[ 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: 431 KB, 1016x720, 200mivxzxu0z.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12481024 No.12481024 [Reply] [Original]

Why is all religious philosphy so shit-tier?

It seem like every religious scripture I read be it Islamic or christian, it all just boils down to hope and blindful faith, it's kinda tacky and cringry to be honest, everytime I see religious people, especially teens they think their ideology to be perfection and all holy why dissmising their ignorance and hypocritism.
Just pray anon, just pray....

>> No.12481052

>>12481024
You must think all philosophy is pretty shit, then, because nothing is better than having faith in God.

>> No.12481055

Read The Way of a Pilgrim, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Laurus, etc

"just pray" is a lot deeper than you think. Your whole life is a prayer to God, everything you do is a prayer

>> No.12481056

>>12481024
Not dissing those cultures, but if you desire ones of greater neutrality and objectivity (meaning, not simply expecting adherence to scriptural precepts or comprehensions of the narratives and figures therein, but moreso presenting speculations on reality's nature itself, then try Advaita or ones similar to it. Personally I believe in such, and have experienced ego-death before and have thereby seen some of its truth directly, though I don't care to worship Krishna or Durga or any other cultural deity.

>> No.12481073

>>12481056
To clarify, I'm not dissing Abrahamic cultures and their concepts, I'm merely contrasting them with the more "philosophical, speculative" traditions like Advaita, which are not concerned with worship or of the other formal practises, but moreso the neutral, objective principles underlying reality. Of which the latter may be more interesting to the OP, if prayer and faith are not to his liking.

>> No.12481074

>>12481055
Tell that to my islamic countrymen praying in arabic while not knowing what they are saying.

>> No.12481079

>>12481056

>Personally
>I
>ego (I) death

>> No.12481080

>>12481024

Honestly it just seems like you're reading it at a really shallow level. Love, hope and faith are the beginning and the end, but maturing intellectually by means of religious philosophy involves learning these things with your eyes open rather than uncritically taking things in (though, as with all education, a certain amount of this is important in the beginning). One must learn "to give a reason for the hope that is in you," per 1 Peter 3:15

>> No.12481083
File: 34 KB, 800x532, 800px_COLOURBOX7233792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12481083

>>12481024
Becayse you dsodf jefew jfjwer k erjw i am fewewrewr dfor me it isomertimes that i like to think asdafbout sjwjath and this hasdgas mmer jer k kddqewkkgf oqweqwej wje jkjeqkwe kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasdfghjkl;

>> No.12481084

>>12481079
How the heck do you communicate of it then, lol?

>> No.12481085

>>12481056
Fuck off Hindu shill, buch of psedo shit, go suck off Sam Harris

>> No.12481086

>>12481024
You're right but posting about it on 4chan isn't going to ge tyou anywhere

>> No.12481098

>>12481084
You wouldn't, because "you" as a subject wouldn't experience it, it would be the termination of Dasein. If "you" the subject experiences is, then it's not ego death

>> No.12481100

I envy the religious. I wish I could believe but I don't there is anything out there that could change my naturally agnostic ways. I went to a baptist academy as a child and did read the entire bible once, but nothing really stuck with me I think. I just never once could take any of it seriously. But I still envy the religious because of how great it seems to have such a powerful central force in ones life. I'm jealous of that. It's too bad, really.

>> No.12481102

>>12481085
Relax, dude. Anyone can follow whatever they want, nor am I shilling anything. The OP has expressed discontent, I've recommended him a different set of conceptions to pursue, which he may find interesting. I'm not selling him a religion, since I myself don't follow one. Merely telling him of other spiritual conceptions that differ from Abrahamic ones, which he may or may not like.

>> No.12481114

>>12481098
Ego death is the process whereby the sense of one's individuality dissolves, and one reaches a state of pure, unmediated perception. The difference, therefore, is like water being filtered through a net, vs the water falling without any filter to be passed through. The filter is the identity, which mistakes itself to be the experiencer, when really the identity is only something else "experienced". There is no "subject" experiencing, there is only experience itself, and ego-death is event of experiencing said experience.

>> No.12481115

>>12481085
>being retarded and uneducated enough to consider sam jew harris a "proponent" of hinduism
imagine that

>> No.12481128
File: 85 KB, 838x1255, the-varieties-of-religious-experience-by-william-james.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12481128

>> No.12481133

>>12481114
>There is no "subject" experiencing, there is only experience itself
That would be simply happening then, not experience

>> No.12481137

>>12481024
>hypocritism

>> No.12481153

>>12481133
Maybe that's just a linguistic game, my point is that at-bottom there is only substance, and no individual, distinct filter through which said substance is ultimately mediated.

>> No.12481166

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2: The material universe began to exist.
3: Therefor the universe had a cause.
4: For the chain of cause and effect to exist there needs to be a first cause, this is the uncuased god, which everyone calls god.

>> No.12481174

>>12481166
I'm going to need a citation for step 2, please.

>> No.12481181

>>12481174
>I'm going to need a citation for step 2, please
>needing a source for the claim that the universe began to exist
Allah have mercy, this board is full of morons

>> No.12481185

>>12481174
https://www.esa.int/kids/en/learn/Our_Universe/Story_of_the_Universe/The_Big_Bang
I found a kid friendly site for you.

>> No.12481191

>>12481181
How do you know it began? Where did you arrive at such knowledge? Aristotle himself held the universe to be eternal, and was one of the greatest influences on the later Islamic philosophers.

>> No.12481202

>>12481098
Orthodox dude, recommend me stuff. I've read The Way of the Pilgrim and I'm currently reading Dumitru Staniloae.

>> No.12481203

>>12481191
>How do you know it began?
Are you trolling?
>Where did you arrive at such knowledge? Aristotle himself held the universe to be eternal, and was one of the greatest influences on the later Islamic philosophers.
The greatest influence on Islamic philosophy was the Quran and the classical tafaseer of it. They are in agreement that the universe began. So is the scientific community of the modern age, and most classical philosophers.

>> No.12481204

>>12481185
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Here you go, I can paste scientific worldviews too. You obviously believe in Darwinism too don't you anon, just like the Big Bang? Which claims all species to be produced by gradual, unintelligent changes solely for the basis of their survival, completely rejecting any form of God or Creationism? You're not just cherrypicking from whatever scienctific models suits your own ideologies, right?

>> No.12481209

>>12481153
Mmm, no. Logoi are an eternal blueprint which substance (ousia) is predicament upon

>> No.12481212

>>12481204
Actually I'm a neodarwinist becuase I'm updated on the current state of biology.

>> No.12481214

>>12481203
Okay, you don't seem to understand. The universe exists, but that doesn't mean it began. Else I could just say the same of God, which is that God exists, and therefore began. Aquinas has been torn to shreds by people who recognized the obvious incoherencies of the argument.

