/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11726075]

Mary had a little lamb
His death for all sufficient.
But only those who will believe
Will find his death efficient.

Mary had a little lamb
Eternally begot.
For contra Arius, there was
No time when he was not.

[Anonymous No.11726127]

Lame and cringe

[Anonymous No.11726140]

based and breadpilled

[Anonymous No.11727283]

>>11726075
Seneca, stop samefagging

[Anonymous No.11727309]

>>11726075
I have never understood the reason why one must believe in Jesus as a sacrificial lamb in order for his supposed sacrifice to take effect. If God died to free us from Hell, and out of love and care for us, why does He then require belief or faith or anything at all from us? I can understand religions that say we are beholden to a law, and have to do x and y and z in order to be granted Paradise, but Christians claim that God died for all people, and out of love for all of us - even the evil sinners. Why, then, does that sacrifice require faith in order to take effect?

[Anonymous No.11727332]

Hang on, did the children's rhyme have a Christian meaning originally?

mind=blown

[Anonymous No.11727336]

>>11727309
You would have to accept the sacrifice it's not forced upon anyone.

Justification through the willing sacrifice of Christ establishes the cooperation between grace and man's freedom. How sincere would be salvation if it was forced upon a man who did not want it? God respects the free will of man, thus even for the most crucial issue for man (that of going to Heaven), God respects the freedom of man so that he might freely and sincerely accept the grace of God made possible by Christ's sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.11727379]

>>11727336
This doesn't make sense to me. You're talking as if God is opening the door to Paradise and the door to Hell in front of us, and letting us go into whichever we want. If it was such an easy and clear choice, however, no human being would ever choose Hell. In fact, you could make the case that it is literally the opposite of what you said: that God is taking the choice away from us by not showing us the alternatives clearly. If He had done so, do you think anyone would choose Hell? Giving people a "choice" that they aren't even aware of isn't much of a choice.

It's like telling someone that you will give them 1 000 000 dollars if they do action X, but you will kill them if they do action Y. Some people might believe what you say, and they'll make the right choice, but most people would laugh at you, or think it's a joke, or think you're pranking them. They won't believe what you're saying, and then if some of them do action Y, you have to wonder if it's justice to punish them for it. They weren't making an actual choice, because they didn't know that it was the truth.

Still, this doesn't answer my question. You're saying God won't "force" salvation upon us, but at the same time, He WILL force eternal hellfire on us. If He wanted to save us by His blood, so we were free from damnation, why does He require faith? I am a theist, and I've believed in God all my life, but I have never been a Christian. I don't believe that the Bible is correct, and I don't believe in a triune God. However, if I died and found out that Jesus really did die for our sins, and the Bible was the truth, I would definitely accept his sacrifice. I just don't understand why my acceptance is required, if he supposedly died for all of us already.

[Anonymous No.11728272]

>>11727309
>>11727379
>valid questions and doubts are raised
>all the christcucks that troll /lit/ constantly are nowhere to be found
Pottery.

[Anonymous No.11728312]

>>11727379
I think Protestant terminology and thinking has warped your way of understanding salvation in Christianity. God desires the salvation of every single soul, and he has made salvation possible to everyone, including those who explicitly or implicitly reject him or who have never heard of Christianity. No one is saved because they one day wake up and declare that they've accepted Christ as their lord and savior, or because they suddenly start believing really really hard that Jesus did the historical and miraculous things that the Bible says he did.

You are right to say that there is never an explicit choice with perfect knowledge between salvation and damnation, but perfect knowledge isn't required. We are clearly in a state of profound moral brokenness. We are unable to do good consistently and we constantly do what we know to be evil. The choice is between striving to do the best we can (Matthew 25:31-46) while still acknowledging our need for more help and forgiveness, and giving in to our sinful nature.

God also doesn't force hellfire on anyone; the fire of hell is metaphorical for the state of existing totally apart from God. God has given us the free gift of the water of life, both through his explicit Word made man and through the general path of loving one's neighbor, but the soul who rejects that goodness rejects the God who is Goodness and Being itself. That soul has chosen Evil and Nonbeing, and God, who endowed all men after his image with the freedom to do good and evil, respects that choice.

