/lit/ - Literature

Why Christianity? I can only speak for myself but it's because I believe Jesus teachings are correct. Even ignoring all the supernatural claims about him he is a paragon of virtue and living by the lessons he teaches are enough to enrich your life materially, let alone the spiritual fulfillment you gain.

Simply put, love is the key. Love for God, your fellow man and all creation. The message itself is whats worth following for me. I'm Christian because I want to follow Christ, that's all there is to it really.

>Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

>>9058663
>bare elbows

Harlot.

>>9058671
That actually makes a lot of sense, although I'm sure you'll get criticism for being shallow. Thanks.

>>9058699
>although I'm sure you'll get criticism for being shallow.
BTFO CHRISTIAN FAG >>9058671
>>9058671
>>9058671
>>9058671

BTFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>9058699
No problem. As for books I recommend Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis. Lewis was a convert to Christianity late in life and the book is essentially his reasoning for why he made the decision.

>>9058663
The fundamental idea of Christianity is this: God falls into his own creation, and by falling into it expresses his Godhood, beyond the mere judaic or islamic conception of God.
Jews and muslims say that God is somebody else, an impersonal 'other' who writes arbitrary laws based on his own preferences about what ought to be done etc.
In Christianity God became man, which completely violated the philosophy of judaism and pre-emptively violated the philosophy of islam.
Because Christ is God, he is transcendent, existing not as an 'other' being but as the subsistent principle of existence, and he is communicable in that whenever people are gathered in his name he is there too in the midst of them as in the holy spirit for example.

Another fundamental revelation of Christianity, which is a consequence of the above, and which western society is most invested in, is this:
Truth, beauty, and good, are all defined in terms of one another. To be beautiful must also mean to be true and good; to be true must also mean to be beautiful and good; to be good must also mean to be true and beautiful and so forth. To have one without the other two is an empirical error, and such ideas do not regard the inspiration of the holy spirit and as such are not Christian nor are they western.

As for reading, my personal favorites are Aquinas, Jacques maritain, Chesterton, Ratzinger, and kierkegaard.

>>9058726
What's a good starting place for Kierkegaard?

And do you have any answers to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity as life denying nihilism?

christianity is for plebs, real woke scholars are hermeticists.

>>9058732
just go chronologically
early kierkegaard is best kierkegaard but nowhere near as popular

>>9058732
Never read nietszche, if you wanna post a few arguments of his that you found compelling I'll shoot them down.

>>9058754
>>9058732
actually i take that back i didnt realize fear and trembling was published the same year as either/or

either way still go chronologically

>>9058726
Nice. Can you give some thoughts on the infallibility of the Bible? That's almost the only thing I have left to deal with before I can call myself Christian. I.e as it is now I have problems with accepting some parts of it

>>9058847
Bible infallibility is a Protestant thing since they assert that the Bible is the sole source of authority. A better way of putting it is that the Bible contains everything you need to know to attain salvation, and the stuff in there is the stuff God wanted you to know. Apart from that you still need to take into account the fact that it was written by human authors and the purpose of the writings is to drive home a point.

>>9058847
The shit that happens in the bible are mysteries. They are not space magic, the thing that makes miracles miraculous is that they happen. However, they happen in such a way that there is no violation of the physical system, hence the bush burned and was not consumed. Since God is subsistent he expresses himself in the very natural principles that would seemingly not permit his entry. Yet they do permit his entry because he is those very principles.
The bible is 'infallible' because it was divinely revealed, there's a truth in there that we have not been able to exhaust yet.
Once napoleon took the crown from the pope's hands and placed it on his own head as if to coronate himself, and the pope said "I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to destroy Christianity. Well it won't work, because the Church has been trying to do that for nearly two thousand years and we haven't succeeded yet."
So it's not that the bible is infallible like a law is infallible, but that there's something in there that is inexhaustible and even renewable, such that there has never been any idea that was so convincing and so contrary to Christianity that the world would abandon Christianity in favor of it, and to say that this is because people are deluding themselves is an act of sheer naivete.

>>9058883
>>9058884
Thanks fellas.
What about the idea that the Bible is the *only* such source?
And Christianity being the *only* way to know God?
I feel there is so much wisdom in other schools *as well*.

>>9058896
There is, just read maimonides, avicenna, avveroes etc.
Mind you, there's a reason why avveroes is depicted lying at the feet of Aquinas in the Gozzoli painting.
Does buddhism have a point? Sure, but it's incomplete. In buddhism you could for instance stab somebody and still be a fine buddhist because in reality morals are personal and the universal truth is that it was not you that stabbed the guy but that causality aligned in such a way as to drive the knife into him etc etc. Of course in Christianity people have killed for God or for the Church or holy land or whatever, but this differs because it is always an attempt at morality, even if it is a failed one, and since we are human we are also bound to fail, but the truth of Christianity can't fail, we only fall short of it.
Whereas for example buddhism can fail us at a fundamental level with this impersonality/nirvana stuff.
TL;DR Go find out senpai.

>>9058883
No, infallibility of the Scripture is a Catholic dogma.
>>9058663
The thing that Luther and subsequently all protestants and now a lot of Catholics got wrong is that faith is a belief. It's not. Faith is doing the will of God, making his will your own and acting upon his will. A leap of faith is for a Catholic an interesting idea, but in the end, nonsense. You don't need to take a leap because the truths such as the natural law and existance of God lead you to him as well as his own light which illuminates us, much like how Plato described it. But accepting these things is a problem for us because we see things like moderns and we need to go back to how these problems were seen before the 16th century. Empiricism (to stave off the skience thumping atheism, I'm talking about the belief that only the empirical is true), deterministic materialism and utilitarian ethics must be rejected, and we must start seeing things in a very different way. We cannot go back to Jerusalem without seeing things like they were seen by the apostles, which is for us today very hard. To do this you will need a lot of reading, it will take a lot of time and it will take years. It's still going on for me and I try my best. Faith isn't something you take up because it feels nice, in fact, don't go in it for comfort and expect hardship. The Catholic faith isn't a /pol/ like political ideology that gives you values and white children and a strong state, if you enter it because of things like that, you will only delude yourself. Anon before spoke of how Jesus is a paragon of virtue, which should in itself mean nothing to you, it's not about being nice. To take up faith must mean to take up your cross and reject the humanist view of Christ. He's not a guru and a teacher, he is the second person of the trinity, God himself, being itself, eternal truth.
cont.

>>9058996
As for reading, here's a list, chronological:
Republic, Symposium, Laws, Meno, Phaedo, Apology by Plato,
Politics, Nichomachian Ethics, Categories, De Anima, Metaphysics by Aristotle
Alongside this read History of Philosophy by Fredrick Copleston, vol 1
Jesus of Nazareth by Benedict XVI. and Confessions and City of God by st. Augustine
John Henry Newman wrote the definitive work on why Christianity is necessarily Catholic in Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine.
This should help you understand the Scripture better, especially the importance of the OT, which is a roadblock for many.
Summa Contrra Gentiles is the best point to start with Aquinas, but only after reading Aquinas by Ed Feser and History of Philosophy by Copleston vol 2
Contemporary Catholic philosophy is very strong, especially ethics, best authors are Alasdair MacIntyre and Elizabeth Anscombe. Their most famous works (After Virtue, Whose Justice, Which Rationallity? and Human life, action and ethics) are good entry points, even may serve the best place to start this whole possible journey
Important spiritual works to read, best before sleep, with only a few pages to internalise it:
Immitation of Christ, Diary of st. Faustina, Dark Night of the Soul, Interior of a Castle, Science of the Cross,
Important fiction would include Flannery O'Connor, Chesterton, Gene Wolfe, Dostoevsky, Shusaku Endo, Grahm Greene.