And that's great, I'm merely telling you that a great thinker, one of the most famous of all classical philosphers, who heavily influenced your religion's most famous of scholars, was himself of the belief that the Universe has always existed.

>> No.12481219

>>12481214
Can Aristolte be wrong?

>> No.12481221

>>12481073
Jesus attempted to create a existential turn in the Abrahamic religions but the vulgar Latins stifled that and the medieval church even more so. Islam turned out a lot more philosophic than Christianity (but the sects which most embody this end up violently repressed)

>> No.12481222

>>12481212
And you've reconciled Darwin with your Deity? You hold them both to be true?

>> No.12481224

>>12481222
Yes?

>> No.12481234

>>12481219
Absolutely. But you're pretending like my implying the universe to be eternal is something "stupid", when one of the most-respected minds of history (who heavily influenced your own Islamic philosophers) was himself an eternalist regarding the universe, is not a good show. It's not a "stupid" position, is what I'm claiming, nor do you have evidence to show that the universe did indeed "begin".

>> No.12481241

>>12481083
best post itt

>> No.12481245

>>12481219
Can science?

>> No.12481264

>>12481083
This.

>> No.12481276

>>12481202
The Ascetic Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian

The Path to Salvation

The Arena

On the Incarnation

>> No.12481277

>>12481209
I'm not that guy, but you are making the amateur mistake of insisting that when people talk about something found in multiple religions/doctrines (ego death) that it has to be spoken of in a way that conforms to your particular favorite brand.

>> No.12481286

>>12481166
You don't even have to make such big claims to prove god exist.

Everything that is in motion is moved by something else. The chain of mover and moved cannot go on forever because if it did there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover as well. This is because second movers don't move except when moved by a first mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. So a first mover which is itself unmoved by anything else is necessary to explain motion.

If any sort of movement or motion exists the argument is valid.

>> No.12481300

>>12481276
Do you have any recommendations for writings that cover the epistemology of Orthodoxy?

>> No.12481351

>>12481277
It's certainly not compatible with liberal idea of a "limit experience"

>>12481300
Gregory the Theologian

>> No.12481482

>>12481351
>It's certainly not compatible with liberal idea of a "limit experience"
It's not very helpful to try to understand these concepts through the prism of ideas developed by 20th century French thinkers, for among other reasons that they didn't really focus on the ideas that the original poster in question was talking about e.g. 'ego death/non-dualism/mysticism' and so on, it was not their area of expertise and so the question of whether some 2,500 year old Indian or Chinese idea conforms to 20th century French concepts (or even modern ideas generally) will often just muddy the waters. It can be interesting if you are bringing them up for the purpose of understanding those French thinkers themselves from a novel angle, but the reverse is often not true. And this is not some east>west or old>new screed but rather certain conceptual frameworks sometimes just don't really apply to each other, especially when you are talking about translated stuff from unrelated languages such that each person in the conversation might have a different understanding of what certain terms mean.

>> No.12481607

>>12481024
>It seem
Read some natural philosophy (Aristotle) and then scholastics (Aquinas).

>> No.12481901
File: 1.31 MB, 2500x4956, 1548148447025.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12481901

>>12481024
If you engage with vulgar metaphysicians you will get vulgar metaphysics answers. If you want satisfying theology then start with the Platonists.

>> No.12481920

>>12481607
Yeah but maybe he doesn't want to learn heretical doctrine.

>> No.12481923

>>12481024
Try Aquinas or Augustine. They are top tier-IQ, like another species kind of genius.

>> No.12481935

>>12481024
>it all just boils down to hope and blindful faith
b8

>> No.12481948

>>12481901
You didn't happen to take that picture at a small Catholic Highschool in Atlanta, Georgia did you?

>> No.12481958

>>12481241
>>12481264
I was unironically going to actually bother replying, but seriously couldn't summon the energy, or wanton effort.

>> No.12482036

You have to be somewhat open minded. The primary concern of religious thought is not usually apologetics or dialoguing with non-members. It's often much more concerned with itself, presuming readers to be members of the faith in some sense.

>> No.12482147

>>12481482
Yeah, that's what I am saying. Liberal idea of ego death as a "personal experience" is imposing Cartesian preconceptions on stuff far older than Descartes.

>> No.12482186

>>12482147
The sun dance, for example, is not something any Indian would refer to or think of as an "experience"

>> No.12482246

>>12482147
>>12482186
How does one's personal sense of identity relate to Descartes? You're telling me that before Descartes's writings, nobody felt like they were distinct individuals? Again, you're losing yourself in the games of language.

I also don't understand what you mean by "sun dance".

>> No.12482287

it isn't. you're just not ready for it.

>> No.12482308

>>12482246
Descartes started with the self as the predicate of truth, the "sovereign subject" and reality defined primarily as "experience" stem mostly from him

The sun dance likely entails ego death
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dance

>> No.12482379

>>12481166
1. is a result of 2. and is only demonstrated to be true in that context so your line of reasoning is flawed to begin with. The laws of the universe are a function of the universe.

4. If there was such a first cause then it would not necessarily have any resemblance to a god or "the God", as in a conscious being with intentions and interactions with the universe, not to mention our little planet in our random galaxy.

>> No.12482411

>>12482308
What I mean is that you presently feel like an individual, right? You don't feel like you're everyone and everything around you, but that you're Jeremy Rodham or whomever. Ego-death, whatever you want to title it, is simply the process by which this identification dissolves, and you now see yourself as everything, undifferentiated. That's all I'm referring to.

>> No.12482507

>>12482411
Yeah, a personal experience of that is probably prelest. It isn't ego death, it's the reverse: omni ego.

>> No.12482526

>>12481901
Absolutely based and redpilled, holy... only good shelf photo I’ve seen here

>> No.12482633

>>12482507
You're right. You're Christian and you know everything, and your tradition is the only correct one. Everything else is demonic.

>> No.12482636

>>12482633
Not an argument.

>> No.12482640

>>12482507
>>12482633
Don't worry you're both retarded

>> No.12482650

All these religion posters are so fucking egotistical.

>> No.12482665

>>12482636
But telling others, speaking of concepts you aren't even remotely familiar with and are shallowly interpreting through your own conceptual frameworks, that they're suffering from delusions, is?

>> No.12482689

>>12482636
I would tell you to read into other spiritual traditions, but many Christians think the Bible is the end-all-be-all-of-all-knowledge and even that everything else is some shade of Satan, and so my words would be pointless. Go on and read the Bible, as usual, I guess.

>> No.12482741

>>12482633
I don't know everything, but otherwise, yes. Sort of. Saint Nikolai of Ohrid says an African idol worship is more beautiful and positive than atheism

>> No.12482805

>>12482741
Good. Believe in everything your saints tell you. Christianity has a very beautiful history, an extremely peaceful one too, and continuing to this very day is not a ground on which scandals of any kind can be seen.

