/lit/ - Literature

meem :DD

bump

>>6108028
this

How is the unmoved mover convincible?
What if it's a ring??

isn't atheist morality an oxymoron?

>>6109477
no

furthermore
/LIT/
LITERATURE
take your baldy git and his lego house off to some religion wank board

>>6108013
He wrote more than just the 5 ways on providing God mate.

>>6109475
>How is the unmoved mover convincible?
It isn't.

>>6109475
>what if it's a ring
>what if reality is fundamentally begging the question?

>>6108013
Does anyone have this picture with the caption that says something like "my two greatest works: the summa theologica and this bird house" ?

>>6109526
5 seconds of google

>>6109487
>implying most philosophers aren't writers

>>6109494
People say this, but they never provide any of his reasoning for why the unmoved mover is the Christian god

>>6110549
The God of philosophy is most similar to the Biblical God of the New Testament.

>>6110560
How so?

>>6110563
No one's gonna spoonfeed you here bro. Read Prima Pars

>>6110579
But my eternal soul is at stake.

>>6110563
Because he's a neoplatonic loving God invented by Paul, not a fucking mad jealous bitch who fucks up shit all the time.

>>6109516
It is.

>>6110624
Get out of here you Catholic

>>6110549
Look at the first book of Summa contra Gentiles.

>We have shown that there exists a first being, whom we call God. We must, accordingly, now investigate the properties of this being.
>Now, in considering the divine substance, we should especially make use of the method of remotion. For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not. Furthermore, we approach nearer to a knowledge of God according as through our intellect we are able to remove more and more things from Him. For we know each thing more perfectly the more fully we see its differences from other things; for each thing has within itself its own being, distinct from all other things. So, too, in the case of the things whose definitions we know. We locate them in a genus, through which we know in a general way what they are. Then we add differences to each thing, by which it may be distinguished from other things. In this way, a complete knowledge of a substance is built up.

He starts with arguments for the unmoved mover/first cause and shows how the qualities of God according to Catholic doctrine follow from such a being e.g. God has infinite knowledge, infinite goodness, He has will, He has divine simplicity (has no parts)

Now I'm not convinced of the soundness of the unmoved mover/first cause arguments, but the way Aquinas gets from there to the God of Catholic doctrine is pretty ingenious.

The Trinity is left until Book 4 of ScG with the other things we can know by revelation but not by reason alone. The First Part of the Summa theologica has an argument for a multiplicity of divine persons in God, but it's aimed at Christians rather than non-Christians.

>>6111160
>infinite goodness

That doesnt mean much when they simply define god as that. God fails at living up to biblical morality and in fact almost every moral system that doesnt automatically grant it to him.

"God is infinite goodness any negative act he commits is an illusion and he is actually doing good its only that humans cant comprehend it"

>>6111449
I'm not sure if the Bible is a bunch of true stories about God. It seems like a bunch of stories from religious guys that help make the idea of God more easily accessible to people.

>>6109487
>no

Explain

>>6111467
So are you saying that almost everything said by and about Jesus was just a story?

>>6111493
That would be the New Testament, which is quite different than the Old Testament. I think an accepted thought currently in Christianity is that the Old Testament is a bunch of stories about how God is and the New Testament is an accurate portrayal of Jesus' life and teachings.

>>6111508
Which is an example par excellence of how scripture is eternally reinterpreted to best suit the political ideals of whatever religious authority holds sway in a given clade.

Christ on a bike, if that doesn't tell you that religion as a whole is a heap of horseshit you just might be an actual idiot.

>>6111508
Still God fails by the standards set + preached by himself/Jesus. Likewise given how foundational the old testament is to Jesus legitimacy it seems abhorrent to disgread most of it as "a bunch of stories".

>>6111449
>That doesnt mean much when they simply define god as that.

Infinite goodness is the conclusion, not the premise. Aquinas is arguing that an unmoved mover would necessarily be good (in the Aristotelian sense) and since he has argued that God is perfect, God is therefore perfect in goodness (and in fact is goodness itself, since God is His properties).

See http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#37 and onward

>God fails at living up to biblical morality and in fact almost every moral system that doesnt automatically grant it to him.

This doesn't have much bearing on Aquinas' argument, and in any case Christian commentators have had centuries to come up with justifications for 'God's' actions in the Bible, so they won't find this line of reasoning very persuasive.

>>6111533
This isn't really about political ideals. The OT gives us many, many laws and rules of a different time. The NT simply gives us information that cultures have been thinking of for all of time (love your neighbor as you love yourself) and shows us that God loved us enough to allow us to murder him. The OT is a bunch of archaic rules, the NT is a couple rules that have been discussed in religion and philosophy for centuries and God personified, his love exemplified.

>>6111546
Wouldn't Aquinas' God also fully embody evil? And how are we supposed to know what is good, anyway?

>>6111546
I can understand that what the issue is how this unmoved mover can be the god described in the bible.

>This doesn't have much bearing on Aquinas' argument,

Thats the big problem.

>Christian commentators have had centuries to come up with justifications for 'God's' actions in the Bible, so they won't find this line of reasoning very persuasive.

Dont most of their arguments revolve around

>God is infinite goodness any negative act he commits is an illusion and he is actually doing good its only that humans cant comprehend it"

>>6111550
>The OT is a bunch of archaic rules, the NT is a couple rules that have been discussed in religion and philosophy for centuries and God personified, his love exemplified.

You realize that whole reason that Christs sacrifice was necessary was because of what happened in the OT. You cant just handwave genocide and heart hardening murder because it doesnt click with your personal view of the NT.

>>6111577
Not that guy, but could you explain how the sacrifice was necessary because of the OT?

>>6111550
But religion and politics are inextricably intertwined.

If you want an example you need look no further than /pol/, they've probably got at least four "DEUS VULT" threads going as we speak.

Religion is, and perhaps has always been a method of social control.

This is why the "most important" aspect of being religious is to do and think as your superiors command.

Because if you don't that makes you a heretic.

>>6111579
Because of the fall of man, and the irredeemably corrupt nature of humanity which meant that without Christs sacrifice redemption would be impossible. Its for this reason why faith in Christ is so important and why its impossible to enter heaven without him.

