/lit/ - Literature

No, it's only a reality in our current epoch. We need just to ride the tiger until the point when this current decadent civilization finally crumbles to dust and a Traditional order can be reinstated

>>6930254
Give it a few centuries, there'll definitely be a resurrection, if probably of some completely different God.

>>6930276
Evola's idea of a traditional order never actually existed in the West, though. Even the feudal system was far less rigid than the caste system he liked, most knights in Germany came from serf lineage.

>>6930276
>civilization finally crumbles to dust and...
>>6930254
>...the end of humanity itself
You will never EVER see the past rise up. Your ignorance seeks to seal our doom. You are the true degenerate of this world.

>>6930254

I'm pretty sure secularization theory has already been proven to be a false theory.

The world is not destined to become secular, in some geographical areas religion has in fact expanded substantially. This has to do with a variety of reasons: Religion is appealing to social (social economies), emotional (psychological), and intellectual (ethos/worldview perspectives) needs.

As long as religion substantially appeals to these human needs (regardless of being false or not), religion will exist.

>>6930276
>Turning and turning in the widening gyre...

>>6930289
I don't want the past to rise up in the political or technological sense, exactly, although it would be nice if technology were used more responsibly instead of setting things up so people can't get by without cars and facebook.

>>6930302
>it would be nice if technology were used more responsibly instead of setting things up so people can't get by without cars and facebook.

I'm pretty sure you can get by without facebook kiddo. I've never had a facebook, and I do just fine. Have a career, wife, and a baby on the way.

>cars

Now that is interesting. I couldn't agree more with you there. I find it absolutely strange that it has been over 100 years and we still are using 4 rubber tires and a engine to get around. I know people (Americans especially) love their cars. But when you examine it, tens of thousands die every year in car crashes and hundreds of thousands more permanently injured or maimed. There should be better transportation options that are reliable and efficient. Surely, it's political/lobbying reasons for why these societal transportation transformations are not taking place.

If you take the assumption that the human being is through and through historically contingent, e.g. a historical materialism, or even the genealogical perspective of Nietzsche, and you also take the Death of God as a historical event not a metaphysical event, then the Death of God is a historical finality.

>>6930302
It's a general trait among reactionary conservatives. Especially among the religious.
Yes, there continues to be religious people despite the facts, I get that, but we will never go back to sleep. No OP, it wont happen. The conditions needed to bring that about are slim to none.

I just wish we'd come out of this capitalist money worshiping nonsense. Communist Catholics? Fine. Bring em on. Quick now before it's too late.

>>6930323
I don't have a facebook, but it makes certain things harder. Girls my age are more comfortable exchanging facebooks than numbers right away, and even when they will give me they're number, they tend to get put off when they find out I don't have a facebook because that's how they vet guys I guess.

City planning fucks up being able to get around on foot, and yeah, obviously there's a lot of opposition to the massive potential public transit has.

>>6930332

Hey Ms. Fly, you read that book in your pic? Is it good?

>>6930332
Capitalism is pretty much a product of secularism, it needed usury to become okay in order to function. Without usury being okayed, a more socialistic approach would have been the only path for economic advancement.

>>6930332
>back to sleep

Do you honestly believe that you exist in a world that is awakened? You are more ignorant of reality than ever before.

Your mistake is that you believe that reality is defined and limited by your perception of it rather than understanding that you are limited in reality by your perceptions.

>>6930360
>You are more ignorant of reality than ever before.

mfw


>>6930360
>Do you honestly believe that you exist in a world that is awakened?

How the fuck does someone answer a bullshit question like this? I don't even know where to begin to start with a question like this in a postmodern world.

>>6930360
>Your mistake is that you believe that reality is defined and limited by your perception of it rather than understanding that you are limited in reality by your perceptions.

It's both man, now chill the fuck out.

>>6930342
>Girls my age are more comfortable exchanging facebooks than numbers right away, and even when they will give me they're number, they tend to get put off when they find out I don't have a facebook because that's how they vet guys I guess.

Fuck man, that sounds terrible. Hey, if they don't want to exchange numbers from the get-go it probably won't work out.

I remember I got my wife's number by saying, "I really like talking with you, can I get your number and maybe we can grab coffee or a bite to eat sometime"

I'm sure not much has changed since then. I'm 29 btw. I'm sure it's still not hard to pull numbers.

>>6930355
Secularism isn't a religion. Capitalism is very much like one though.

>>6930360
>Do you honestly believe that you exist in a world that is awakened?
Many are quite groggy especially about their capitalist world, but to the validity of a god? Even the so-called faithful are questioning it. We have "lapsed-Catholics" and plenty of people back peddling on all sorts of OT and even NT doctrines. In short, it's not fully awake yet, no.
However, I am

But I wouldn't expect you to understand the terms of what it's even like to be "awake"

>>6930346
No, sorry, but it looks pretty good. Anabaptists are pretty nice.

>>6930386
I can still get numbers, but I can tell they find it off-putting, because every time I ask they say, "Do you have facebook," and I say no, and they give me this weird look, or they look disappointed.

In just the way cellphones have sort of taken away a lot of the things we'd discuss in person, facebook is overriding things we'd do on the phone.

>>6930392
>No, sorry, but it looks pretty good. Anabaptists are pretty nice.

It does look interesting. I'm ordering it right now. Thanks for helping me find something that peaked my interest.

>>6930392
>Secularism isn't a religion.
“It is not just that secularists happen to reject and oppose religion; it's that there is nothing more to their creed than rejecting and opposing religion. . . . The fact is that secularists are "for" reason and science only to the extent that they don't lead to religious conclusions; they celebrate free choice only insofar as one chooses against traditional or religiously oriented morality; and they are for democracy and toleration only to the extent that these might lead to a less religiously oriented social and political order.”

>>6930392
I haven't met such a willfully ignorant atheist in a long time. I was beginning to doubt that such people actually exist. I suppose it is a necessity in our personal growth though

>>6930392
Secularism mainly arose for the sake of capitalism.

>>6930398
A pleasure.

>>6930400
>>6930404
>>6930406
I know damn well what it is, where it comes from and it's relation to other factors of the revolutionary age. Back off children, you aren't impressing anyone.

>>6930400

Weird. I'm personally a secularist, and an agnostic and I support religion. I understand "why" it exists, and "how" it can potential stunt and grow human experience and compassion.

I really dig these Quaker cats a few blocks away, they are always doing blood drives, feeding and clothing homeless, doing toy drives for children, and helping out in community projects. Last year some of their members helped build a new public park and library. It's awesome.

