/lit/ - Literature

Christianity is for morons as are all religions. Are you a moron OP?

>>8110875

Fedorable.

I'm a non-believer, but factually, the vast majority of the greatest thinkers have been christian.

>>8110745
Daily reminder that the trinity makes no sense. Praise the God.

>>8110878
Blatantly fallacious reasoning. So you are definitely a moron.

>>8110745
Read it

otherwise this thread will go to /his/

Basically, even an Atheist can admit that following the moral and ethical precepts as taught by Christ will bring about the kingdom of god in this world, and if they happen to be wrong, the next. Of course, evangelical assholes believe in salvation by faith alone, but as St. James says (2:18) But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

>>8110745
>predetermination
What are you some kinda Calvinist or something?

Existentialists, Anarchists, Egoists, Objectivists, Libertarians would have a hate time embracing Christianity, considering they are functionally opposed to its teachings.

I became Christian because it gave reason and rule to what I saw tone a unintelligible and lawless mess. As far as reconciling individuality and duty, I still sin, like masturbating and being a generally lazy fuck, but I never planned on pushing it much farther than that.

>>8110889
>Trinity makes no sense
are you even trying?
God the Father spoke.
The Son is the Word.
The Holy Spirit is the effect the words on man's heart.

It's all the same thing, but perceived in parts.

Like how a country can be perceived as the Land, the Government, or/and the People.

>>8110968

Why would existentialists have a hard time embracing Christianity? Kierkegaard was one, after all.

>>8111001
The jungle gym of reasoning over the trinity, a concept for which man can make no value judgement on any objective source and which has sprung from the mind of theologians, in defense of non-trinitarian and islamic criticism, has always makes me cringe.

>>8110968
Libertarianism is totally compatible with christianity you retard, about half of libertarians are at least deists.

>>8110966
Good fucking post

>>8110966
>even an Atheist can admit that following the moral and ethical precepts as taught by Christ will bring about the kingdom of god in this world
literally satanic thinking

>>8111001
Incoherent gibberish.

>>8111041
You sound like the unseen unmentioned pharisee watching Christ and the Samaritan woman.

The teachings of Christ are the water of life, and supersede faction and religion and faith. "Accepting Christ" isn't accepting the faith imposed by the churches claiming to represent him, its doing as he would have done to the least of his children.

>>8110745
Christianity is the perfect religion for the modern bourgeoisie white liberal. It's a religion that teaches that all of humanity is loathesome, that even the subtlest stir of sexuality is an offense against God, that even a hand raised in your own defense is anathema. It's a religion by, of, and for well to do cuckolds who want a manifestation for their guilt at living easy lives.

In much of the western world, even those who profess not to believe in Christianity live in a mire of Christian values. They loathe violence to the point where they proudly boast of being disarmed by their governments, or of their lenient prison systems that give mass murders comfortable, cushioned prison cells. They brag of their tolerance of foreign people who despise them, as if this were a virtue. They often apply Christian values to Christianity itself, happy to indict it of all sorts of wrongdoings while searching out foreign religions for the faintest shred of Christian doctrine. Who but western white liberals would ever be dumb enough to call Islam the 'religion of peace', when Mohammed was literally a warlord and Jesus was literally a pacifist martyr?

For better or worse, it's the foundation of modern morality as we know it.

>>8110745

>Basically, even an Atheist can admit that following the moral and ethical precepts as taught by Christ will bring about the kingdom of god in this world, and if they happen to be wrong, the next.

Like that guy said.
Although don't bs yourself about the 'afterlife' unless you associate it with your lineage and legacy in the world after your time has ended.

While I've never read the Bible, I've paid attention to the key aspects of what the religion preaches considering it's hardly what those who worship truly practice. When I was younger I threw it all out the window as fear riddled, adult fantasy. But as an adult, I've taken the concepts of Christ, the Trinity, heaven and hell, and the sins, and found they all coincide with the fundamentals of a relative, and technically isolated, existence very well. I've never been more comfortable being alone my head than I have after realizing how well those metaphors all overlap in a nodal, or polar, existence.
I still believe the religion as a whole is absolute nonsense as far as how it is pushed upon people and the antiquity of many of its simpler ideas. And as it stands, it is more of a weapon than it is a foundation. The wolf and sheep metaphor works perfectly for that idea. The same can be said for Islam though.