>>6111449
There is no morality outside of God. Saying God is immoral is like saying the programmer doesn't play by the rules. He IS the rules.

>>6111591
What an utter crock of shit.

I bet you believe we're all born in sin too.

>>6111613
>There is no morality outside of God. Saying God is immoral is like saying the programmer doesn't play by the rules.

All it tells us is that the Christian is not the unmoved mover if it is the highest in goodness.

>>6111625
it is true. the bible doesn't make sense otherwise

>>6111651
God is above any human sense.
>>6111613

>>6111651
Mate, the bible was never meant to make sense.

It's mystagogical bullshit written by bronze-age sand people who's primary concern was less discerning the true nature of the cosmos and more getting fuckers like you to do as you're god damn told.

>>6111554
satan embodies evil. and really humanity is only 'supposed' to know christ, life, above good and evil; the second tree in the garden of eden

>>6111659
nice meme friend

>>6111656
ok?

>>6111659
Well of course if you don't believe in God in the first place that's the view you'd take.

>>6111659
*tips fedora*

>>6111679

>>6111558
> how this unmoved mover can be the god described in the bible.

Which I attempted to answer here >>6111160

>Dont most of their arguments revolve around

>>God is infinite goodness any negative act he commits is an illusion and he is actually doing good its only that humans cant comprehend it"

More usually 'Any act of God which appears negative to us is only carried out to eventually bring about a greater good.' I don't find modern theodicies very convincing either.

>>6111577
>>6111591
>>6111651
'Fall of man' and 'irredeemably corrupt' are Christian readings, as is the idea that the Old Testament 'doesn't make sense' on its own. While the Tanakh was left open-ended, the authors of the Christian Bible bolted on the New Testament and rearranged the books of the Tanakh in order to provide a narrative shape to the whole, doing violence to the text in the process.

And penal substitutionary atonement is a shitty Protestant invention that makes a mockery of the Incarnation.

>>6111667
>>6111670
>>6111679

I'm not seeing any cogent counter-arguments lads, am I going to have to chalk this one down as another victory for militant atheism?

>>6111693
yes. now you can leave the thread and do something productive

>>6111659
*Iron Age, unless you actually believe the Bible's internal chronology.

>>6111696
>implying there is anything more worthwhile than disbursing the sadly mistaken of their laughably primitive modes of thought

Oh, who am I kidding, you people don't respond to logical arguments, that's why you're "the faithful".

>>6111687
>'Fall of man' and 'irredeemably corrupt' are Christian readings, as is the idea that the Old Testament 'doesn't make sense' on its own. While the Tanakh was left open-ended, the authors of the Christian Bible bolted on the New Testament and rearranged the books of the Tanakh in order to provide a narrative shape to the whole, doing violence to the text in the process.

i don't know what your point is

>>6111704
here is your reply

>>6111710
and here is yours

>>6111708
My point is that you are playing the age-old Christian game of reading 'fall of man' and 'necessary repayment of a sacrifice' into the Tanakh in order to justify Christ's mission. Often this ends up at the idea that YHWH's covenant with the Jews wasn't a real covenant, just a stopgap until Christ could come along and 'fix' what Christians considered broken.

>>6111741
what christ considered broken. but that doesn't stop at the pharisees and the sadducees -- it also continues to fallen iterations of christianity (tares, mustard seed trees). fallen man continuously creates structures according to man, even in god's name, which wind up empty of god. the number one enemy in the bible is false christians. christ judges his own before he judges others

>>6111774
But Christ is God, or at the very least his agent.

And God is perfect and omnipotent.

Why'd he have to draw up two covenants homes?

And don't tell me it's because times change, because if your religious viewpoint is at all valid the fucker pulling the strings is the all powerful G-man, so that shit shoulda been in the manual from the start.

Face it, your religion is a 4000 year old game of chinese whispers that got out of hand.

>>6111789
there is only one home which is the corporate expression of christ, the body of christ, the church

>>6111802
And no two of them will tell you quite the same story.

Tell me, does Christ have MPD?

>>6111802


That's your opinion

>>6111807
there is only one church -- the believers

>>6111789
God is perfect, yet he allows humans absolute free will.
The only explanation is that the Old Covenant COULD have been the end, perhaps, but it wasn't. Humans destroyed it. Therefore, a New Covenant was needed.
Even if God can see all the possibilities, ultimately our choice is our choice.

>>6111810
it's god's message in the bible

>>6111812

there is only one true scotsman

>>6111817

Again, your assertion

>>6111818
there is only christ

>>6111823
god's revelation

>>6111825

Christ is a myth

Best thing about Christfags is that if there's no heathens to burn they'll inevitably set about the work of fighting each other.

Bless the daft wee fuckers.

>>6111834
christ is god

>>6111841
But God is a myth too.

>>6111845
god is truth and reality

>>6111816
A perfect being would necessarily have created a perfect covenant.

If you think otherwise then you do not undertsand the hypothetical nature of perfection.

If the first covenant failed this means that God is fallible.

>>6111852
But reality and truth are unattainable hypothetical noumena.

>>6111862
Do you not understand that humans are free to reject God? It doesn't matter what kind of covenant it is.

>>6111866
christ is attainable

>>6111878

Christ's existence is a myth

>>6111887
christ is truth and reality

>>6111895

the Flying Spaghetti Monster is truth and reality
why are religious people invariably brainless?

>>6111902
>the Flying Spaghetti Monster is truth and reality

this is not confirmed by his word

>>6111872
If God were real his existence would be undeniable; imprinted on every tree and stone and man and woman.

And you may well claim that he is.

But I do not feel it.
And neither do many of us.

Why would a good and just God need to hide his existence?

Should his light not pour forth upon us all, as immutable and self-evident as the sun at dawn?

And yet it does not, and you are reduced to scrabbling in the muck for poorly rationalized teleological bullshit.

But of course, that's just God testing you; he'll come through in the end eh?

All you've got to do is clap your hands if you believe and persecute the heathens.

And remember! Your specific vicar is always right! Even if the bloke two towns other sbrociays you're all damned sinners!

