/lit/ - Literature

>>6656030
Chronicles of Narnia

>>6656034

Roger that, anything else?

The Lord of the Rings

Come on, somebody get it over with.

The Bible

>>6656030
>fantasy novels
go back to r/books

>>6656046

Roger. Anything that I haven't read/heard of?

But thanks for the suggestions.

>>6656030
The Communist Manifesto

>>6656030
Just know that you're going to hell

>>6656065

w-why?

>>6656056
someone post the /lit/ version

>>6656070
Because you are an escapist trash human being that denies the teachings of the Christ

>>6656070
I like how all the other assholes pulled the bridges out after themselves. Some Christians.

ender's game

>>6656084
>willingly misinterpretating visual metaphors
Good life

>>6656030
>that comic
>God is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent, and perfect
>but he fucks up now and again

>>6656070
God, this was hilarious. Do you have any more?

>>6656105
He doesn't fuck up, it's his plan.
Jesus is trying to protect you in spite of this.
Read the Bible you heretic piece of shit

>>6656112
The comic says:
>I'm sorry. Did I miss one?

What is should say:
>Yeah, I let that one hit you, idiot. Worship me harder.

>>6656119
The character depicted here isn't God but Jesus

Book of the New Sun

>>6656030
A Confederacy of Dunces

I've been trying to find one that was mentioned in one of Peter Hitchen's articles... It took place in Palestine in the 19th Century I believe, and it took the form of a treasure hunt...

Does anyone know what book I'm referring to?

>>6656030
>fantasy novels
get lost pleb

>>6656119

I'm a Christian and this comic is super fucking dumb.

Can't you just read a book without having your ideological hand held?

>>6656030
That's an easy one OP:

The Bible

>>6656070
>not asking the Lord to increase your strength so you can carry an enormous cross

stay pleb, dude in comic

>>6656157

>>6656169
>la reverse meme meme

>>6656179
>das green words

>>6656111

Bibleman:
https://youtu.be/8oWQRku69Gk

>>6656197

>>6656030
They are all basically "conservative" (The more old fashioned cliched kinds I mean)
They pine for an age long ago, save damsels who will be taken in marriage once saved, warriors who serve kings, mountains of gold coins. etc.
The genre derives from mythology of course. Check those out too. The anon who said the bible is spot on.

And please stop posting that comic.

>>6656202
I didn't realize there was a Korean restaurant in Nazareth...

>>6656030
>>6656070
>>6656197
>>6656202
>>6656210
wow, thanks, granddad

>>6656157
>God can do everything
>God doesn't permit bad things to happen

Pick one.

>>6656221
God being all-powerful / all-loving doesn't contradict evil existing.

>>6656202
>...he died expecting nothing in return

On the contrary.

>>6656199
kek

>>6656226
Actually it does.

Either he has the power to deflect all the rocks or the power to stop the person throwing the rocks, but he does neither, despite being all powerful.

This is elementary stuff.

>>6656247
You have failed two times now to understand simple things.

God doesn't want to stop evil. Evil isn't contingent to the world.

Source for the comics?

>>6656257
if God doesn't want to stop evil, then why bother praying to Him for protection at all?

>>6656247

Free will, sin stained world, etc. etc. I don't have the energy to raise up an interesting discussion on this right now but there's way more going on than that simple argument you just threw out, open your mind a little

>>6656279
>God permits evil because he imbued us with free will so we can choose to be good
>now worship God with that free will or burn in hell forever

what a fucking joke.

>>6656289
>now worship God with that free will or burn in hell forever

Light cannot be allied with darkness, what truce can evil make with good etc. etc.

>>6656294
Did you say darkness?

>>6656294
>Worship me or burn in hell
>Died and never exposed to christ

wut

>>6656294
>Light cannot be allied with darkness
The fuck are you talking about? The two are codependent.

>>6656294
You seem to have a very weird comprehension of the concept of God and Christianity.
I suggest your read the Bible, because you are spouting nonsense despite my good-willed explanations.

>>6656221
>projecting your petty morality onto an absolute, transcendental being

>>6656277
Praying is self-help. It's a therapy of the mind through wich you get closer to God.

They are suggestions to God, even in Islam and Judaism, or requests.

There is a vast set of guidelines that are of use when it comes to praying in christianity. Have you ever been to a mass ?

It isn't anything like the movies.

>>6656304

nah

>>6656308

>read the Bible
>weird comprehension

I was throwing out snippets of Bible verses nig. Be careful about what insults you throw in a conversation, they might get turned back on you.

Also, those bits of verses directly answer your question, if you pay attention you can figure it out but I'm not going to spoonfeed you because if you're aren't engaging with me now, then you're just like all the other angry atheists who don't want an insightful discussion, you just want to be right

prove me wrong and actually sincerely engage me as someone you would at least allow the possibility of learning something from and I'll oblige you tho, that's all I ask for and all I try to return in a debate

>>6656310
>my interpretation of an absolute, transcendental being is better than your interpretation of an absolute, transcendental because I have faith that my absolute, transcendental being has my back, even though I have no evidence proving it.

>>6656318
You have never quoted the Bible here.
>debate me I dare you
I am not here to fulfill your petty needs for attention. If you want to acquire a deeper understanding of theology, read theology and the Bible. It is not my duty to get baited into an empty rhetoric battle against an angtsy young man who is only interested in insulting his interlocutor.

God help you.

>>6656318
fedora etc etc

>>6656313
>There is a vast set of guidelines that are of use when it comes to praying in christianity.
No there aren't. I know because in Maccabees there's a prayer for the dead, which makes no fucking sense, considering that you don't need to pray for people in heaven, and you can't alleviate one's punishment in hell.

>>6656318
Yah-huh. Light can't exist without darkness. Have you never heard that before? That shit's been around since Gilgamesh.

>>6656319
well, your going to hell, so there haha

>>6656319
You're beyond reasoning.

>>6656330
It's dogmatic

>>6656327
>You have never quoted the Bible here.