>>9058997
Forgot to mention
Avoid Tolstoy for input on Christianity (you should of course read a lot of him because he is a great writer, but not for this), contrary to the popular belief he wasn't a Christian (as in denied the divinity of Christ) and C.S. Lewis for philosophical and theological advice, as he was a bad theologian and a n awful philospher. Read his fiction if you must, but his apologetics are high school tier.

>>9058671
>I follow Jesus because he's a paragon of virtue

Okay, except that Jesus didn't invent virtue. I can follow the same values without being a Christian and I'd be as moral a person as I'd be if Christianity never existed.

What do I have to gain by becoming a Christian, if I'm already a good person who lives a life of virtue?

What if someone is put in a place where they cannot live virtuously? Does he go to hell?

>>9058996
>No, infallibility of the Scripture is a Catholic dogma.
No, Catholic doctrine says the Bible is inerrant, not infallible, and they say it can be misinterpreted by people

>However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

>>9058760
LMFAO some random clown is going to "shoot down" Nietzsche

>>9058996
Could you elaborate on what you mean about belief vs faith?

I've rejected materialism, and utilitarian ethics, but I don't see a way around having to take a leap of faith. God is impossible to prove, and by definition incomprehensible to human reasoning. Or are you simply saying that it's not enough to believe, you must also act? I'm not quite grasping your point. Are you saying if I read all those books I'll understand?

>>9059015
Do you live a moral life? How often do you reaffirm your commitment to the values you hold? Do you actively try to live by those values every day? The problem is you can't really be a good person just by adhering to some nebulous doctrine of being 'good'. Lots of people think they're good but really aren't all that good, they're good in the sense that they're self absorbed and don't 'bother' others, but rarely will they actively go out of their way to do good deeds for the sake of it.

I think the biggest boon of Christianity is having a codified set of values you can reaffirm to live by every day of your life. It's really hard to do good when a lot of people haven't put any thought into what being 'good' means to them other than just 'not be an asshole', nor do they often actively put effort into meeting that goal of goodness every day.

So really, I'd question your assertion that you're a good person who lives a life of virtue. I'd say I'd be fairly safe in saying you're a person who judges himself good because he is polite to other people and does the occasional good deed, which really is the bare minimum of being a good person. It takes constant, sustained effort to really be a good virtuous person who lives up to Jesus Christs standards, if you're not actively putting in that effort you're not meeting the bar.

>>9059057
So if you see homeless people do you give them money or what

or do you just justify walking away by thinking they're poor because they're lazy and helping them would worsen their addictions

>>9059052
>>9058760
Yeah no offense but I wouldn't do him justice if I tried to explain, and you wouldn't be able to argue against him well if you haven't read him. Nietzsche is very dense and requires a lot of big jumps in understanding that can't really be summarized.

> watch the Passion Of The Christ
> watch it from the perspective that Jesus in this movie is God. Not his messenger, nor his prophet, but God himself is getting crucified.
> contemplate on his god becoming man, being put to death and rising from the grave. Realize what Salvation in this world is all about.
> become a christian

>>9059052
>>9059068
Nietszche is only a little bit smarter than the average /lit/izen, it's natural that average /lit/izens would be incredulous at the idea of refuting his shit.
Most medieval scholars preemptively btfo nietzsche even.

>>9058663
>tfw too intelligent for religion

>>9059083
> watch the Empire Strikes Back
> watch it from the perspective that Vader in this movie is The Force. Not its messenger, nor its prophet, but The Force itself is getting electrocuted by the Emperor.
> contemplate on The Force becoming man, being put to death and rising from the grave. Realize what Salvation in this world is all about.
> become a Jedi

>>9059091
That's what I thought too, and now I think I'm too intelligent to be intelligent. Why make a God out of rationality? It's just a tool to serve your irrational biological drives. Better to make a God out of God. It's a more aestheticly pleasing way to live. In fact, because it's psychologicaly healthy, God is the rational thing to believe in, if you're going to be a slave to your biological imperative anyways.

The issue I'm having is if it's not better to suffer without God? And if you are going to have faith, why Jesus?

I'd rather not argue about the God thing specifically it because it would derail the discussion. But if you have input into my two questions, by all means.

>>9058726
How does something true have to be beautiful and good?

9/11 is true that doesn't mean it's beautiful and good (inb4 some shitty 9/11 joke response).

>>9059093
Star Wars is based on religion. Darth Vader is supposed to be Jesus. You're proving his point.

>>9059120
9/11 isn't true you wack ass weenie shit, the statement "9/11 happened" is true, and it derives goodness through its applicability and usefulness, and derives beauty through its logical coherence with the physical realm.

>>9059054
To have faith is to think and act in all times thinking of the final things, so God.
Diary of st Faustina heavily deals with this, but it's best seen through Abraham. He is the father of faith, but his faith is not just a belief and emotion, it's traveling for years because God asked him to and even was prepared to sacrifice his son. He had faith because he followed the will of God. He was working out his salvation in fear and trembling.
Are you going to reach this conclusion by reading these books? I hope so.
But like I've said, God isn't a hypothetical, it's a provable and irrefutable truth. Reason will always reach him and can prove his attributes. Books on Aquinas and his own work will deal with this and it's even a dogma, proclaimed at the council of Trent.

>>9059133

I guess we have different definitions of those then. By that definition almost anything would be beautiful and good when in the right context and thus the adjectives cease to have any meaning.

Anytime you say some sort of catastrophic event is beautiful and good is just philosophical jargon.

>>9058663

Many people will give you christian recommendations and that's all well and good. I'd advise you to consider giving both sides a chance.

I'd suggest reading works like the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God is not great by Christopher Hitchens.

Both are good writers but I would strongly recommend reading Christopher Hitchen's work because of its quality.

>>9059317
>atheists can't even recommend the best atheist writers
Alternatively
>Christians pretending to be atheists for bait

That said Schopenhauer is pretty great and Hume is very interesting too. A. J. Ayer somehow isn't a mascot of the plebiean atheist masses, but I guess that makes sense.

>>9058708
Have you actually read this book? The arguments in it are pitiful. Just read Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky or Tolstoy or someone who knows what they're talking about if you want Christian literature.

>>9058708
The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton helped in his conversion.

>>9059352

Hitchens is alright.

>>9059317
I've read all that. I've been an atheist for a long time. I'm well aware of all the arguments. I don't buy it anymore.

>>9059469


Why?

>>9059243
Nigga you are making 0 sense.
The thing that's true is not the event itself but the statement regarding the event.
Using the same logic, the event itself is -not- beautiful or good because it is not ordered to life, complexity, order, being etc. And by virtue of these it lacks the category of truth completely, thus the co-relationship between the three is broken and the event is a disastrous one.