>>6111909

semiotic referents (the constituents of language and discourse [i.e. words] ) do not confirm the noumenal 'existence' of concepts in language like 'reality' or 'truth'

read more, lobotomy bob

>>6111934
god's word is not semiotic referents

>>6111902
The Flying Spaghetti monster isn't a creature whose goodness, wisdom, and existence doesn't pre-date all causes and creatures by being the first cause. He also didn't allow himself to be sacrificed for the sins of the world. From what I've seen, this Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to have some sort of material form as well, which God doesn't have. If this Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a being that appears to be a flying spaghetti monster, is instead divinely simple, and contains all of the values I first mentioned, then it's possible we're talking about the same thing.

>>6111925
>Why would a good and just God need to hide his existence?

This is the core of J.L. Schellenberg's argument from divine hiddenness:

1. If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to.
2. No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.
3. If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2).
4. It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief; God is hidden.
5. It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (from 3 and 4).
6. If God exists, God is perfectly loving.
7. It is not the case that God exists (from 5 and 6).

>>6111978
If God made a relationship with him present whether you liked it or not, you wouldn't be his friend- you would be his slave.

Lot of people lack faith in this thread.

Even Aquinas admitted that his proofs didn't really prove the Christian God's existence, just that there was probably some being we could reasonably call God. To believe in Christ takes faith, and of course, faith is "the evidence of things unlooked for, the belief in things not seen."

>>6111789

A great number of scholars believe that God would have become incarnate on earth regardless of whether or not Adam had sinned.

I've never believed in God, but these threads are turning me around. Mostly because the Christians here are well-read and the atheists just keep yelling
>muh problem of evil
>muh can't see him
>muh why didn't he enslave humans

Atheists are such horrendous people to talk to. Makes me embarrassed to have ever admitted I was one

>>6112081
Oh look it's OP and spammer of every christian thread

>>6112081
Classical theism is great bro, and most of these atheist arguments miss the mark or are just offensive.

Read the scholastic arguments on causality and divine simplicity. Feser talks a lot about the conflict between classical theism and "theistic personalism" that is a prevalent view of many Christians today.

Why are people debating Aquinas? Do you all drive horse carts and wear plate armor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs

>>6112120
>samefagging

>>6112120
How does Feser feel about the fact that the average Catholic layperson has always had a personalistic conception of God? Is anthropomorphizing God in this way a form of idolatry?

>>6112144
I don't think anybody would seriously claim having such a conception is sinful, it is however unsophisticated.
If you accept Christianity then it also seems obvious that God makes himself known to all people, regardless of their intellect. To the common peasant he would seem like some kind of Zeus ; A more educated person would conceive of him as some kind of transcendent person, exhibiting human features in an infinite way.
And to a philosopher, God is the Unmoved Mover, a being which is pure actuality and therefore absolutely simple. We can only talk about God in analogous way - there is no such a thing as "goodness" and wisdom" in God in any human way, they all correspond to the one divine essence, and can be referred only analogously. This way it is clear how the philosophy of God is consistent within the whole western tradition.

>>6112168
I have no problem believing in God the Unmoved Mover, a being which is pure actuality and therefor absolutely simple. But I have a hard time getting from there to 'the Bible is the word of God'.

>>6112206
That's because it's obviously not any more the 'word of God' than any other work in print, save perhaps by the quantities in which it's been printed.

>>6112206
I don't understand your objection. Why does an argument need to convince you of every single doctrine of Christianity? That is obviously impossible. If everyone accepted the claim of classical theism though it would already be a huge change, and a lot of people would convert to Catholicism I'm sure.
Christ or not the reality of this being has big consequences

>>6111997
To follow that reasoning was there no slavery in South because the people there were free to choose not to listen to their "masters"

>>6112081
You missed the peak there used to be some really well read calvanists and sedevacantists and the fedora meme being used sparingly rather than as first recourse.


>Atheists are such horrendous people to talk to. Makes me embarrassed to have ever admitted I was one

That is a really bad way to go about approaching this issue and is *exactly* the kind of reasoning that turned people into fedoras in the first place.

>>6108013

>the God Aquinas proved

He did no such thing.

>>6111997
To quote Lewis:
>“God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realise what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing; it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it before or not. Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever. We must take it or leave it.”

>not believing in pretty god yet

what are you even doing

>>6112334
>That is a really bad way to go about approaching this issue and is *exactly* the kind of reasoning that turned people into fedoras in the first place.

Obviously it's a generalization. I have no actual problems with any religion or ideology. My honest belief is that there are intelligent people at the top of every enduring ideology. The problem is that in everyday life you get a different side of every ideology. Most people aren't well-educated about the kinds of things they usually inherit from their parents or a significant adult in their life (politics, religion, etc).

There are so many good reasons to not eat meat today, but most vegans you meet are annoying. I respect a lot of Libertarian and Anarcho-capitalist philosophers, but most Libertarians you meet are asses. I may be an atheist, but even atheists get too much for me. I don't know if I've just been lucky, but I've had more run-ins with annoying atheists than I have with annoying Christians.

I just don't want another argument at a party. It really gets tiring. I also don't get why these people are yelling at me when I believe essentially what they believe, except I won't buy into their destructive idea of religion.

>>6113550
Christians have been forced to go on the defensive and have to explain to their culture why they are important in the first place. They've had to refine their arguments and can't rely on "muh science". That's why you'd see more intelligent defenders of Christianity than lazy atheists who follow the secular ideologies.

>>6113559

This is kind of related, but not really. The other day I met a girl who went on and on about how stupid it was to believe in a Christian God. She was cute, so I went along with it.

Then I found out she believes in tarot cards (cards we know for a fact were invented for playing games in the 15th century thanks to people like Dummett and even then weren't used for divination for another 300 years) and astrology.

Why do people think that is totally not retarded, but Christianity is?

>>6113559
>intelligent defenders of Christianity

I'm know I'm cruisin' for a rusin' when I see shit like this.

>>6113535
kill yourself

>>6113612
Yeah, I know a lot of people like that. Stupid new age shit? Well, that's just cool. Monotheism, well nobody reasonable can believe in that!

Just ignore this shit and go into philosophy. Catholic, preferrably. I firmly hold that questions about God are questions about metaphysics.