[Anonymous No.11728336]

>>11727379
Not much of a believer myself but I see it as him saying “I changed the rules, made it so even a god can die, and gave my own son for you. What are you willing to do/sacrifice for me?” I don’t think of the sacrifice as purely altruistic, at least on the part of the Father.
Maybe the Son though, he seemed like a cool guy.

[Anonymous No.11728355]

>>11728312
>>11727336
>the sould has chosen evil and nonbeing
>god respects the freedom of man
So god expects us to just follow his rules, with no proof given of his existance, and if we don't - it means we've "chosen" damnation?

If god truly "desires the salvation of every single soul", why won't he reveal himself to cast aside all doubt?
Why did he create beings capable of logic and reason, only to expect blind faith?

[Anonymous No.11728396]

>>11727379
Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

[Anonymous No.11728413]

>>11728396
My brother rose up from the dead and claims to be God. I saw it with my own eyes.
Do you believe me? If not, you'll go to hell.
Want some proof? Umm sorry sweetie, asking questions like this can land you in hell.

[Anonymous No.11728426]

>>11728413
The point is that asking for this sort of proof is disingenuous because even if it was given to you you still wouldn't believe. Sufficient information and witness is available and you reject it. People are not the rational beings that you make them out to be; they are creatures plagued by a deep sickness in their souls which can only be healed in synergism with God.

[Anonymous No.11728449]

If God came down and revealed himself to me irrefutably, and told me that I would go to hell unless I stopped fapping, I would without a doubt end up fapping again within a week. Anyone who thinks people would "make the logical choice" is a fool.

[Anonymous No.11728484]

>>11728426
>sufficient information and witness is available and you reject it.
Yes. One anonymous, metaphorical book full of contradictions.

[Anonymous No.11728591]

>>11728355
Being good is literally the only rational thing to do, and that is based on objective facts about our nature as human beings. What's more, the objective nature of morality is rooted in the immateriality of universals, which itself points to God's existence as the source for these objective notions of goodness.

So it's not at all precise to say that evidence is not to be found. Read Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas, but more than simply read them, understand them.

[Anonymous No.11728626]

>>11728484
>anonymous book
>Gospels are literally named after their authors

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11729018]

>>11728626
>anonymous book
>Gospels are literally named after their authors
You should know your "holy" book better than this. The scholars are in agreement that the names given to the different Gospels are NOT the names of their authors - the authors of the four Gospels are anonymous and unknown. They are not eyewitnesses to the events they describe, and some of them were written about 100 years after the supposed events. You really should look into the history of the socalled book of God.

Did you know, for an example, that the story about the prostitute (famous "Cast the first stone-incident") is nowhere to be found in any of the oldest manuscripts, and was added many hundreds of years after Christ? That's the kind of corruption Muslims talk about when discussing the Bible. We don't know who wrote these stories, we don't know their sources, we know they were written many decades after the fact, and they are internally inconsistent to boot. To accept this as the message God chose for all mankind for all time is not sound logic.

[Anonymous No.11729277]

>>11728355
>with no proof given of his existance
So this is really the crux of the issue, not your misunderstanding of justification before God for the potential for salvation.

Dude, there's like 5000 years of this stuff that argues in favor of God's existence, through many different facets. (spanning from the beginning of Judaism [not Talmudic] and even Greek pihlosophers). Do you think you've exhausted most avenues of showing God to be real? I know I haven't and I'm a theist.

>why won't he reveal himself to cast aside all doubt?
Dog... He did.

>Why did he create beings capable of logic and reason, only to expect blind faith?
Firstly, Christian faith is not blind. Reading the Bible, trusting the Magisterium, reading the Early Church Fathers, etc. would make it so that you are not blind—but to you, empirical evidence seems to be the only facet of knowledge, which is concerning. Faith is supra-rational; Faith is not at odds with reason which is innate in man. Perhaps you have not read St. Thomas Aquinas or other Scholastics? If you want to see a display of logic and reason (natural theology) to know God, that's your ticket.