>>8111054
>>8111041
>will bring about the kingdom of god in this world
Get thee behind me, Satan

>>8111045
I see the Trinity as:
The father: the world as how you adapted to it
The son: you
The spirit: the quantum world (the 'how' and 'why' of existence)(subconsciousness)

>>8110904

Tolstoy and Joyce were morons, got it.

>>8111111
>found they all coincide with the fundamentals of a relative, and technically isolated, existence very well
I'm curious, how do you see them as relating, and how has it helped you be more comfortable alone in your head?

>>8110878
>the vast majority of the greatest thinkers have been christian

Did the Bible inform their ideas? Because im pretty sure nothing isaac Newton made came from Christain teachings. Hell when Aquinas wrote his works he had a copy of Aristotle's ethics on one side and Averroes commentary on the other.

>>8111143
If that's what you "got", you may have Down's.

>>8111111

This post was obviously chosen by providence.

>>8111155
>>8111161

>christianity is for morons
>mentions people who are christian, and thus, morons
>backpedals

Ur so smrt

>>8111155
Isaac Newton was an alchemist and kooky black magician, so Im pretty sure he'll be alright.

>>8111145
Can you be a little more specific? I really want to avoid a wall of text filled with things you don't exactly want to hear to spare both your eyes and my wrists.

>>8110745
Predetermination is entirely a Protestant idea

Catholics are entirely behind free will

You're on the right path anon though, ignore the haters

>>8110878

The greatest thinkers have all been human as well, but not every human is a great thinker.

Anyway, I am sure it has more to do with what is culturally acceptable than with any actual critical thought or seeking out of other religions. It's kind of like how most Americans think there are only democrats and republicans when there are quite a few alternatives out there.

>>8111099

Then why are the modern bourgeoisie white liberals actually fedora-level atheists?

>>8111389

It was never implied. Read the statement he originally replied to. Christianity isn't for morons. That some make such sweeping and utterly retarded statements followed by blathering about fallacious reasoning is one of the major causes why people hate internet atheists.

It was never implied that being christian is a prerequisite for being a great thinker. The brazen and belligerent misreading is another reason why people hate internet atheists.

>>8110745
check out Catholicism they believe in free will determinism is for chumps who cant handle personal responsibility

>>8111430
Because they have adopted Christian values without realizing it. I think it's worth appreciating how most fedora atheists never criticize the moral preachings of Christ, they'll constantly rail against creationism, or miracles, or the existence of heaven or hell, or Leviticus instead. The idea that Christ is a figure of moral perfection is almost axiomatic, even when what he was preaching is basically self destruction in the face of adversity.

As much as people like to talk shit about Leviticus, it was entirely composed of rules ordinary people could live their whole lives following. Everyone is worthy of eternal torment according to Jesus, even if you so much as look at a woman and want to fuck her. He indicts humanity merely for existing, much like modern bourgeoisie white liberals do with the society they thrive in. You know these things which people have reviled for decades? Racism? Sexism? Well, it turns out they're everywhere. Pervading every facet of our social order, from the politicians we elect who are white and male right down to wearing clothing that might be perceived as being appropriated from a non-western culture.

It's the kind of masochism only the people who have lived lives of nothing but comfort can afford to dally in.

>>8111484
Christianity *is* for morons, though. That's the whole fucking point.

>>8111505
This can be interpreted as a way of Shitting on Shakespeare.

>>8111509
No, it cannot.

>>8111099
Except Christian teaching is that sex is a gift from God and to be fully enjoyed in a consecrated union called marriage.

>>8111538
I mean it as shitting on Christian writers. You shit on them when you say they are morons.

>>8111099
Also you're confusing Protestantism with Christianity that came before it. I agree that Protestantism is to blame for a lot of modern ills but it itself is a corruption of true Christian teaching.