>>9059057
Christianity does create "good behavior" in a lot of cases, due to all of the reasons you listed, but this doesn't prove its claims to being the only true religion, and the only true set of moral standards. I find Christianity useless because of all the absolute claims it makes about itself which it has no way of proving.

>>9059065
This desu.

If you really followed Jesus you would give all your money to the needy, leaving yourself just enough to get by. But none of us do that because we don't really believe, or maybe because it is not a natural thing for humans to be able to do

>>9059117
This is how I'm feeling as well senpai. Man cannot live a fulfilled life without something to worship, some higher purpose. I'm just not sure what higher purpose to imagine. Christianity just doesn't feel right to me.

>>9059517
see
>>9059682
for the gist of it. I'm the OP btw. Most of the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris stuff presents a religious strawman. They don't argue against more sophisticated conceptions of religious thinking. Not only that, but it's always done from a materialist worldview, which is philosophically untenable if you want any kind of consistent morality.

There's no way to solve the is/ought gap without additional axioms, which are philosophically the same thing as God. You need something to derive morality from, or you get postmodernist gay space communism.

A lot of my rejection of atheism is to be contrarian. Materialist thinking is in these days. I like being edgy, and right now western society is so devoid of purpose and values that becoming a christian conservative is the contrarian thing to do. I hate communists so much I'm going to abandon rationality to spite them.

I've also been vaguely suicidal for a while now, and I don't want to kill myself, I also don't see a point to life without God. Even if there is no God, believing in one will fix that. Worst case scenario I'm wrong, and I lived a happy moral life full of meaning.

In fact if we were all religious and it turned out there was no God, that would be amazing! That would mean that we gave our lives meaning all by ourselves. That's fucking beautiful if you think about it. Western civilization is built on Christianity, if it all turns out to be a lie, that's one very impressive lie.

>>9059122
Don't watch the OT through a prequel lens

>>9059850
George Lucas wrote Star Wars after reading a bunch of Joseph Campbell. It's an explicitly religious story.

>>9059814
>A lot of my rejection of atheism is to be contrarian. Materialist thinking is in these days. I like being edgy, and right now western society is so devoid of purpose and values that becoming a christian conservative is the contrarian thing to do. I hate communists so much I'm going to abandon rationality to spite them.
Dude, please.
Grow up.

>you're from a country where a Christian accurately portrayed and reavaluated Nietzsche's philosophy
>no one but you can read it

Too bad, suckers

>>9059896
>not understanding sarcasm
>being this autistic
>being a materialist

>>9059065
still haven't got an answer my good and righteous friends

>>9059015
I'll start by saying that I don't believe in hell. Jews don't believe in hell and Christianity is a branch of Judaism, so it just doesn't follow.

Anyways, I'm currently reading Franny and Zooey and Salinger stated something quite interesting; that he(Zooey is a guy) is worried that his mom might hire the wrong sort of psychiatrist for Franny. A psychiatrist that believes in his own intelligence and words of a text without believing in the grace of God. Without that humbled gratitude(not his words, but more or less) of a person who's grounded in something(or at least the idea of something) larger than them that allows them to do what they do, not that they're entitled because they have such and such IQ and studied such and such books.
It's an internal component, being kind is an expression of it, but if you're alone in a room how do you see yourself? What words do you say more than any others? What thoughts do you think more than any others? What are the components of your agency and the limitations of those components? Are you happy or are you correct?

Anyhow, I'm not really arguing with you, just tossing some thoughts in the discussion.
Also I recommend Z&F to everyone

>>9059065

I usually give him some food, because they need that a whole lot more

Also, you usually tell them where the salvation army is or the proper organisations are, they're usually more capable at dealing with homeless people than a single individual is

>>9059629
Proof would defeat the purpose of faith. In this sense, I can see why God would not "insert" a proof that would challenge the concepts of faith and the free will to choose out of conviction that emits from your conscience instead of being forced to acknowledge it through irrefutable material proof. Though, I don't remember how exactly it goes, so I'll paraphrase, but it reminds me of those verses where God scoffs at people who consider themselves learned or philosophers or are arrogant in their knowledge. In the sense that, the childlike will understand but the learned will not. In that way, I imagine God manages to always illuminate enough "proof" for those who will accept him. To others, this sounds just like ramblings of mentally deluded people. But the feeling I have is that God is even in the midst of that dichotomy between those who have enough "proof", though it may not be irrefutable material proof at all, to believe in their naivity and those who will refuse to believe for whatever reason. It is hard to find an analogy for it, but it would be like sitting in a classroom with a piece of paper and coloring it a certain color. Once you pick up the piece of paper and ask the classrom whether they see that color or not, some say that yes they see the color and others that no they do not. But before you even showed the piece of paper to the classroom, you alredy knew which individuals would say yes and which no. Except the moment after the paper is lifted and before the individual say yes or no is continously suspended for the duration of your life. I believe the responsibility of the individual for the time he has at disposal through his life is to make a final decision on yes or no, so while you are existing in material time and space you are experiencing the continous moment of making your decision. While God, who exists outside of time and space already knows the end-result for all.

>>9059956
>Without that humbled gratitude(not his words, but more or less) of a person who's grounded in something(or at least the idea of something) larger than them that allows them to do what they do, not that they're entitled because they have such and such IQ and studied such and such books.

The psychiatrist is grounded in his fear of failure and ruining someone's life/his own career. The thing that's larger than them is the law.

Humbled gratitude for what? How does that help him in his work? You don't need God, just life experience to keep you grounded and knowing that your clever books might not be correct 100% of the time.

>>9059057
>It takes constant, sustained effort to really be a good virtuous person who lives up to Jesus Christs standards, if you're not actively putting in that effort you're not meeting the bar.

Mind giving me an example?

>>9060017
>Mind giving me an example?
Literally The Bible.

>>9060017
>The psychiatrist is grounded in his fear of failure and ruining someone's life/his own career. The thing that's larger than them is the law.
Your argument is sheltered by the sterile vacuum of the hypothetical environment. Having worked in several fields and experience with people of numerous walks of life, these manufactured authorities carry little measurable weight in practice.
>Humbled gratitude for what? How does that help him in his work?
it's not an easy thing to put into words, it's the inner workings of a methodology, very similar to linguistics and the effect of language on culture.
>You don't need God, just life experience to keep you grounded and knowing that your clever books might not be correct 100% of the time.
this claim is hinged on your definition of God. I'm gonna go now, I promised myself I wasn't going to bicker with people on 4chan anymore and I've been doing a pretty good job this year so far

I find it absolutely confusing that so many of you choose to belief some random semitic religion that took hold of society only because of pure circumstance. It is pure chance that you seem to think of of Christianity in the right way, the rigour you apply in your arguments may well be extended to Buddhism and Islam for that matter.
Also considering the influence that Greek philosophy had upon the Early Fathers, you might as well begin with the Greeks.
If you find it difficult to exist as a normal human being beside the others, sure worship Jesus and follow the basic rules. You can't go too wrong if you abide by the simple principles laid out in the NT and not think too much about it.
But the truth lies elsewhere.