You are wrong, and you've revealed how little you yourself understand about the Bible:
>Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:14

>inb4 your words don't match up exactly with that quote so technically you never quoted haha

I threw out snippets of this from memory from a more modern translation, I just went KJV for swag factor. Everytime I throw those snippets out to people who have actually read the Bible, said snippets being when I said this:
>>6656294

they immediately pick up on it and respond with the logical thoughts behind those verses because they see my point immediately. Your inability to see that those phrases/ideas were directly from the Bible reveal that you are the one lacking in understanding, which is why I said to be careful about throwing out insults in a conversation because said insults can easily be turned back on you. You insinuated that I had "weird comprehension" and didn't understand the Bible when I was only saying word for word what was IN the Bible.

When I asked you to be sincere with me I was simply asking you to be respectful towards me as I was being respectful towards you, so we could then come together in discusison/learning together. I gave you a chance to prove me wrong and show that you were interested in a legitimate discussion and not a dick waving contest. Instead you proved me right.

I'm probably the idiot here for even typing all this up for you. Anyway, I hope that you think more about how you treat others in the future.

>>6656331
If it exists. I'm not worried.

>>6656334
No, I'm just good at arguing my point, and you are very bad at arguing yours. You see, it's very easy to refute arguments based entirely on faith.

>>6656362
>I'm just good at arguing my point, and you are very bad at arguing yours.
Childish hubris.
>You see, it's very easy to refute arguments based entirely on faith.
No it's not, you just like to believe you've refuted said arguments.

>>6656354
>misunderstanding corinthians
you really have to be retarded lol
weak level bait tbh

>>6656330

I haven't read Maccabees, but there was no hell/heaven before Christ, everyone went to Sheol. Throw it a google. Since Maccabees is Old Testament(?) that would make sense

>>6656354
>I'm probably the idiot here
A surpsisingly wise statement

>>6656374
>misunderstanding

but he didn't even have an interpretation...

>>6656365
Yeah, that's why all my posts address the flaws in your logic while all your posts read like "nuh uh!"

>>6656392
Are you baiting or simply samefagging ?

>>6656393
>worthless rhetoric
>"look mom I'm being the rudest guy in the thread"
Atheists

>>6656380

Seeing as I don't consider myself wise, even though what you said was intended as an insult, I actually agree with you. You are right. I am not a wise man.

>>6656402
None of us are, anon, none of us are.

>>6656398
>Are you baiting or simply samefagging ?

neither, I just don't understand how you could say that he misunderstood the verse when he didn't even try and interpret it. how does that make sense? in order to misunderstand something you presumably have to try and understand it in the first place, no?

>>6656393
>Yeah, that's why all my posts address the flaws in your logic
But it doesn't. Calm your hubris, you brat

>>6656197
lel Jesus got friendzoned hard
>yfw the Son of God is a beta orbiter

OP, Terry Goodkind if you want Randian fantasy. Shit's as bad as it sounds. At least there's BDSM too.

>>6656398
>worthless rhetoric
Oh, that's rich. Considering all the shit you've been spewing:

>Childish hubris.
>You're beyond reasoning.
>well, your going to hell, so there haha
>projecting your petty morality onto an absolute, transcendental being
>fedoratip.gif

Who's really the one posting worthless rhetoric here?

>>6656411
He is using it as a counterpoint to what christfag sait higher, that means he is assimilating it.

zzz

shit thread tbh
wish you fags had your own board

>>6656354
>>6656327

Wait, just to clarify something, do you think I'm an atheist?

I posted this:
>>6656318

>>6656417

but you don't even know his exact thoughts behind it or why he thinks it works as a counter because he didn't say anything, if anything you should mock him for being obscure.

>>6656416
>Considering all the shit you've been spewing:
There are multiple people here, and they're all laughing at you.

>>6656418
>>6656418

I'm only asking this because if you think I'm an atheist (I'm not) then it begs two questions:
1. How on Earth did you mistake me for an atheist?
2. If you're a Christian (presumably), then sorry to be blunt, but why are you such a dick?

If I'm wrong and you knew I was a Christian and you're an atheist then just call me an idiot and move on, but if I'm right then those are two legitimate questions I have

>>6656425
I don't hear any laughing. I see a bunch of cultists getting mad because they can't explain how God permits a rock to hit a believer.

>>6656426
This guy is not me
also no I didn't make any assumptions

>>6656430
Are you literally 12?

>>6656434
>worthless rhetoric

>>6656434
Do you lose arguments to 12 year olds, often?

>>6656431

I'm actually confused, which posts are yours?

>>6656441
>i won because i said so *tips funny retro hat*

>>6656449
No, no, no. You're right.

I will be the bigger man and admit I clearly lost the argument, because you got me right here:

>"look mom I'm being the rudest guy in the thread"
and here
>Childish hubris.
That, right there, fully and adequately refutes all my points and explains why God can be omnipotent but allow evil, and why He gave us free will but forces us under punishment of damnation to do his bidding. You did it. Pat yourself on the back. I'm buying myself a rosary tomorrow. You've saved me.

>>6656471

Not him but it's not force unless He literally forces you bruh, which ironically is what the whole free will is supposed to prevent; your personality being destroyed to be replaced by a mindless do-good robot

>>6656471

well to be fair to that other anon you are being pretty damn rude

>>6656475
well, not to sound like Christopher Hitchens, but that's like saying slaves were free to leave the plantation at any time. They might get strung up on their way to the north, but they were free.

>>6656221
>"bad" things
>arbitrary signifier based on liberal humanist perspective
>at all relevant to god

try harder little atheist

>>6656471
Dude you're mixing all your interlocutors up

>>6656486

Well technically yeah, they were. They still had free will. That can only be taken away if someone literally mind-controls you.
>inb4 this moves into an irrelevant discussion about how bad the slaves had it

Also that's a broken analogy and the alternative doesn't make any sense. If you want justice, then there needs to be punishment for actions even though you are free. This is actually exactly how our society works. If the legal system started placing mental blocks in people's heads so that they would be unable to commit a crime and forced them to do good acts then I personally would be freaked the fuck out, don't know about you. In order for their to be justice, there must be righteous judgment for actions. In order for actions to have any meaning, there must be freedom to choose.