>>8111487
That isn't right at all, in fact what your claiming is so far from Christian thought almost every sect would claim it blasphemy.

>>8111567
>>8111576
There is no true Christian teaching. Christianity has been evolving and morphing according to internal, external, theological and secular factors since the days of Paul and the apostles.

>>8111574
No.

>>8111603
If someone calls you a moron are they shitting on you?

>>8111595
I guess Calvinists are blasphemers now, someone needs to tell them.

Look up Gnostic Christian, I think that you might get something out of that

>>8111607
Not necessarily.

You'll get a lot more out of non-theistic religions.

>>8111660
moron.

>>8111670
Lying isn't helping your cause, anon.

>>8111676
I'm an agnostic because I was born and raised in a Christian sex cult which abused kids back in the day. Next time don't misrepresent someone.

>>8111670
You are the moron, you most likely thought I was talking about agnosticism, while I was talking about Gnostic Christianity which is completely different, which involves rejection of the material world and the creator God, it is very similar to Buddhism. So maybe look something up before making an ass of yourself.

>>8111645
Calvinists are heretics though.

>>8111684
I didn't misrepresent anyone.

>>8111801
Sorry I think you're confusing me with someone else I'm talking to.

>>8111824
Riight.

>> your cause.

>>8111835
I apologize I thought it was my number, I miss read, now I look like the ass, I'm sorry. I was just ready for a fight because most people try to correct you for saying gnostic thinking you men agnostic. Sorry again.

If you're pulled towards Christianity, it's because you grew up with a very specific idea of God and what he looks like.

Unfortunately, religion isn't as much a calling as it is a tradition and it just depends where you were born. And most religions, including Christianity, say that people who weren't lucky enough to be born and raised in an area that taught that religion, are going to hell.

>>8111801
I don't think I called you a moron. I'm sorry.

>>8111840
What I said was correct.

>>8111848
It's fine. That's one of the things about being anon.

>>8111855

You heavily imply that I'm a Christian by saying Don't lie, and It's bad for your cause. You misrepresented me, and I corrected you.

>>8110745
Predeterminism is a widely misunderstood concept. God does not hand pick who's good enough to get into his club and who isn't. He loves all of his creation and desires for all people to be saved but by his omniscient nature, he must know who will and won't reject or accept his love. To us, because we don't know the future until it becomes the present, it's all still free will to us. Of course Catholics completely abuse free will to insist that you can buy your way into God's favor on the merit of your good works which is not in any part of Christianity's teachings. All men are sinners deserving of God's wrath but all have been offered the same opportunity for salvation through the ultimate sacrifice. Any attempt to earn your own way through works instead of faith is nothing but human pride

>>8111865
>You heavily imply that I'm a Christian
No, I did not.

>>8111890
Whatever. I'm stopping because it's offtopic at this point.

>>8111898
The bottom line is that Christianity is for morons.

>>8111849
>Christianity, say that people who weren't lucky enough to be born and raised in an area that taught that religion, are going to hell.

Apart from it's literally the exact opposite, if you've never heard about Jesus it's almost a go-to heaven free pass.

Where do you read this shit man?

>>8111950
Source (chapter & verse)?

>>8111976
>Theology discussion
>Begs for a biblical quotation as their primary source

>>8110966
people being nice to each other and doing moral and ethical things is human nature. That preceded your "kingdom of God". Do you interpret every selfless act as divine will?

>>8111111
prodigious n repetitious

>>8112105
>doing moral and ethical things is human nature
Is this bait? Without God there cannot be morality. As for human nature I think you must have lived a very sheltered life if you think it comes naturally.

>>8110966
>deeds without faith

>>8112130
Pro-di-gi-ous!

>>8112141
>Without God there cannot be morality.

You mean WITH god there cannot be morality. If you are doing something for an extrinsic reason -- to please a supernatural deity, to get into heaven, etc -- then by definition you are not acting on moral grounds.