And you can reach faith without going through reason first. Perhaps your heart is too stony for that route though... You probably won't like this but "Truth, beauty, and goodness cry out to the Lord." It's no surprise that Catholics have the most beautiful scripture, churches, art, music, etc. To me, that calls out the truth of God; and it's no wonder that Judaism, Islam, and Eastern Orthodoxy have beauty to show either—they are closer to the truth.

[Anonymous No.11729335]

>>11728312
>Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made." Therefore God reprobates no man.
Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life—He is said to hate or reprobated them.

[Anonymous No.11729715]

>>11729277
>Dog... He did.

why can't he stick around? why doesn't he or the angels ever say anything to me?

Why is it so absurd not to believe in something that I've never seen? I feel like if I went down that road I could go down it forever and believe in any number of absurd things

[Anonymous No.11729769]

>>11729715
He did stick around. The Church is the Body of Christ, where the Holy Spirit dwells. Christ is in the Eucharist.

Read Aquinas, you can start from observations in nature and reach the logic conclusion that God exists. You would start from there.

Too, do you think justice, humanity, goodness, mathematics, laws of physics, etc. are just made up? You can't see these concepts.

Limiting yourself to observational knowledge is actually childish man.

[Anonymous No.11730244]

>>11729769
>The Church is the Body of Christ, where the Holy Spirit dwells. Christ is in the Eucharist.

[Anonymous No.11730775]

>>11730244
Your entire theology is predicated on:
>"God must first become the devil, before He becomes God."
That shit is literally from the Weimar Ausgabe, Luther's Werke.

It is utterly disgusting. I'm gonna say that this is a righteous anger, because that is a disturbing heresy. And if you believe that (which you must, if you buy into Luther's total depravity of man and determinism), you are my literal enemy. Loving your enemy does not make him not your enemy; I do want you in Heaven and I want to be in Heaven as well. So, please stop this insolence.

[Anonymous No.11730786]

Mary had a little lamb
She threw it in a well
She lit a stick of dynamite
And blew it all to Hell

[Anonymous No.11731211]

>>11729335
It's too bad Aquinas hadn't actually read the bible.

[Anonymous No.11731241]

>>11727332
this is blowing my mind as well

[Anonymous No.11731269]

>>11727379
We've already explained this to you...
A mutual agreement can only be decided upon in an environment of free will.

The situation you described reinforces this truth.
If you had absolute proof of God and His promises, would you not submit fully, against your previous intentions?

My accepting Christ you are choosing to be with him. By not embracing Christ, you're choosing not to be with him. By the time you die, your choice is respected either way, and by then its too late to "choose". That would be cheating.

[Anonymous No.11731281]

>>11728484
You still won't believe.

[Anonymous No.11731433]

>>11726075
Based and breadpilled

[Anonymous No.11731540]

>>11731269
But how would knowing for certain that god exists take away my free will to choose to follow him? If anything, wouldn’t that instate a higher level or free will, since I would be completely able to see and understand my choices? I’m trying to understand this, and in a sense I want to believe, but this just doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.

[Anonymous No.11732385]

>>11729018
Actually interesting. Thanks, anon

[Anonymous No.11732404]

>>11731269
>If you had absolute proof of God and His promises, would you not submit fully, against your previous intentions?
So you're saying that knowing the consequences of your choice takes away your free will? And at the same time, God tells us the consequences of our choices (eternal damnation) in a book that we have no reason to believe came from Him? I don't know why I expected something sensible from Christianity.
If I don't know what the consequences of my choice are, then punishing me for making the wrong decision is unjust. If I don't even know that I'm making a choice, punishing me ETERNALLY is even more unjust. I don't believe the Creator is unjust, so I reject your faith.

[Anonymous No.11732441]

>>11727309
Faith is accepting the sacrifice - salvation is a gift, but you have to recieve a gift, accept it.