>>6656197
u mean jesus can get me a qt gf?


brb converting.

>>6656491
>God transcends the good/bad dichotomy.

>>6656491
>god is the basis for morality
>therefore, morality is irrelevant to him
That's a whole new level of mental gymnastics right there.

>>6656526
read kant ape

>>6656520

This is actually a pretty interesting Sufi Islam belief, that God is beyond good and evil.

Death's Gate Cycle

>>6656528
How about you read him? God doesn't know morality because there are no unreasonable impulses within him, his will is always good and rational. This means that he doesn't have a capacity for evil, not that whatever an entity claiming to be god does, cannot be considered evil. What the atheists' argument from evil really asks is, how can a being that allows this, be called a god?

>>6656541

The flaw with that atheist argument though is that they're assuming that their vision of morality is objective and that God's morality needs to change to suit theirs, which is I believe what that other anon was commenting on. To say nothing of the arrogance of said atheists' belief, the actual logic of it doesn't make sense.

In layman's terms: If God's God then He makes the rules and not you, get used to it bitch nigga

>>6656199
>But God DOES care

>>6656544
>>6656541

Or rather, to bring it in line with what you just said:

If God's God then His nature is perfect and yours isn't, so He's in the right and you're not, get used to it bitch nigga

>>6656548
You need to learn what perfection is.

>>6656526
god is the basis for god's morality. human morality isn't god's morality

Useless thread for op due to atheists shitposting, but check out
Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis
Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion, Children of Hurin by Tolkien
Book of the New Sun, The Wizard Knight by Gene Wolfe

Best picks here imo are Book of the New Sun and Silmarillion

>>6656544
>The flaw with that atheist argument though is that they're assuming that their vision of morality is objective
But it is, according to Kant. Unless you are denying that people are reasonable, which would make morality and religion pointless.
>that God's morality needs to change to suit theirs
No, it just needs to be in accordance with morality as such, which, say, Ebola or the spanish inquisition certainly aren't. Are you trying to save christianity by invoking moral relativism? Bad idea.

>>6656552
you need to learn what god's perfection is. this isn't fantasy novel worldbuilding pleb. read the bible

>>6656541
>how can a being that allows this, be called a god?

it's all according to his plan. he will defeat the enemy

>>6656548
If his nature was perfect he wouldn't get jealous and throw genocidal hissy fits like a spoilt toddler with the ability to collapse entire universes by thinking, especially when it was caused by the belief systems of over-grown bacteria stuck to a rock clashing with it's own opinions.

>>6656558
I've been a devout all my life, and I am each time delighted to see apostolates in the wild. Before you get the chance to experience Hell, please try to understand what constitutes the perfection of God and how wrong you are. SEP and Aquinas might be a good start, you illiterate heretic.

I mean all that I wrote higher.

>>6656552

Again, that doesn't make sense.

The Christian line of reasoning starts with the proposition that this being IS God.
>YHVH is God
YHVH then does something.
>YHVH does X
This doesn't fit with atheist morality. This leads them to question whether or not God is perfect, because naturally if He was perfect then He'd agree with what their idea of perfection was.

>Atheists are imperfect beings.
>Atheists have an idea of perfection.
>A perfect being doesn't fit their idea.
>Said being must not be perfect.

Please tell me you see the flaw in this logic.

>>6656548
>>6656552
God's supposed perfection seems to come from nothing, except a rhetorical error. Just because a creator created something doesn't mean a priori they're perfect or even should be seen as flawless in his creation's eyes, as any child will tell you of their parents.

>>6656548
>>6656554
That's the thing though: if I am able to spot an imperfection, then it can't be god. You seem to misjudge the severity of the atheist argument right there, it isn't a moral indictment lf god, which is impossible, but a denial of god grounded in the reality of (non-human) evil.

>>6656563

While what you're saying makes sense from an everyday, wordly point of view, it isn't logically sound. See:
>>6656568

>>6656567
satan the accuser finds strength in your voice

>>6656571
first you have to assume you completely comprehend god and i don't think you can do that without a strong spirit

>>6656570

Okay sure, but the atheist argument is supposedly supposed to prove that God isn't perfect, not cast doubt on his perfection. And I'm explaining that in that regard, the argument fails. So everything you just said was a red herring.

>>6656571

You still don't understand the flaw. You spot an "imperfection" according to YOUR standards of perfection, which by their very nature are imperfect.

The blow by blow is this: If God doesn't fit your standards of perfection, and IF God IS God (I'll say it again for emphasis, IF GOD IS GOD) then your standards are what's incorrect.

>Being a lawfag unironically

>>6656571
>if I am able to spot an imperfection, then it can't be god

Logically unsound, based on a presupposition that has no real basis in fact. >>6656570

>>6656561
That requires a lot more willingness to suspend reason than I have at my disposal. If believing in god requires mistrusting your own, genealogically religion based morality, whenever it is convenient, atheism is the position of moral integrity. I'm not even 100% atheistic, but your logic is self-defeating.

>>6656577
There is only one real atheist argument and that is that there is not sufficient evidence to reasonably believe God exists.

This entire issue of perfection or the nature of God is an obfuscation that is meaningless. You ARE the red herring.

>>6656583

His argument is weak I agree, but at the end of the day the idea that God as an all-knowing being has plans, thoughts, and decisions beyond the scope of human reasoning and understanding DOES make sense.

>>6656583
that doesn't make any sense. you can't just throw around words like 'logic' and assume you're actually being logical.

>whenever it is convenient

why did that show up? i think you've prepared for the wrong argument

>>6656576
No, I only have to assume that people are capable of distinguishing good from evil. Which we are, for reasons of trees and apples.
>>6656577
>and IF God IS God
That's the thing though, he doesn't act like he is.
>>6656582
Are you denying that people can distinguish good and evil? Pure blasphemy.
>

>>6656588

Now you are moving the goal posts! We're not talking about God's existence right now! We're talking about the atheist argument against His perfection given the fact that He is God. But you already knew that, and you knew that I knew that, so stop with the plausible deniability and just admit you were wrong. It's an anonymous board.