I don't believe in their religious belief, but I sure can acknowledge how their actions have been beneficial and conducive to our little community. I'm cool with them.

>>6930425
You aren't a secularist, at least not insofar as being part of the multi-century secularist movement goes.

lη this context, there is another more recent phenomenon that is heavy with significance: that οί the so-called global protest movement. It took its rise ίη part from the order οί ideas already mentioned. lη the wake οί theories such as Marcuse's, it came to the conclusion that there is a basic similarity, ίη terms σί technological consumer society, between the system οί advanced communist countries and that οί the capitalist world, because ίη the former, the original impulse οί the pro- letarian revolution is much diminished. This impulse has now been realized, inasmuch as the working class has entered the consumer sys- tem, being assured οί a lifestyle that is ηο longer proletarian but bour- geois: the very thing whose absence was the incentive for revolution. But alongside this convergence there has become visible the condition- ing power σί one and the same "system," manifesting as the tendency to destroy all the higher values οί life and personality. At the level more or less corresponding to the "last man" foreseen by Nietzsche, the indi- vidual ίη contemporary consumer society reckons that it would be too expensive, indeed absurd, to do without the comfort and well-being that this evolved society offers him, merely for the sake οί an abstract freedom. Thus he accepts with a good grace all the leveling condition- ings οί the system. This realization has cau~ed a bypassing οί revolu- tionary Marxism, now deprived σί its original motive force, ίη favor σί a "global protest" against the system. This movement, however, also lacks any higher principle: it is irrational, anarchic, and instinctive ίη character. For want σί anything else, it calls οη the abject minorities σί outsiders, οη the excluded and rejected, sometimes even ση the Third World (ίη which case Marxist fantasies reappear) and ση the blacks, as being the οηlΥ revolutionary potential. But it stands under the sign οί nothingness: it is a hysterical "revolution σί the void and the 'under- ground,'" οί "maddened wasps trapped ίη a glass jar, who throw them- selves frenetically against the walls." lη all οί this it confirms ίη another way the general nihilistic character οί the epoch, and indeed οη a much larger scale, for the current protest is ηο longer that οί the individuals and small groups mentioned earlier, whose intellectuallevel was indubitably higher

>>6930437

I guess so. Maybe I'm culturally pluralistic, but when it comes to government and science (both social and hard), im pretty damn sure i'm secular there too.

>>6930444
Why do you think the secular outlook on morality is superior?

>>6930454
Not that guy, but you really don't know the difference between "secular" and "atheist", do you? Read a book, nigga.

>>6930454
Superior? Oh hell no, I don't go there. To tell another human being my "morality" is more superior than theirs (even if I thought it) is brazen, and lacking in humility.

The secular outlook works for me both personally and professionally. I'm sure other outlooks/perspectives/ethos are far better suited for others in their proper space and time.

I don't think there is only one way to eat a reese. I once heard a Zen monk say:

>"There are many ways to reach the mountaintop, the only person wasting their time is the guy running around the bottom of the mountain screaming at everyone they are going the wrong way."

Yeah I don't want to be that dude. Time is short, I got a family to help raise and love. I promise to do the best I can with the time I got, you know?

>>6930499
>I promise to do the best I can with the time I got

You can't really ask anymore from a human being.

>>6930499
>To tell another human being my "morality" is more superior than theirs (even if I thought it) is brazen, and lacking in humility.
So you're against laws?

>>6930524
>So you're against laws?
Come on anon, now you are just being "that guy"
Do you want to ask me something serious, or is our time just about over?

>>6930482
secularism gives rise to atheism though

>>6930529

kek
>he doesn't think atheists existed in a pre-secular world.

>>6930528
No, that's pretty serious. If you are saying morals are just a matter of taste and it's rude to say some are better than others (something which isn't even generally applied to aesthetic taste), then you'd have to consider it pretty rude to enforce them with a gun and prison time.

Your statement is also meaningless about moral superiority lacking humility (except in a totally descriptivist sense), unless you first posit that having humility is morally superior to not having it.

>>6930482
Secular means without reference to God.

>>6930499
Every single time, the justification people like you always cling to is your complacent acceptance that you don't know anything and tolerate everything as long as you can exist comfortably in your little bubble. It's a cute sentiment, but entirely lacking in any aspect of higher existence. It's just acceptance of a common, ultimately meaningless existence

>>6930534
i didnt say that they didnt exist

i said that secularism is the perfect soil for atheism to take its roots

>>6930541
Yes. It doesn't mean not believing in God, or being against religion, only not involving them in some domain or other. Usually in the Western world it specifically refers to keeping religion separate from politics, which plenty of religious people (including myself) agree with.

God isn't dead, Nietzsche was being a special snowflake. God takes different forms but continues to live.

>>6930563
But if you seriously believed in God, it would be silly to say "it's not God's concern" unless you were a deist.

For all intents and purposes, secular morality is atheist morality.

>>6930537

Look anon, I don't sit around all day thinking on this shit. I go to work, I spend time with my family, I leave all this meta-ethics and morality talk to you undergrads who have summers to burn.

But you are correct, and I do understand what you are saying. I do think that basic morals exist (they are necessary for our evolution, both social and survival).

My point is, I'm not living in philosophy lala land. I don't have to encounter people and ask them stuff like:

>So you're against laws?

It's a given, and I function just find. I don't need to track every little thought to be happy or live good. I just need to worry about making and maintaing friends in both my professional and personal circles (maybe expanding those friendships for mutual benefits), and surviving.

I don't need to sit around all day and be a philosopher, and neither do the millions of others walking around in this world. But that's cool that you think heavily on this kind of things, I'm sure our society needs your kind around.

>>6930543
K. I'm happy though. Frequently happy, so what's the problem?

>>6930563
yeah, it doesnt mean you cant have a worldview, just that your worldview is worthless, really

>>6930576
Happiness is a sin unless it's from sipping the Jesus-juice.

>>6930576
>(they are necessary for our evolution, both social and survival).
oh boy, you couldnt possibly be any less self aware, you wouldnt even notice if gasoline was leaking into your waterline.
You really need to think about this stuff a lot, whenever some kind of morality becomes the mainstream between intellectuals/philosophers it leaks everywhere and no one notices it, like a frog in a boiling pot.
Stop leaving the "thinking" part to others and take it up yourself, or at least be aware if the "thinking guy" is thinking at all

>>6930543
>higher existence
>vulguar existence
>Classic platonic or cartesian binary
>21 Century

People still believe this shit?