>>9060094
That's why I started this thread, to figure out why people choose one and not others. I'm not entirely sure I got a good answer, but I can speak to some of your claims.

Buddhism makes no supernatural claims, and the historical evidence for Islam doesn't lend itself to supernatural belief the way christianity does. IE, why would so many people follow this random guy if there wasn't a resurrection etc.

One could also argue since religion is primarily a cultural institution, one could judge them off the effects of their cultures. Christianity and the culture that emerged from it produced the enlightenment, science, prosperity, etc. Islam gave us no such thing.

The Judeo-Christian West is the greatest force for prosperity ever to exist, heavily flawed as it is. Thus Christianity seems the pragmatic choice, given the alternatives.

There's also an aesthetic notion to it. You can't pick between frameworks without a meta framework, but since these things are so fundamental there's no good logical arguments for them. How does one pick between absurdism and hedonism? Taoism or Buddhism? Each answer to existential thought is a self contained framework, to pick between them you need something else to evaluate them. Beauty is the only thing that really fits the bill.

If there is a truth elsewhere, we can't comprehend it. We evolved to survive, not to comprehend truth. Religion is a means for coping with that, a very useful one I might add. You have to take things on faith no matter what to have a coherent worldview. One God over another doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. I started this thread to figure out, why this one in particular. Again, I don't feel like I have a great answer, I'm mostly playing devils advocate.

>>9059943
I give to persons who I know are in need and won't use the money to harm themselves even more (a guy was ruined by a stupid Bush anti terrorism law, he was somehow under it because he gave money to buy weapons for a war here to the side the americans actually supported, lost everything to pay lawyers and abandoned by his wife and children, sick and without us and a few other people would die from starvation). I also give to church funded public kitchens and shelters where anyone can eat and as long as you don't drink have a clean bedroom.

>>9060234
(1/2)
Please clarify what you mean by supernatural, because I'm not sure you're using it in the conventional sense.


>Buddhism makes no supernatural claims
Buddhism makes no claims to the supernatural because it does not concern itself with it. The arguments that sustain it do not do so from a western form of analysis however and it is thus deemed less worthy, maybe unfairly so.

> historical evidence for Islam doesn't lend itself to supernatural belief the way christianity does. IE, why would so many people follow this random guy if there wasn't a resurrection etc.
I feel like that's incredibly fallacious. First of all Islam is incredibly concerned with the supernatural. There is plenty of discussion about Djinns, about healing, visions and miracles.
Secondly, just because people believe in something doesn't make it true. Compelling maybe, but thousands of falsehoods are compelling. One can make a similar argument for Scientology and eastern forms of mysticism, OP. How many hundreds of thousands all over the world believe in their versions of God-men because they perform 'miracles'.

Furthermore, while the Bible is fairly authoritative when it comes to historical accuracy I'd be very cautious before believing any supernatural claim I read in it. AS YOU SHOULD FOR ANY HISTORICAL BOOK.

>One could also argue since religion is primarily a cultural institution, one could judge them off the effects of their cultures. Christianity and the culture that emerged from it produced the enlightenment, science, prosperity, etc. Islam gave us no such thing.
Islam was a shining source of enilghtenment until the ravages of the Mongols and the repeated warfare finally caught up with them. There is a significant recency bias here. If you were born in 1100 A.D., this would have been a compelling argument for Islam.

>The Judeo-Christian West is the greatest force for prosperity ever to exist, heavily flawed as it is. Thus Christianity seems the pragmatic choice, given the alternatives.
My point again is that the Judeo-Christian worldview did not exist in a vaccuum. I'd argue again, that it's Greco-Roman philosophies that influenced the west. Christianity was merely the clothes draped upon these philosophies.

>There's also an aesthetic notion to it. You can't pick between frameworks without a meta framework, but since these things are so fundamental there's no good logical arguments for them. How does one pick between absurdism and hedonism? Taoism or Buddhism? Each answer to existential thought is a self contained framework, to pick between them you need something else to evaluate them. Beauty is the only thing that really fits the bill.
So your answer then cannot be to abandon the debate, but to continue to delve these depths. These arguments do not end within a religion/Christianity. Of course, some may prefer to not think too much about these matters, but there is yet plenty of discussion within the framework of Christianity.

(2/2)
>Religion is a means for coping
Sure and I do not begrudge someone for believing in a religion for that matter. However I do start to get concerned when it becomes a matter of public policy or similar i.e. when it can influence large swathes of people.

For one thing religion is an easy tool to sway the masses. All you have to do is establish credibility as a reasonably pious man and most will endear themselves to you. Masking ideologies and people in religion is an easy way of getting people to fuck themselves over.

Secondly, religion cannot be taken into account when doing MOST actual work. Scientists cannot shrug an event away as 'God's work' nor can doctor's refuse to act citing the 'healing power of prayer' (I'm being hyperbolic to prove a point). Religion is untruth and a worldview founded in untruth will crumble in the long run. 2000 years is a mere speck in human history.

>>9060380
Humans have had supernatural beliefs for as long as we know. It's not just 2000 years, it's probably something more like 100,000. Atheism is not our default frame of mind. The human brain naturally tries to recognize patterns and fit things into logical frameworks. Supernatural beliefs are a natural consequence of existing, think of how people explained dreams for most of human history.

Religion answers moral questions. Science can't answer that. It's the most sophisticated moral guideline we have to date. Materialist conceptions of reality all fall short. There's no objective morality without God, and thus you get to moral relativism. Without morality you have nothing telling you how to act. Without God, there's no objective meaning in life. There's subjective meaning, but then you're just a slave to your biology.

>Islam was a shining source of enlightenment until the ravages of the Mongols and the repeated warfare finally caught up with them. There is a significant recency bias here. If you were born in 1100 A.D., this would have been a compelling argument for Islam.

Absolutely nothing compared to what was done in the West.

> I'd argue again, that it's Greco-Roman philosophies that influenced the west. Christianity was merely the clothes draped upon these philosophies.

Yeah, Christian philosophy is grounded in Platonism, so what? That doesn't make it wrong.

>For one thing religion is an easy tool to sway the masses. All you have to do is establish credibility as a reasonably pious man and most will endear themselves to you. Masking ideologies and people in religion is an easy way of getting people to fuck themselves over.

Would you not agree that the masses need to be swayed? Order is not inherently a bad thing. Society keeps us safe, it gives us liberty we wouldn't otherwise have. Tyranny is always a threat, but not all control is tyrannical.

>>9060425

>Humans have had supernatural beliefs for as long as we know. It's not just 2000 years, it's probably something more like 100,000. Atheism is not our default frame of mind. The human brain naturally tries to recognize patterns and fit things into logical frameworks. Supernatural beliefs are a natural consequence of existing, think of how people explained dreams for most of human history.
True, and as humanity's sphere of knowledge expanded these superstitions were steadily abandoned. That's my point OP, the more we know, the less religious we become. Furthermore, atheism isn't as recent either as I'm sure you well now.
Religion being our default state sounds more like a weakness in humanity to me: an inability to accept the truth when confronted with it (not in the individual, the species).