>>8112105
>That preceded your "kingdom of God". Do you interpret every selfless act as divine will?
You do realize that God, even hypothetically, existed long long before Man?
>>8112321
Somebody doesn't understand Christianity.

It's for goodness' sake and no other.

>>8112349
It can't be for goodness sake, by definition. That's why "faith-based ethics" is an oxymoron. Such an endeavor is logically impossible.

>>8112372
>projecting logic onto divinity
This is why no one takes you seriously

Christianity dwells pretty heavily on freewill, probably more than any other religion.

>>8112381
>there is literally no reason behind God's commands but they also lead to a better world if you follow them
Hmm

>>8112512
>I realized I was trapped in my own subjectivity and this freaked me out so I sought any variety of mental gymnastics that could make me less scared

>>8111601
>protestant detected
look laddy the holy apostolic church does have a pretty cohesive set of beliefs

Dear OP, some reading suggestions for you:
Read Paul's Letter to the Romans
Read 'On Christian Liberty by Martin Luther
Read Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard

Better to read and reflect on your own. Happy journey.

>>8112532
>mental gymnastics

My experience with God is more relational than intellectual.

>>8112886

>>8112899
My relationship with Satan is more relational than intellectual. This means that nothing you say can dissuade me from it and I'll just accuse you of being closed-minded when you try. You'll be sucking my balls for eternity when we overrun the world and the kingdom of "heaven."

>>8112905
Yeah well, my suggestions were based on OPs specific dilemma about freedom and God's will.

But maybe a reading of Job coupled with the Grand Inquisitor chapter of Karamazov, which is on that list, could also be relevant. In relation to the existence of evil, pre-determination of suffering? Maybe add Girard's book on Job.

>>8110875

>>8112957
>le unfashionable hat meme
Christian """"intellectuals""""

>>8111914

>repeats point throughout 4 hours despite numerous anons calling the bullshit on his initial post

This guy's >>8111484 right, there are definite, observable causes as to why people hate internet atheists.

>>8111603
Define "moron"

>>8111950
The Council of Florence and St Augustine would disagree

>>8112816
I bet you think catholicism/orthodoxy was there from the get go and played whack a mole with different heretical groups in its infancy.

In reality, it was just one sect that won out over the others by deliberately corrupting scripture and having friends in high places

>>8113339
>In its statements of this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God"; that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control"; and that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life."

No it doesn't.

>>8113345
>I bet you think catholicism/orthodoxy was there from the get go and played whack a mole with different heretical groups in its infancy.
Most core beliefs and practices, as well as those which later on became dogmas were present in the early church, yes.
For more information, read Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman, the best theologian of the past two centuries.
>In reality, it was just one sect that won out over the others by deliberately corrupting scripture and having friends in high places
It wasn't one sect, it was the most common which can logically and historically be followed through the authors now known as the Church Fathers.
There's a very clear line between today and the biblical time a Catholic can draw in all areas.

>>8113348
Augustine actually would, although that was one of the few examples of his writings which are in disagreement with the teaching. That is why he believed unbaptized babies go to hell. It was obviously problematic and was never accept for clear reasons.

Just abandon existentialism. It's an adolescent and rebellious mentality that you are better off without. The truth is that you did not create yourself or the world you live in: you did not create your soul, your body, your language, your country, your family, your house, etc. The Existentialist idea that you just spring into existence as a pure nothing that creates itself is a complete hoax. You have an essence/nature that was defined by God and that you have to live in accordance with to be happy. The Existentialist notion of freedom is based on a nominalist metaphysics which sees freedom as the ability to make an arbitrary choice; the classical and Christian notion of freedom is when habitually chooses what is good and what contributes to the flourishing of one's own nature - he who sins, is the slave of sin. Submission to God is freedom; you wouldn't be free if you disobeyed the ten commandments and started stealing and murdering.