>>6930576
>>6930581
Happiness leads to complacentness and degradation. We aren't here for happiness and comfort

I may not know much about the things you wish to discuss with me, but I've lived and experienced life long enough to know I would never say something like this:

>>6930599
>oh boy, you couldnt possibly be any less self aware, you wouldnt even notice if gasoline was leaking into your waterline.

to someone. It's insulting, and I'm not in the lifestyle of insulting others. You have your intellectual pedestal, I don't want it if it leaves me with a permanent pretentious stain on my heart and mind.

Good night, and good luck anon.

Arguing with a relativist is like playing tennis with someone, and then when you score an ace he says the lines on the ground are just a social construct.

>>6930601
What about our current society doesn't exemplify the fact that the rejection of the virtues of higher existence leaves our reality only with the sins of lower existence?

>>6930576
I'm pretty sure it's people like you that Socrates was concerned about when he said he had to be a fly to sting the horse and that "the unexamined life is not worth living".

>>6930614
What exactly is the pretense being put up here anon?

>>6930623
The unlived life is not worth examining
-- Alphonso Lingis

>>6930636
Are you suggesting that any life but that of a fly's is "unlived"?

>>6930641
I am not saying shit. This is a quote. But I imagine the philosopher making the claim meant that the claim by Socrates goes both ways. So, an unlived life, a life that is defined by its own hyperconsciousness and abstract theoretical thinking, is a life that is unlived because it is totally detached from lived experience. Hence, an unlived life is not worth examining.

>>6930622

What are the 'virtues' of 'higher existence?'
What is this 'higher existence?'
What are 'sins?'
What is a 'lower existence?'

ITT: people who have no idea what Nietzsche meant with the phrase "God is dead"

Hint: it's not about the Christian God having a fatal heart attack. Think of this more in terms of teleology and how sustainable the idea of teleology is

>>6930254

Who's this Prison Trap Fap?

>>6930611
We're not here for anything.

>>6930685
As stated prior, the death of God is a historical event that demarcates the shift of values in an specific epoch. In this particular shift, Nietzsche is denotating the fact that faith in the highest value, God, has shifted in terms of its cultural practices, milieu, etc. Values come to be and cease to be. The same can be said with regard to Gods. We believe in these values such as God, but we also have to come to the contradictory or jarring realization that these values themselves are finite and come to die. However, it does not stop just there for Nietzsche. We also have to kill the "shadows" of God, which means philosophical inquiring about our own values about humanity, compassion, pity, empathy, morality, etc. In the case of Nietzsche, Nietzsche executes, or at least raises the possibility of questioning morality through his genealogical method.

There is a lot at stake here, and each of these ideas could be developed into a full breathed paper backed with aphorisms and interpretative contentions, do you really expect that kind of shit from a 4chan post in /lit/, comon mang.

>>6930441
Are you pasting from a .pdf or did you actually discover a way to surpass in faggotness the annoying spelling habits of tripfags (all caps, no punctuation or capitalization, etc.) ?

>>6930676
Our higher existence is when we live out our inner convictions actively and outwardly, not from an external command, utilitarian value or social pressures, but purely and intrinsically, free from both the driving forces of consequences and rewards for our actions. Our higher nature is a state of being rather than becoming.

It's exemplified best in the allegory of the Ring of Gyges in Platos Republic. It recounts a myth of a shepherd who discovers a ring that grants him invisibility, with which he uses to seduce his King's wife, eventually killing and usurping him, leading to years of strife and betrayal in the land. The question proposed by the telling of this myth I'd whether or not a man can act truly virtuous when removed from the consequences of his actions as when turned invisible, whether or not virtue is merely a social construct designed as a measure to keep the evil nature of people in check, or if virtue can truly and genuinely emanate intrinsically from within an individual without an external force making them through the threat of punishment.

I believe that virtue and morality aren't inherent forces that present themselves to individuals externally and prove their validity to them, rather I believe life exists as an opportunity for individuals to manifest virtue in reality through their actions and the experiences of their lives. It is individuals that prove themselves worthy of upholding virtue and ordering their existence to higher meaning.

The lower nature of man is our base, primal animalistic lusts and desires. Those who reject the higher nature of virtue are left only with its antithesis, the sins of a life left in the form of an animal rather than that of a man who stands amongst the beasts as the master of himself and his desires rather than a slave to them

>>6930699
You're mistaking the meaninglessness of your own existence as an inherent meaninglessness in reality as a whole.

The mistake you're making is that you think that reality is defined and limited by your perception of it rather than understanding that you are limited in reality by your perceptions.

>>6930730

>Our higher existence is when we live out our inner convictions actively and outwardly,

Good, does this mean all those Christians will finally give away all their possessions to the poor?

>not from an external command, utilitarian value or social pressures, but purely and intrinsically, free from both the driving forces of consequences and rewards for our actions

This is nonsense. Your actions always have consequences. They cannot be seen separate from each other, as they have an intrinsic connection to each other

>>6930733

I couls say the exact same thing about you

>>6930730
How does your particular form of virtue ethics avoid just turning into a form of self-inflated egoism?

I am genuinely curious at that question also, I think in part this is why am I more partial to deontological ethics than any form of virtue ethics; especially a virtue ethics that is predicated upon a binary between 'higher' versus 'lower' forms of existence, (too theologically orientated imo, e.g. what is the highest form of existence, well, ofc, God. Not saying you are making this claim, but it seems to either imply or resemble the logic of a theological hierarchy).

>>6930735
The concept I'm explaining doesn't suggest that you don't face consequences or rewards for your actions, but rather that you remain indifferent to them, or take them merely as reflective indicators of the effects of your personal expression. The concept I'm explaining suggests that virtue is a state of being that exists within an individual regardless of what happens externally, a higher nature beyond reward and consequence

>>6930738
How so? There is meaning to my existence

>>6930747

>The concept I'm explaining doesn't suggest that you don't face consequences or rewards for your actions, but rather that you remain indifferent to them

That's at best a really stupid thing to do and at worst not possible in the first place

>>6930743
I absolutely am making that claim, that I am beholden to an axiomatic metaphysical truth parallel and interwoven into our physical reality, a transcendent realm where these ideals exist in their pure forms, which can be accessed and manifested into our existence

>>6930753
Once you've reached the point of knowing the truth, you transcend beyond the need to be validated by rewards or punished through consequences. Everything becomes self evident. Reality is no longer a question of what if, buy a continuous deepening and expansion upon the knowledge already solidified by the realization of its truth.

>>6930649
A monk's life isn't worth living?

>>6930760
Ah. Ok. You do you boo.

>>6930767

>>6930767
The monks that I know, Zen Buddhists, are all about meditating in order to let go of thought itself. I would imagine the most lived life is probably through the lived-embodied experience of a Zen Buddhist that literally practices day in and day out how to be more aware of ones own embodiment.