>Religion answers moral questions.
Religion does not seek to explain those morals to us however. They are merely handed down to us. One can see how they came about, it is more beneficial for a society to not be murderous/adulterous and those that weren't happened to survive. I'd argue that an evolutionary approach to societal ethics is how we came to possess the rules in religions we have today.

>Absolutely nothing compared to what was done in the West
There are historical and socio-economic reasons + recency bias for this as I said OP. It is unreasonable to use this argument unless you can demonstrate a linear chain of events from the propagation of a Judeo-Christian worldview to its role in the progress of Western Civilisation. One can point to current trends in the world and make a similar case for atheism - with a few exceptions those countries with a decreasing rate of religion in their population tend to be higher in the HDI lists. That does necessarily make atheism more valid. Correlation does not imply causation right?

>Christian philosophy is grounded in Platonism, so what? That doesn't make it wrong.

My point isn't that Platonism is wrong, it's that whatever is right about Christianity is exclusive of the events of the Bible. You do not need to be a Christian to be grounded in a school of thought that would lead you to act and make decisions in a similar manner. Christianity then loses its relevance as a guiding force for the apparently prosperous western nations.

>masses need to be swayed? Order is not inherently a bad thing. Society keeps us safe, it gives us liberty we wouldn't otherwise have. Tyranny is always a threat, but not all control is tyrannical

Order need not be the outcome of solely a religion. Society may perform those actions without a religion. I'd argue however that religion can be a powerful unifying force in the face of external threats, but I don't see your point otherwise.

>>9059015
>Okay, except that Jesus didn't invent virtue.
Yes but he is one of the few fgures from that era who acted just as virtuous as they spoke.

Everyone else was like "Charity, civility and justice are the highest virtues except in regards to females, my giant slave army in the silver mines, and "barbarians"".

>>9060589
If Jesus was so virtous, why didn't he take any female disciples? Nor people who had lower social status than him (slaves, beggars, handicapped people etc.)

>>9060589
he is one of the few fgures from that era who acted just as virtuous as they spoke.

How do we know that?

>>9058663
If you don't feel it, don't believe it. Religion isn't supposed to be weighed on virtue of its potential values to your life. Either you feel it or you don't. One may be healthier than the other, but don't pretend to have control over the choice.

>>9060649
Because he wasn't a 21st century liberal.

>>9059899
I can read it as well but its probably garbage.

>>9060663
That's not the point. He preached that all people were equal in God's eyes, right? Yet his actions and the people who he chose to interact with didn't reflect this. Instead of living according to God's will, he chose to conform with the social norms of the time.

>>9060649
>>9060688
The bible didn't really dive into his rational for why he chose the disciples he did. To say it was about prejudice is being presumptuous.

>>9060688
>He preached that all people were equal in God's eyes, right?
No, he didn't. He preached the exact opposite of that. That's why there is the whole eternal hellfire thing as well as a hierarchy in Haven itself.
>Yet his actions and the people who he chose to interact with didn't reflect this.
He interacted with prostitutes, tax collectors, roman soldiers, lepers and foreigners the Hebrews hated. That's about as interactive as you could possibly get in Israel of that time. You couldn't strech it more even if you wanted.
>he chose to conform with the social norms
Genuine question, are you fucking stupid or am I being baited? They literally crucified him because he didn't conform to them at all. The stupid ignorant shit people here will say is unbelievable.

>>9060656
Aren't you judged on whether or not you believe, meaning it's a choice?

>>9058663
If you walk with a crutch you'll start to limp.
God is a bit for the strong and a yoke for the weak.

If you must get into religion best do it the non-rube way and study to become a priest at a seminary.

They call the laymen the "flock" for a reason - they are a resource.

>>9060723
>No, he didn't.
Paul didn't seem to think so and he studied directly under Jesus. Are you telling me you understand Jesus's teachings better than Paul did?

>There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
>—Galatians 3:28

>>9060872
>he studied directly under Jesus

Paul never met the man.

>>9058663
I messed around for a while not really stopping on anything but bouncing between atheism and agnosticism and Catholicism, and I've settled for Celtic polytheism. It's the closest to what my ancestors were worshipping before the Romans came and Christianized them. Fuck neopaganism. The old traditions are where it's at, though the ritual sacrifice is out for obvious reasons.

This suits me fine, otherwise, and is mostly centred around votive offerings to an old tree and the local stream. I try to leave things that will deteriorate on their own and not litter the place, so its mostly flowers and handmade wooden beads.

Why Christianity indeed? I personally got little from that particular religion. I feel much closer to the land with my current one.

>>9060900
I'm very mixed race. German Irish Spanish Native American, all equal parts as far as I can tell. There's no coherent ancestral belief. Maybe a way to reconcile native mysticism with various forms of Christianity? Then again the natives all converted too. Christ seems like the only answer going by ancestry.

>>9060872
>and he studied directly under Jesus
I am being baited.

>>9060931

The early church just turned local hoodoo into saints and miracles anyway. Be catholic, Read more CS Lewis.

christian bitches are hot as shit

>>9060965
>Catholic
>C.S. Lewis
What?
If anything, it should be John Henry Newman

>>9060991

Tell me more, please.

>not converting to Catholicism

Stay pleb, pagan.

>>9058760
Nietzsche recognised that ascetic philosophies like Christianity manifest from the slaves of society who upon finding themselves enslaved label the virtues that the masters represent such as egoism, will, aggressiveness and beauty as evil and those virtues that the slaves hold such as compassion, meekness and equality as good to prevent themselves from hating themselves and assuage the resentment they feel towards the masters. What Christianity represented was an inversion of master morality (the dichotomy between good and bad) into slave morality (the dichotomy between good and evil). This Nietzsche claims has only weakened man because despite what slave morality claims man is essentially egotistical and be denying that one denys oneself and life itself. It's more of a genealogical and psychological argument which upon realising causes slave morality to fall apart.

>>9061016
John Henry Newman wrote the best work on christian doctrine, Essay on development of Christian Doctrine.
Lewis is a mediocre theologian and a horrible philosopher.

>>9061070

Thanks, Will look. Need me some religion.

>>9061106
I gave a larger list here
>>9058997

>>9060886

You clearly have never read the Bible

>>9060872

Paul is referring to the people of the Christian church. Once you joined, your outward appearance was irrelevant.

>>9060835
I think if you look at it like that it starts to bring you into a bunch of circular reasoning. I think christianity assumes that everyone "feels" god, but some choose to accept him and some choose to deny him. But if you look at it like a non-christian, like a materialist, then you are just a person, and if you don't feel something then you shouldn't force yourself to feel it.

>>9061187

Christianity states that the existence of God is so obvious (by observing His creation) that no one is without blame for not believing

>>9061187
Well I'm not a materialist, and I 'feel God.' I just don't see why it should be Jesus, besides cultural reasons.

>>9061206

All other religions suggest that you alone can earn your way to heaven/paradise through your "good" works. Christianity is the only religion, as far as I know, that claims that man is unable to earn heaven by himself.

I know this isn't necessarily a reason to follow Christianity over X religion, but it's something that separates it from all others.

>>9058663
What do you guys think of the Unitarian church? Is it a cop out or judt as valid as any other? I like it for its simplicity, and really the only part of Christianity that appeals to me are Christ's teachings. The rest doesn't appeal to me so much.