As for the credibility of Christianity. Ultimately, reason can only take you so far, you will have to respond to the grace God gives you and choose to believe. However, reason can dismiss Judaism and Islam for you: Judaism because it's pretty damn clear that, if there is a God, he made it explicit that he did not appreciate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, when not long after that crucifixion he levelled Jerusalem to the ground, put an end to the ancient Aaronic priesthood, and scattered the Jews to wander among the nations aimlessly for the next 2000 years. That's Judaism dealt with, not to mention that modern Judaism is a post-Christian reaction to Christianity and has little continuity with the ancient Israelite religion which was based on the temple and the sacrifice; in fact, Christianity is in true continuity with the Old Testament religion precisely because it has a priesthood and a sacrifice (Catholicism, not Protestant heresy). Islam is ridiculous; it is very clear that Muhammad was a false prophet; he falsified the scriptures, he had no prior prophets to prophesy his coming like Jesus Christ did; he was just a liar and he spread his doctrine through arms, whereas Christianity was spread initially by poor people standing up to the Jews and Roman emperors, and went on to conquer the Roman empire by non-violence.

>>8113379
As for the other religions: there is only one alternative to theism that is even worth considering, and that is pantheism. Reason shows us that there be some first principle which is the source, cause, and principle of all other principles, so it comes down to whether or not we make this first principle transcend the world (theism) or immanent in the world (pantheism). Polytheism is just extremely crude theology and not worth considering. So that leaves you really with the Abrahamic God who transcends the world and who reveals himself, or the Hindu God who is immanent in the world and is revealed by a process of reflection. The problem with the pantheist God is that it ends up in abolishing the distinction between good and evil; if God belongs equally to all things then death is as good as life, ugliness as good as beauty, etc. If God belongs equally to everything then whenever a man is in pain, we should say that "God is in pain". Whenever a man dies, God dies. Whenever a man commits evil, God commits evil. There are plenty of ancient religions beside Hinduism that see evil as a principle within God that is co-equal with the good. Some say that the good is the source of the spiritual realm, and the evil is the source of the material realm. This ends up putting contradiction in God, it destroys his oneness; pantheists like this end up talking about "the good balancing the evil", "life and death, the eternal cycle", etc. The theistic account is that God abhors evil and death, and that evil and death came into the world through a primeval rebellion, and that God promises to restore his creation through redemption. Pantheists don't have the idea of redemption, rather, they have the idea of a "return" to the All, or Source, or Brahman, or whatever. Pantheists always imply that man himself is God or has the very essence of God within himself. Anyhow, Pantheism has awful consequences for morality, but it is very attractive to people because: (1) they want to deify themselves, (2) they want to see God face to face, and imagining that the world or the self is divine allows them to see God, whereas the transcendent theistic God is more hidden, (3) it seems very rational in the sense that we do see in nature a cycle of death and rebirth, which would seem to lead to the idea that death and evil are a necessary part of a cosmic order, rather than a corruption of that order. The end goal of Pantheistic spirituality is the dissolution of the self into the All, the Universe, the Brahman, the pure Nothing, etc.; you lose your identity in being submerged and dissolved into the divine essence. The end goal of theistic spirituality is communion with the Father; you don't lose your personality, rather, your personality is radically affirmed by being brought into communion with the Father, the original Person.

>>8113383
Also, let it be said that there is nothing offensive to reason in Christian cosmology: the omnipotent Creator created all things out of nothing; he created rational creatures with intellect and will, capable of knowing or loving him, and put them in charge over all his non-rational creation; they rebelled against him with their intellect and will, and were banished from his presence and left to suffer their own corruption, and the corruption they brought onto the non-rational world which was under their charge; after years of suffering, he decides to take pity after one man (Abraham) has faith in him; he promises to Abraham that he will save the world through his seed; Jesus Christ, the descendant of Abraham, is the Incarnate God-Man who is able to reconcile God and man; Jesus Christ opens up the way to redemption and eternal life for all men who are willing to be born again and live in him; one day he will come again to judge the living and the dead, divide the good from the evil, give the good their reward and the evil their punishment, and establish peace in the cosmos.

There is nothing here that is offensive to reason. Much of it is a mystery in that it is beyond rational comprehension, but we would expect the ultimate beginning and end of things to be mysterious to us because of the limitations of our intellect.

