[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 38 KB, 180x266, 6172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11515921 No.11515921 [Reply] [Original]

wtf I hate christianity now


General philosophy of Christianity thread- also why are there so few photos/paintings of certain philosophers? Stirner, Kierkegaard, etc.

>> No.11515936
File: 31 KB, 263x406, 4E3AE379-B8CF-4E49-A262-E563BFF4CBB9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11515936

This book isn’t mentioned enough.

>> No.11515952

>god asks you to do something difficult
>you hate him for it
>not yourself
weak

>> No.11516031

>>11515936
My banana-filled ass it isn't. Pascal's Wager is the most commonly mentioned pro-god arguement on the entire net.

>> No.11516709

>>11516031
The book isn't just 500 pages about Pascal's Wager.

>> No.11516715
File: 360 KB, 760x587, 6734574685.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11516715

>>11515921
They weren't the right combination of wealthy and vain to have them made, or famous enough in their day.

>> No.11518168

>>11515921
Over rated cunt

>> No.11518170

>>11516031
>thinks Pascal is just that guy that came up with a wager

Pleb detected

>> No.11518188

>>11516715
Wasn't Kierkegaard a minor Danish noble or something? You're probably right about the vanity though he seems like the kinda guy who didn't like having his portrait taken.

>> No.11518244

>>11516031
And apparently the book isn’t read enough...

>> No.11518357

>>11518168
Underrated GOAT*

>> No.11518427

>>11515921
Kierkegaard is the GOAT

>> No.11518526

>>11515921
The church is guided by the holy spirit no?
Was Kierkegaards fatal flaw being that he is unable to submit himself to Church?

>> No.11518537
File: 43 KB, 193x266, 949446E6-20AD-4859-B133-E5BCEC287D6F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11518537

>>11516031
>proving his point

>> No.11518660

>>11518526
He was Protestant, anon. He didn’t believe in ecclesiastical infallibility or any such thing. He saw the church as in need of a reformer, a new Luther.

>> No.11518842

>>11518660
>ecclesiastical infallibility
How could anyone believe in that given where the Church is at now?

>> No.11518942

>>11518660
But doesn't the extreme dialectical position that Kierkegaard comes to prove the point for the need of the Church?

Ecclesiastical infallibility has to in some capacity be true. Not Papal but ecclesiastical.

When that doctrine is thrown out you get what we have today with the numerous denominations separate from greek or Roman orthodox.

>> No.11519214

>>11516031
>My banana-filled ass it isn't
Amazing Atheist pls go

>> No.11519589 [DELETED] 
File: 18 KB, 277x182, AD5394D1-B97C-4CC0-BB53-98EC6B94B62B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11519589

>>11515921
How do intelligent Christians interpret the Bible? Surely they don’t read everything literally. I’m starting to see the reasons for believing in a God, but I don’t know how to always seriously interpret the God of the Bible. Sometimes I can conjure up a decent metaphorical explanation, but other times, I don’t know what to think. It would feel disingenuous to read the Bible and not believe in a certain story while also not understanding it. I’m just trying to reconcile a God of logic and truth with the anthropomorphic version and the fantasy-like stories in the Bible

>> No.11519598
File: 19 KB, 277x162, 0D9F83F3-6B4F-4520-A741-E51977D15B41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11519598

>>11515921
How do intelligent Christians interpret the Bible? Surely they don’t read everything literally. I’m starting to see the reasons for believing in a God, but I don’t know how to always seriously interpret the God of the Bible. Sometimes I can conjure up a decent metaphorical explanation, but other times, I don’t know what to think. It would feel disingenuous to read the Bible and not believe in a certain story while also not understanding it. I’m just trying to reconcile a God of logic and truth with the anthropomorphic version and the fantasy-like stories in the Bible

>> No.11519605
File: 13 KB, 326x499, grace31IWbiw+y6L._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11519605

Boutta crack this open. What am i in for?

>> No.11520654

>>11519598
Imagine believing the events in the bible happened and still claiming you're intelligent

>> No.11520766

>>11520654
Maybe they happened but Yahweh is an alien and Jesus was pure spirit in a human-like form, giving him the ability to avoid the rigid, physical laws of this universe.