>>9059087
K

>>9061226
Copout that requires way too many leaps that don't make sense.
Christ's teachings are also outside of the larger context of the Scripture and Tradition way too easy to twist to mean just about anything.
>>9061223
It's important not to confuse sanctifying grace with sola fide.

>>9061163

Do I have to be down with the concept of the trinity for this to work? They skipped over it in sunday school and the holy ghost seems surplus to needs.

Do you think a person should read that chronologically or do you have a good diving in point? I

>>9058663
people don't even try to proove god , fine ,
I understand the moral part .
but really the only way to actually believe in god is to shut down your brain , let the nice men in the suit give you a very warm and cozy brainwash , and then feel very good about yourself -
that's what blind faith MEANS.
I also went upon this crossroads where I suddenly fhound out that god is very unreasonable and that the doctorines such as christianist etc. are not absolute,
well , I searched for people who will have a for and against god.
No one actually addresses these questions ,
and if they do it's with some stupid answer like : "I believe in god because of the BYBLE"
or "there were 500 WITHNESSESS (about 2000 years ago)",
shit , there are very good arguments against god that have no relation whatsoever to the specific nature of these seperate religions ,
that they can't even address , none of those arguments based on logic were actually solved.
do you really just wanna shut down your brain???!!!!

>>9058671
>your fellow man
Unless they're gay, atheist, agnostic, trans, muslim, jewish, hindu, pagan, non-religious, the wrong kind of christian, fornicate....
>and all creation
Including dinosaur bones?

>>9061481

Big J did not say a word about the gays.

>>9061495
He affirmed the law, iirc, which is decidedly anti-homo, which is to say hatred for fellow man. Either way that's one down, umpteen others to go.

>>9059539

>the event itself is -not- beautiful or good because it is not ordered to life

Nigga you are making 0 sense

>>9061510

Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that.

>>9061495

Matthew 19:5

>>9060589
>Yes but he is one of the few fgures from that era who acted just as virtuous as they spoke.

What did he do so virtuous? It seems to me he's just giving sermons to others.

>>9061538
Stoning gays, waging crusades, instigating pogroms, etc., doesn't sound hating sin and loving the sinner.

>>9061558

Goodness gracious. He healed the sick, restored vision to the blind, restored hearing to the deaf, restored the voice of a mute, feed thousands of people at a time, raised a guy from the dead, stopped a woman from being stoned, exorcised demons, and most importantly, died for the atonement of sins for those who would believe in him.

>>9061573

Not my fault Pasties were savages.

>>9059539
>>9059539
you are making 0 sense .
the "event" is not sharply localized at a single point of space and an instance of time , and therefore , by definition , is not an event.

>>9060872
>Paul didn't seem to think so and he studied directly under Jesus
Pauls sole interaction with Jesus was a vision he had on the road to Damascus.

>>9060361
>I'd argue again, that it's Greco-Roman philosophies that influenced the west.
Of course you do, all atheists do because it's a desperate attempt to try and deny that Christianity was probably the biggest single influence on western civilization. Can't have that! So they try to reach over and say "uh...No...It was the Greeks! Yeah the Greeks were more influential on western civilization" despite the Greeks having absolutely no influence on the west at all other than a few schools of philosophy while Christianity was deeply embedded into every European nation to the point where half the flags have the Christian cross on them

I know it's a bitter pill to swallow for atheists but really, Christianity had 100x the influence on western civilization that the Greeks ever did, to the point where Christian culture and history is almost synonymous with European culture and history.

>>9061187
>I think christianity assumes that everyone "feels" god
Everyone does feel God. Some simply suppress and deny that feeling in order to embrace naturalism.

>>9061700
either that , or you all rationally doubt god ,
and can't suppress it to the point you actually believe your feelings are absolute.

>>9061700

Is this some hippy shit where I pretend my thoughts or feelings are God? Like when Achilles decides not to stab a bitch?

>>9061515
>>9061608
brainlets

>>9061608
Just to be clear we're not talking about probability you shit.

>>9058663
>consciously choosing to believe a lie because it makes you feel better
That's really pathetic however you look at it.

>>9058663
Nietzsche's own philosophy drove him insane. It wasn't syphilis or whatever else they dream up.

"the whole world knows that virtue consists in the subjugation of one's passions, or in self-renunciation. It is not just the Christian world, against whom Nietzsche howls, that knows this, but it is an eternal supreme law towards which all humanity has developed, including Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism and the ancient Persian religion. And suddenly a man appears who declares that he is convinced that self-renunciation, meekness, submissiveness and love are all vices that destroy humanity"

>>9061682
Yes. the Catholic Church built the world.

all the so-called Enlightenment writers anti-Catholic bigotry has been unwound by serious contemporary historians.

stuff like "they thought the earth was flat!" is still being uttered by teachers and morons though

>>9061734
>pretend my thoughts or feelings are God
Scorn not the gods; despite their non-existence in material terms they are no less potent, no less terrible. For the one place gods inarguably exist is in our minds, where they are real beyond refute in all their grandeur and monstrosity.

>>9061682
ikr, greeks are only influential because scholastics early church fathers preserved their literature and the scholastics then made use of it, though they had to discard like 80% of it.

This is the book you need. Please read this book.

>>9061573
The state (not the church, mind) is given the power of the sword by God to serve as his minister in the punishment of evildoers.

>>9061970
Actually, rather than "the state," I should use the correct term, which is the civil magistrate.

>>9061958
Thank you, this looks fantastic.

>>9061970
>>9061976
So Christianity isn't about loving your fellow man, good to know.

>>9062046
Why does "loving your fellow man" mean that the state cannot punish a criminal?

>>9058663
>I can't really form my own opinions or ideas, can you guys do it for me?
>I'm only asking because my other sources for my opinions and ideas are conflicting and I don't know what to do...
Why don't you use your brain, anon.

>>9058663
All religions have good and bad sides to them as anything that involves humans. Christianity has a lot of beautiful lessons but also has the harsh, disgusting side to it. As some other anon posted already, crusades and other terrible shit happened in the name of god and is still happening to this day with piece of shit terrorists using their retarded cult as an excuse to kill innocent people.

I am by no means an atheist I have my own set of beliefs that carry me through life and one of them is that organized religion will always be flawed and bad. The moment you try to build churches and temples is the moment you kill faith.

>>9062051
That Christianity defines being gay or muslim or an adultery or etc. as a crime to be punished blows a hole in the "love your fellow man" schtick

>>9061481
>>9061538
>loving sinners

No, hate the sin not the sinner.
Forgiving the sinner is God's job, our job is to send them to him.

>>9059980
This doesn't match up with this definition of faith: >>9058996

Having Proof of God's existence would not necessarily mean not doing His will

>>9062060
Why is that? Can the magistrate punish bestiality? Christian ethics is not consent-based. It takes this into account in its prohibition of rape, but it does not take consent as the sole or primary arbiter of whether an act is moral.

>>9062062
>Forgiving the sinner is God's job, our job is to send them to him.
>>9062079
>Why is that?

