular!

And last time I checked, religious people are far more intolerant of atheists than vice-versa. I read a study once that people are more likely to trust a rapist than they are an atheist.

>>5298933
DouayRheims English, not going to explain the love for mankind since the Greeks to him when I've barely got a handle on the vernacular. If you want to take it up with the Pope, St Jermone will scowl at you it admire your scholarship.

>>5298690

Whatever you say padre

That photo suggests to me that you need to be buzzed or drunk in order to think that stuff is valid.

>>5298573
No matter the movement or trend, there is always blowback. When an entire section of society starts to gain notoriety for doing or saying or behaving a certain way, there will always be a group of opposers who do, say, or behave in a contrary or opposite way.

I imagine most of the "fedora" remarks (one of the worst, moronic memes I know about) aren't even made by religious posters.

>>5298949
The bible teaches us that each man should today kill knights, bishops, princes, haute burghers and men of state. Only the propertyless can find Christ in class struggle. WE OURSELVES WILL IT.

OMNIA SUNT COMMUNIA.

>>5298573

Thinking that religion is a fairly tail isn't legitimate critique. It's simply retarded. If you are going to criticize something and wish to be taken seriously you should reach a level beyond naive populism.

>>5297891
Are you sure? They may as well be grimoires full of dark secrets as far as the average peasant is concerned. Women will be mildly spooked by them; whether positively or negatively will be decided by the OP's personal qualities such as charisma or its absence.

>>5298942

You do realize that the point of the flood story is to say that God does not do these things. You simply forget that the Bible is a compilation of texts fighting against such viewpoints you yourself presented. There were people that though God would bring natural catastrophes down on others. Because that does not go well with a caring God the story of the flood was written in a way that told the people God won't do such things. You retard don't understand the Bible as the depiction of a story of 'getting to know each other'. That's what the Bible is. A depiction of the relationship between humans and God. It's depicting a process in which humans come to understand that God is all-loving. It's retarded to demand from one portion of the Bible - let's say one chapter - that it already explains everything.

Consider your level surpassed.

>>5300572

mah nigga

>>5297724

What do you think about that Wellhausen hypothesis that suggests the old testament was written by four different people or groups?

It seems like there must be very little concrete evidence if the authorship is that contentious a topic.

>>5300604
>It seems like there must be very little concrete evidence if the authorship is that contentious a topic.
The only evidence is the text itself.

>>5297729
>>5297813
>>5297891
fuck off

>>5298028
>>5298573

>>5298946
>people are more likely to trust a rapist than they are an atheist.
Good you fedora wearing faggot.

>>5298509
>I respect that OP takes his faith seriously and wants to know more about it

Would you respect someone in an asylum who ardently thinks they're the Queen of England? If so, why? If not, how is it different?

A delusion thoroughly believed is no different than any other delusion thoroughly believed.

>>5300621

Zip it Slavoj. Come back when you write something other than meaningless gibberish

>>5300642

>>5300653
It's funny because it's a forced meme and you don't have to think up an intelligent response.

>>5300640
>If not, how is it different?

Theology is the logical study of God and matters relating to Him. If you think Christianity is "illogical," read Acquinas. The difference between a student of theology and someone who believes he is the Queen is that the former is engaged in intellectual and logical study, while the latter is objectively wrong in his delusion (which is likely the product of a diagnosable mental disorder).

>>5300659
>forced meme
lol
>you don't have to think up an intelligent response.
I only respond with intelligence equal to the post that I am replying to.

⇒Get on my level.

No, thanks. I don't stoop that low. I enjoy my intelligence.

>>5300671
lol
This guy wrecked him.

>>5298626
> God himself becomes more fully manifested through the dialectical process of becoming.

Only a wise fool can blab that sheer amount of bullocks in one afternoon.

PS:
Being German, and believing that you are somewhat of a God, automatically promotes you to Nazi tier; which is not a bad thing in core.

>>5300672

Upboated :^)

>>5300668
I've read Aquinas. (You can't even spell the guy's name.) There is nothing in Aquinas that proves or validates theology as the study of something that really exists.

>>5300668
⇒Theology is the logical study of God
And hobbitology is the logical study of hobbits. There's a book about them, so I guess we must study them too.

and:
⇒logical study
⇒of god
Nice contradiction. Faith in fairy tales is the opposite of logic. Religion is based on denial of logic.