>>6113651
Literally no one thinks that you stupid retard autistic faggot dicksuck

>>6113550
Well you could always just avoid those topics irl and use dedicated forums to get your fix for higher level discussion.

How simmilar are your friends to you?

>>6110624
bruno bauer pls go back to the holy family

>>6113652
Lol, every "spiritual, but not religious my good sir :^)" faggot thinks that monotheism is crazy while their western appropriations of Buddhism are justified when they hold no firm arguments about it whatsoever. I've met hordes of these people.

>>6113651

>Just ignore this shit and go into philosophy. Catholic, preferrably.


Yes and when you realize that half of the arguments for classical theism are so bad they're falsified by physics, not even philosophy, maybe broaden your horizons a bit.

>>6113660
>Lol, every "spiritual, but not religious my good sir :^)" faggot thinks that monotheism is crazy while their western appropriations of Buddhism are justified when they hold no firm arguments about it whatsoever. I've met hordes of these people.

You're retarded and full of shit, literally no one ever just hates monotheism irrationally

>>6113680
Jeez, are you naive.

>>6113684
No, you just have a persecution complex and interpret everything how you want to. What you're saying is utter nonsense and exists nowhere in reality

>>6113686

>No, you just have a persecution complex

It comes bundled with christianity.
I mean, their god literally died on a cross.

>>6113686
I think you're just mad because you know it's right.

>>6113689
No, seriously, literally nobody alive has ever said "lol well I'm spiritual and I like Buddhism but monotheism is for retards just because lol"

99% of the time it has to do with your retarded fucking doctrines on daily life and how fucking annoying you are, you're just in denial of this aspect

>>6113689
By the way, these "dozens of people", I guarantee you're asking them about their religious views, right, and they say they're not really christian, and so you say "WELL WHY NOT?" and because they're not interested in having some autistic christian yell his theological arguments at you they back out ambiguously

>>6113699
First of all, I'm not a Christian. Secondly it's exceedingly obvious how monotheism is rejected due to cultural reasons instead of argumentation, while eastern religions are regularly praised due to their exotic and perceived non-institutional nature by westerners. People will wax for hours about Church and Galileo and Crusades and Inquisitions, but will they ever mention how Hinduism has been justifying terrible social oppression for centuries?
Out of heart, out of mind.

>>6113705
out of sight*
lel

>>6113705

>Secondly it's exceedingly obvious how monotheism is rejected due to cultural reasons instead of argumentation

And? That's always been the case, just with roles reversed.

>>6113705
>Secondly it's exceedingly obvious how monotheism is rejected due to cultural reasons instead of argumentation, while eastern religions are regularly praised due to their exotic and perceived non-institutional nature by westerners.
OH WELL IF IT'S SO OBVIOUS THEN WHY ISN'T IT OBVIOUS AT ALL?

>>6113714
Chill out Dawkins

>>6113720
>Dawkins

*tips fedora*

>>6113660
>western appropriations of Buddhism

You say this like Buddhism wasn't already appropriated in every Asian country it spread to.

>>6113727
as well as christianity

>>6113727
Westerns want some kind of happy Buddhism without the radical nihilist part of it. Buddhism is probably the most radical thought system right after Christianity (though we can argue about this).

>>6113731
>Christianity
>radical

>>6113733
Buddhism deals with the unavoidable pain of existence and tells you how to bury your passions for contingent things.

Christianity tells you that your existence is painful, meaningless and basically the result of a terrible error, but then it DEMANDS that you engage with the world, devote your entire being to the love which is God even though it will entail more suffering and pain. The message of Christianity is that life isn't worth living without suffering.

>>6113727
hoopoopopopoooppopo

>>6113731
Why did Christianity loose its radical nature faster than the other major thoughts?

>>6113727
it's funny because buddhism is almost non-existent in modern india

nearly every living buddhist is one of those horrible cultural appropriators

>>6113720

If there's someone who's sperging, it's you.
And it has nothing to do with new atheism, unless you sincerely think that foreign religions in the past were dismissed by the general population out of deep reasoning (in which case, you're an idiot)

>>6113737
Buddhism doesnt actually have a role for the lay community which makes it fairly radical as far as religions go at best they can be cheerleaders and provide a bit but that wont actually help them reach nirvanna.

>Christianity tells you that your existence is painful, meaningless and basically the result of a terrible error,

Thinking our existence is meaningless and a result of error is horrifically heretical. Likewise the suffering and pain you talk of really means little when you consider the eternal bliss that follows it, far from being meaningless life on earth is a reality short interview for heaven.

>>6113733
>God became man and died on the cross
>'Love thy enemy as thy neighbour'
>The Kingdom of God is within you
>'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it'

Christianity is a religion which sets itself against empire and all other power structures.

>>6113750
By creating a power structure

LOL
O
LOL
O
LOL
O
LOL

>tfw christians really are this retarded

>>6113745
I don't care for people who insert atheist memes. Why do these discussions always end up with people attributing posts to someone else?

The point is that modern atheism represents itself as the voice of reason and logic. They are tirelessly trying to prove that atheism is the choice every reasonable, intelligent person must choose after careful examination of the arguments.

I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong and incredibly arrogant. At least the religious person will tell you when you must make the leap of faith, an essentially emotional/psychological leap because God ultimately transcends human logic.

However, it is my position that classical theism can be defended and is a perfectly reasonable position. This is a question of philosophy.

>>6113755
>However, it is my position that classical theism can be defended and is a perfectly reasonable position.
depends more on what you do with your time

you can be the smartest person alive, if you spend 24/7 reading the bible and praying to god you're a worthless sack of shit and should be killed

>>6113757
Why are you so hateful?

>>6113750
>Christianity is a religion which sets itself against empire and all other power structures.

Nice way to completely forget Romans 13

>1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,

>4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due

>>6113755

>I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong and incredibly arrogant

It's not, atheism is the most warranted position to take as of now. It wasn't like this in the past, say in the 16th century, and maybe it won't be in the future, but now it is. Not new atheism with all its dumb shit, but atheism as in "it's more than 50% likely that there is no god", yes.


>it is my position that classical theism can be defended and is a perfectly reasonable position


I'm sorry but it can't. Aquinas' ways have aged horribly (some more than others) and no philosopher of classical theism comes even close to Aquinas, so...