>>9062089
Do you have an argument? Bestiality is wrong because it is contrary to the natural end of man. Homosexuality is wrong for the same reason, and constitutes an act of idolatry per Romans 1. It is not necessary that it be illegal, as which immoral acts should be illegal is to a degree a pragmatic matter, based upon what is called the "general equity" of the law. But it certainly can be. That fact that people consent to something idolatrous and evil does not mean that they are now inviolable. But either way, this is not the church's job.

>>9062073
In order to do God's will, you have to believe first.

>>9061481
You can still love someone while recognizing they're living a sinful life. Plus Jesus clearly said you need to get your own house in order before you can start pointing out the errors of others

>3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

>4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

>5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

>>9058847
Not him but my understanding is that, if you are a christian, then you must necesarily accept that humans are incomplete, flawed, and biased, and as none of us on our own are capable of true understanding or empathizing with the logic of a complete, perfect, just, and beautiful God who's very existence is manifest in his design of the world. I know this kind of thing gets criticized a lot for just saying that god can get away with stuff because we just don't understand him, but I personally don't have a problem with it. It's part of admitting that there's something greater than ourselves

>>9062108
>Bestiality is wrong because it is contrary to the natural end of man. Homosexuality is wrong for the same reason
>and constitutes an act of idolatry

Again, this "love your fellow man" meme is just a false face for the underlying and self-justifying hatred of your fellow man, that's it. A basis to justify the invention of "laws" that no one has any reason to accept, but its practitioners have the gall to pretend is not only universal and not only true but good, when it's none of these.

>>9062113
>You can still love someone while recognizing they're living a sinful life.
And Christianity, of course, gets to decide what is and isn't a sinful life.

>>9062128
Yes why wouldn't it? If you accept the existence of God and that Jesus Christ is him in the flesh then yeah, he lays down the rules and you live by them. I don't see any problem with that. We didn't make the rules, God did.

>>9062132
it's not real, anon.

>>9062125
>I don't like what Christianity teaches.

This is really all that you've said the entire time. Can you love a thief but still hold that theft be illegal? It is easy to let these types of things pass into hatred, but that does not mean that they per se constitute hatred. We accept law because it is given to us by our creator for our good.

>>9062132
There's actually no reason to think that gay relationships are inherently sinful and that they should be stoned to death, nor even that they're going to hell because of the fact that they are gay. And to the main point, this kind of attitude is in complete opposition to love. The "love" of Christianity is expressed only as a condescending holier-than-thou crusade of words or the physical repression/murder of the "sinful".

>>9062148
It is contrary to natural end of men for which we were created. It is a rebellion against our creator, who designed us to interact with each other in a certain manner. It is taking the blessings that God has given us and perverting them and ourselves. It is a rebellion against your king.

>>9062144
No, not liking what Christianity teaches is a consequence of figuring out the bullshit hidden by pretty words. It's resentment all the way down. No amount of conflating covers up the wizard behind the curtain.

>>9062138
Of course it's real, our very existence is a testament to that.

>>9062148
You're having trouble separating the actual doctrine of Christianity from the imperfect, sinful humans who practice it. We all fall short of Gods expectations.

>There's actually no reason to think that gay relationships are inherently sinful

They serve no purpose other than satisfying carnal desire. It's sinful because it's giving in to the desire of the flesh and just fucking for the sake of fucking rather than being fruitful. Technically there is no logical reason why homosexuality should be tolerated considering it's incredibly harmful to the fabric of society.

>>9062157
>It is contrary to natural end of men
So are diseases, and yet God made both them all the same, amazing.
>It is a rebellion against our creator
kek

>>9062157
>It is a rebellion against your king.
Delete this

>>9062158
>Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

>Let all that you do be done in love.

>Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

>Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

You're just wrong. I know it's hard to see the truth when you're so blinded by your own pride and sin, but Christianity teaches nothing but love.

>>9062159
>the only function of sex is to reproduce

Literally false. Also not viable.

Christianity is also anti-Platonic. Nietzsche doesn't really understand Christianity on a singular level.

>>9059015
Virtue only exists in Christianity, it's a matter of sincerity and its aim.

A non-Christian lacks sincerity, and its aim is either an idol, misinterpretation of God, or something resembling an idol but not regularly referred to as one (humanity, for example).

>>9062158
>I have nothing intelligent to say so I will call you a bigot

Good job!

>>9062162
>So are diseases, and yet God made both them all the same, amazing.

When you become diseased to you attempt to heal yourself or make yourself sicker?

>>9062172
If God has a kingdom then he is a king.

>>9062176
>You're just wrong.
Except you're proving the point. Pretty words on top, divisive, violent identity based ideology underneath. That "love" always leads to:

>>9062062
>Forgiving the sinner is God's job, our job is to send them to him.

>>9062188
>I have nothing intelligent to say so I will say you have nothing to say

Well done, anon.

>>9062194
>Forgiving the sinner is God's job, our job is to send them to him.

This is not a Christian sentiment. I know someone posted it earlier, but it is not correct.

>>9062200
If you'd like to say something other than "you're lying about loving people because you actually hate them" then feel free.

>>9062203
Very easy to confuse Jesus with Marge Simpson's Uncle Arthur to be fair.

>>9062206
Thinking people that are gay or aren't Christian are going to suffer in an afterlife and should be punished in this life is a venomous kind of feeling in general, desu.

>>9062194
I don't know how you come to that conclusion considering Jesus clearly and unambiguously states "Judge not lest ye be judged". The fact that flawed and sinful humans are attempting to practice it and sometimes fail isn't a reason to claim Christianity is a divisive violent ideology. The laws God set have a purpose

>>9062224
>The laws God set have a purpose
Yeah, killing people that have gay sex, worship differently, have pre-marital sex, and a bunch of other wacky zany things

>>9062213
It actually feels shitty because I don't like to see people punished for anything other than extreme crimes. I would never want such a thing to be under my authority. There are things I do which don't hurt others, but I know they are still wrong, and I know that they affect me negatively. I would rather see someone learn to behave rightly than be punished. That is one of the purposes of the law, to teach us. I am very sympathetic to the idea of Hell as a purgation, or a purification of people who did not change during this life. Like they had an infection, and instead of taking the antibiotic they had to have it purged out of them by force so that they could be healed.

>>9062213
If you think the pursuit of sexual immorality is more important than Gods commandments then you really don't have anyone to blame for your fate but yourself.

>>9062230
Why do you think gay sex is such an important part of society? We could do without it to be honest, there is literally no point to it.

>>9062230
The fact is that we view the human body as something which has a purpose. It is created to do x, y, z, etc. It is not a bag of meat. The actions it takes have meaning objective to our minds.

>>9062233
>If you think the pursuit of your sexuality that God commands you to follow is more important than Gods commandments then you really don't have anyone to blame for your fate but yourself.

>>9062247
Aren't you kind of proving the point of why homosexuals won't be accepted into the Kingdom of God when the entire argument is "Who cares if God wants to grant me eternal life in his Kingdom, I want to have sex nooooooooooow!". Can't you manage to keep it in your pants for a single lifetime when eternity awaits after?

>>9062247
>your sexuality
We have all these made up classifications to make us feel better about ourselves. All people lust. Christianity teaches a single context in which lust can be expressed morally.