>>6930763

>Once you've reached the point of knowing the truth, you transcend beyond the need to be validated by rewards or punished through consequences.

If you have, you may tell us what the truth is, because you'd be the first person in history to possess it

>>6930775
I'm talking about Western monk tradition, which is very Platonic or Catholic.

>>6930636
He's not suggesting you don't live your life. he's suggesting that you don't examine it. Which, as you've made it clear, you don't, since talking about morality's place in law is too brainy for you to do even on a board dedicated to this sort of thing.

>>6930785
The truth is my own personal self actualization, the understanding and expression of my true identify as a man who's existence is ordered to the higher nature of transcendent metaphysical ideals that give true meaning to virtue and morality beyond the cursory facade of moral relativism

>>6930793
In some sense, then yea, if you are completely orientated to the sky in a gestural sense. This claim made by Lingis is about an orientation towards the ground through which we stand. The fertile bosom through which all concepts have their genesis, lived-experience. If we completely detach ourselves from lived experience, e.g. a theoretician, monk, philosopher, etc., then we are detaching ourselves from that very ground through which our ideas originate. So, what is the point of that sort of empty examination? That is at least what I think Lingis' intends. I could be wrong.

>>6930800

And what does any of that even mean? Could you give us some set definitions of everything you just said? That shouldn't be too hard, since it's totally outside the grasp of relativism and therefore completely set in stone

>>6930801
By lived experiences, do you mean sex and parties, or what, exactly?

>>6930814
I mean just that, our lived experiences. Our encounters with death. Our encounters with Others, e.g. immediate family, friends, etc. Our experience of a night sky or a dimly lit road. Our experiences of the crying wanes of a newly born child. Our experiences of seeing the last death throes of a person succumbing to terminal cancer. Our intimate encounters with others, whether that be sexual or otherwise.

This fertile ground, is where we derive our basis for things like, 'truth,' 'concept,' 'thought,' consciousness,' 'freedom,' etc. etc.

This is at least from an existential phenomenological perspective, Lingis' perspective at the least.

I, am at least partial to the perspective.

>>6930811
I'm talking about spiritual development anon. The growth of your soul towards completeness in its being, of achieving a state of wholeness within yourself through the merging of the conflicting aspects of my being.

I don't see how the meaning and definition of what I'm saying isn't self evident

>>6930814

>experience means only sex and parties

And here you prove to be completely stuck in your own neo-reactionary worldview

>>6930826
How are experiences of thought and inner reflection any less real to you than the experiences the external world inflicts upon you?

>>6930826
How the heck does any of that remotely conflict with examining life? Or are you suggesting that thinking about experiences like the death throes of a person conflicts with the experience?

>>6930833
But I'm virtually a communist, so not really neo-reactionary (oxymoron?).

It was a reasonable enough question

>>6930831

Again, what does any of that mean?

You're not making much sense here. You claim to have found the truth, and then when people ask you what it is, all you provide is a bunch of vague new age mumbo jumbo.

I'm going to give you another shot at explaining what you mean by the truth. Explain to me two things: what, in specifics, this truth actually is (such as what the guiding principle is by which the whole of existence comes about and functions), and, again specifically, how people ought to live their lives. Again, I want to hear the moral rule that all other moral rules are ruled by and what that would mean in practice, say, in the life of an average person

Now try again

>>6930838
That wasn't my claim. There is a radical difference between making a claim about what 'depression' means for me conceptually and contemplating my embodied experience of depression.

And the other side, stating that depression is due to my sinful nature because I am not in accordance with the divine dictum.

One is woefully exaggerated claim that takes these intimate moments and experiences and extrapolates them into a transcendental realm.

This maybe a value-laden claim, but I think the directive that Lingis and others of that tradition are making is that we ought to direct our philosophical inquiries at the ground through which we stand, rather than contemplate high and above metaphysical claims. This idea is even present in the likes of Nietzsche imo.

Lastly stated, to put it metaphorically, Lingis' is not denying this inner capacity for reflectivity, but rather stating we should change our gesture philosophically.

Instead of looking to the sky, look at the ground before us, the landscape and the horizon in front of us.

>>6930856
I see God when I look at the ground and the horizon.

>>6930844
It doesn't? Lol? I am confused. Can you recapitulate your claim? I feel like the context is missing.

>>6930863
Did I say this perspective is inherently atheistic? There are differing perspectives regarding God. One that is entirely compatible that I cherish is the perspective of Martin Buber's I and Thou.

>>6930864
This response
>>6930636
implies that examination can get in the way of living life, whereas even a monk, who is devoted to reason and theology, experiences the things you mentioned

>>6930868
My perspective is that of classical theology. Yours is inherently secular, in that you specifically wrinkle your nose as theological thought.

>>6930878

Right. My intention wasn't that these people don't experience life, but as I stated in an earlier post, there is a big difference between utilizing and directing philosophy towards these experiences and attempting to bring clarity to these experiences, and completely divorcing oneself from these experiences in order to hypothesize transcendental realms, e.g. God, the immortality of the soul, etc. This is the intent of the original claim and quote, at least my characterization of it. Whether you or I agree with it, is irrelevant to the point I was making. Nevertheless, I am partial to the position.

>>6930882

Right. You do you boo, I am not interested in onto-theology.

>>6930886
And you're saying things like morality's place in politics, law and science are pointless frivolity?

>>6930889
Onto-theology is a bullshit secularist term, like Judeo-Christian.

>>6930894

There are ways to conduct those disciplines without necessarily assuming something that resembles a theocratic dictum. Also, this quote was about philosophy and the place for examination, not about other disciplines necessarily.

>>6930894

Also, given that Kant invented the term, and I am using it in the sense that he 'meant' it, does that mean that Kant is a bullshit secularist for inventing the term?

>>6930931
>>6930894

Just to make sure you know what the fuck I mean, I'll quote Kant.

"Transcendental theology is again of two kinds. The one kind seeks to derive existence of the original being from an experience as such (without determining more closely anything concerning the world to which this experience belongs; it is called cosmotheology. The other kind of transcendental theology believes that it cognizes the existence of the original being through mere concepts, without the aid of the least experience; it is called ontotheology."

Or is Kant a secularist fag?

>>6930851
Again, you're missing the blatant self evident meaning I'm expressing, and trying to force me to conform to your limited perceptions, spoon feeding you knowledge that can't be explained in the simplistic terms you dad so you can avoid self reflection and challenging your world view.