>> No.12482823

>>12482805
Our history is beautiful. The conquest of the New World was magnificent. And the Orthodox Church is managing without the homosexuality scandals of nu Catholicism.

>> No.12482856

>>12482823
Yes, a history of far less blood and boy-molestation than can be said of those evil, Eastern religions. You should continue to support them with fervor.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/scandal-reaches-highest-echelon-of-greek-orthodox-church/article977436/

https://medium.com/humanist-voices/a-compendium-of-crimes-and-criminals-of-the-eastern-orthodox-church-part-4-272013d88bd

>> No.12482891

>>12481100

I don't, because it is more important to be right than it is to belong.

>> No.12482900

>>12481024
>its kinda tacky and cringy
go back

>> No.12482910

>>12481100
You can always start something to improve the lives of those around you without all of the unnecessary spiritualism.

>> No.12482912

>>12481901

>Pausanias
>Catholic theology

You must really, really, REALLY like fucking little boys, huh?

>> No.12482921

>>12482856
Boy molestation is quite a thing in Buddhism.

I am not ashamed of colonialism or the Crusades.

>> No.12482925

>>12481923

>standard argument (cite bible/plato/aristotle as-needed) repeated ad-nauseum over six hundred times

That's gonna be a big NOPE, anon.

>> No.12482939

>>12481024
Implying your absurd generalizations are not blind faith? I am extremely religious, and I'm completely against blind faith. I don't think your faithful at all if this is the case.

>> No.12482943

>>12482921
Its really fucking bad in Tibet and SE Asia

>> No.12482961

>>12482921
Bullshit.

>> No.12482975

>>12482961
I really am not. "In hoc signo vinces"

>> No.12482985

>>12482921
Yet they could never match the scale and institutionally-orchestrated scandal of the Christian churches, even if they wanted to. Your institutions are so unbelievably corrupt that Christians aren't even able to bring themselves to comment on it, believing that ignoring it makes the issue disappear. And a very Christlike comment on colonialism and the crusades, proving as always how truly spiritual Christians are. Make Jesus proud.

>> No.12482988

>>12481055
That's awfully convenient.

>> No.12482996

>>12481166
Prove 1

>> No.12482998
File: 77 KB, 502x414, IMG_20181030_154717.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12482998

>>12482985
Jesus is YHWH, pal, not Allen Ginsberg

>> No.12483003

>>12482925
This. Let's point to our most renowned thinkers, who merely ripped off Pagans when they needed to (due to the vastly superior philosophies they'd conceived), while we also call Paganism demonic in every other breath. We're Christian: we take what we need, and we berate as we please. Deal with it.

>> No.12483006

>>12482988
It's a constant struggle, really anything but convenient

>> No.12483012

>>12481166
Oh, and why the universe had to 'start', maybe it's eternal.

>inb4 big bang, in respones big bounce

>> No.12483014

>>12483003
Ancient Christianity and Judaism as closer to paganism than either is to its modernist variants

>> No.12483018

>>12482650

This is a useful piece of rhetoric, a true ad-hom to buttress the rest. I'm going to remember it the next time I engage with a purported Christian on the internet.*

*People who claim to be Christian on 4chan are always pretending; "LARPing" is too generous a phrase. There never has been, there is not now, and there never will be a person who posts on 4chan who is a sincere Christian.

>> No.12483020

>>12482998

>pal

he's cracking, just a little bit.

>> No.12483046
File: 78 KB, 500x375, tumblr_mt2pk2WVQD1sf40xbo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12483046

>>12483020
Not cracking, I am full on, joining a monastery this year.

>> No.12483061

>>12482998
this is high iq cope from schmitt and nothing more, The context when seen in toto is to love the Roman and the Jew despite their barbaric malice and perfidy.

>> No.12483089

>>12482998
Certainly, a very coherent religion. Now, be a good Christian, go onto /lgbt/, ask some of those individuals where they live, find them, and do as Leviticus 20:13 commands you. Don't disobey God's law and then claim yourself "Christian" - follow it as you are meant to.

>> No.12483103

>>12482998
>YHWH is the Father
Anon, I...

>> No.12483116

>>12483046

You have my warranted pity, and it is not I who has yours.

>> No.12483120

>>12483018
>*People who claim to be Christian on 4chan are always pretending; "LARPing" is too generous a phrase. There never has been, there is not now, and there never will be a person who posts on 4chan who is a sincere Christian.
Yeah, I bet Jesus doesn't post here or anything...

>> No.12483200

>>12481024
The alternative to faith being?

>> No.12483201

>>12483061
Love everyone personally, not politically

>>12483089
If I were inclined to be a John Brown, I'd go after abortionists rather than sodomites. But if the latter, it would be a club having Desmond is Amazing perform

>>12483103
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all YHWH

>> No.12483223

>>12483201
Why the hypocrisy? Shouldn't you be following your scriptures, and these commandments which they contain?

>> No.12483256

The Abrahamic religions are unironically very logical. It makes sense to me metaphysically that all is one and God is one.

The Koran is feasible

>> No.12483258

>>12483201
>abortionists not sodomites

How about the manufacturers of nuclear weapons?

>> No.12483264

>>12483116
Pity is compassion, not condescension

>>12483223
Nigger, the Mosaic Law was a *law*. It has legal procedures requiring judges, witnesses, a trial open to the public, etc.

>> No.12483273

>>12483258
Nuclear weapons prevented WWIII

>> No.12483278

>>12483273
Correct, also hollywood and hippies becoming stock farmers

>> No.12483288

>>12483200
knowledge
basing your lifes code, decisions, beliefs etc on what you know to be true in contrast with what is uncertain
faith is for the weak, the blind, the ignorant, and the pathetic who exercise no more mental ability than a lapdog.

>> No.12483298

>>12483264
Then why aren't you serving God, by taking actions to reinstitute it? How can you watch as your society shamelessly deviates from God's Law, and not do your part to help correct this?

>> No.12483303

>>12483288
If we only acted on what is certain, we would seldom act. However I am certain of Christ more than literally anything else. Furthermore "faith" and "belief" are the same word, Biblically speaking

>> No.12483325

>>12483298
My society never followed Him, neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution asks for Christ's blessing

>> No.12483348

>>12481055
What do these books offer? Do they expound on the nature of prayer?

>> No.12483357
File: 319 KB, 641x530, 1500193303974.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12483357

>>12481166
>1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

>> No.12483406

>>12483348
Yes, the first especially

>> No.12483445

>>12483264

>pity is compassion

No, it isn't. Read Spinoza. Like you, he was wrong about god, but he did have useful insights on human emotions. At bottom of pity is a contempt together a certain humorous reaction at the absurdity of the subject's state, which although it does spur a certain desire to help, this still cannot be properly called compassion, because it always proceeds from the kernel of contempt (for the subject's pitiable situation).