>>8113379
>>8113383
>>8113388
What in the blue fuck am I reading. You can't be serious

>>8110745

Humanity needs a sacrifice. Something which transforms our suffering.

We need to be remade in the image of God to be in his presence.

You do not find your life by self fulfillment; it is in giving your life to someone that you will find it.

This all applies to Christ.

>>8113399
Hence, christ is mere erzats, and a piece of demon shit, Yes.

>>8113379
Stop. You are only making people more atheistic.

>>8113423

Christ is all.

In the midst of that night, in my darkness,
I saw the awesome sight of Christ
opening the heavens for me.
And he bent down to me and showed himself to me
with the Father and the Holy Spirit
in the thrice holy light --
a single light in three, and a threefold light in one,
for they are altogether light,
and the three are but one light,.
And he illumined my soul
more radiantly than the sun,
and he lit up my mind,
which had until then been in darkness.
Never before had my mind seen such things.
I was blind, you should know it, and I saw nothing.
That was why this strange wonder
was so astonishing to me,
when Christ, as it were, opened the eye of my mind,
when he gave me sight, as it were,
and it was him that I saw.
He is Light within Light, who appears
to those who contemplate him,
and contemplatives see him in light --
see him, that is, in the light of the Spirit...
And now, as if from far off,
I still see that unseeable beauty,
that unapproachable light, that unbearable glory.
My mind is completely astounded.
I tremble with fear.
Is this a small taste from the abyss,
which like a drop of water
serves to make all water known
in all its qualities and aspects?...
I found him, the One whom I had seen from afar,
the one whom Stephen saw
when the heavens opened,
and later whose vision blinded Paul.
Truly, he was as a fire in the center of my heart.
I was outside myself, broken down, lost to myself,
and unable to bear the unendurable brightness of that glory.
And so, I turned
and fled into the night of the senses.

>Is there a way to reconcile absolute personal freedom and duty to God?

The only way to liberate your personality is to give it to another:
>For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

The more boldly and defiantly you hold on to your own personality, the more you will resemble the devil:

>The despair of willing despairingly to be oneself -- defiance.

>...

>The despair described in section 1 (ii) was despair over one’s weakness, the despairer does not want to be himself. But if one goes one single dialectical step further, if despair thus becomes conscious of the reason why it does not want to be itself, then the case is altered, then defiance is present, for then it is precisely because of this a man is despairingly determined to be himself.

>First comes despair over the earthly or something earthly, then despair over oneself about the eternal. Then comes defiance, which really is despair by the aid of the eternal, the despairing abuse of the eternal in the self to the point of being despairingly determined to be oneself. But just because it is despair by the aid of the eternal it lies in a sense very close to the true, and just because it lies very close to the true it is infinitely remote. The despair which is the passageway to faith is also by the aid of the eternal: by the aid of the eternal the self has courage to lose itself in order to gain itself. Here on the contrary it is not willing to begin by losing itself but wills to be itself.

>...

>But the more consciousness there is in such a sufferer who in despair is determined to be himself, all the more does despair too potentiate itself and become demoniac. The genesis of this is commonly as follows. A self which in despair is determined to be itself winces at one pain or another which simply cannot be taken away or separated from its concrete self. Precisely upon this torment the man directs his whole passion, which at last becomes a demoniac rage. Even if at this point God in heaven and all his angels were to offer to help him out of it -- no, now he doesn’t want it, now it is too late, he once would have given everything to be rid of this torment but was made to wait, now that’s all past, now he would rather rage against everything, he, the one man in the whole of existence who is the most unjustly treated, to whom it is especially important to have his torment at hand, important that no one should take it from him -- for thus he can convince himself that he is in the right. This at last becomes so firmly fixed in his head that for a very peculiar reason he is afraid of eternity -- for the reason, namely, that it might rid him of his (demoniacally understood) infinite advantage over other men, his (demoniacally understood) justification for being what he is.

http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Kierkegaard,Soren/TheSicknessUntoDeath.pdf