>>6113758
because you really need to stop taking yourself seriously, bcuz no one else is going to.

the thing you christians never realize is no amount of typing on 4chan will ever convert someone and the effort/product ratio of convincing people is so low. like, you may think you're trying to give good arguments, but literally, when i read your shit i don't care because it's so sterile, uninformative and dull that it penetrates nothing.

you're not worth anything of my time but laughing, goading you into replying to my verbal shit is the only possible entertainment someone like you could ever provide. ever, otherwise you're literally nothing

>>6113767
I disagree, it seems to me a lot of people have become friendlier to the arguments of theism by becoming acquainted with them, even just on this board.

Hell, there is this guy on this very thread: >>6112081

Your claim is just factually incorrect.
You can believe that intellectuals for 2000 years have been Christian due to exclusively cultural indoctrination, or you can believe that they had very good reasons for it indeed. The latter is my position and it's why I've been meddling with scholastic philosophy. I'm sorry but I can't ignore the entire western philosophical tradition for a modern belief system that has many holes and might turn out to be a small page in history. Enlightenment ideology is just as pervasive as most stifling forms of Christianity.

>>6113784

>Hell, there is this guy on this very thread:

How can you not recognize samefagging when it's so obvious?
Also, he's not the one who said that intellectuals where christian in the past mostly because of pre-existing cultures, I am.


>I've been meddling with scholastic philosophy

When you try to understand a philosophical current of thought you should also read objections to it. Are you? By whom?

>>6113788
By all means, point me to comprehensive critics of scholasticism and traditional metaphysics, I'd appreciate it.
I read criticisms by logical positivism and Kantians, and I found them unimpressive. I still see no reason to deny ontology and the theist argument from causality.

>>6113784
>actually thinking that >>6112081 poster was genuine
You must be too new or too naive. /lit/ have a christfag infestation for quite some time now.

>>6113800

>I read criticisms by logical positivism and Kantians

Are you kidding me? You read logical positivists, one of the few movements to have been definitely proven wrong in the history of philosophy, who haven't even existed for decades, to refute scholasticism?
Are you trying on purpose to avoid any decent criticism?

Maybe next time try something about contemporary (more or less) work on the atheist side of philosophy of religion, like I don't know Sobel, Martin, Smith and Nielsen.

Hell, even I can write a summary on why the five ways are wrong.

>>6113846
I still see a large influence of logical positivism in philosophy. I haven't really followed modern discussion since I'm still learning, I'll grant that. I'm devoting myself to greeks and medievals at the moment.

>>6113846
not the anon from the discussion but can you write that summary

>>6113853

I'm going to lunch in 20 minutes but I'll start. It's a summary so a lot of things are going to be implied rather than explained.

>>6113852

I honestly don't see the point in going chronologically through philosophy. It makes a lot more sense to go by field and then by currents of thought. Maybe at that point you can order arguments chronologically but I don't really see the point in doing that either, there's plenty of positions in philosophy that went into comas for centuries, just take Rawls as an example: who the hell would have thought that social contract theory would have been revived?

>>6113861
>I honestly don't see the point in going chronologically through philosophy.

I disagree, it makes perfect sense. The development of philosophy is itself a philosophical process, and you can gradually follow as questions came up and were answered by thinkers. Various modern schools are descendants of great thinkers. I really don't think you can study the field by taking up a textbook like you can do with say, logic.

>>6113875

>The development of philosophy is itself a philosophical process, and you can gradually follow as questions came up and were answered by thinkers

You can't, as I've already mentioned it's not gradual, some things are created and then abandoned for centuries (another example would be virtue ethics), it's anything but gradual. The only gradual way is to choose a field, say normative ethics, divide it into positions and then gradually work the arguments for each position from the least (usually the oldest) to the most (usually the youngest) complex.

Well, I'm mainly interested in metaphysics and there it makes perfect sense to me to go chronologically (the great systems of Platonism and Aristotelianism, modern rationalism, Kantian and Enlightenment critiques of metaphysics etc) . I'll admit other disciplines might go differently.

>>6113902

Yeah but I mean you won't find proper naturalist objections until what? The 19th century? And by the time they're good, you're going to in the second half of the 20th.

>>6113908
Well, I'd still like some specific recommendations, as I said I'm not familiar with this time period.

>>6113912

oh so you meant about naturalism specifically? Nielsen is fine for that too, although you should probably start with Quine and Putnam.

seriously though catholicism is as pagan and retarded as it gets, even within its already paganized religion

there is no higher form of moral corruption than being a 'practicing' catholic. practicing retard is more like it. how strange that they misinterpret even the new testament, the basis for their religion, so wrongly. what makes its bastardization so complete it that it hails itself as the church jesus would have wanted, when that can be nothing more than complete blasphemy if you only examine his teachings. every single catholic is an amazingly brainwashed and subservient slave to disgusting pagan corruption that dates millennia back

g-d bless real christians

>>6113938
Why does Christ give Peter the keys to heaven and talk about religious authority to resolve religious issues?
If he didn't want a Church, THEN his mission doesn't make any sense.
"Go and make disciples of all the nations", how will they do that, talk to individuals as 12 people until they die?
It seems to me you're the one with the bastardized view, that is to say Protestant.

>>6113938
I'm not sure if you are trolling or just some backwater protestant.

>>6113944
top kek. the shady history of christianity makes it very plausible that the church was controlled and administered by scumbag romans, perhaps the progenitors of global-scale corruption. but whatever you can go rape some children and murder, you're apparently safe as long as you follow twisted doctrine

and stop pretending like catholicism is 'soooo much better than that filthy prostentatism.' catholicism is prostentantism of the highest form at its core

the other prostestant churches are almost as just as retarded, but at least they had the foresight to get rid of that pure demonic influence. some still retain some of them though and are not fully clean. the only non-goyim christians are non-denominational, get it right idiot faggots

>>6113976
Poe's law, right there.

>>6113988
you're brainless *and* soulless, lol

>>6113993
You are a tripfag *and* a protestant, which is let's face it, far worse than being soulless and brainless.