>drops an n-bomb, though used in a friendly context for no particularly good reason, to fit in with the kiddies or something

You're becoming more ridiculous. I'm sure you'll do well in the novitiate.

>> No.12483451
File: 5 KB, 300x370, the source of all evil.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12483451

Tbh Gnosticism answers the most important question that had plagued me for a long time: Why does evil exist? I've asked priests and read the Bible and the answers they've given me have been lacking; essentially, they told me that evil was part of God's plan/ evil exists because God have humans free will and humans choose to do evil. But this just raises more questions than it answers. Why hasn't God realized that free will is an experiment gone wrong? Surely He has seen that humans repeat the same mistakes over and over again, out of their own free will, so why hasn't He taken it away?
Gnosticism has an answer for this: evil and misery exist because the Demiurge, the administrator of the universe, allows it and seeks to spread it. This gives a clear source for evil, why certain qualities of the universe are as they are. Why does death exist? Why does pain? Why do things seem more inclined to cause suffering? If the universe was truly created at random and indifferent, why does there seem to be malicious intent in it's design? The law of averages dictates that things would fall into, well, averages. The pleasure of an orgasm lasts for only a few seconds, yet the pain of a broken limb can last for well over days and months. Ask yourself this: does this seem balanced to you?
It would explain the seemingly malicious nature of the universe; the Demiurge designed it that way, because we enjoys suffering. It also explains the worst aspects of human nature. Why are humans insane, violent and sadistic, if we were created in the image of an entity that is the embodiment of love? Because we weren't. We are just as insane, violent and sadistic as the Demiurge, for we were created in his image, to better spread misery and suffering.
Gnosticism also provides a clear spiritual goal to achieve: to surpass the Demiurge by evolving spiritually and transcending the physical realm. Contrast to Christianity, whose goals for its followers amounts to "be nice to each other and try to accumulate enough goody points to get to Heaven when you die". What do you /lit/fags think?

>> No.12483502

>>12483445

Pity literally means to feel pain because someone else is suffering. The German word Nietzsche uses literally translates as suffering with. That is also what compassion literally means in etymology

>n-bomb
How is it a "bomb"?

>> No.12483532

Also serious question: are you a homosexual?

>> No.12483533

>>12483445
I'm gunna have to agree with Spinoza there, that's a good point he makes. Even if that's not the dictionary definition of pity I think his analysis of the underlying mechanics is correct.

>> No.12483567

>>12483451
The fundamental problem with your line on inquiry is your belief that pain is evil. It is not. As St. Nikolai of Ohrid says, suffering purifies the sinner and sanctifies the saint. The point of life is hardship and pain, because without these things is no sacrifice, and without sacrifice love cannot find its highest expression, and love is the purest joy. Suffering is never fun, but can be joyful just read St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter about how felt on his way to be fed to lions. Sin is evil, pain is not

>> No.12483574

>>12481219
He was wrong about forms.

>> No.12483584
File: 171 KB, 1000x693, the golden age of man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12483584

>>12483567
>The point of life is hardship and pain, because without these things is no sacrifice, and without sacrifice love cannot find its highest expression,
But why does God think it is necessary for their to be pain, and therefore sacrifice, for love to attain it's most pure, undiluted form. Does God believe that love without hardship is not genuine, and that love can be quantified by how much suffering there is behind such love? What exactly is different between love that is free suffering and love that is marred in it?

>> No.12483596

>>12481055
Can you tell us what is meant with "life is a prayer". Define prayer.

>> No.12483603

>>12483502

Notice that the literal definition which you've provided does not necessarily entail feeling COMPASSION for the subject of pity. When I watch a Chris-chan video, I feel pity for him, and not compassion. I think that the above example will be one of the most instructive possible when engaging with people on this website, in order to prove my point that pity does not necessarily entail compassion.

>> No.12483633

>>12483584
Real love means putting someone else above yourself, impossible to do without sacrifice

>>12483596
A prayer is a way of saying "I love you, please have mercy" to God. Icons are prayers, hymns are prayers. Your life is a love letter to God, pen it how you will


>>12483603
The LITERAL definition of pity is co-passion, pain caused by someone else's pain. It is not disgust or revulsion or amusement or cringe

>> No.12483678

>>12483633

Again, dodging. You double down on your dictionary definition (appeal to history), which itself also misunderstands the true nature of the emotion, understanding it only partially and confusedly.

>> No.12483698

>>12483678
What you're feeling is not actually pity. It is smugness. Smugness often refers to itself as pity because smugness doesn't like to admit what it is, as that goes against its nature. Pity is a virtue, and has the same etymology as piety.

>> No.12483811

>>12483698

"bla-bla-bla I don't actually understand human emotions bla-bla." I pity you.

>> No.12483893

>>12483811
> In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

Isaiah 63:9

>> No.12483920

>>12483811
Looks like you went and lost yourself an argument, lol.

>> No.12483921
File: 911 KB, 1517x2130, Descent_into_Hell_by_Dionisius_and_workshop_(Ferapontov_monastery).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12483921

>>12483451
>>12483584
Corruption and death are not natural and evil itself has no actual being. The moral fall of man led to a metaphysically fallen creation, death did not exist before the fall.

None of this was God's plan for humanity. Man was created to receive deification and it is only through Christ that death and corruption are conquered, and through Him that man may attain his purpose in theosis.

>> No.12483939

>>12483921
Oh how stupid! None of this was God's plan? How ridiculous!

Here it is... how is it without in some very grand sense the consent or doing of the Almighty?

>> No.12483951

>>12483939
Because we have free will, as does God who we are created in the image of.

>> No.12483959

>>12483921
However to conquer death we must participate in Christ's death, that is why Paul said we are baptized into His death, and Athanasius said only death satisfies the law. We are released from bondage to sin only in putting ourselves to death in Christ in order that we may be Resurrection with Him. And through His Passion, we put passion to death. Suffering in Christ frees us from sorrow.

>> No.12483960

>>12483951
God did not abdicate man to man. God is never, not for a half second, less than completely in control of all of events and things.

>> No.12483963

>>12483920

Not at all. What's actually taken place is that I've fully made my case and the idiot is reduced to bible verses that don't apply. You've confused a "refusal to engage" with an over-abundance of engagement (which is what's occurred here) where the other guy (him, not me) just goes on being stupid. At such a state the appropriate thing to do is to simply declare victory since each belligerent is simply talking past each other, with the important distinction that I'm actually right and he's actually wrong.