>>5300692

What have you read by him?

What are the flaws in his ontological proof?

>>5300700

False equivalence. Hobbits are not logically necessary in the same way as a Creator is.

>>5300709
⇒Hobbits are not logically necessary
Hobbits are logically necessary. Without them the ring would of never been destroyed and we would still fight against the orcs. Do you see any orcs? Yeah, didn't think so. See? This proves that hobbits existed.

⇒in the same way as a Creator is
A creator is not only not necessary but even impossible. Any conception of a creator is logically self-contradictory.

>>5300704
Wasn't the ontological argument done by Anselm?

>>5300709
Look -> Any conception of a creator is logically self-contradictory.
Beat the fuck down.

>>5300721

>Without them the ring would of never been destroyed and we would still fight against the orcs. Do you see any orcs? Yeah, didn't think so. See? This proves that hobbits existed.

You are a fool. We are talking about the transition from the great nothingness prior to existence, to existence as is known today. That is a real state of affairs, while Tolkien's plot is fiction. How thick headed are you that you would spew such rudimentary mistakes at me?

And then you make the classic mistake of applying eternal regression, a theological issue which was put to rest in the Midde Ages. Look up "aseity."

>>5297724
>>5300572


Do you ever worry that by devoting so much time and effort to one area you will become emotionally invested in it and less open minded?

>>5300737
You are never not posting.

>What have you read by him?

Everything, I went to Catholic school.

>What are the flaws in his ontological proof?
To what are you referring? The Five Proofs? The same Five Proofs that have been negated by thousands of people since.

Some of the "proofs" aren't even worth acknowledging as serious argument, like:

>Since all things in the universe depend on other things for existence, there must exist at least one thing which is not dependent

Why must? There is nothing that logically says there "must" exist something independent, because it could be the two first beings depend upon each other for existence--just as an example.

You don't even have to think hard to negate this "logical proof".

>>5300736
Yeah, and rejected by Aquinas. It's pretty evident this guy doesn't know his shit and is just spouting out snippets of crap he heard, like "AQUINAS ALREADY PROVED THIS STUFF THOUSANDS OF YRS AGO, OMFG"

>>5300736

>implying there is only one ontological proof
http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

>>5300737

>not understanding what it means to be supremely transcendent, eternal and self referential and why these qualities must be possessed by a Creator

Laughing_phil_students.jpg

Hey who wants to be my friend?

>>5300741
⇒We are talking about the transition from the great nothingness prior to existence
If there was a "great nothingness", then there couldn't of been a creator because his existence would of been "something" instead of "nothing". Do you even logic?

⇒That is a real state of affairs
Yep, the origins of the universe are a real question for physicists and should be studied seriously and not be mixed with religious hokum.

⇒while Tolkien's plot is fiction
So is the bible. But at least Tolkien has a coherent plot.

>>5300745
>the two first beings depend upon each other for existence--just as an example.

So the first two beings popped out from nothingness and happened to depend on one another?

>why must?

Because if there is nothing, the first being would have nothing on which to depend. The first being can depend on an independent being, who brings the first being and all subsequent ones into existence.

Why would you spend that much money to increase your delusion?

>>5300764
I'll be your friend.

I notice a lot of sophistry in this thread, but not nearly enough priests being hung with the guts of knights daughers

>>5300771
I said just as an example. It's no more far-fetched than one independent "unmoved mover" who did it all.

>Because if there is nothing, the first being would have nothing on which to depend. The first being can depend on an independent being, who brings the first being and all subsequent ones into existence.

I don't buy it. It may sound logical in your mind, but it regresses infinitely if you say creation needs a creator. The obvious question is who created god, then who created that being, and who created that being, etc. etc. It makes no sense to say "obviously, all this creation needed a creator, except that one creation that was the first creation, he didn't need one."

>>5300768

I wrote "great nothingness" so as to establish a level playing field. We both accept that there was nothing, out from which sprang this something.

The transition from this nothingness to something requires a transcendent Creator who exists in and of Himself. For, without Him, there would have to be non-being becoming being, which is logically contradictory.

I agree that the origins of the universe should be studied by physicists and cosmologists. They have found nothing that does away with the need of a Creator. That does not mean they never will.

