/lit/ - Literature

Nobody every says this. Protestants like extra-Biblical works even more than Catholics, and every protestant denomination was created by a theological corpus.

you don't even need he Bible really

>>6537791
dont listen to him, im a protestant and my advice is that you should only listen to the bible

>>6537794
you just need the god delusion

>>6537794
Yeah bruh, Sola fide nigga.

>>6537796
Which denomination are you? I say you're full of shit

>>>/x/

>>6537794
>>>/hell/

>>6537802
i say im not, i can play this game too ya know

>>6537808
But since you haven't given your denomination, chances are you are full of shit

>>6537810
i dont have one

>>6537791
You've clearly never visited America or any of our fanatic cults.
I was brought up to mistrust anything outside the Bible.

As an atheist, all you really need is the Bible.

>>6537782

If I was a Christian, I would actually agree that you should just stick with the Bible.

>>6537791
This one lies

You don't need theologians, but no one should take you seriously unless you've read Augustine, Aquinas and Ockham at least.

>>6537814
So you've been to a protestant church that didn't have sermons?

Exactly which fanatical denominations are you talking about? Even the Westboro Baptist Church describes itself as Calvinist, meaning they draw on the theological writings of Calvin.

>Not ready Aquinas

Protestants pls.

It may cause some confusion here that many Bible-only churches are non-denominational.

>>6537830
No one should have to read Aquinas.

>theology
>bible

>>6537823
Protestants produce masses and masses of pop Christianity books, and there are protestant theologians from every denomination. Even Quakers and Puritans, the two most fundamental Christian sects (though polar opposites otherwise), had an essential corpus of writing defining their churches.

>>6537838
yea man who needz him he aint dank

>>6537845
He's more boring to read than Aristotle.

>>6537843
theyre still shit tho

>>6537835
Non-denominational churches are literally just baptist churches that don't know they're baptist. And every one I've been to loves extra Biblical books. Joel Osteen is rich as fuck because of all the books he's written.

>>6537832
Sermons were preached, however, believers were encouraged to examine what was said for themselves "in the light of the word".
I myself many times, even as a child, spoke to a preacher after a sermon when I felt that what he said did not line up with scripture. This was in no way discouraged, but rather seen as a good thing.

>>6537854

Ah, the renowned Catholic love of reason

"Rational" theology is the worst kind of theology

>>6537838
you don't have to read him, but you can't speak as an authority on theology without a thorough understanding of his arguments, which can only be gained by at least reading an abridged copy of the summa theologica,

>>6537863
That's correct, preachers and extra Biblical writings are not considered infallible. In fact, many protestants (ELCA, Episcopal Church, etc) do not even consider the Bible infallible.

>>6537857
Baptists who speak in tongues and "prophesy"? Not really.

>>6537865
>you need to be catholic to know theyre shit

>>6537799
>>6537801
>>6537806
im not an atheist or anything, i didn't mean to imply that

i don't think everyone that hasn't read the bible will "go to hell" in the christian sense

>inb4 "ur just lazy and don't want to read it"

no, i read it

>>6537816
>>6537815
it's the retards like you who are perpetuating this bullshit

if you aren't christian it isn't your concern, and for good reason

>>6537874
Well, my point is that although my father was an ordained minister, and had many, many books (Earth's Earliest Ages was a great favorite of mine), I was taught to regard theology in general with a very skeptical eye.
I was certainly taught that I did not "need" it. More value could come from prayer and fasting, and communion with the fellowship.

>>6537873
YOu can probably learn everything you need to know just from the SEP article on him tbh

>>6537892
dont mock my beliefs

>>6537791
How many Pentecostal denominations were formed that way?

>>6537892
The Bible, being one of the foundational works of occidental literature, is everyone's concern, dipshit.

>>6537791
>>6537832
Seconding:
>>6537814

>>6537843
There is quite a difference between between pop christianity books and theology. They are discouraging looking anywhere else as an authority other than the church and the bible (as they interpret it of course). It is a way of shoring up their power and expressive of their paranoia about their power. Sure they may draw on theological texts themselves indirectly through past leaders, but most often it is second hand knowledge through someone else. And they of course don't want what is unironically called the "flock" looking elsewhere than straight from the church lest they "drift away". It really is that bad. I was considered strange for reading and have even been bragged to by disturbingly high ranking members by how they "don't read".

>>6537791
>every protestant denomination was created by a theological corpus.

Now I know you're a troll

>>6537843
>Quakers and Puritans, the two most fundamental Christian sects

What do you mean by fundamental? They certainly weren't fundamentalist.

>>6537916
Dude. I was actively discouraged from going to university, and spoked to several times by elders who were concerned about how much time I spent reading things *other* than the Bible.
"Is it edifying?"

personally i'd rather read poets than theologians

prefer reverie to schema

>>6537791
>lying on the internet

>>6537912
obviously, but an atheist shouldn't determine what is or isn't essential christian literature

>>6537875
Plenty of baptist speak in tongues, plenty don't

>>6537906
Pentecostals like to listen a lot more than they like to read, but I'm sure sure every site for every church you look at will have a brief summary of their church's theology under "what we believe", and it won't be a collection of Biblical verses.