Ultimately, you just want me to say something that conforms to your artificial predispositions. The meaning of everything I've said is self evident

>>6930856
Again, this path leads men to their lower nature and to nihilism. You're perpetuating chthonic masculinity over solar masculinity

>>6930968
Again, I like being close to the ground :)

>>6930499

> stoning women to death is fine
> it's all relative lol :^)

>>6931020
it's not fine according to who? god? lol

>>6931031

According to my will.
And yours, apparently, but you are too weak-minded to seek to enforce it.

>>6931042
all aboard the relative express

>>6930291
I love that image. Where did you find it?

>>6930733
You read way too much into that post, jumping to some rather baseless claims.

>>6930752
There is meaning to mine as well. I freely picked it.

>>6930441
I really enjoyed reading this post. What are some works you would recommend checking out that would give me insight to views similar to this?

>>6931455
filename

>>6930581
No, it's just impossible for the person of reason unless they are happy with something more than they can possess in this world, including their body and mind.

>>6930355
The religious feudalists were practicing usury long before capitalism, hence European Judenhass.

>>6930441
What the hell is going on in this post.

>>6930576
>>6930499
Sam Harris pls

This is the new religion anon

http://inspirobot.me/

>>6930775
>>6930636

>he thinks buddhist monks experience live complete without boundaries

How it feels to still believe in the mystery of the world?

>>6930614

>he thinks people should not be insulted if they are ignorant of something and still keep his opinions in an arrogant way

In every professional and technical framework you get called for your own bullshit when you are putting opinions that are clearly wrong for someone who knows it.

However in morality, life and ideals, it seems that everybody knows the best :^)

>>6930614
>It's insulting, and I'm not in the lifestyle of insulting others
how do people like you even find this website? why do you bother to stay?

Go the fuck back to r/books you sad sack of shit.

>>6932101
Nigga please this board is filled with autist fuccbois who think they're Plato cause they read a couple books off a chart, me included. least he had the balls to say it

>>6930931
>>6930950
Kant was pretty much the epitome of a bullshit secularist.

>>6930254
Do you have other pictures of her?

>>6930957
>Again, you're missing the blatant self evident meaning I'm expressing

If it's self-evident, why can't you explain it?

>>6931990
It was practiced, but it wasn't okayed, and even as it was condemned by people like Aquinas who advocated simply taking the money back gained through usury and giving it those who payed it, it was also noted by him that it was a symptom of rulers who didn't make sure Jews had other means of living, which they were entitled to and rulers were obligated to provide.

>>6932342
i do, mah boi. Check the reverse image search.

>>6932148
>least he had the balls to say it
yeah he risked being insulted on an anonymous Bengali Communication forum, he is truly a wise and brave visionary.

This board is for pseudos and elitists to flame and banter with each other. Pussies like him and you who bitch about it need to go the fuck back where you came from.

>>6932376
this is my new fetish. I've wanked twice for the image on the OP.

>>6932346
its truth is predicated on it not needing to be explained

God's not dead, he's surely alive and he's living on the inside, roaring like a lion.

>>6932450

Sorry, but that's exactly what truth is predicated on. If something is true, it's by definition explainable. The whole point of explanations is that they describe and clarify real and true events.

>>6932061

How does it feel to still believe in the mystery of the world? Liberating? Encaging? I don't know, it is called lived-experience for a reason.

>>6932423
>dfw wear mantilla to Mass out of my love for God
>dfw guys get urges because of mantillas
Should I stop wearing one? One of the points is to NOT incite men to lust by covering hair, but if it has the opposite effect, maybe I should stop.

>>6932338

Ok. Who is not a bullshit secularist anon? Fuck sake m8.

>>6932516
post pics and I'll tell you

>>6932520
Marx and Nietzsche are some pretty solid secularists. There's a reason they were never placed on the Church's shitlist when people like Kant and Sartre were.

The better life gets the less need we have for fairy tales.

We have great standards of living, luxury, entertainment, travel, drugs et cetera in the first world. In these nations religion automatically declines because we don't need it any more because life is actually fun.

Look at Brave New World. Everyone is irreligious and virtually everyone is happy.

>>6932538
>he thinks the west is happy
>implying real religious people are miserable

>>6932538
8/10 nice post anon

>>6932533
Seems counterproductive in this instance.

I have a question that's been bothering me lately. Can God exist in the material form - like a regular person - and still obtain the same level of worship and respect it has in the immaterial?

>>6932538
>We have great standards of living, luxury, entertainment, travel, drugs et cetera in the first world.
>religion automatically declines because we don't need it any more because life is actually fun.
>because life is actually fun.
Nietzsche's Last Man.

>>6932543
>implying real religious people are miserable

>happiness through delusion is true happiness
I can agree with that; regardless of how many times the quote has been regurgitated here it is again: "Ignorance is bliss."

>>6932580

>>6932574

This is just christianity. So, yes.

>>6932574
God the Son does in mainstream Christianity (Coptic Christianity being an exception), and both God the Father and God the Son have physical bodies in Mormonism, so the answer is yes.

>>6932574
>Can God exist in the material form - like a regular person - and still obtain the same level of worship and respect it has in the immaterial?
What do you mean with God here? Do you mean the Omnipotent Christian/Islamic/Judaic God? Are you asking if it were possible for him, would he be worshipped on Earth if he were to take on a physical human form? That's already what some people believe with Jesus, that he was God and not part of the Holy Trinity.

>>6932590
>has no argument
>posts fedora
I love you braindead sissyfag shitposters.

>>6932572
hide your face and take a pic.

>>6932617
I have an argument but I'm tired of spending my time arguing clowns on the internet who think the history of mankind's search for meaning and purpose can be handwaved away with "heh ignorance is bliss i guess then heh"

>>6932620
Do you intend to use it for sinful purposes?

>>6932623
Is your argument yelling at me that God exists and cares about each and every one of us because we're special snowflakes?

>ugh like im so tired of saying it again and aagain lol just stop asking and go like read the bible tbh

>>6932633
well, were the only intellectual beings in the material world, so yeah, we're pretty fucking special

>>6932644
And there's no other side to that? That we have consciousness, that means there must be a God or gods?

>>6932644
"intellectual." What does it mean to be intellectual without a body anon? To think of consciousness without materiality is retarded.

>>6932644
>were the only intellectual beings in the material world
you're not evidence for that.

>>6932650
I don't see where he ever argued that, explicitly or implicitly. He was simply saying humans are special.

>>6932664
>To think of consciousness without materiality is retarded.
Why?

>>6932679
>He was simply saying humans are special.
Maybe you missed the part where we were arguing about whether there is a God or several gods.

