ExChristian needs Philosophy and Cosmos recommendations

[Anonymous No.14168198]

37 y/o boomer who has abandoned Christianity recently. Need some good material to expand my mind. Just kino shit. Not bugmen tier faggot shit.

[Anonymous No.14168213]

>>14168198
the bible

[Anonymous No.14168215]

read a few science and high school level books ie. grow up

[Anonymous No.14168224]

Faggot, read Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.14168232]

>>14168213
Low effort. That’s how I got here in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14168237]

http://orgyofthewill.net/

[Anonymous No.14168251]

>>14168213
fpbp
>>14168224
tpsbp

[Anonymous No.14168253]

>>14168232
yeah, low effort did get you here

[Anonymous No.14168255]

>>14168224
I WANT TO FUCKING SMASH YOUR HEAD OPEN STOP TALKING ABOUT KIERKEGAARD

He is the ESSENTIAL pseud-author
More of a poet than a metaphysician.
Reminder that if you're Christian you wouldn't be recommending him, considering all of his work is FUCKING HERETICAL

Do you even read what you preach, you half witted imbecile? Or do you really believe that God can command something that is unethical? If you do, you would be righteously put to death for causing the little ones to stumble a la mode Mark 9:42
""If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea."

You are either advocating for heresy or are just fucking stupid. Either way, DIE!

[Anonymous No.14168266]

>>14168255
>I WANT TO FUCKING SMASH YOUR HEAD OPEN STOP TALKING ABOUT KIERKEGAARD
>He is the ESSENTIAL pseud-author
>More of a poet than a metaphysician.
>Reminder that if you're Christian you wouldn't be recommending him, considering all of his work is FUCKING HERETICAL
>Do you even read what you preach, you half witted imbecile? Or do you really believe that God can command something that is unethical? If you do, you would be righteously put to death for causing the little ones to stumble a la mode Mark 9:42
>""If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea."
>You are either advocating for heresy or are just fucking stupid. Either way, DIE!

[Anonymous No.14168268]

>>14168198
Dostoyevsky

[Anonymous No.14168273]

>>14168255
ah shit, just a week ago I told my 10 year old nephew to read Either/Or. See you in hell I guess

[Anonymous No.14168293]

>>14168266
>>14168273

Essenziale post for understanding the mind of those who recommend Kierkegaard. Those who intend to read him, I would like you to pay notice to how this imbecile dismisses me by means of the aesthetic rather than intellectuality a la Kierkegaard. Reminder: Kierkegaard's idea of the teleological suspension of the ethical supposes that God commanded Abraham to do something immoral. Considering morals come from God, the Kierkegaardian refutes himself with his own insanity. No one has ever addressed this intellectually. The Kierkegaardian fetishizes faith as a result of placing aestheticism on the highest regard. The Knight of Faith is an aesthetic hero. Not an intellectual one.

[Anonymous No.14168305]

>>14168293
>God commanded Abraham to do something immoral.
It’s not immoral if God commands you to do it.

[Anonymous No.14168307]

>>14168198

>37 yo larper who has recently stopped larping
>Please help me find the next persona I can larp

[Anonymous No.14168310]

>>14168198
You are gonna need something real gentle to start undoing the mindfuck of Christianity. You should read The Good Book: A Humanist Bible by A.C. Greyling. Not a great philosopher but this book is a great sublimation of human thought through time that will kind if open your head a little bit to escaping the damage done to you by modern Christian thought. It's really super soft history and philosophy from lots of different traditions all edited down thematically and put into chapters like a bible. Kind of a fun read too. It will prep you for the harder stuff.

[Anonymous No.14168313]

>>14168305
Yes! You see it! That whole statement refutes Fear and Trembling. No Kierkegaardian can argue against that while being Christian. No one has ever argued against that in good faith. They just ignore it and keep shilling Kierkegaard anyway. It brings me disgust that he's mentioned in Christian threads here. It's horrid. He's a horrible paganistic writer whose entire philosophy hinges on the idea that God is capable of commanding something evil.

[Anonymous No.14168320]

>>14168198
The greeks

[Anonymous No.14168328]

>>14168313
I haven’t read Kierkegaard, but this seems like it could be a semantic issue. Abraham did the moral thing, but God commanded him to do something that is *usually* immoral, showing that his faith in God is greater than anything else.

[Anonymous No.14168332]

>>14168293
Divine command theory is retarded though

[Anonymous No.14168344]

>>14168332
Morality is ultimately based on self-gratification. Obeying God will lead to reward, while disobeying God leads to punishment.

[Anonymous No.14168350]

>>14168313
doesn't fear and trembling basically argue >>14168305 though? (genuine question, I've not read it)
>>14168255
>More of a poet than a metaphysician
wouldn't this make him less of a pseud though?