>> No.12483966

>>12483533
The Greeks and Early Moderns (especially Spinoza and Descartes) still have a better grip on emotions (or "the passions") than current day psychologists.

>> No.12483972

>>12483939
Sin is, by definition, deviation from cooperation with God's will. That alone is what sin is, that is all it is

>> No.12483979

>>12483963
>You've confused a "refusal to engage" with an over-abundance of engagement (which is what's occurred here) where the other guy (him, not me) just goes on being stupid
Good distinction. I will use this in the future.

>> No.12483986
File: 456 KB, 1488x1284, Sad Jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12483986

>>12481204
>rejecting any form of God
Y-you realise you can be a Christian and believe in evolution, r-right anon?

>> No.12483987

>>12483960
So we're all puppets? God is playing every part, pulling every string? God is controlling Satan? God is the one raping children, and committing every other act of evil? What kind of theology do you believe in?

>> No.12483998

>>12483987
Yes, everything is because of God. All of birth and death and suffering and joy. Every last bit of it.

Does it offend you? Me too!

>> No.12484000

>>12483987

He is a tripfaggot. Tripfaggots are always wrong.

>> No.12484005

>>12483986
Evolution is an elaboration of creation.

>> No.12484006

>>12483986
Is there really a point though, as far as humanity is concerned at least? The human soul is not a product of evolution any more than angels are. To say God evolved one animal in a certain direction for billions of years so it's descendants would one day be sophisticated enough to be paired with souls is hardly more reasonable than to say God created humans through fiat miracle. I therefore sympathize with Hilarion Alfeyev's take on evolution

>> No.12484007

>>12483986
Sure, it just means that every year the Christian God™ expands in nature and scope, attaining new attributes entirely unlike any descriptions within Scripture™, even completely contradictory in many cases (Genesis and the Big Bang are not reconcilable, the latter does not align with the former), while Christians themselves remain as unwavering as ever in their beliefs, acting as if they have remained the same since day 1.

>> No.12484009
File: 568 KB, 625x494, Meso.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12484009

>>12483998
Sheesh anon

>> No.12484012

>>12483998
You have absolutely no reason to believe this so stop it.

>> No.12484025
File: 107 KB, 607x565, 1548378731088.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12484025

>>12484006
What was his take on evolution if I may ask?
>>12484005
What do you mean?
>>12484007
I agree with a lot of that in that as Christians we can only go so far before we're literally contradicting the bible to make way for some scientific reason. It's up to fellers like Greg Cootosa and other authors to help bridge that gap.

>> No.12484031

>>12483986
>Y-you realise you can be a Christian and believe in evolution, r-right anon?
Local council Carthage (419), confirmed by ecumenical council Nicea II (787):
>Canon CIX. That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body--that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
>Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX. Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.

>> No.12484035

>>12484012
Evil is maya, suffering is a veil, children with tumors in their eyeballs are blinking in the ceaseless eternity of what is.

Nothing else makes sense. Is God God or not? The will of God is all that prevails. All that prevails is the will of God.

We are ordered to see good and evil, and our little creature lives can only make sense of them existing together. Don't get me wrong, please don't get me wrong. We are meant to love and to hate evil and to battle with sin. That is our role in the world just as it is the role of a sparrow to tweet in the early morning after heavy spring rains.

It is not for us to know the meaning of evil in some ultimate sense, but to think that evil comes from something other than God is to worship Satan.

>> No.12484045

>>12483986
Read Genesis Creation and Early Man by Seraphim Rose.

>> No.12484062

>>12483963
Nope, looks like you just lost.

>> No.12484066

>>12484045
>Orthodox Monk living in California
Huh
What does he discuss? I can see that he caused some stir with other Orthodox priests because he took creationism over evolution or some sort of theistic evolution which Catholics and many Protestants follow.

>> No.12484073

>>12482998
You're literally the guy who asks who asks "But Lord, who is my neighor?"

>> No.12484079

>>12484025
>what do you mean?

All Darwin did was add details to Genesis. I borrow the following thoughts from Evan Eisenberg, "Ecology of Eden":

>Man in nature (man in Eden) was the pre linguistic, pre human hominid
>Man became knowledgeable of good and evil, he became ashamed of his nakedness before God
>man was cast out from Eden with his big smart homo sapien head. Eve was condemned to painful birth, because the head of homo sapiens is so enormous at birtb
>Adam was condemned to work the fields, because his wisdom surpassed thay of foraging or hunting, and granaries became its succor and subsistence
>mankind was told to never again enter Eden, the bliss of animal amoral being, and is blocked by fiery swords of seraphim from ever returning

>> No.12484083

>>12484062

That's because you're dumb, which is on you, and not me.

>> No.12484084

there's a ton of rationalist theology but the faith shit is just more popular

>> No.12484087

>>12484025
>What was his take on evolution if I may ask

In Orthodox Christianity, vol 2., he says there is no issue with animal evolution or the universe or the Earth being however old (he notes that figurative use of time is abundant in prophecies), but he says that there is a serious problem in seeing humanity as a cumulation of evolution, as that reduces humanity to something that can be bred into existence (or indeed could potentially father another, non human species way down the line). Therefore he says humanity's creation must be held as a miraculous event, not something which can be explained naturalistically as if they were simply one more species of animal

>> No.12484102

>>12481024
Gotta love how people seem to be oblivious to how all philosophy does this and only call out theology for being explicit about its axioms and limitations

>> No.12484107
File: 102 KB, 349x500, fall-icon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12484107

>>12484006
The best explanation of creation that I am aware of is basically this:
1. Modern science is based upon uniformitarianism, which is the assumption that the universe operated in the same way in the past as it does today. Hence we can observe a physical process as it occurs today and apply its current behavior to the past interminably.
2. Uniformitarianism is an incorrect assumption, and Christianity rather teaches catastrophism, which is the understanding that the functioning of the universe is subjected to and modified by various catastrophic events throughout time. Thus observing a physical process today tells us nothing about how the process behaved in the past.
3. The fall of man particularly, and also the flood, are catastrophic events which altered the physical behavior of the universe. The fall introduced death and decay into the universe, and the flood in scripture appears to have had certain affects upon the operation of the planet earth. You can see the gradual introduction of death into the universe by the gradual reduction of the human lifespan recorded in Genesis, until it reaches our modern lifespan.
4. As a result of this, we are cut off from the ancient past at the epistemological level. We cannot observe it in any way and can only learn of it through revelation. We can look at the evidence around us, but it can give us no scientific manner of making determinations of the past. If we assume uniformitarianism and attempt to make theories off the available data which assumes the past operated in the same way, then we will come up with theories that appear correct under these assumptions, but which are actually wrong (evolution). God has barred us entirely from Eden and the pre-fall world:
>Gen. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

>> No.12484108

>>12484083
You got btfo and humiliated bro.