>>9062231
The point is that you can't really love someone if you think their very being is at best an infection, and at worst the very antithesis of everything good. You might be able to act nice to them, maybe you can even like them as people, but the ideology itself is clear that "your fellow man and creation" consists of those that not only can not but should not be loved.

I understand the Christian reasoning for why this is. That it's wrong isn't even the point. The point is it's a fundamental contradiction.

>>9062301
This. Christianity does not contain the concept of "sexuality." There is a way in which the body is to be used sexually and any activity contrary to that is prohibited.

>>9062306
You can help them though. Conversion therapy exists.

>>9062301
Being gay isn't a made up classification, it's a science fact.

>>9062318
It's a spook, m'boy.

>>9062315
>Conversion therapy exists.
As does phrenology. Both are proven to be pseudoscience.

>>9062314
>There is a way in which the body is to be used sexually and any activity contrary to that is prohibited.
So heterosexual couples that can't conceive aren't allowed to have sex?

>>9062178
Can you elaborate?

>>9062323
Christianity is literally (literally) a bunch of spooks

>>9062306
I don't think that their "being" is an infection. We do not equate a person's actions with the person itself. That is why I used the infection analogy. If you have an infection, that does not mean that you are an "infected person." It means means you are a person who has an infection. All humans are "infected" with sin. All of us need to healed. Placing one's faith in Christ begins the process of healing, which will not be completed until we are with him in eternity. I made this post: >>9062314, and what it means is that we do not see someone as a "gay person," we see them as a person who commits same-sex sexual activity. We do not define them as humans by what they do. Humans are eternal beings, a composite of body of soul, matter and spirit. You are not circumscribed or defined by your actions, but your actions do matter and have real meaning and consequences.

>>9062326
>So heterosexual couples that can't conceive aren't allowed to have sex?

God may bless any couple with children as he pleases, as with Abraham and Sarah. We believe in the miraculous, that God may cure us of physical infirmity if he chooses. Such a couple would need to ensure that their activity did not become an end in itself, but remains a means to life.

>>9062306
The very being isn't an infection. Think of it like someone having a cold. And secondly, everyone has a different cold, since we all fall short of God's standard. So no human is called to approach you from some superior high-ground, that would be hypocritical.

>>9058664
underrated post wtf

>>9058663
>Why Christianity?
Cause it's what their environment decided their religion should be.

>>9062335
>we do not see someone as a "gay person," we see them as a person who commits same-sex sexual activity
Which isn't really how gays see themselves. And they don't see themselves as needing to be healed. Why would they when there's no difference between their instinct and every hetero's instinct, except the object of desire is different.

Of course there are people who can't reconcile their actual bodies for an ideology that actually loathes their existence. But it doesn't even have to be biological. There are people who simply don't believe in the doctrines of Christianity. What do you do with a pagan worshiper in a Christian kingdom? Love them? That's not what the law that Jesus upholds says.

>>9062354
Also sex does have a secondary purpose.

1 Cor. 7:3-5 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

>>9062370
>Which isn't really how gays see themselves. And they don't see themselves as needing to be healed. Why would they when there's no difference between their instinct and every hetero's instinct, except the object of desire is different.

I didn't see myself as needing healing either, but I did. Everyone does. They are not special in this regard. Their instinct is different in that it is a turn to someone like themselves, rather than a turn to the other, to join in a life-giving union.

>Of course there are people who can't reconcile their actual bodies for an ideology that actually loathes their existence. But it doesn't even have to be biological. There are people who simply don't believe in the doctrines of Christianity. What do you do with a pagan worshiper in a Christian kingdom? Love them? That's not what the law that Jesus upholds says.

A pagan religion could either be tolerated or suppressed depending upon the situation. The judicial law is not binding in an absolute sense. But we cannot force people to convert.

>>9062354
I'm thinking about two people, a man and woman, that not only are they biologically incapable of having children, both 100% infertile, but God isn't going to give them a baby via miracle. They're married. According to this logic Christianity forbids them to have sex because their sex can't be reproductive. There is no "means to life" so they go to hell if they bump uglies?

>>9062384
No it doesn't. See >>9062372. Also they cannot know whether God will bless them with a child or not. Even if you stipulate hypothetically that he won't, they cannot know that. Anyway, they should adopt if possible.

James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

>>9058663
Have you considered Contractarianism? It gives you morals, but it's secular.

>>9058663
This whole post is just utterly disgusting.

>>9058663
Atheists are brainlets desu senpai.

>>9058663
If you're seriously having any questions, just read this guy. He BTFO'ed a lot of arguments against Christianity.

>tfw beginning to ascend from the ethical to the religious
Feels good man.

Why is it that 99% of atheists I meet who pride themselves on their logic and rationality

1. Have no formal training in mathematics or any science

2. Don't read any actual Philosophy other than maybe Nietzsche

3. Get the vast majority of their information from pop sci books like the God Delusion and the shit Neil DeGrasse Tyson writes

>>9062871
They don't know any better. They see what the "smart" people do and when they follow them, they get validated as being "smart" too.

>>9062587
this

>>9062871
Same reason most theists aren't theologians you dongus.

And having plato.stanford.edu open while you shitpost isn't the same as being a fucking philosopher.

>>9062185
You're either trolling or fucking retarded.

>>9060042
No, I meant a personal example.

>>9059052
This

>>9062871
That goes both ways. Most religious people haven't extensively studies their texts either aside from half-listening to w/e their religious leaders tell them once a week.

>>9058997
What's the difference between Catholic and Christian? This is a Catholic list, right?

>>9063567
The Catholic Church is a tradition of Christianity and the largest church. The second largest is the Eastern Orthodox Church, followed by the various Protestant denominations (considered together). The list is Catholic, but I noticed Dostoevsky, who was Eastern Orthodox. The differences between the different traditions are complex, unfortunately.

Become a deist. Religion is unnecessary for spiritual fulfillment and may be harmful. You can still appreciate religious works and teachings.

>>9062108
I'm still not sure the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, instead of that just being how the translators chose to interpret it.
>>9062157
>>9062159
It's not like everything that gives us pleasure for the sake of just enjoying something is wrong.

>>9063674
Do you believe that sex has a purpose? It is clear even from nature that its purpose is procreation. God created us man and woman, created woman from man, so that man could become one again with the woman in marriage. Marriage is what Scripture calls a "type," a foreshadowing or prefiguration of something else, known as the "antitype." The antitype is the Church. Marriage is a prefiguration of the Church, which is the bride of Christ, the bridegroom. Just as it is the end of man that he become one flesh with woman (as they originally were), so it is the end of humanity that it become one with God, through the reconciliation offered by Christ, to join his mystical body, the Church, of which he is the head. We are not dealing with simple prohibitive passages which could be mistranslated (though they are not mistranslated), but with the entire anthropology which Scripture presents us.

>>9061368
>Do I have to be down with the concept of the trinity for this to work? They skipped over it in sunday school and the holy ghost seems surplus to needs.
You'll read about it in Augustine and Aquinas. It is necessary to constitute as a Christian, but I don't think it will be a problem
>Do you think a person should read that chronologically or do you have a good diving in point?
You can do both. For the second I mentioned MacIntyre as the best into point and Confessions and Apologia Pro Vita Sua.