We are talking about cosmogenisis, not the Bible. You are the one who reached into the outhouse of your scattered mind and brought up Tolkein, while I never brought up the Bible.

>>5300790
>The transition from this nothingness to something requires a transcendent Creator who exists in and of Himself.

Not necessarily.

>>5298507
>le St. John's face

>>5300789

Saying "just as an example" does not grant you immunity from having your example torn to shreds, as I proceeded to do.

>"obviously, all this creation needed a creator, except that one creation that was the first creation, he didn't need one."

You have exquisitely missed the entire point by confusing the Creator with creation.

I am saying the Creator is transcendent, eternal and self-referential. Out from His being does He draw creation.

You either have the option of nothing becoming something without any cause OR a transcendent Creator.

>>5300790
⇒The transition from this nothingness to something requires a transcendent Creator who exists in and of Himself.
nope

⇒For, without Him, there would have to be non-being becoming being, which is logically contradictory.
Nothing contradictory about something coming out of nothing. A sky wizard on the other hand is self-contradictory. Please learn some logic.

>>5300809
You've torn nothing "to shreds". How delusional are you? It remains just as valid as your version.

Who cares whether or not God exists? I think it's pretty clear at this point that without strong religion society rapidly slides into depravity and degeneracy. Everyone should be Catholic for this reason alone.

>>5300781
What is your email?

>>5300811
>nope

Riveting refutation, retard.

>Nothing contradictory about something coming out of nothing.

For there to be something from nothing, there would have to be nothing and something at the same time. This is because there is, by definition, no way for nothing to change to something without being added to or manipulated.

Unlea of course, you mean "nothing" as a latent, pre-existing goop of subatomic particles. But that is not "nothing."

>skywizard
>learn some logic

Ebig :DD

>>5300827
⇒Who cares whether or not God exists?
I do. As a gnostic atheist I know he doesn't exist.

⇒without strong religion society rapidly slides into depravity and degeneracy
Religion IS the depravity and degeneracy. There is hardly anything more deprived and degenerate than adults worshipping a book full of poorly written fictional stories.

>>5300818

>saying "maybe the first two beings to spring randomly from nothing for no reason depended on each other" is a valid response to the quote you posted earlier

You really are the sort of twit who would confuse the creator with creation.

>>5300830
⇒there would have to be nothing and something at the same time

Nope. Your ignorance of physics is astounding. "At the same time" doesn't even make sense because time itself didn't exist before the big bang.

>>5300839
You're not gnostic you shun anything that's not empirical.

>>5300844
Not that guy, but you're just moving the goalposts by saying god is necessarily exempt from being creation. It stinks, and rightly so because you pulled it right out of your butthole.

>>5297724
Has it ever occurred to you that you might be complicit in spreading a memetic virus that has caused the suffering and death of millions over what are quite possibly altogether imaginary things?

>>5300781
>>5300829
Please respond.

>>5300903
>>5300903
Has it ever occurred to you that you might be complicit in spreading a memetic virus that has caused the suffering and death of millions over what are quite possibly altogether diabolical delusions?

>>5300781
No fuck off you smell.

>>5297724
Why would I downgrade my life?

>>5300903
If they're real, though, isn't it all worthwhile?

>>5300934
You trip on 4chan. Let's not pretend to be superior than we actually are, chum.

>>5297724
Rye whiskey . . .

>>5300946
Rye is good for you. It puts hair on your chest.

>>5301068
The last thing I need is more hair on my chest.

>>5300781
>>5300829
>>5300920
Please respond.

>>5298507
>gulag archipelago
Everything on that shelf was put there by an entry-level try-hard.

Also, guys - when did we start tolerating Christians despite them being plainly delusional?

>>5301413
You are not 'we'.

>>5301413
When it became being an atheist was no longer counter culture

>>5298507
>Missing part of The Elements
>Red letter bible edition
>New Scofield Reference aka KJV

Pleb to the max

>>5297796
ew no what the fuck

>>5297724
My bookshelf is who I'm and it makes me better.

>>5301413
because atheists are cowards and traitors

>>5301657
*tips mitre*

>>5301413
Because Christians: 1. give back to the community way more than other religion, and 2. have a moral system that isn't that wrong.

>>5301413

When they are responsible for preserving European civilization for 1600 years.

That's when.