>> No.12484113

>>12484102

Math is actually cool though and isn't evil and stupid like people who believe in evil gods which they mislabel as good.

>> No.12484116

>>12484066
He was a very reactionary fellow who is venerated as a saint among monks (this is generally the case before canonization, so I imagine he will be some day). He believed democracy and liberalism were satanic and that absolute monarchy was the only holy form of government. He did a lot to prevent the Orthodox Church in America from going the way of Catholicism by tirelessly writing rebuttals to every liberal Orthodox work that came out. He founded a monastery, which today houses a very American Orthodox bunch. Libs hate him, but monks love him

>> No.12484133

>>12484108

You won't be singing a different tune at the moment of your death, because instead of being transported to a place of judgment, you will merely cease to exist. I'll still be right, but unhappily, the structure of reality prevents me from gloating about it any further.

>> No.12484134

>>12484073
Not true at all. Again your issue is inability to distinguish between personal and political enemies. The Christmas Truce in WWI illustrates how distinct they are. Or read Storm of Steel: Ernst Jünger could speak English, and exchanged banter with the British across the trenches. Politically his enmity was enough to be trying to kill them, but personally he had zero enmity and often even felt love

>> No.12484137

>>12484087
>he says there is no issue with animal evolution
There is indeed an issue with God creating animals so that they can suffer and die for millions of years, and with God creating a world which is already subject to death before the fall occurred.

>> No.12484144

>>12484137
Not really unless we presume Eden covered the entire planet

>> No.12484150

>>12484133
I'm not even christian! lol.

>> No.12484153
File: 216 KB, 1200x1200, langfocus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12484153

>>12484087
Thank you anon. Can't say I don't agree with this.
>>12484137
Why should I care about a bug getting eaten by a lizard so it can feed itself as apposed to a human's suffering? They're on two very different tiers.
>>12484116
He seems like a very interesting fellow. I may have to check out his book.
>>12484150
Based and agnosticpilled.

>> No.12484162

>>12484113
I'm not talking about maths you moron

>> No.12484163

>>12484153
His work "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age" is an essay on rationalism as a turn from God that lead to democracy, liberalism, eventually relativism and then toward nihilism

>> No.12484182

>>12484144
You're missing the point entirely. Why were animals not given as food in the garden of Eden (only after the fall) when the entire existence of animals for hundreds of millions years to that point had been to be killed, die, and serve as food?

>> No.12484183

>>12484162

Math was first (because best) among the various things that you were implicating, you just didn't know it because you're dumb.

>> No.12484184
File: 556 KB, 900x687, Baby jumper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12484184

>>12484163
Merci beaucoup anon.

>> No.12484202

>>12484107
>my son, what sounds more correct?
>exhaustive empirical data collected over several hundred years in geography, archaeology and a host of other disciplines that makes the small assumption that our physical laws have remained relatively fixed in the span of several thousand years, if not millions or billions of years
>or a collection of sacred stories that is chocked full of contradictions and multiple human editors which retells the story of genesis twice just because and actually incorporated scientific beliefs of its own times and whose most influential interpreters argued for a non-literal interpretation. oh btw theres a fucking talking snake and a bunch of other superstitions written into it lmao

>> No.12484228

>>12484202
>and whose most influential interpreters argued for a non-literal interpretation
Read St. Basil's Hexaemeron. Oh, here's a good one, since I'm sure this is who you're actually referring to
From The City of God by St. Augustine:
>Chapter 10.—Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past.
>They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
>(Footnote: Augustin here follows the chronology of Eusebius, who reckons 5611 years from the Creation to the taking of Rome by the Goths; adopting the Septuagint version of the Patriarchal ages.)
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XII.10.html

>> No.12484250

>>12484182
Even after the fall man didn't eat meat, dude. Meat eating was only ordained by God after the flood.

>>12484184
Sure

>> No.12484258

>>12484250
>Even after the fall man didn't eat meat, dude. Meat eating was only ordained by God after the flood.
I made a minor error but it has no bearing on the point which I was making, which is that man's use of animals as food is something which only occurs in the fallen state, even though you are telling me that animals have existed as food for hundreds of millions of years. You are basically saying that the world already existed in a fallen state prior to the fall, that the world is a vast sphere of death, simply because God created it that way, and that's the way he intended it, with no involvement of human sin in any way.

>> No.12484262

>>12484228
Hexaemoron, which is school of Antioch, is great after you've gotten a bit tired of the Alexandrian school of exegesis which turns every river into an allegory.

Augustine didn't consider himself inerrant, and in fact warned Christians not to try to disprove science with the Bible. Unlike Basil, he would probably be open to revising figures. He was a lot less strict than school of Antioch regarding Scripture, although a lot more strict in moral beliefs (St. John Chrysostom, for example, was okay with coitus interruptus, whereas that horrified Augustine)

>> No.12484266

>>12484258
Man's "fall" is precisely his fall into being a beast

>> No.12484288

>>12484266
This doesn't make much sense to me. Can you elaborate?

>> No.12484291

>>12484262
>Augustine didn't consider himself inerrant, and in fact warned Christians not to try to disprove science with the Bible
You're dodging the point, which is that the assumption that modern science is based on is itself wrong. It is not some neutral assumption. It is not scientifically demonstrable.
>>12484266
Again you're dodging the point about death. Of course you have to since there's no way to answer it from an evolutionary perspective.

>> No.12484316

>>12481128
>spends an entire chapter/lecture arguing against religious philosophy
William James would agree with OP

>> No.12484320
File: 125 KB, 909x630, Gerasimos of the Jordan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12484320

>>12484288
Man is created in the image of God, thus he is God's viceroy in earth, he is altogether above and apart from animals. However man reduced himself to an animal by turning against God; when God says to man after the fall that He will ordain enmity between man and animal, God is saying I am revoking your authority (or at least seriously curtailing it) over beasts because you have debased yourself into a beast. Stories about extremely holy ascetics often depict dangerous animals as totally passive toward them, which is illustrating that the saint has achieved a state of true humanity. An OT example is Noah. Another is Elijah, who was brought food by crows

>> No.12484325
File: 34 KB, 436x681, metaphysics a contemporary introduction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12484325

>>12481024
For same reason all leftist "philosophy" is utter shit: they begin with a set of a priori dogmas and entire "philosophy" built around those dogmas exists only to rationalizing/justifying those dogmas. Me, personally, am mostly curious to both continental and analytic metaphysics when it comes branches of philosophy. Attempt to justify that which is predetermined as a fact on basis of faith is not really philosophy at all. Religious and leftists "philosophies" are only good as cringe pulp and to marvel at how far humans are willing to do mental gymnastics to justify their world view.