>>6656593
>That's the thing though, he doesn't act like he is.

I can't believe you still fail to see the flaw in your argument. Walk me through step by step your reasoning behind this statement so I can explain where your inconsistencies are.

>>6656593
>No, I only have to assume that people are capable of distinguishing good from evil. Which we are, for reasons of trees and apples.

but this isn't god's morality.

>apples

no. god's way is the tree of life, not the tree of knowledge

>>6656593
>No, I only have to assume that people are capable of distinguishing good from evil.

Logic isn't a game of assumptions, back up your statements.

>>6656590
Of course, that assumption does make sense, but using it as a justification of what happens in this world amounts to suspending morality.
>>6656591
>why did that show up?
Because you're askig me to withhold judgment, even while you claim there is agency, and only in one case: when there is contradiction between metaphysical assumptions (there is a god and this is his work) and morality (you shouldn't condemn people to a life of misery followed by a gruesome death).

>>6656611
why are you questioning whether he can be called god?

>>6656074
>>6656056

>>6656604
Trees and apples, it's right there in the bible.
>>6656603
So, god doesn't know good and evil? Or does he choose to ignore them, as they do not matter to him?
>human morality
Bullshit, we weren't even supposed to know this.
>>6656601
Alright
1. there's a god, who is perfect
2. My own morality is derived from this perfection
3. Something horrible (to my morality) happens, and people claim god did it
Two possibilities: either 1. or 2. has to go.
Problem: if 2. goes, so does any reason for believing 1.: I have no standard for perfection, it could be any damn thing.

>>6656631
>videogames can be artistic

alright you got me I laughed

>>6656615
Because nature is terrifying and cruel, basically.

>>6656637
that's the work of the enemy, not god. god created all and he saw that it was good

>>6656643
Wait are you saying that god created Ebola, but then satan made it kill people? How, with the microbial equivalent of a a talking serpent?

>>6656649
God created ebola and he has ultimately created death. But death and suffering are nothing to be feared because death isn't death because it doesn't lead to death where sin is the true death.

>>6656631
thx m8

>>6656657
What about suffering then? Even when death isn't death (do you, personally, trust this to the point where you lose your fear of death?), suffering is very clearly still suffering. Why can't god just euthanize us? If death is no big deal, what do we need biological life for, anyway?

>>6656673
The original sin m8, it entered the world at some point.

>>6656633

The flaw in your argument is step 2 and I'll prove to you what that is.

You're basically saying that you (a human) have an accurate idea of what morality is and thus you can reliably say that whatever does not confine itself to your morality is therefore evil. You're basing this off of the human understanding of morality.

The issue here is that if humans have a perfect understanding of morality, then why has every single moral issue on the face of the planet been contested at some point? Right down to baby sacrifices, animal rape, and torturing for the sole sake of amusement, somebody somewhere thought something was right. Many religions routinely murdered or sacrificed others and believed it was just.

The bottom line is, if what you're saying is true and humans have a perfect understanding of what it is to be good then we would all agree on morals but we don't. The only other options are:
1. We do have a perfect understanding of morality, but some of us choose to ignore it or deceive ourselves, and only you and all those who agree with you know true morals.

The issues here: You have no way of proving that you're right, or for that matter, who is right.

2. Humans do not have a perfect grasp on morality.

The issues: In this case you're just flat out wrong.

Also:
>2. goes, so does any reason for believing 1.: I have no standard for perfection, it could be any damn thing.

Doesn't really make sense. If you're talking about men gaining the knowledge of good and evil, you're totally misunderstanding that verse for one, but even if your understanding of it (which I can surmise) is correct, man knowing good or evil does not mean that he knows them perfectly, OR that he knows them perfectly all the time, or even that he knows them perfectly all the time and believes what he knows, in other words, this DOES not indicate that man lacks the capability to deceive himself or allow himself to be deceived when it comes to morality.

>>6656673

Not him, but the Bible flat out says that death and suffering did not exist until man sinned, which seems to have had spiritual-physical effects on entire makeup of the world right down to man's physiology in Christianity. Notice for example, how lifespans gradually shorten following the original sin and introduction of death. Notice how God says that now humans will "toil" and that now childbirth would be painful. He is outlining the ill effects of humanity's actions. This implies that pain didn't even exist before sin did, and that sin (that which is contrary to God) is the source of pain and death and not God Himself.

>>6656678
I alway found that part weird
>you fucking humans, I told you not to eat that stuff
>I will now be a dick to humans for eternity
As Kant points out, that's one of those parts of religion that severely clashes with reason.
>>6656681
>more moral relativism
That is a very, very bad idea if you're christian, seriously. If god does not provide a source for morality, HOW THE FUCK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN YOU SAY HE'S PERFECT?
Without a morality that is at least in potential objective, "perfection" is just another word that means whatever we want it to mean.

>>6656720
>eternity
Well for someone with a really poor understanding of even the most basic things about Christianity you sure do like to argue and pretend to have read Kant.

>>6656733
Oh, sorry, I meant, every generation for all their life. But note how the old testament doesn't mention an afterlife.
And Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason is a pretty good book, pick it up some time.

>>6656733
THIS GUY IS NOT ME
Should I use a trip or what

>>6656720
>That is a very, very bad idea if you're christian, seriously. If god does not provide a source for morality, HOW THE FUCK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN YOU SAY HE'S PERFECT?
>Without a morality that is at least in potential objective, "perfection" is just another word that means whatever we want it to mean.

My only goal right now is to indicate why your argument fails bro. Also nah, if that were the case and God were real, then perfection means whatever God wants it to mean and the idea is that if you understand that God is God, then you understand that He is the Absolute and therefore He defines morality.

The (intelligent) Christian concept of God is that God is literally the EMBODIMENT of morality. Ever heard the phrase "God is good?" That's meant to be taken more literally than you might think.

God is perfectly moral because God is perfect and perfect is God, they are one and the same. Your issue is you're looking for a being that fits some presupposed idea of morality when the Christian concept of God is that He is the SOURCE of morality.

Btw this logical principle also elegantly defeats the Euthyphro Dilemma.