>>6932664
>To think of consciousness without materiality is retarded.
youre begging the question

>>6932688
that's an entirely different question

but anyways, here you go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ

>>6932709
>he can't come up with anything to say so he just posts a video link
ayy lemoa, here u go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ra7k94HO8

>>6932725
>le handwave
eh, whatever

>>6932738
>le
>eh
>whatever
Go back to reddit, you dumb fuck.

>>6932752
no u

>>6932630
No, I'm just curious as to see how it looks on a normal person and not a photography model.

>>6932709
As stated prior by me, onto-theology can fuck off. I don't see its relevance in day to day experience. Point me to someone who with the entirety of their being only came to believe in God through theological proofs, and then I will listen anon.

P.S. This doesn't not necessarily make me inherently anti-theistic, it just means I enjoy better better and experienced-grounded theology e.g. postmodern, existential, liberal theology.

>>6932762
>let me see your sexy mantillas
wow anon, couldnt be more subtle

>>6930254

>"After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

God is dead mean that metaphysics in general is dead. The whole idea that we conceive the world transcedentaly is over. The End.

But what you Christians don't understand that even when you demure "the death of God", you are still doing it from eschatological christian point of view. There is no end in the way how humanity will think the world, just as there is no end to change. God has become litteraly "unbelievable" in the regard that there is no worldview to support him.what you are worshipping is his shadow, that is the collective remnant of beliefs,cultural practices and ontotheological theories which are left, from Gods rotting corpse. Christianity in this sense is over as a project.

Will religion survive? This no one can tell because religion transforms constantly and tehre is nothing more adaptive than religion. But christianity cannot mutate any longer,since it's very grounds cannot be adopted by the current weltgeist.

>>6932690
>>6932679

My comment was somewhat flippant. So, in a more elaborated and serious fashion, I am partial to the position that sees consciousness as always embodied-consciousness. Moreover, consciousness is never as such, but always consciousness of something. There is no consciousness as such imo. Lastly, I see embodied-consciousness as an emergent property. These are the basic assumptions that constitute my partiality. Hence, my original comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCIXz3yIa7E

Daily reminder this is what Christfags really believe

>>6932777
>Point me to someone who with the entirety of their being only came to believe in God through theological proofs, and then I will listen anon.
i already did. Ed Feser was an atheist who studied the classical proofs and became convinced of them.

>>6932791
>BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM

>>6932777
But that's so ridiculous, the idea of believing in the Christian God with the entirety of your being through proofs, even if they were 100% sounds, is ridiculous for the simple reason that the concept of God is too fantastic to come to terms with that way. That's why Kierkegaard thought that if people aren't constantly struggling with faith, they've numbed themselves to God.

There are great arguments for God, and I was drawn to Christianity because of them, but the serious faith I have now is not something that gets permanently turned on, it's something I must constantly renew. How can you readily believe in God when it is impossible to even conceive of God except in the vaguest of senses?

>>6932793
He was fucking raised catholic. That isn't an example. The mother fucker probably still prays to God and believes in a wholly existential manner. But when he gets on a pedestal, all of sudden God turns into a fucking scientific object that can be examined with proofs. Shit is so abstract, it just doesn't make sense to me. It is so divorced from lived-religion that it baffles me.

>>6932779
fucking cockblocker

>>6932786
>There is no end in the way how humanity will think the world,
wat
>litteraly
k

As far as I can tell from that retarded child's fingerpainting equivalent of a post you asserted there is no valid christian worldview but you gave no evidence for this and merely repeated yourself and made vague predictions. Would you care to try to explain in better english what you were trying to say and why you believe it? I'm not trying to be mean to you just curious.

>>6932799
Which is my point buddy? I would rather listen to Kierkegaard then some theological professor that is completely divorced from his faith only in a classroom.

"to have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God."

At least Kierkegaard was fucking honest.

>>6932822

I'm answering to the OP you idiot who frased his question in an eschatological manner.

The project of christianity, that is grounding morality within a network of metaphysical and ontological theories is over. But the question of whether scientism or secularism will triumph is pointless, because change never ends. However as I said Christianity cannot mutate anymore, it has reached the limits of how it can conceive the world. The last great attempt was by Barthes and his dialectical Christianity, but that too is over, along with all Hegelian linear conceptions of the world.

>>6932810
>le no true atheist
maybe you could see at Anthony Flew, but i dont know if he's really that kind.
Alasdair went from Marxist to Thomist, so there's something

also, why are you so angry that people practice theology? do you think someone could only be religious by saying "praise the lawd" every 10 words?

>>6932376
>>6930254
I bet « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » looked just like this before she sold her soul to Satan and started posting those lewd "you shall not lie with another woman" gifs on /hc/

>>6932848
>frased
I hope you're foreign.

Why is christianity and Hegelian linear conceptions over? what has happened to end their mutations? the fact they haven't changed noticeably in front of you during your lifetime is evidence?

It's easy to look back and say that this is the end of (x) people do it all the time for everything. It doesn't make it true.

>>6932851
Nah man, Lol. I am not angry, just fag speak yo.

I just dislike it when people are dishonest about their intimate experiences and try to postulate some grand schematic reason for their beliefs. This is why I am much more partial to Kierkegaard and other existential theologians, because I feel that it is grounded and rooted in what people actually practice and live with. Religion isn't about proofs, it is about our day to day encounters with others and the ethical or moral issues that arise in those intimate spaces. That is religion to me, and I 'hate' the abstract shit because I think it loses sight of those intimate spaces.

>>6930543
A meaningless existence is fine so long as my comfortable little bubble isn't disturbed.

>>6930576
>I just need to worry about making and maintaing friends in both my professional and personal circles (maybe expanding those friendships for mutual benefits),
>and surviving.

>>6932828
I'm not sure why you think Kierkegaard is so at odds with classical theology in his conception of faith; there's a reason John Milbank loves him, despite wanting to go back the Medieval theology.

God is the source of reason, but while God can easily wrap His mind around creation, vice versa isn't the case. Theology is communing with God's reason, but commitment requires faith (fidelity) in the same way children must have faith in their parents to be committed to them, since it's impossible for the child to completely grasp reason in the way a parent can--that doesn't mean the child is completely incapable of grasping any part of it, though, or even that faith in the parents cannot come initially from reason.

>>6932875

>I hope you're foreign.

Yes, I'm not a native speaker, sorry for the bad english.

>Why is christianity and Hegelian linear conceptions over? what has happened to end their mutations? the fact they haven't changed noticeably in front of you during your lifetime is evidence?