>>5300781
>>5300829
>>5300920
>>5301357
Please respond.

>>5300781
>>5300829
>>5300920
>>5301357
>>5302959

>>5305291
Please respond

>>5300942
Yeah but there's no convincing argument for why I shouldn't trip besides people like you who shitpost about it

>>5297724

Post back when you have read the full Dogmatics. You've got a few levels to go

>>5300604

>tfw no biblical scholars on /lit/

>>5297724
>alcohol

So as an entry-level christian whose only read Augustine and a bit of Thomas, can someone fill me in on the what OP is reading?

Hey guys, I just started reading memes this summer!

Currently reading the left, right have been read.

>>5300604

Well, I don't know if his exact hypothesis is correct but his basic idea is. The Old Testament is a grab bag of different works and writing styles and theological/historical viewpoints. The individual books were written/codified over hundreds of years and the final version that we call the Old Testament is a further development of Christianity. Catholics and the Orthodox churches consider some books to be Old Testament canon which the Protestant churches do not do consider as such. Plus you've got the Jewish version and interpretation of it all. Even more, the ancient versions and parts of the Old Testament that are referenced by scholars and theologians are written variously in Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. It is all a mess, beautiful and interesting, but a mess nonetheless.

>>5300743

>Do you ever worry that by devoting so much time and effort to one area you will become emotionally invested in it and less open minded?

Every specialization ever, including STEM specializations

>>5306498

Um "Church Dogmatics" by Karl Barth is considered by some to be the greatest work of systematic theology since Thomas' "Summa." Pope Pius XII called him the greates theologian since Thomas.

N.T. Wright is a retired Anglican bishop and very renowned New Testament scholar. He is working on a big series called "Christian Origins and the Question of God", which the book in the pic is a part of.

Bavinck was a Dutch theologian.

"Elentic Theology" is an old work, written about four hundred years ago. A very influential and standard work for Reformed theology students. Which segues into:

All of these guys are Reformed theologians. Basically, Martin Luther and John Calvin were the main Protestant Reformers who rebelled against the Catholic Church in the 1500s. However, they did not share the same theological interpretations. Luther's followers went on to be called (unsurprisingly) Lutherans, while Calvin's followers went to be called Reformers. Somehow Calvin got the Reformer name and Luther didn't, even though both are considered Protestant Reformers. Don't ask me why. Reformed churches commonly have presbyterian or reformed in the name. So, basically all of these guys are doing theology in the Calvinist tradition, which means they don't play well with Catholics and Orthodox but play somewhat ok with Lutherans.

>>5306514

Is there a school of skepticism in regards to Bible study, to the degree that they assume that some of the shit in there might be totally made up by prophets who confused signs or had an agenda? Or is this approach never considered?

>>5306572

Oh there most definitely is. But the point of biblical scholarship isn't to determine whether the writings are literally true or false. It is to determine when stuff was written, who wrote it, where did they write, how it fits with other writings, past interpretations of the writings, historical importance of certain phrasings, blah, blah, blah you get the idea.

People don't think the Iliad or The Divine Comedy or The Aeneid or Beowulf is literally true but the scholarship on them is still quite lively. Bible scholarship is basically textual and historical analysis. Whether it is true or not doesn't play much part. Hell you can even be an atheist and be a Biblical scholar, even though their research does have a slant toward specifically demonstrating that things in the Bible can't literally be true: see Robert M Price and Bart Ehrman

When you do start taking the writings as in some sense true and analyzing what implication that might have you are beginning to do theology. Now serious theology does tend to use a lot of scholarship and many Bible scholars also dip their toes into theology.

>>5306572

Dude with over long explanations again. If you're really interested in this stuff, check out the Yale Anchor Bible Series as an example of top of the line Bible scholarship. The books and authors in the series are the cream of the crop.

>>5300572
I was fully expecting the pic to reveal a stack of YA lit. Kek derailed.

How does it feel being part of a heretical splinter group, OP? Does it feel good knowing that youve rejected gods church? Protestant scum.

>>5306771
How does it feel being part of a heretical splinter group, >>5306771? Does it feel good knowing that youve rejected gods church? Pauline scum.

>>5300781
Please respond.

>>5300621
hahahahahaha the axe through Zizek's head hahahahah

>>5300685
did you just say that Hegel was a nazi?