>>6656756
It's alright, posters are often distinguishable by quality of posts. And no, don't use a trip, at least not all the time, and don't give yourself a fancy name.

>>6656762
>God is good
>Therefore, all human accounts of what is good are false
I know I'm losing patience, and that's bad, but do you sincerely not see the problem with this? If my own mind is to feeble to make valid moral judgments, the sentences "God is good" and "God is the absolute" and what have you are meaningless gibberish ffs.

>>6656754
>note how the Old Testament doesn't mention an afterlife

>Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.
Ecclesiastes 9:10

>For great is your steadfast love toward me; you have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.
Psalms 86:13

>For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.
Psalms 16:10

>For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?
Psalms 6:5

>All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, “No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Thus his father wept for him.
Genesis 37:35

>“If they dig into Sheol, from there shall my hand take them; if they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down.
Amos 9:2

>Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations.
Isaiah 14:9

>They spend their days in prosperity, and in peace they go down to Sheol.
Job 21:13

>For Sheol does not thank you; death does not praise you; those who go down to the pit do not hope for your faithfulness.
Isaiah 38:18

>It is higher than heaven—what can you do? Deeper than Sheol—what can you know?
Job 11:8

>Drought and heat snatch away the snow waters; so does Sheol those who have sinned.
Job 24:19

THE LIST COULD GO ON

>>6656754
The old testament isn't Christianity. And it does mention it, just not in the same way as the New testament does.
And I'll get to Kant eventually, have to go through 2-3 more from antiquity and medieval philosophy.

>>6656773

Even if you're correct they're meaningless from your perspective but not meaningless in actual reality.

Plus I answered that: The idea is not that you SEE GOD AND THEN JUDGE IF HE IS GOOD OR NOT, but rather that you see God, say to yourself, "Oh, this is God, and therefore He must be good."

This isn't even necessarily the Biblical position (honestly it's not) but I'm just illustrating to you how your argument fails even from the lowbrow Christian standpoint.

>>6656764
>I will never be Johnnypink McTwingles
Why hath thou forsaken me ?

>>6656777
Sheol is a rather ambiguous term, and can be interpreted to mean little more than the family grave. Try and replace the word that way and see if the sentences still are meaningful.

>>6656786
>meaningless from your perspective but not meaningless in actual reality.
Since all perspectives on this I can know of are human, and therefore, according to your reasoning, meaningless, we can't talk about objective meaning at all.
>you see God, say to yourself, "Oh, this is God, and therefore He must be good."
I don't see god, though. I am told about him. And what I'm told contradicts both itself, and reality.

>>6656800

That doesn't fit with a huge amount of the verses there and you know it.

>It is higher than heaven-what can you do? Deeper than my family grave-what can you know?

You seriously gonna tell me that this makes sense? Obviously the narrator here is drawing a poetic connection between Heaven and it's spiritual equivalent in terms of "depth". That's not a family grave.

>Family graves are stirred to meet you when you come

What?

>If they dig into Sheol, from there my hand take them, if they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring you down.

Again, clearly a poetic connection with a juxtaposition of two extremes.

>You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol!
>You will not abandon my soul to Sheol!

This is clearly a spiritual place.

>there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going

Is the fact that Sheol was the Jewish conception of the afterlife even debatable anymore after this verse?

>>6656800
If you use family grave instead of sheol you still get afterlife.

>>6656819
>Since all perspectives on this I can know of are human, and therefore, according to your reasoning, meaningless, we can't talk about objective meaning at all.

The huge mistake you're making here is that I'm not trying to prove an objective fact about God, I'm just trying to explain why your argument doesn't prove shit and I did.

>I don't see god, though. I am told about him. And what I'm told contradicts both itself, and reality.

Nigga now I'm the one losing patience. Clearly I'm talking about a theoretical position in relation to our arguments to win logical ground and you're trying to move this into practical applications land, you're basically going
>Okay fine, so I can't prove that God is bad, but then prove He exists!

Like dude let's just pack it in at this point and agree to disagree until next time, I'll admit that you're rather courteous and I enjoy talking with you but I just don't have the energy to go over a fuckload of theology right now, it's past 3 in the morning where I am

>>6656822
I said "little more" not the exact same thing. Point is, it just means the place we go when we die, with little implication that there is any life taking place there.
>there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in the grave, to which you are going
works perfectly.
>>6656823
If anything, I'll concede that some of these imply that god can give life back to those in the grave, not that they are still alive.

>>6656835
Oh by all means, go to bed.
Point stands: if we do not have, potentially, access to a morality by which the statement that god is doing us wrong is possible, we do not have the intellectual means to say anything about god at all. It's all scripture then, and scripture's just words.

>>6656836
>Point is, it just means the place we go when we die, with little implication that there is any life taking place there.

That's still not consistent with the Psalms discussing the idea of souls being abandoned in Sheol though nig. This place was obviously spiritual, which is one the points I made with those verses.

Also

>If they dig into Sheol, from there my hand will take them

?

Although now I see your point more I guess that makes sense, some Christian verses seem to imply that everyone is dead for a time and then resurrected and judged simultaneously so w/e idgaf

I'm not spiritual in the slightest unless I'm tripping yet these comics inspire me in a way I can't quantify. Maybe it's because of a love promised by something greater and purer than myself that can never be fulfilled. I can't tell if it inspires or depresses me. whatever.

>>6656846

Alright cool, thanks for the discussion bro, till next time.

I'm gonna leave my email in the name line if you want to continue discussing theology, your call.

>>6656852
>If they dig into Sheol, from there my hand will take them
this one really means that there is no limit to gods ability to fuck you up, it only makes sense in its juxtaposition to
>if they climb up to heaven...
But yeah, on a more general note, both jews and christians are hilariously inconsistent in their theories on what happens after death. I think some Rabbis even taught about reincarnation, so there's really nothing they didn't believe might happen.

>>6656857

nigga you need Jesus

>>6656869

Yeah some shit is pretty ridiculous in my humble opinion, although I heard an interesting theory on how reincarnation might be possible. It was something about how the idea that certain particles in quantum mechanics only "exist" when they're measured might imply that consciousness creates reality and therefore it is eternal and material things are used as attach points for it or something. I don't know shit about quantum mechanics but it was interesting thought.