>>8113436
>Revolting against the whole of existence, it thinks it has hold of a proof against it, against its goodness. This proof the despairer thinks he himself is, and that is what he wills to be, therefore he wills to be himself, himself with his torment, in order with this torment to protest against the whole of existence. Whereas the weak despairer will not hear about what comfort eternity has for him, so neither will such a despairer hear about it, but for a different reason, namely, because this comfort would be the destruction of him as an objection against the whole of existence. It is (to describe it figuratively) as if an author were to make a slip of the pen, and that this clerical error became conscious of being such -- perhaps it was no error but in a far higher sense was an essential constituent in the whole exposition -- it is then as if this clerical error would revolt against the author, out of hatred for him were to forbid him to correct it, and were to say, "No, I will not be erased, I will stand as a witness against thee, that thou art a very poor writer."

>>8113433
I'm just speaking for myself, relax mr. Wilde. But he is a) roman propaganda based of titus flavius. B) only culturally and astrologically relevant. But if you're happy with christ, then you are, and you shouldn't feel i'm trying to damage that, or something, in you, guy. Works for you... Fine... Me, i need maybe a little more solid old theology.
Just intuitive religion doesn't cut it for my mind.
Uhmmm, i'm more geriatric in what i like. Fact remains, those are historic facts, christ was roman propaganda against jews, and theologically it's very unsound a grounds, the new testamential glad tidings.

Prove to me God exists

>>8110966
Based

In what other religion does god suffer as much? That for me is one of its enduring virtues. He creates a world that is riddled with pain, but loves it enough to join in the misery with us. (And this purpose is beautifully understood by Judas, who takes the sacrifice even further, but now that's too heterodox, oops!) For me it goes a step beyond Buddhism, that we get that kind of audience with the creator.

Another important aspect I think is that most of it is politics (like many religions). If you grow up in America without any special predisposition, you probably hear God and Christ talked about as an instrument for one's catharsis, an individual psychological journey from dark to light, or developing personal virtues. That psychologized reading gets tedious quickly. The Bible is not at all transparent in its meaning, and you really need to know some of its historical context to understand the stories. For example, 1) The Good Samaritan isn't just a nice guy, Samaritans were ethnic aliens to the Jews (in a sense, donkey-fucking sand niggers) and Christ makes the good guy in his story Samaritan to mess with people's categories of who's virtuous. The virgin birth isn't about Mary's purity of heart, but more the opposite, her lack of purity from the perspective of the religious authority of the time, her marginal social standing. She's a woman, her child is born out of wedlock, in a feeding trough, with an audience of foreigners and migrant workers. Jewish law (Leviticus) requires the child to be brought to the temple with a "purification" offering after birth, giving a rich option (a lamb) and a poor option (two doves) and in Luke you read that she and Joseph choose the poor option. Then she speaks the Magnificat, a challenge to anyone in a position of power (as is the simple fact of God incarnate in a child). That's why the God chooses her. And then so much of the New Testament is about the unjust power of the Roman Empire, and the way money was controlling access to the religious structures of the time. Such as in Christ kicking out the money changers. Then the crucifixion, historically speaking, is the Roman Empire erasing a challenge to their authority. I think Marcus Borg and JD Crossan have written on this well.

cont...

>>8113930

There are so many flavors of Christianity, and you don't have to accept that God is the omniscient, omnipotent, infallible center of truth. A lot of mainstream progressive strains touch on this, short of full on gnostics who say God is IMpotent. Christ really was not a Christocentrist. A good moment to look for this is in his encounter with the Canaanite woman (again, Canaanites were ethnic enemies of the Jews, i.e. Jesus and his crew, who regarded them as inferior). First, he tells her to get lost, because his mission is only meant for Jews, but she challenges him, and he realizes that she understands his mission better than he does. He's forced to broaden his thinking, that it's not enough just to challenge divisions of power, wealth, and status within his own Jewish community. He had to learn as he went. And definitely the cross was not part of his plan, even if it was a horribly wonderful ending.