>> No.11521210

>>11519598
I believe it was Saint Augustine who said that it was mostly literal, but if something seems implausible, then it was meant to be taken allegorically/poetically. I always liked that viewpoint. Reading Confessions makes the Bible seem very rational

>> No.11521681

>>11519598
I consider myself a christian and I consider basically all of the bible metaphorical stories mixed with historical fact. Ie jesus probably existed but the writings about him are an archetypal interpretation of him that is far removed from the actual person.

>> No.11521866

>>11519598
>quatuor sensus scripturae

>> No.11521971

>>11516715
>>11518188
I think the introduction I read to fear and trembling said he could easily have had his photo taken cheaply, but didn't want to. Same with portraits, even the one we have of him is unfinished because he didn't turn up after the first session or something

>> No.11521993
File: 39 KB, 330x500, works51mkpKAtyNL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11521993

Best/favourite chapter?

>> No.11522137

>>11519598
You should read a study bible, one of the ones that explains the differences from the original translations in the margins. But I also think that you should come to terms with the idea that if God is real at all it's perfectly natural to assume that he's intervened in miraculous ways before. If he's real then he's real, if he's not then he's not. He's not a metaphor, he's a person. He has things he likes and dislikes.
As for evidence for the miracles in the bible, one good example I'd give is the sheet number of witnesses surrounding the life, death and rebirth of Jesus, who were afterwards willing to die rather than renounce their beliefs. That's not something someone does if they don't believe that they really saw what they say they saw, and that many people sharing the exact same hallucinations would arguably be more miraculous than a resurrection. Even Josephus, a Jewish scholar in the first century who identified with the Pharisees referred to Jesus as a doer of "wonderful works/startling deeds" and surviving manuscripts of his works include him stating that Jesus returned to the Christians after three days, and he was a Pharisee, an enemy of the early church.
There's more than a single 4chan post can cover but I recommend you watch the movie the Case for Christ as it covers the miracle of the resurrection specifically, which is what Christianity hinges on. It discusses the documents it's based on, how it was impossible for Jesus to have survived the cross etc. As for "surely Intelligent Christians don't read the bible literally?" well, this is the faith that was shared by Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Alessandro Volta, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage [who specifically wrote on rationally defending the belief in miracles], Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, George Washington Carver, John Ambrose Fleming, Karl Landsteiner [who converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism] and Wernher Von Braun [who wasn't just a Christian but a creationist who was passionately open about his beliefs in intelligent design] and hundreds of other great minds. So I'd say that the belief in Christianity, miracles and all, has something about it that has yet to be found inconsistent with the greatest minds in history. In fact I'd argue that it's a prerequisite.

>> No.11522148

>>11521681
Hi Peterson

>> No.11522151

>>11519598
Read the bible literally is the only intelligent way to do it, otherwise you have the Church interpreting the way it better justify its political interest. Heh, guess that's smart too.

>> No.11522458

>>11521210
How do you determine if something's implausible, though? If Jesus was who he says he was, and did what the Bible says he did, then you can’t simply say that the other stories are impossible, because you can have faith in them being literal, too, so long as there are no contradictions, I guess.
>>11522137
How would you argue against Marcions’s belief in the two separate Gods, one in the Old Testament and one in the New?
He supports that belief pretty well in his Antithesis,
http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/CB_The_Antithesis.pdf
and it makes us wonder about what a real, supreme God should be like. I could only believe that God is the same throughout the Bible if many of God’s actions in the OT are metaphorical, because I simply don’t want to have faith in a God like that, because I don’t think that is how the source of everything would act.

>> No.11523319

>>11522148
Explain how the metaphorical interpretation is wrong.

>> No.11523342
File: 38 KB, 780x528, shutterstock_8510292d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11523342

Is Malick an Kierkegaardian filmmaker?

>> No.11523405

>>11523319
Your not a Christian if you seriously think that Jesus Christ is a separate entity from the writings in the bible.

Christians eo ipso believe Jesus is the law or word made flesh.

You can believe in your schizo archetypes all you want -- it's not inherently a herasy -- don't let it bleed over into the hard lined teachings of actual Christianity though.

>> No.11524096

>>11521681
>I consider myself a christian
>I don't have faith in the Biblical Christ
So you're either a LARPer or you're an atheist who's into parables.

>> No.11524101

>>11515952
>voices in your head
>you hate the voices instead of yourself

???

>> No.11524112

>>11520654
Imagine reading a book with literal magic in it as a serious historical account