>>6656888
I'd be very, very cautious with quantum sprituality, most of the time it doesn't really come from a point of understanding of physics.

>>6656720
sacrificing your only son so that humanity could be saved and the enemy defeated counts as a dick move?

do you people know anything about the bible at all? or do you just meme?

>>6656905
>sacrificing your only son
He wasn't really dead, also, Jesus is God, he's his own son. (What I'm getting at is that the trinity doesn't make any damn sense)
>so that humanity could be saved and the enemy defeated
He's god, he didn't need to do any of this. Just hand out free salvation to everyone like a proper communist.

>>6656905
Jesus is not literally the Son of god. It's a metaphor to explain that he is the imperfect incarnation of God. See the trinity

>>6656919
Neither any of us really die or experience true suffering or true joy.

>>6656919
he was dead. the trinity is fine

he did hand out free salvation. he became the life-giving spirit. his work is done. now it's on you to accept jesus

>>6656925

lol

>>6656857
Try saying the Glory Patri and Hail Mary a few times every day for a week


Glory be to the Father, and to the Son:
and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be:
world without end. Amen.

Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6PvQ1nNy-8

>>6656927
>Neither any of us really die or experience true suffering or true joy
Eh....wat?

>>6656919
>trinity doesn't make any sense

What about 3 in Person, 1 in Nature is so damn hard to understand?

What about the trinity as a metaphorical representation of three separate and yet unified individuals in order to indicate that humans can also be unified with God while retaining their individuality in a beautiful best-of-both-worlds reality that improves on both the Eastern ideas of "we are literally all one" with the Western ideas of "we are all special snowflakes" doesn't make sense?

What about God the Son giving up his rank and literally becoming a human who then relied on God the Father for everything as a representation of what the perfect human could be (read: perfect due to perfect reliance on God) doesn't make sense?

You sir, you don't make sense.

>He's god, he didn't need to do any of this. Just hand out free salvation to everyone like a proper communist.

And forfeit holiness? Turn His back on justice? That would literally unravel the entire universe by destroying the very nature of God which would in turn destroy everything.

stay pleb

>>6656167
This is literally the correct Christian answer, btw.

>>6656944
>he did hand out free salvation
No, I mean, regardless of what they do, they go to heaven. Life on earth doesn't matter, anyway, sub specie aeternitatis.

>>6656970

and violate the freedom of choice? nigga your theology is all outta whack

>>6656970
that would not be in accordance with his law

>>6656963
>What about 3 in Person, 1 in Nature is so damn hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand, it's just nonsense. It's at best an allegorical storyand eve then it's full of holes.
>And forfeit holiness? Turn His back on justice?
As I've learned in this thread, it would still be holy and just, merely by virtue of god doing it.

>>6656919
>He wasn't really dead, also, Jesus is God, he's his own son. (What I'm getting at is that the trinity doesn't make any damn sense)

God is three persons in one being

>but that's impossible
So is coming back from the dead

>>6656975
Why, they can still do what they want, they just don't go to hell for it.
>>6656976
So god is bound by a law? Who made this law?

>>6656982
>As I've learned in this thread, it would still be holy and just, merely by virtue of god doing it.

nigga you haven't learned shit God = Morality, his nature is good all the time which is why He won't do the dumb shit you suggest

also

>It's not hard to understand, it's just nonsense. It's at best an allegorical storyand eve then it's full of holes.

is there an actual argument here or are you just make disjointed claims all night?

>>6656970
What is purgatory

>>6656989
>trying to go all E Dilemma

nig God = Morality, like seriously you're not coming off as clever as you think

>>6656984
>God is three persons in one being
I realize that, I'm just saying it's utter rubbish.
>but that's impossible
who are you quoting?

>>6656982
>full of holes

this is a meme. you can name them but people will tell you how you're wrong and you're not used to the answers so you just shut off because you think atheism in the height of intellect and you don't want to be confronted with the idea that there are other ways of thinking about things and then you'll just say IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE GOD DOESN'T EXIST and you would have wasted a lot of your time

this "why doesn't god do this really specific thing that i would do" stuff is babby tier lazy shithead 'intellectualism' that involves literally no engagement with the bible or its message. at best it involves taking one or two bible quotes out of context and that's it. at worst it's you slowly getting more and more disengaged with debates but still too full of yourself to give up completely so you just post vague nonsense until people get tired of responding to yet another smartass atheist with no knowledge of anything

god bless u

>>6656919
>Just hand out free salvation to everyone like a proper communist.
He did.

>God didn't need to die for that
Yeah, he did. Sin is separation from God, God can't extend himself into it for us to grab onto without immersing himself in the wages of sin, which are separation from God. There would be nothing for us to grab onto otherwise, because we are in total depravity; the only way to get out of total depravity is through love of God, but it's not love if God forces it on us, he has to offer it to us, and he had to make himself a servant to do that..

>>6657009

this, atheist babbies a shit

I'm gonna go talk to my Hindu friend who at least has challenging shit to say about the Bible and understands logic

>>6656991
>>6656994
>God=morality
That is exactly what I mean. if he did what I suggest, it would be moral.
>>6656992
>What is purgatory
Unnecessary.

See, I'm making suggestions to God here. You're not god, you don't need to justify his decisions, which you also cannot do, as that would require being on his level.

>>6656989
god is bound by his own law

>>6656995
You can call it rubbish, but that's very silly. Just because humans are limited to one person per being, why would Got be so limited?

>God is above morality
>excpt he fits my definition of Good, nobody else's though

>>6656995
>I realize that, I'm just saying it's utter rubbish.

you dumb nigger do you even understand how to argue? PLEASE at least post an argument or some semblance of rudimentary thoughts on the matter, listening to you repeat over and over again that you don't believe X is fucking BORING

>>6657016
You aren't on his level either, so I don't see how you can be making suggestions.

>>6657018
God isn't bound by anything.