At this point there is no reason to try to re-conceive the world in terms of organised universe, Aristotelian teleology, science and philosophy have pierced the world of "grounds" and have revealed a world of entropy. There are no more angels, but quanta and boson's. The particles resist organization, just like the human bodies within society have resited becoming an organism. So there is no evolution with regards to metaphysics, only dissolution. Older moral values decay and become outdated, metaphysical theories become deconstructed etc.

So the point is not whether "in the past they thought x", but if Christianity or the Christian onto-theological theory of the world , mutate or transform into something entirely different and to conceive the world in different terms than now.

>>6932924
>or even that faith in the parents cannot come initially from reason.
That is, obviously in their later years, since it doesn't need reason initially. Similarly, Christian doctrine says children already know God before they are capable of reason, which is why there is infant baptism.

>>6932888
religion is about contemplating and worshipping God, not about our relationships with others or about moral issues. These are all empty if we take out God from them. However, there is no reason for not taking out the intellectual aspect of it and defending it against objections. And there is no reason that someone cant be convinced of it by purely intellectual arguments.
When people say "dont think, feel" im more inclined to believe that the opposite has more truth in it, feelings are subjective and can get in the way of faith if one doesnt have any external grounds for it. This is why the problem of evil doesnt pose any intellectual difficulty but it becomes pretty serious in practical manners.

Dont get me wrong, reason is cold, and practical manners are very important for a complete experience of religion. But we are rational animals at the end of rhe day.

>>6932777
>P.S. This doesn't not necessarily make me inherently anti-theistic, it just means I enjoy better better and experienced-grounded theology e.g. postmodern, existential, liberal theology.
Kek, pandering to secularism doesn't make theology "better grounded".

>>6932924
I guess we fundamentally disagree on the relation between 'God' and 'creation.' I am just more partial to mystical forms of religiosity, and you seem to be more medievally (not pejoratively intended) orientated. I just don't valorize reason in that way. I am much more into sensuality, affectivity, relationality, immanence, finitude over and against abstraction, reason, transcendence, infinity, universality, etc. I hope even though we disagree, my perspective is somewhat lucid.

>>6932941
You should know by know, in your eyes, I am a secularist, so why keep making the comment when I obviously don't give a fuck whether I am a secularist or not?

>>6932958
>Autistic moment

You should know by now*

>>6932929
>Yes, I'm not a native speaker, sorry for the bad english.
no need to apologize m8 we're all friends here. (:

I would argue that christianity is changing now from the literal interpretations of the past into a more allegorical and abstract dogma applicable to the twentyfirst century.

You can see evidence for this in strict fundamentalists (anti gay, no abortion) clashing with progressive realist christians (You can go to hell if you feel like it)

The old testament bible is a series of stories revolving around God making contracts with the children of Israel and some faction or all of Israel breaking the contract and bringing suffering and divine punishment to the entire population.

there is now a movement of moral relativism and an attitude of "Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else." and I think this is will be incorporated into the next evolution of christianity.

>>6932948
The dichotomy between the mystical and rational is an unfortunate precursor to modernism, and is mostly imposed rather than inherent.

Mystical theology was abundant in the Middle Ages, especially in the East. And let's not forget that Miester Eckhard, one of the most mystical Catholic theologians of all time, was a intellectualist, not a voluntaryist.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/voluntar/

>>6932958
Right, you are a secularist, so of course you're going to say, "theology which caters to my worldview instead of religion is better," just as someone who denies global warming will say, "I don't dislike science, I just prefer science that panders to my politics."

>>6932979

I am partial to certain ideas, that doesn't make me someone who vulgarly states, "theology which caters to my worldview instead of religion is better." Also, it is not like you are making claims regarding what is wrong with 'secularism.' You are merely stating, you are X, therefore you are a pleb. That isn't an argument I would retort anyway.

>>6932995
It does make you like that. Because rather than being decent enough secularist and simply saying "I don't consider theology to be valid," you maintain your relativism by saying, "No, no, of course theology can be valid (as long as it caters to secularism)". But that's as absurd as someone saying they don't have a problem with secularism, so long as it is beholden to theology.

The major problem with secularism is that has no cohesive center for morality, aesthetics, political science, economics, etc. Fields are abstracted from each other, and within each field more and more schisms deepen. There is no foundation to build upon. The closest it can come up with to a constant is science, which leads to things like trying to derive morality from science and marginalizing things like philosophy.

>>6932967

>there is now a movement of moral relativism and an attitude of "Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else." and I think this is will be incorporated into the next evolution of christianity.

I would say the problem is not so much that of the moral command, or even the contest between modernity and religion. But if Christianity can change theologicaly. This is posible only if it reconceives the world, so some kind of Neutonian revolution.

In contrast Kierkegaard and existential christianity is not this sort of revolution, becasue Kierkegaard merely adapated to Kantian/Fichtean enlightenment subjectivity to give room for faith, he did not alter the world, but himself, which criples Christianity as a beleif system(why would anyone need Christianity to become the knight of faith after all?)

So the way I see it Caputo in a certain sence is right. God is the concept which cannot be really deconstructed, since in christian belief God is the source of all differance. This is a testament of Christianity plasticity, it does not really need theology to support itself and could embrace entropy and wildly different topograpy in terms of metaphysics.

>>6933018

Couldn't I just follow your logic and say that you are predicating anything that does not fit your worldview as secularist?

Anyways, I guess i learned something about myself today, because I want to give theology its credit and try to pin religiosity even as someone who is admittedly Non-theistic, therefore I am a relativist-secularlist pleb. And on top of that, If I just said flat out that theology was dirt shit and that science is the overcoming of theology like all other edgy New Atheists, it would be a more 'legitimate' position than relativism. Wow. Cool. FUCK ALL THEOLOGY BOIS.

>>6932967
>there is now a movement of moral relativism and an attitude of "Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else." and I think this is will be incorporated into the next evolution of christianity.

But how far do you think this evolution will progress before we stop calling it Christianity? The Jesus cult was originally considered only a new iteration of Judaism when Jewish theology adapted to contact with Greek philosophy, Roman mystery religions, maybe Buddhism, etc. But it progressed so far over a short time that it clashed irreparably with Rabbinic exegesis and developed its own canon. Calling it "Judaism" just didn't do it justice anymore.

Do you think that calling the further development of the religion "Christianity" will even be feasible?

>>6932967
>there is now a movement of moral relativism and an attitude of "Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else." and I think this is will be incorporated into the next evolution of christianity.
That's already a thing in certain denominations, and in all of them there is a massive decline as a result. The only denominations that are doing well are fundamentalists and Catholic/Orthodox. Liberal denominations are shrinking extremely rapidly.