>>6114002
lmao u think i'm christian lmaoooo

>>6114002
and no, pretty sure there's literally nothing worse than being soulless and brainless

>>6113784
Lol stop trying; it's pathetic. No one takes you seriously

Is the position of universal reconciliation heretical in Catholicism today? I've heard conflicting views on this, but from many theologians and even recent Popes I see the view that while we can't know, we can reasonably hope that all of creation will be saved after a period of purification and united with God.
Hell perhaps remains a possibility for the truly wicked who refuse God even in the afterlife, though that's hard to imagine, but it would proceed from God's absolute respect of human freedom not to force any single person to be united with him.

Thoughts?

>>6115744
I take him seriously.

>>6115760
>Is the position of universal reconciliation heretical in Catholicism today?

prolly not tbh

>>6115760
I had a discussion on that with a priest a week ago, he didn't seem to mind it or have a strong opinion on it. Was it considered heretical before?

>>6113784
>You can believe that intellectuals for 2000 years have been Christian due to exclusively cultural indoctrination, or you can believe that they had very good reasons for it indeed.

Just like alchemists believed you could turn base metals into gold until the 18th century
Just like chemists believed organic material couldn't come from inorganic material and so God must have made it.. Until urea was synthesized in 1828
Just like it was a crime and illegal to not be a Christian in Great Britain. Every read up on the history of Hobbes and Hume?

You're a mess. Science wasn't advanced until the same century atheism became tolerable and serious, the 19th century. You're so fucking blind to actual history. This whole "people in history were Christian" thing is the worst sophistry that's continually touted on the board as fact, and you're a fucking asshole to spout this. Fucking hack quack faggot

>>6115772
Then you're ignorant and stupid

>>6115799
There were significant thinkers from very early on who argued for it. Even Augustine, who didn't believe it, seemed to have affirmed the need to discuss this point and didn't dismiss it.
Origen was known to hold universal salvation and proclaim that even Satan will be saved, and he was proclaimed heretical, but it seems he also held a number of non-orthodox doctrines that became a problem. The history is complex here, I know very little.

But basically until the 19-20th century most people seemed to have held eternal punishment, while today we have basically a 180-turn.

>>6115803
>Science wasn't advanced until the same century atheism became tolerable and serious, the 19th century.

Hahaha, holy shit.
You're telling someone else he doesn't know history? Give me a break.

>>6115829
>You're telling someone else he doesn't know history? Give me a break.

What do you think that sentence means, faggot? Do you really think that the scholastic Aquinas 'scientists' made the most important discoveries?

Lol.

I say "advanced" because there were revolutions in scientific theory and philosophy in the 19th century (e.g., the concept of energy in its contemporary form). The methodology was changed, and the 19th century produced some of the most fantastic, new science and many fields became fully legitimate. Even through the 18th century, there was volumes more quackery.

Scientific advancement correlates very cleanly to increased atheism. But go ahead, posture harder you two bit hack

>>6115808
Ignorant of what and stupid on basis of what?
>>6115822
Eternal punisment is still an orthodox thing as far as I know, it's just that people have gotten more into feelgood Christianity so they think hell is cruel.

>>6115847
Scientific advancements correlates very clearly with the two most destructive wars in human history.

Nice correlation, huh.

>>6115865
>Ignorant of what and stupid on basis of what?

The efficacy of his statements

>>6115868
Yeah totally, the 25 million people died that wouldn't even have existed without scientific advancement

>science is literally hitler

Way to blow yourself out with the most pathetic Christian argument ever made

>>6115865
I don't think it's just that, it's a misrepresentation. There are verses who say very clearly that all will be saved, and you can make an argument it makes much more sense as a whole. For instance, praying for the dead.

>>6115847
>Do you really think that the scholastic Aquinas 'scientists' made the most important discoveries?
I remember reading an article that said a lot of important discoveries in mathematics and logic were made than that are now axiomatic, don't know where, will try to dig it up.

>>6115894
My point is correlation is not causation you idiot.
And atheism is simply not the cause of scientific advancement, this is the kind of Enlightenment wishful thinking that even a shallow understanding of history destroys.

>>6115900
No, I definitely agree, was it William of Ockham who advanced logic?

I don't deny that Christians have done great shit through history, but it doesn't correlate either way to anything. I'm just tired of this constant posturing that shit was somehow "better" when people were Christian. It's a patent lie, and we shouldn't tolerate Christians pushing their nonsense garbage

>>6115900
It's common knowledge to actual historians that the middle ages were the prelude to the entire scientific method. Education in medieval universities was intense in logic - You had to master Aristotle's logic before you tackled anything else.

>>6115912
Scientific enlightenment is a potent cause of atheism, that's the point I'm making

Why do you think Darwin's work was so controversial? You really think the vastly increased naturalistic accounts for our origins had NO affect on religious beliefs? Give me a break

>>6115928
It's also common knowledge to actual historians that David Hume claimed to be a Christian only after being put on trial. Gee, how funny, I guess David Hume was totally persuaded by the efficacy of religious argumentation

>>6115930
It had an effect for Christians without the proper understanding of the relation of science and theology. Someone like Aquinas who championed reason would have no problem with it, just look at how he vehemently held that it was impossible to philosophically prove that the universe had a temporal beginning, even today it's not a commonly held view.

Guys what if scientific advancement is tangental to religion, and the greatest minds of history would have just adopted whatever they were raised as and made their contributions regardless

I know it's crazy, but think about it

>>6115922
But I don't see anyone here claiming that things were better in the Middle Ages.
The claim being made by the other anon is that the Middle Ages were extremely important in development of science as we know it today.

>>6115941
The Christian theological framework was essential to the development of western science though. Other civilizations didn't believe in the inherently rational order of the universe designed by a Creator and the freedom of humans to explore it, like Asians for example.

>>6115955
What about the Greeks and the Arabs then

>>6115939
>it had an effect on Christians who hadn't yet hardened their synapses on years of sophistry

>>6115941
Patently false

>>6115947
Extremely? No, if you just said it was important I would have agreed. But now you're putting your finger on the historical scale

Christians are not that important in world history, and anyone who tries to argue that people should be Christian today because of history is an idiot. That's the bottom line

>>6115963
Greeks stopped existing in the Plato/Aristotle kind of way. Arabs, well as far as I know have been falling since Mohamad in terms of culture.