>> No.12484331

>>12484320
Okay sure, but man still has the potential to become a saint, whereas a beast does not and never did. Man is not a beast and never shall be, though he may be inclined to act like one.

The fall is not man becoming beast, it is man becoming man.

>> No.12484333

>>12484291
What assumption do you mean? Modern science is based on a methodology

>> No.12484347

>>12484331
This is a fundamental disagreement. A fallen state, in Christian theology, is subhuman. Being a saint is a restoration of humanity. Fallen man is to true man as demons are to angels. Man is created in the image of God, that is what defined man. Being a perfect image of God doesn't make someone superhuman, but rather a complete human

>> No.12484362

>>12484347
I dont necessarily have a problem with this language, but the fall did not reduce humans to beasts and I think you should not say that.

>> No.12484366

>>12484333
See >>12484107

>> No.12484403

>>12484362
Psalm 73:22

>>12484366
Black swans

>> No.12484417

>>12484403
>Black swans
Not sure what you mean by this.

>> No.12484419

>>12484262
>Augustine didn't consider himself inerrant, and in fact warned Christians not to try to disprove science with the Bible.
do you have any citation?

>> No.12484429

>>12484403
We are certainly like beasts before God, but man has a dignity and a potentiality ordered in his creation which cannot be taken from him. Even microcephalics and the comatose posess an inviolable dignity beyond the most clever chimpanzee.

I hope I am not grasping at straws and being foolish, but Christianity would become meaningless to me if men were merely beasts.

>> No.12484439

>>12484429
He's just going with that metaphor to hand-wave the problem of animal death, so you don't need to worry about it.

>> No.12484448

>>12484439
Sorry for being /late/ but why does animal death pose a significant problem to Christianity?

>> No.12484455

>>12484448
The position he was advocating was that evolution was true for all creatures except humans. If you believe this to the case then it means the world was already created in an effectively fallen state and existed for hundreds of millions of years as a tomb of death, killing, and suffering, and that God created it this way and intended it to be this way, for apparently no purpose whatsoever. So when man fell the only effect this had upon the world is that now man was subject to death and had to enter the creation of death that God had already prepared. God is thus the author of death and death is his intent in creating life.

>> No.12484468

>>12484419
His essay, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"

>>12484429
Man's dignity is that he is the image of God. If he rejects God, his dignity goes the way of Lucifer

>> No.12484469

>>12481191
I was there I can confiy that it began.

>> No.12484473

>>12484455
God made man for Eden, man was be fruitful and multiply and sanctify the whole planet, but by his transgression he was exiled from Eden into the less idyllic world, which his original duty was to bring order to and make like Eden

>> No.12484474

>>12484468
>Christian from 1,600 years ago defends "science"
>Damn I guess he means modern science and would totally accept all modern scientific theories
>Therefore evolution is okay
This is a good example of how you should not read texts.

>> No.12484475

>>12484455
Ohhh, that's a beautiful line of inquiry. I appreciate your sympathy for the suffering of untold billions of creatures in the long history of earth before man.

I dont think it's all that different from the line of inquiry which rejects Christianity (or God, more generally) based on the suffering of humans, especially children.

The fact that this is a major sticking point for modern people is pretty hopeful, it shows that we retain a capacity for sympathy towards others, human and nonhuman.

I dont think I am capable of answering this grave concern willy-nilly on 4chan, but I will try.

Reality is more vast, more complex and more deep than our little eyes can see. It is palatial and crystalline. It can be seen in many ways, at many levels. The horrible suffering we perceive, which seems immoral and senseless, is redeemed by the deeper reality behind it, which only God sees fully.

That does not mean we should content ourselves with doing whatever (since God will redeem everything), it means we should be joyful whenever we can participate in the redemption. It is good to adopt abandoned dogs. It is good to want to help suffering people and to try. These are our little human ways of participating in the great glory of God which will redeem all suffering.

>> No.12484485

>>12484473
What needs to be sanctified about the pre-fallen world? It has no infection of sin. It is innocent. Indeed God tells them to "fill" the Earth, rather than sanctify it. In your theology it is full of death and suffering because that's simply the way God intended it to be, so I'm not sure why you'd think it should be "sanctified".

>> No.12484497

>>12484475
In the classical understanding of the subject, death exists in the world because the world is infected with sin. The world is sick and needs to be healed. It was not created to be the way, death is not a "natural" thing, but rather an unnatural effect of sin. What this sort of evolutionary view does it make death a natural and intended thing. It now has no cause in man, but rather the sole cause is God. It's nice and all to talk about redemption and such, but what is it being redeemed from? Is it being redeemed from sin? No, it's apparently being redeemed from God himself, since he created it that way himself. It turns Christianity on its head, really. Everything you said about redemption is good and makes sense, but it only makes sense under the understanding that death exists because of sin.

>> No.12484515

>>12484485
Earth is yet to be "subdued". God commands man to subdue it in Gesesis 1:28. The world except for Eden is wild and God appoints man to tame it

>> No.12484526

>>12484497
I am no theologian.

It helps me to think that God flung us away, so that we might experience the joy of returning to Him.

I don't believe Satan can do anything without God's will. If Satan could do something God did not will, then either Satan would be god or there would be two gods. To my small mind, it does not make sense for there to be two gods, so I think Satan (and apparent evil) are shadows of God.

I think a great part of faith is trusting in God's will as it ultimately is and shall be.

I have wondered if god might be evil (that is, of god were Satan), but this made my soul even more miserable than when it believed that god was nothing.

I am a foolish creature. I am happy to leave it there, and to trust God's will and the justness of His creation. It makes me very joyful to remember I am a foolish creature. It is a great relief that my own thought does not have to discover how to redeem God, but rather that God knows how I may be redeemed.

I realize this will come off as so much foolishness to others. So be it. I am a fool. I know nothing with my mind.

>> No.12484531

>>12484497
Trying to apply death in a univocal sense here is a bit silly. Man has an immortal soul, death for him is fundamentally contrary to his nature, a reflection of his turn from God. Animals are fundamentally, in nature, immortal, dying for them is no more contrary than a wind dying. Their tame everlasting potential is only achieved under man's rule and dominion, it's not default.

>> No.12484537

>>12484526
Depends on what you mean by will. Satan can do nothing God does not permit him to do, and he often has to ask. Although that is very different from obeying an order from God.

>> No.12484540

>>12484474
I never said anything about evolution, it was about dating the earth

>> No.12484544

>>12484531
animals are *not fundamentally

>> No.12484964

>>12481098
Holt shit fuck off, most pseud comment I've read in months

>> No.12484990

>>12481185
Check out Pierre Lemaître on Wikipedia?