>>6657030
that is to say he follows his own law. this is why jesus gets baptised and fulfills the law, etc

>>6657026
>muh univocity of being
Plz go

>>6657027
If you are a Christian, please try not to be so uncivil.

>>6657009
>>6657015
Why are you guys so mad?
>>6657011
>Sin is separation from God
you're refering to the original sin of illegitimately obtaining moral knowledge, I guess? Well that's another thing I'm not buying into. Eating those damn apples was the right thing to do.

>>6657039
>apples

i'm out. l8r pleb

>>6657039
Actually eating from the Tree of Life was the right thing to do.

>>6657016
>That is exactly what I mean. if he did what I suggest, it would be moral.

Okay in all seriousness, no you legitimately do you understand what I'm saying. Please come down off your intellectual high horse for a second and listen.

I'm so tired of repeating myself over and over that I'm literally going to pull a summary off of wikipedia, that is what you have reduced me to

>False dilemma response[edit]
Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas all wrote about the issues raised by the Euthyphro dilemma, although, like William James[97] and Wittgenstein[44] later, they did not mention it by name. As philosopher and Anselm scholar Katherin A. Rogers observes, many contemporary philosophers of religion suppose that there are true propositions which exist as platonic abstracta independently of God.[98] Among these are propositions constituting a moral order, to which God must conform in order to be good.[99] Classical Judaeo-Christian theism, however, rejects such a view as inconsistent with God's omnipotence, which requires that God and what he has made is all that there is.[98] "The classical tradition," Rogers notes, "also steers clear of the other horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, divine command theory."[100] From a classical theistic perspective, therefore, the Euthyphro dilemma is false. As Rogers puts it, "Anselm, like Augustine before him and Aquinas later, rejects both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value."[98]

>Rather His very nature is the standard for value

pls tell me you get it

God IS Goodness, Goodness IS God, God would not do your suggestion because it is contrary to His nature i.e. is not good

>>6657035
Christ fulfills the new law as per Isaiah. But also don't forget that Christ is 100% human and 100% divine. While the human can be a paragon of humanity, the divine is staggeringly beyond humanity and can only be described in human terms analogously.

>>6657039
>you're refering to the original sin of illegitimately obtaining moral knowledge, I guess? Well that's another thing I'm not buying into. Eating those damn apples was the right thing to do.
No, I mean sin, period. Heaven is to feel a love more intense than the most passionate romance for and from every living thing, hell is the exact opposite and feeling of infinite emptiness, shallowness and loneliness. Every action which contributes to making the world more like the former is virtuous, whereas the latter is sin.

>>6656631
Recovering pleb here, could somebody give me a translation of the greek in this image?

>>6657039
>Why are you guys so mad?

I'm not mad, I'm just trying to have fun with the convo through extreme sarcasm, but I'll listen to that tripfriend and be more civil. mah b

Anyways please give me your thoughts on why the trinity doesn't make sense so I can calmly discuss it with you friend

I want you to know that even though this is 4chan and it's dumb to say this here, I hope you didn't take anything I said to heart. This is how my friends and I find it fun to argue (with sarcastic insults we don't mean) and when I'm tired that bleeds over to other people.

I'm one of those guys that just straight up enjoys arguing

>>6657027
What I'm saying is that it's rather convoluted. God could just have called from the sky
>Oi everyone it's god, look, I sort of went to a transition that did not, I repeat, did not involve large hormone injections and now you're all saved. Anyway, get back to work, or don't, and be nice to each other.
Would have worked much better than incarnating as some neet hippie in the roman province of Judea.
>>6657030
>You aren't on his level either, so I don't see how you can be making suggestions
Everyone is allowed to put letters into the suggestion box.

>>6657062
gave it a try here:
>>6657065

>>6657065
>Everyone is allowed to put letters into the suggestion box.
But apologetics aren't allowed?

>>6657065
>Would have worked much better than incarnating as some neet hippie in the roman province of Judea.
I take it you'd rather Jesus be some "magnificent" king or warlord with material splendor and political power? Like a certain early persian or a certain early medieval saracen?

>>6657073
They don't make sense, as they make illegitimate assumptions about the will of god.

>>6657076
No, I'm saying he wasn't necessary at all.

>>6657078
Suggestions are illegitimate assumptions about the imperfection of creation.

My Church doesn't consider reasoning about the will of God to be heretical, and that includes debates about God's will. In fact we consider reason to be one of the "three legs of faith", along with sacred tradition and scripture.

>>6657072

Okay thanks, sorry for the nigger comment that was probably out of line in retrospect

anyway

Well I see your thought process but I wanna raise some quick points to you.

1. Even if it's convoluted, that doesn't really say anything about whether it's true or not does it? And it's not really that convoluted. God the Father is God as defined by his relationship with man. The Holy Spirit is God's spiritual presence. The Son is God taking on a human role. See, the trinity is supposed to be a way to help man understand God. Or at least that's how I see it.

The fun thing about the trinity is that you can kinda take alternative looks at it. It's a fine line between fun thought experiments and heresy tho so hopefully you don't have that Christian friend who freaks on you when your thoughts don't fit the church's to a T

>Would have worked much better than incarnating as some neet hippie in the roman province of Judea.

Jesus wasn't a neet you silly anon, but anyway no this really was the best path because it was the best way to relate with and form a relationship with humans which was God's goal. Also it fulfills a shitload of prophecies so there's that.

>>6657091
Don't forget that trinity isn't aspects, it's persons. That's why we say a personal god. Also anyone here liked Severians views on the trinity as much as I did?

>>6657091

Okay I'm super fucking tired so I actually will go to bed now

I'll probably check on this thread tomorrow, have a good night everyone

>>6657102

Alright I am about to hit the hay but just to confirm can you throw me some Scripture for sure being persons so I can peruse it in the morning? I'm trying to run through memory on the exact nature of the trinity as whole in my head right now and I'm coming up blank

>>6657107
coming up blank on Scripture*

>>6657091
Well, actually God the Son is more than God a s human aspect, since Christ, the Word, was begotten, made flesh, by Mary at a specific date, whereas God the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and was with God and was God from the beginning.