>>6115955
>The Christian theological framework was essential to the development of western science though

No it was not. It's not intrinsic to the fucking Christian framework. You're twisting words and connections to emphasize the importance of Christianity; you're engaging in sophistry right now

>>6115984
But Arabian math was important in the development of math; ergo, we should all be Muslim.

WHY ISNT THIS ARGUMENT CONVINCING YOU?!?!? :-(

>>6115963
The Greeks contributed tremendously to the development of science, Aristotle is the single greatest thinker in this regard. It's just that he was so incredibly ahead of his time that centuries of commentaries on his works didn't produce a thinker of such a caliber. But Christian Europe eventually moved beyond him, and you definitely can't belittle their contributions in-between. Just because we didn't perform empirical experiments doesn't mean we didn't have a total hard-on on logic and argumentation.

Arabs were the leading minds for a long time until various factors made them regress to the sorry state they're in today. Muslim prohibition of scientific inquiry was a big deal however.

>>6115972
Why is it idiotic to argue that people should be Christian today?

>>6115993
Where the fuck did the OTHER anon claim that?

>>6115993
You know very well that nobody is arguing that you should be Christian because people in history were Christian.
What you're trying to present is that they were all Christian because they were opressed and indoctrinated and preserve the Enlightenment ideology how science came about through a hard struggle with religion, an idea that should have already died long ago.

>>6116000
Because of all the things to spend your time on in the short life we have, spending it worrying about death and the afterlife, over studying and reading your subjectivity into biased collections of books is the least aesthetic choice.

>>6116022
That's not what I'm saying at all. You're projecting that argument into me. It was completely rational that someone would believe in god pre enlightenment; you couldn't explain nearly any phenomenon without it.

I'm saying "god" is unnecessary and mysticism is a much more satisfying way to have higher experience today. Christianity offers me nothing at all

>>6116042
But Christianity was never about just preparing for the next life and we don't really spend it worrying. I spend my time reading literature and I don't see how somehow reading Aquinas is reading someone more biased that Kant.
And you have some kind of a problem with your life, idk why, but I can feel the toxicity from your posts. Chill out.

>>6116016
I'm parodying the argument. Arabian algebra and logic were both created by heathens, and as such the religious people who came later deserve the credit for expounding on their ideas?

The point I'm really trying to get to here is that the history of Christianity and its relation to scientific development is no argument for Christianity today

>>6116063
>I'm saying "god" is unnecessary and mysticism is a much more satisfying way to have higher experience today.

Well, I disagree with that fully. It seems you just have a "you can be spiritual without being religious" position. My question to such people is, why do you attack one kind of spirituality over another, particularly if your spirituality doesn't have firm philosophical arguments (that I hold monotheism has had through the whole western tradition).

>>6116068
I'm talking about the bible and it's efficacy as a historical source, not scholastic thinkers. The bible is about as accurate as Herodotus

And call me toxic all you want, I'm still arguing seriously here

>>6116084
I have no problems with the spiritual part of Christianity, I have problems with the unmovable power hierarchy and worldly religious it is.

>>6116085
Who is taking The Bible as an absolute hisorical text here? You keep putting things in our mouths, nobody claimed that at all.

Judaism is the only real religion, my wayward goyim friends.

>this thread

>>6116093
Personally, I see no point in religion if it is not communal and doesn't make objective claims.
If you truly believe something is true, and furthermore if you believe God had revealed a plan of salvation to you, you wouldn't hold it as some kind of private belief. My problem with a lot of this "spirituality" is that it wants to have faith on its own terms and convenience, without subjection to the ultimate authority of God in which I see the entire point of monotheism.
The question here is to what extent you should coerce other people to your claims, and it's certainly something Christians have made errors in together with every other belief system, but they've also made huge contributions to social justice which can't be overlooked.
But this is a whole other argument, I don't want to get into it now.

>>6116099
How can one be a Christian of the words of Christ aren't the ultimate authority?

I'm sure you're not meaning to say the verses about homosexuality are "parables", are you?

You can't take Christianity and remove the parts that are directly and indisputably ethical statements with material consequences and claim it's not a religion with inherently material elements

>>6116112
Spirituality isn't that serious to me. I just don't play the "hur hur rational atheist" card, because I definitely get the sense of higher connection, and that sense NO, I do not look for within science itself.

Again, the point of this whole debate is the pressing issue: why should anyone be a christian today? I don't doubt that Christians have done important things in history, but I don't see that correlated strongly one way or the other. The bottom line is, I'm studying for a chemistry major and am working very hard to understand it thoroughly. I also work with developmentally disabled adults. I'm incredibly busy, and I don't see what god would add to that. If anything, god will take away from my doing of actual good (I do not believe in prayer) and learning vastly more interesting things about the universe

>>6116085
>The bible is about as accurate
You shouldn't make broad claims like this about an anthology

>>6116149
Well that's a matter of perspective, really.
I mean, the entire reason you can live a comfortable life is a matter of chance. You happened to be born in peaceful time in a (presumably) middle class family and you can say "well, what do I need God?"
But a huge number of people don't live this way, and it's telling how much death-bed conversions there are. It seems we're all non-spiritual when we live comfortably and call out to our Father when we're in trouble.

But anyway, the reason you should be Christian is because you're convinced in the truth of Christianity. I don't know what kind of answer you're looking for. There is no utilitarian advantage to it, the very reason I respect Christianity is because it is very realistic about human suffering and pain and the absolute vanity of our every contingent passion and goal.

>>6116153
Why shouldn't ten year olds be digging through the mail for hogwarts letters? If the bible isn't fictional or at least highly colored in places, and if Islam is a false religion, SERIOUSLY, how does one know without you appealing to divine knowledge?

Both Christians and Muslims appeal to divine revelation as the source of their knowledge, and claim the other's false, how does somebody judge? How CAN someone judge?

>>6116171
>But anyway, the reason you should be Christian is because you're convinced in the truth of Christianity.

What?

>>6116171
>Well that's a matter of perspective, really.
I mean, the entire reason you can live a comfortable life is a matter of chance. You happened to be born in peaceful time in a (presumably) middle class family and you can say "well, what do I need God?"
But a huge number of people don't live this way, and it's telling how much death-bed conversions there are. It seems we're all non-spiritual when we live comfortably and call out to our Father when we're in trouble.