>> No.12485018

>>12484990
>/chrislit/ just keeps spouting b-b-but muh big bang as a gotcha rebutal to agnostics/atheists without realising that the model is outdated
like
c l o c k w o r k

>> No.12485214

>>12485018
Do atheists seriously believe that an infinite period of time has already elapsed? That's mathematically impossible.

>> No.12485242

>>12481052
>nothing is better than blind faith

>> No.12485250

>>12485242
>blind

>> No.12485253

>>12481166
>1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Random assertion

>> No.12485262

>>12485214
No one has said that but prove it hasn't

>> No.12485270

>>12485262
>insert burden of proof memes

>> No.12485281

>>12485262
It is mathematically impossible

>> No.12485305

>>12485281
That is a pretty big projection to say on your part. I could just claim that God being all powerful is also mathematically impossible.

>> No.12485321

>>12481024
It isn't. You just haven't read the right stuff or are too brainlet to appreciate it.

It's hard enough to have faith while also losing faith listening to the blistering morons running the church and celebrating mass. Novus Ordo was a mistake.

>> No.12485324

>>12485214
Why do you believe its impossible for the universe to be eternal? If you believe it's impossible for time to extend infinitely backwards then you have to explain why you believe time can extend infinitely forward as the Big Bang posits.

>> No.12485340

>>12485305
How is it? We are talking not about infinite time here. We are talking about adding to it, since time is still transpiring. If I say God is more than infinitely powerful, you'd be correct, but I don't

>> No.12485351

>>12485324
It doesn't propose that at all, and in fact I don't believe that

>> No.12485361

>>12485351
The big bang theory holds that the universe will continue expanding indefinitely.

>> No.12485399

>>12481948
get off this board dude. if you are who i think you are, im sorry i ever led you here. it’ll only degrade your experience as a human.

>> No.12485401

>>12485361
Which is not the same as infinite

>> No.12485403

>>12485340
Time is just a construct. I'm not making any assumptions about some made up definitions.

>> No.12485408

>>12482636
>leap of faith
>wants an argument
lmao the intellectual christains are so goddamned puny sometimes

>> No.12485410

>>12485401
Don't be shy, explain the difference

>> No.12485416

>>12484228
The fact that Augustine even said that, if he did, only embarasses Christianity even further. These are your best and brightest?

>> No.12485417

>>12482921
>b-but you too!
uhuh keep changing the coversation you larping faggot.

>> No.12485419

>>12485410
Indefinite is unestablished end (or no end in sight,), infinite is endless

>> No.12485421

>>12485416
Gregory the Theologian is our best and brightest

>> No.12485423

>>12485281
>It is mathematically impossible
Yes? And?
Nonwithstanding the fact that the physics stance on that isn't so much that infinite time has elapsed moreso than the notion of time doesn't apply, just because we can't describe it with maths (or current maths) doesn't mean it isn'. The universe doesn't run on maths, but maths is the tool we created to describe what we perceive of the universe.

>> No.12485432

>>12483986
>>12484005
>>12484006
>>12484007
good lord you people dont realize how retarded you sound. Darwin really is the end of religion and you fags are coping till the end.

>> No.12485435

>>12485423
So you're talking about something anterior to timespace (and therefore metsphysical)?

>> No.12485442

ITT: /lit/ colkectively remembers to filter tripfags, especially those clearly still in high school/first years of undergrad and bent on associating their LARP with their trip

>> No.12485446

>>12485432
It was also the end of atheist humanistic whatever. Read some Nietzsche. There's a reason why good old atheist Bertrand Russell spend so much time smearing Nietzsche and why his acolyte Steven Pinker continues to do so in the modern day, because Nietzsche exposed their shit as being nothing more than secular religious morality.

Darwin fucked a new asshole into everything.

>> No.12485450

>>12485419
Why does the distinction matter in the context of my question?

>> No.12485469

>>12485450
Because you're ascribing a positive error to underso ignorance? Saying we don't know when doesn't imply never

>> No.12485515

>>12485435
I won't bother with the debate about wether that makes it metaphysical and just accept your premise to see where you're going.
So, let's say yes, then what?

>> No.12485534

>>12485281
By this logic, you mean to say that time will someday come to an end? Instead of going on forever, and therefore hosting an infinity of events, you're telling me that time will be snipped at some point and, there, no more events?

>> No.12485553

>>12485515
Just that whatever it is, we know it's simple (having no parts), eternal (unencompassed by time), and puissant enough to establish the universe by pure fiat, so to speak.

>> No.12485561

>>12481024
>It seem like every religious scripture I read be it Islamic or christian, it all just boils down to hope and blindful faith
Maybe the epistemology aspect, but I think that all epistemologies lead to that while theism is the only one that's honest about it.

>> No.12485581

>>12485534>>12485534
As it were. Creation will be completely destroyed (including spacetime) in the apocalypse, then Resurrected.

>> No.12485592

>>12485581
So all of time stops? Everything vanishes? Earth disappears?

>> No.12486446

>>12484455
So what, were animals supposed to live forever too in Eden, and only started being mortal after the fall of man, as if they also fell with man and inherited Adam's sin?

>> No.12486575

>>12481052
T. Christfag

>> No.12487262

>>12485592
Yes, the end of the universe...armageddon.

>> No.12487270

>>12487262
And then what...? Where does everything go?

>> No.12487293

>>12487270
Totally anhillated.

>> No.12488778

>>12481181
How does something 'begin' when there is no time or space or material? Beginnings are temporal. We can't reach beyond our universe, so we cannot say anything about starts, ends, and what is beyond. Everything we are is contained within it, including the most basic of our logic.

>> No.12490477

>>12481024
>it all just boils down to hope and blindful faith,
You haven't read shit.
sage.

>> No.12490885

>>12483451
>The pleasure of an orgasm lasts for only a few seconds

If you see sexual pleasure as being limited to to orgasm than you are really missing out.

>> No.12492313

>>12484228

Leave it to Catholics to doubt general History not in favor of Reason but in favor of particular History. Out of the butt and into the fuck.

>> No.12492399

>>12484079

But more to the point, If the Apostles are the witnesses of Man then Hume, Darwin, Marx, et al. are the witnesses of Woman. Darwin in particular is as inspired as anyone in his metaphors, which are not so much wrong in regard to Man, but their wrongness is incidental to their utter strangeness and perversion, which is actually finely tuned to explain Woman. Think of "red in tooth and claw" and the principle of reproduction, how utterly strange it sounds when Animals' reproduction is a footnote in a life of idling. Now think how apt it sounds in regard to Woman.

>> No.12492410

>>12481055
>"just pray" is a lot deeper than you think
Unironically, this. Few people contemplate the deeper implications behind this. Atheists are unironically the densest and most shallow people.

>> No.12493312

>>12481024
what do you expect from philosophy based around magic thinking and psychosis?
>inb4 numale atheist neckbeard