>>6933084
it depends on a lot of things. You're right the core tenets of belief could change so much that what we see is the genesis of some new dogma, but I think in the case of Islam and Christianity, which as you said were both offshoots of earlier established creeds, there was a catalyst that engendered the whole movement.

Even though the environment was ripe Mohammed and Jesus were and are retroactively considered the most crucial aspect of the beliefs they didn't live to see defined. The whole religion is structured around them so to speak. I think there needs to be some kind of catalyst

>>6930421
Surprise, Butters is spouting Marxist claptrap and acting like she is the single most intelligent person on this board again.

>>6932543
>implying you would rather be a medieval serf than a current day Westerner

>>6932580
>fun is wrong because of some frustrated self-publishing benefit recipient in the late 19th century

>>6932543
true religious people are happy. It's atheists who tend to lead lonely sorrowful pathetic lives.

>>6930254
The Overman is the new God. That was Zarathustra's message.

>>6930254

Cute girl. Is she a muslim?

Religion emerges from uncertainty of God. Once it becomes certain in either direction, there will be no more religion.

>>6930575
>atheist morality
This is an oxymoron

>>6935405
You are an ox-y moron.

Atheist doesn't even mean moral nihilist. It only means you don't believe in a creator/afterlife/soul.

Theists have absolutely no monopoly on morality. It predates them.

Anyone here read Guenon? What do you think of him?

I am having trouble understanding some of the things he is saying.

>>6933432

>true religious people are happy.

So what's it like being 15?

>>6935447
it predates them because the traditional view of reality was taken for granted (at least by the smart dudes).
But guess what? Modern atheism (no, not the New Atheism or Atheism+) rejects this view, and by rejecting it it has pulled the moral carpet below his feet, and now tries to salvage the pieces of what is left of it's moral intuitions that it comes up with weak "moral" theories that stink of pure sophistry.

>>6932940
>But we are rational animals at the end of rhe day.
lmao

>>6933095
liberal christianity gets blown the fuck out by secular progressivism as far as feel-good movements go. the church isn't a necessary community center any more.

the evangelical groups I know are gaining a smaller but more intense group of followers, although you can tell they know they've lost the culture war. twenty years ago they rolled their eyes at the word 'tolerance', now they're begging for it

>>6933432
most people who have a sense of community and are focused on a goal are somewhat content. or at least, they're not aimless and miserable.

>>6930636
An examined in what sense? An individual's life and experiences written down or analysed by oneself?

>>6930796
are you allowed to examine it for a while and reject the premise of examination?

>>6930636
And how should a life be lived? How do you "not live" (in a metaphorical sense)?

>>6930957
You know what? I think you're just full of bullshit. You focus so much on showing your rich vocabulary that you forget everything about sentence structure, grammar, and your argument.

>tl;dr
Stop hiding your bullshit behind fancy words

>>6932474
all coherent systems of thought have axioms or assumptions

>>6930254
Type "chapel veils" into Google Image Search.

>>6931856
Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, preferably all at once (read some Freud studies, then a Nietzsche book, then something from Capital, then come back to another Freud paper applying what you've learned since you last read him, etc etc)

>>6935470
>that it comes up with weak "moral" theories that stink of pure sophistry
As opposed to what, theistic absolutism that was already BTFO by Plato and can only be resurrected by equivocating God (an object) with goodness (a property)?

>>6937933
>he thinks God is a being, and not Being Itself
>he thinks goodness is a property, and not the degree something has mora actuality as its kind of being

>>6937998
>Being
I think you accidentally hit shift here, Heidegger.

>>6930254
>tfw you will never have slow and boring missionary sex with her

>>6930581
Happiness isn't a sin. Generalizing one set of beliefs to encompass a whole religion or faith is being willfully ignorant.

>>6938005
when dealing with Him it is respectful to capitalize

>>6938016
>you will never get frozen yogurt with her

God confirmed for truly alive and roaring like a lion

>>6930332
Please see: Liberation Theology.

>>6930254
define god
define dead
define seasons
define cycle
define transcendence
define humanity
define soul
define secularism
define stagnation
define life
define enlightenment

>>6940130
Why would I need to?

>>6930254
>BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM >BAM

>>6940163
Shots fired! Shots fired!

>>6940157
He means if you care about Christian leftism, as indicated by your post with environmental Anabaptism.

Liberation theology, that is, serious liberation theology, is basically just a euphemism for Christian communism, particularly in support of revolution. That's why the Catholic Church became sort of hostile toward it, but Pope Francis, who was hostile to it when he was a priest, changed his tune after communist Jesuits were tortured to death for being communists. Most Catholics associated communism with persecution of Christians, because, well, communists did persecute Christians a lot, but Francis has a background of associating communism with the Christians being persecuted. The Hammer and Sickle Crucifix he accepted and later went on to explicitly state he's taking home with him, was designed by a Jesuit communist who was put to death.

>>6940189
Yes yes.
I am following it in the news. Interesting development. It was a flip comment ( >>6940157 )

>>6940157
cartoons looked so wierd in those old days

>>6940424
It's a John K retro style. Superior to those cardboard cutout freak shows from Nickelodeon

>>6940124
Meow

>mfw butters is so triggered she spams images and sagebombs threads

>>6943561
Triggered is your word. I'm having fun.

>>6930441

I hate it when someone on /lit/ tries to get Shakespearian when what they're saying can be shorted substantially.

Here's your post cleaned up:

>Things are fairly comfy for the average person now, so no one actually wants to take part in a communism prole revolt anymore

>the few that still do can't accomplish shit anyways for various reasons

>This inability for this group to do anything is part of why the era feels so shitty

>>6943883
>Saving pictures of yourself

>>6944420
>bjorkafly

>>6944443
One away bby

>>6944420
I'd fuck me

You'd have to destroy most of civilization and turn the clock back to semifeudal barbarism for that, Mr. Hedges.

God coming back to life is a possibility that makes sadists drool. God and religious litanies are for them the music which their victim cry out when they are being violated with red irons and having their nipples cut off with rusty gardening shears.

>>6943883
"I basically look like Bjork" Spergout.

>>6944480
I can almost hear that fedora rustle as it tips.

>>6944504
So what are you trying to create? White Noise?

278

279

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSj8ivhakJk

280

281

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5PQYsbHlYU

>>6944485
>christ is a door.

At least you don't even try to cover up how you've just preyed on the desperate for centuries and told them their suffering is beautiful so it's perps can be exonerated.

You don't even have to lie because you will give your life to uphold that truth, amirite?

>>6944562
I would be wasting my breath to try to explain it to you.

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6WeLHRRsOQ

And 300