There are atheists in foxholes. David Hume rejected the afterlife on his deathbed, and made people laugh with jokes who tried to convert him. He's my inspiration.

>>6116237
>be anon atheist
>figure out that Christianity is true
>become Christian

>>6116259
This would more commonly be termed "emergent psychosis"

Protip; if you're hearing voices it ain't God.

>>6116259
Christianity isn't "true"

>>6116282
Ok mate.
>>6116293
Irrelevant to the point

>>6112081
Congratulations! Just make sure you join the true patrician Catholic Church.

>>6116282
Kill yourself, fedora

>>6116339
Nice meme

>>6116310
Well, whatever shit you went through already happened to me. I have tried Christianity and gave it a serious shot, and I found no truth. I found lies, I found very delusional people, I found thousands of dollars spent on Christmas theatrics, I found discomfort and it led fucking nowhere.

The thing you don't get is many atheists HAVE tried Christianity, very seriously, and know that serious Christian debate is sophistry and is very abusive intrinsically. The ideal Christian doesn't exist and you're fools for buying into it.

Next time you are free, go to a church, sit in back very impersonally and analyze. Also, study various cults and their methods. The parallels in operation are staggering.

>>6116339

>Kill yourself, fedora

Such true Christian love

>>6116352
Don't worry, everybody knows you don't need to be a Good Christian to go to heaven.

Just a "Christian".

>>6116352
Deus Vult, faggot

>>6116350
I actually didn't go through anything, my life was for the most part very pleasant.
I just never found a good argument against Christianity, it's become an axiom to me, although it's funny because I am not a very spiritual person.
And to be honest I've met only one atheist who tried Christianity, a good friend of mine. Others never actually read Christian texts or go into it deeply.
And the perfect Christian is Christ so he does and doesn't exist in the same time.

>>6116339
>>6116366
You're not being very Christian, friend. Are you sure you're not something else?

>>6116376
I'm a serious Catholic, bruh.

>>6108013
test

>>6116376
Is shitposting a sin?

>>6116383
I thought you said you were a Christian :^)

>>6111467
Oh so those stories in the bible are all really about horrible things he can and would do in those circumstances, not things he's actually done. He's only an asshole on a fundamental level.

>>6116383
>But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5:44

>>6116392
Yeah, the two are one and the same. bruh.

>>6116403
>Sola sciptura

>>6115868

Remember when athiesim wiped out close to half the German population? Oh wait that was the wars of religion. Funny that.

>>6116408
Haha, you filthy idolator.

>>6116419
>shitposting loudly

>>6116408
catholics are prolly worshipping the legit antichrist and not the real jesus

snap out of it

i get it now

catholicism is just anesthetization of the masses
wake up sheeple

>>6113740
It didn't.

>>6116455
>hasnt read romans 13

damn why am i so smart tho

if ur christian worship the real jesus please, not the catholic devil jesus. damn im so smart as fuck

which is also to say its not ur fault catholics but yeah ya gotta stop doing that keep it real

>>6116462
God damn, I just looked that shit up.

Holy ballsack this is some "Divine right of kings" garbage.

>>6116439
The Catholic Church is the only True Church guided by the Holy Spirit and in Communion with God.

>>6116454
heh

>>6116408

> even history is ruined with genderswap bullshit
> why live

>>6116472
then why do they need the SSPX?

>>6116472

> Guided by the Holy Spirit
> Destroyed its ancient liturgies in an orgy of liberal insanity in the prior century.

Pick one.

>>6116492
We don't. They are more serious about official Church doctrine, and really more serious Catholics, but that doesn't mean the Church needs them....rather, they need the Church.

>>6116498
I really don't think a Protestant has any place making this argument. If you feel like the ancient liturgies were God's Will, then you sure didn't have any business leaving the Church to begin with.

>>6116502
But how are you going to stop the SJWs, the trannies, the gays, and the cultural marxists within the church though?

i just dont know what to think bros catholicism is pretty fucked like damn

at least the new pope has been good so there's hope there but damn man damn like im reading romans right now that shit is so depraved like i never even noticed

jesus better be real i aint playin like wtf

>>6116516
>stopping sinners from entering the church

>>6116514

> He thinks I'm Protestant

>>6116397
>horrible things

according to who? you? lmao

>>6116516
We're making being a serious Catholic popular among intellectuals. /lit/ is one example. Then they'll stop supporting gays and trannies ion favor of Christ

>>6116524
What if they're the pope?

>>6116553
they'll continue to love gays and trannies in the hopes that god's mercy will bring them to him

meh whatever as long as everyone believes in god its chill i guess

i mean how else would the non-jews be included so

yeah i guess. catholics still wrong as balls tho also goes for lutherans episcopal blah blah anyone still adhering to those bullshit rules. and i dont even know about the fuckin muslims yet like i just havent cared enough

>>6116562
the idea of clergy is mired in sin as well

>>6116567
No they won't, because we'll show that gays, trannies and atheism is anti-intellectual, and that Catholicism is true intellectualism.

>>6116581
pls stop btw you're soooo fucking wrong

>>6116581
you won't show anything. christ will show everything

>>6116589
kek

>>6116596
Ultimately, obviously.

religion shouldnt be a fucking sports team all you fuckers are soo dumb oh my god

god broaden your fucking horizons read some fucking books oh my godddd

>>6116603
and he will reveal the tares in the catholic church

>>6116616

I really hope ‘tares’ isn't a typo, for the Biblical parallel. But it probably is. :(

>>6116626
aw now i feel bad

just love christ you'll be fine

>>6116610
>religion shouldnt be a fucking sports team all you fuckers are soo dumb

this

>>6116610
If you thought butter and arrowfag were bad, well we have this faggot now.

>>6110549
Well Unmoved Mover is a personable God, in order to create a choice needs to be made.

Then we have the bible prophecy and eye-witness testimony to tie it up.

>>6118231
Porphyry demolished the prophecies.

Is confession valid when I know I'm still gonna masturbate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWbQKULrXos

>yfw evidence that Jesus was resurrected