>>6537916
Right, that is because they are stupid, but they still use extra Biblical sources like TV

>>6537898
No, of course, protestants don't think you need to read theology to be saved. Neither do Catholics.

>>6537943
I mean radically protestant.

>>6537997
>Baptists speak in tongues
>Pentescostals use more than a few misinterpreted Bible verses for theology
Oh, I see. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Tell you what. Look up the United Pentecostal Church, take your time. Then come back here and take it all back. I can wait.

>>6537997
I'm not saying that they don't use sources like that, but they lack the self-awareness that they are using it. It ideology wrapped up in the so-called "water they swim in" that it allows them to tell people not to read theology or else it will "confuse them" without realizing that they do it themselves, which if you forgot, is what you are disagreeing with.

>>6538036
(cont.) And there are the people who are really into the pop christianity books/movies and quote them, but somehow can still find it intellectually acceptable to make statements like that. I guess with the amount of practice they have had at cognitive dissonance, it makes it quite easy to stack a little more onto the mountain

>>6538024
Are you suggesting they don't draw heavily from Charles Fox Parham's unique theology?

>>6538036
It's more suspicion that the theology you're reading hasn't been vetted by their sect. A lot of theology takes things for granted that they consider very wrong, and so they're discouraged from just searching out on their own. But they have approved of writings, I'm sure.

>>6537865
You have become my new favorite namefag.

>>6538052
Once again, this is about the fact that they are making that statement not they don't use what might fall under the category of "theology" if you cast a broad enough net. Sure they have books published by whatever corporate machine they have allied with, but once again, they aren't self-aware enough to call it theology, just "the truth" or "a powerful read" of whatever buzzwords they have been sold.

>>6538052
They likely do draw from his theology, but they do not know or acknowledge it.
Also new revelation is considered prefrable, and an entire church may radically change theology very quickly.
I was once in Pentecostal Church that became very strange indeed in a matter of 6 months. It was later discovered that the preacher had a brain tumor and was experiencing hallucinations.
I'm telling you, these places discourage their congregations from reading theology.

>>6537965
Philosophers can have reverie too. Read some mystics.

Personally I think poetry is overrated. If you don't know how to say something literally then you probably don't know what you're saying.

>Catholicism
>"Well it's very in-depth, allow me to show you brother and further refine what you thought."
>Protestantism
>"U CANT KNOW NUFFIN BOUT NUFFIN. JUST BELIEVE!"

>>6538481
You can't really generalize Protestantism.

>>6538515
Of course not, because it branches off into so many sects that all yell at each other.

>>6538526
Much like

Catholic
Orthodox
Coptic
Assyrian Church of the East
Saint Thomas Christians
Church of England
Polish National Catholic Church
Old Believers

>>6538562
Catholic
>all branches fucked up after Luther
Thanks for proving my point.

>>6538447
Somehow you're coming accross as very dumb with that post. What has "being able to say things literally" to do with "writing poetry for whatever reason" ? Do you think people use metaphors only when they are unable to speak plainly ?

Learn2read m8.

>>6538562
>Catholic
>All branches after Luther
Thanks for proving my point.

>>6538574
Those branches didn't have anything to do with Luther, they split because of Vatican I in 1870, which codified Papal infallibility.

>>6538574
You are kidding me.

>>6538585
>they didn't have anything to do with Luther
>they didn't have anything to do with the major split and form into their own church after the first major one
Okay.

>>6538574
Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox split well before Luther entered the scene

>>6538617
>cherry picking
sorry m8. I missed that one.

>>6538597
They didn't.

>>6538629
>no u
:^)

>>6538639
Can you actually substantiate your claim that the split was influenced by Luther, since it is the positive one?

>>6538644
I'd have to get inside their head, but the fact that nothing happened 1500 years earlier makes me think otherwise.

>>6538650
Coptic and the Assyrian Church were both earlier

>>6538621
Coptics, Assyrians, and Thomists were also independent of Rome before the modern age. The point is that there has been disunity in Christendom for a very long time, and claiming that it is unique to Protestants is reductionistic.

>>6537816
yeah that's why you aren't one.

Is this board really this religious? Sometimes it's overwhelming and I feel like converting.

>>6538757
There's a decent religious presence, but polls show that most of the board is atheist. It's just that atheists probably aren't going to get in depth into theology discussions, so most of the people in those will be religious, and therefore any time a topic like that comes up, it will appear that the board is mostly religious.

>>6537782
[THIS IS WHAT PROTESTANTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE]

>>6538757
>converting to Christianity coz you feel like this board is christian

>>6538766
>polls show
You have a skewed sample, only faggots take part in online polls.

>>6537806
Doesnt look too bad.

>>6540259
Sometimes the best way to convert someone is by converting all their friends.

>>6538757

Seriously, being this interested in a spook is very edgy

>You shouldn't huff paint thinner anon, it's not good for you!

I tell you, this whole world is a bunch of fucking pussies.

>>6538757
Wow.
You would be, like, the ultimate 4channer if you converted solely for that reason.