>>6657107
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity

>>6657089
Oh ok, in that case, what is your take on the whole "why does god allow bad things to happen to good people?" debate?
>>6657091
>Even if it's convoluted, that doesn't really say anything about whether it's true or not does it?
Agreed, but it makes it harder to believe.
>See, the trinity is supposed to be a way to help man understand God.
Oh well, leaving it ut would have worked better for me.
>Jesus wasn't a neet you silly anon
He didn't exactly continiue his stepdad's carpentry business, instead forming a little clique of dropouts who were on the road constantly. Still better than the neets of today, admittedly.
>Also it fulfills a shitload of prophecies so there's that.
these prophecies only mattered to jews anyway. If Jesus had been greek, or indian or chinese, that also would have made ting easier. Apparently, god doesn't care much for efficiency.

why have 200+ posts been made in this thread in only 5 hours, and in the middle of the fucking night/early morning?

>>6656054

da bibleee

XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>6657119
>the world only has one Timezone.

>>6657119
Europeans. Fucking Europeans. And americans who can't go to sleep as long as europeans keep questioning their faith I guess.

>>6656505
am other guy

agreed, but should hell be an eternal punishment? i get the idea of punishment in principle, but that whole thing about eternal punishment for finite transgression, or whatever.

>>6657119

Because religion is a hot topic anon, get with the times.

>>6657114

I'm about to fall asleep but I have some developing thoughts for you and I want you to know that I will post back sometime tomorrow probably in the late afternoon/early evening, goodnight

>>6657109

yeah you're right about that, the Persons side is starting to sound more reasonable.

>>6657113

will read tomorrow

>>6657114
>Oh ok, in that case, what is your take on the whole "why does god allow bad things to happen to good people?" debate?
Creation is an extremely complex machine, the elements which come together to make bad things happen might be individually integral components for the machine's function. We don't have privy to God's perspective. But rest assured, God knows and empathizes with how you feel, since he had to go through the same thing himself on the cross..

>>6657127
>>6657126
it's early morning in europe. i doubt there are that many australians here

>>6657136
>since he had to go through the same thing himself on the cross
Yeah ok, but that was his choice. Something we don't have. Also, since we do not know the integral part of undeserved suffering in creation, doesn't it sort of beg the question if we just assume it is necessary in order to maintain our belief in a perfect and loving creator?

>>6657146
>Early morning
It's 11:51 in germany.

>>6657130
Hell is for some souls temporary, only pure souls can gaze upon God. This is purgatory in Catholic tradition and purgation in Hell in orthodox. Some argue that it is necessary perfect justice or that those in Hell are unwilling to repent so they condemned themselves in a manner of speaking.

>>6657127
I'm a European defending my faith.

>>6657186
Oh wow that has to suck.

>>6657157
The choice only makes the sacrifice greater.
And as I've stated before, our suffering here is nothing compared to joy or fire that we will face. Our pain here is something that can lead us to virtue, it isn't something we need to fear or view in temporal ways. You have problems understanding all of this because your perspective is materialistic.

>>6657196
Degeneracy of my continent sucks much more m7

>>6657206
Go forth with forgiveness, not judgement.

>>6657202
>our suffering here is nothing
I'd say my own personal life is pretty much alright, but I still felt the noteable impulse to slap my screen for that remark.
>You have problems understanding all of this because your perspective is materialistic.
Admittedly, it is. Heaven and Hell are just stories, earthly pain and joy are real beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where do I sign up to throw rocks at Jesus?

>>6657214
It isn't as simple. Forgiveness isn't abandoning of all principles Christianity stands for. Forgiveness goes on a personal level. I will talk to and try to help those in need, but I cannot simply watch as they doom their souls because that is the true judgement.

>>6657255
Of course that doesn't mean abandoning the call to mission, nor your convictions, but to speak with kindness and compassion, to forgive their baseness and not condemn them, for they are sick and unhappy people.

>>6657130
FORGET THIS I DIDN'T READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING THIS SORRY

>>6656206

> The Tain

tfw reading this in the original Irish feels pretty great

>>6656030
>Jesus is God and also a Holy Spirit on the side
What's the fucking purpose of the Holy Spirit anyway? Did they just think three was better than two?

Christians are such dumb dildos, shit

>Behold the Man by Michael Moorcock.

The title derives from the Gospel of John, Chapter 19, Verse 5: "Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them Behold the Man."

In the novel, Moorcock weaves an existentialist tale about Karl Glogauer, a man who travels from the year 1970 in a time machine to 28 AD, where he hopes to meet Jesus of Nazareth.

Bump for more book suggestions.

And please, less atheist shitposting.

>>6657545
>Moorcock
hehe

>>6657511
Basically. As far as I am aware they just threw him into the mix rather late in one of the cooncils.

>>6656030

Start with the English; Tolkein, Clancy, Lewis, Martin.

>>6656526
Your 'bawwwwwwww afwican kidz' morality isn't relevant to an eternal, absolute, and transcendental God.
His morality is inherent to humans, but in struggle with their nature to sin, and was human nature before the fall.
>>6656558
It's funny how kids who have never read the Bible tell others to read it; sending them on a wild goose chase through a large, dense, cryptic collection of books because that will buy them time to bullshit more.

>>6657831
>and was human nature before the fall
Before the fall humans had no knowledge of good and evil. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>6657852
Reading comprehension, work on it.

>2015
>still being fooled by Demiurge

>>6657130
it's not a finite transgression

>>6657157
suffering is brought about by the enemy, temptation and sin. you find rest in christ

>>6657868
Ok, if we ignore grammar, then the sentence may also imply that humans were sinful before the fall. Which is also nonsense, congratulations.

>>6657831
>the bible is a wild goose chase

it's literally the opposite

>>6656030
Twilight

>>6657885
It's literally a Goose Wilde chase.

>>6657880
>then the sentence may also imply that humans were sinful before the fall.
No it doesn't, you illiterate child.

I said that humans were naturally what is now considered good by God before the fall.
>>6657885
>look for this thing I made up in the bible or ur dumb
>not a wild goose chase

>>6656169
There is much more to atheist meme than just a hat