So I'm not a born again, I don't have sacrificial atonement theology (I don't believe the cross is a transaction), and honestly the reason I care about Christianity is a healthy indoctrination from my parents.
>Is there a way to reconcile absolute personal freedom and duty to God?
Probably not in any worthwhile way; the real religions all work to challenge ego. But did you really believe you had perfect freedom anyway?

>>8113125
Christianity really is for morons. Every dumbfuck in this thread who tried to "rebut" this statement got their asses handed to them. Which only reinforces the point.

>>8111111
Them digits and that post. Nice work anon.

>>8113548
prove to me He does not

>>8115379
>prove me a negative or else my huge positive assertion is valid
Christian """""intellectuals""""" everybody.

>>8115978
Prove to me the absence of God exists.

>>8115983
You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

If the mind needs food like the belly, it is natural, that ood would be truth, and that truth makes mirthfull. Sheer rational thinking surfeits not appetite. Therewith, even ratio ascents, if god is truth, than his manifestation is joy, and ratio is but a sidetool of no real importance to existence. The better question does then become, 'are you satisfied with your diet of soulsatisfaction?'. Eatmyshit, atheistcowarddogshitpricks

>>8116037
>All those assertions
>'are you satisfied with your diet of soulsatisfaction?
What if the answer is yes?

>>8116037
>than
Also Christianity is the ultimate cowardice

>>8112105
>people being nice to each other and doing moral and ethical things is human nature
pure ideology, you're as bad as the christposters

>>8116047
Then you know it's true, and a loose assertion of a god can be had. Also ''Are you afraid of things assertive, boo?''

>>8116049
Not christian. Also comma thanks, dan de mann.

>>8110745
So my dear SHITPOSTER. Do you have a fucking question about Literature? You failed to even mention the Torah, Bible, Qu'ran, or the Book of Mormon in your OP. Whiskey Tango mother fuckin Foxtrot? Regardless of how smart you appear in your OP, this isn't the place for it. Try >>>/pol/ or >>>/x/, or even >>>/b/.

>>8116290
I don't take kindly to people asserting that my mind works a certain way without having even spoken with me or providing any evidence to back up their prediction, and then telling me what I need based on that assertion.

I'm not afraid of things that are assertive. I assert strongly that the Abrahamic religions are at best carelessly passed down bullshit.

>>8116037
>are you satisfied with your diet of soulsatisfaction

>>8116426
>>8116429
Sorry, i didn't know it was lesbiansnight.

>>8116497
>>8116290
>>8116037
There are so many schizophrenics on this board. It's freaky.

>>8116426
"With assertions that ignoramus, no wonder you like being left alone to their horror workings.". You seem angry for no reason. When you confront other historic artefacts?... do you also readily assume you are an natural borneh egyptologist, for instance?

>>8116535
Only double as many as home and study psychologers.

>>8116535
If you´re that same guy who misrepresented me, you´re doing it again. Schizoids don´t have to be religious.

>>8116618
Wev, lesbianratmasochistingtonn..

>>8116618
Anyway calling them schizophrenic sort of shits on people who are actually schizoid types, like me: I used to be religious, not now or when I got diagnosed though.

>>8116633
It's the typing and thought processes, not the faith.

>>8116633
Schizophrenic nor autistic as stand alone diagnosis, are actual diagnosi btw. All losers who can't confront theology, run to its fangirl, frued and jung and the modern snobsport called conjecture, i mean, smugology, sorry, 'psychcollegey!', atheism.

>>8116662 >>8116633 >>8116618 >>8110745
Really? Take it to >>>/b/

>>8116800
Fuck you, I was responding to someone who mentioned schizophrenia. Tell him to take that to b, not me.

>>8116800
Seconded on the fuck you, churchlesbeyonslag

>>8116836 >>8116854

>>8116886
Said the paranoidskizoidmong0beyoncesloaugcera.

>>8116898
-15 pts spelling

>>8116912
>collects drawings ineptly retarded ugly frenchfaggotshite like that, talks of other people's spelling! ..

Old peon yon disgusted.

>>8112143
>faith without deeds

>>8116948
>sent from my piss-soaked hovel in the public library

>>8116963
>if >you >say >so