[Anonymous No.14168396]

>>14168350
>doesn't fear and trembling basically argue >>14168305 though? (genuine question, I've not read it)
No, he argues that Abraham is a knight of faith for suspending the ethical by obeying God, and praises him for it. It's so heretical and silly.
>wouldn't this make him less of a pseud though?
Kierkegaard himself was not a pseud. It's those who shill him without reading his work and what it entails him who are. They're unwittingly falling for a repackaged Gnosticism by believing that the God in the old testament was evil.

[Anonymous No.14168401]

>>14168255
God didn't command something that was unethical, because the sacrifice of Isaac became ethical when he commanded it.

[Anonymous No.14168403]

>>14168293
He is still cooler than the average christcuck

[Anonymous No.14168418]

>>14168293
Not the person who you were responding to, but let me take a swing at this anyway since you seem so sure you're onto something here. You neither understand Kierkegaard's Ethics, nor the story of Abraham.

>Kierkegaard's idea of the teleological suspension of the ethical supposes that God commanded Abraham to do something immoral.
No, it doesn't. In the first chapter he says that it SEEMS as if this is the case, but it cannot be, else Abraham is a murdered and God is a petty tyrant. There is a higher court of appeals than human norms, and this is made necessary by the fact that God would not command Abraham to do something immoral.

>Considering morals come from God
Correct, while in Kierkegaard's terms, ETHICS are the domain of human interactions and social norms. God deals in absolutes, not Ethics. What God asks of Abraham appears to be unethical, but this is irrelevant, because it is still supremely moral. The highest ethical duty is to the absolute, rather than to ethics itself.

>No one has ever addressed this intellectually.
The way you keep throwing around the word "intellectually" makes me anticipate the fact that you're going to dismiss any opposition to your half-informed tirade as "unintellectual", but I'm doing it anyway. Let it be noted that I see you.

>The Kierkegaardian fetishizes faith as a result of placing aestheticism on the highest regard.
This is a complete nonsense statement even if we correct your faulty definition of "aestheticism" in Kierkegaard's context.

>The Knight of Faith is an aesthetic hero. Not an intellectual one.
He is neither an aesthetic hero nor an intellectual one. Thats the point. He isn't supposed to be an intellectual hero, because being able to justify your actions either intellectually or by appealing to duty is the domain of Agamemnon, not Abraham. You reek of wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.14168439]

>>14168401
See, you fall for gnosticism once again. God is omniscient, therefore he is unable to change His mind. He therefore would have commanded Abraham to do something evil knowingly. If you follow the logic through, you are saying that the ends justify the means, which is deeply unchristian. The real Christian truth in this is that God cannot command something evil, as God is incapable of evil. God therefore wouldn't have commanded something unethical, therefore, the concept of a teleological suspension of the ethical is unnecessary and heretical.
>>14168403
He was a sick and mentally ill person. I've prayed for his soul under the assumption that he is in purgatory for leading many good men astray and will continue to do so every time he is posted here.
>>14168418
>No, it doesn't. In the first chapter he says that it SEEMS as if this is the case, but it cannot be, else Abraham is a murdered and God is a petty tyrant. There is a higher court of appeals than human norms, and this is made necessary by the fact that God would not command Abraham to do something immoral.
If it is not what it seems to be, the teleological suspension of the ethical is deemed arbitrary. There is no true suspension if it only seems so. He talks about this when comparing the tragic hero to the knight of faith.
>Correct, while in Kierkegaard's terms, ETHICS are the domain of human interactions and social norms. God deals in absolutes, not Ethics. What God asks of Abraham appears to be unethical, but this is irrelevant, because it is still supremely moral. The highest ethical duty is to the absolute, rather than to ethics itself.
This also renders the teleological suspension arbitrary. All morals come from God, yes. There is no need for worrying about what SEEMS to be unethical if you are commanded. Once again, if you do something that seems unethical knowing it is unethical, you are a tragic hero, not a knight of faith. It hurts me that you bring this up since he literally talked about this in Fear and Trembling. You're misconstruing the tragic hero for the knight of faith.

[Anonymous No.14168443]

>>14168439
if you do something that seems unethical knowing that it will resolve as an ethical act you are a tragic hero** that's what i meant to type

[Anonymous No.14168454]

>>14168439
>you are saying that the ends justify the means, which is deeply unchristian.
why?

[Anonymous No.14168464]

>>14168454
Because then it would be ethical to do something evil, bypassing God's authority, to make something good happen.

[Anonymous No.14168474]

>>14168464
But if the end is good then the means is also good

[Anonymous No.14168481]

>>14168474
No, because then God's morals dissolve into moral relativity. An evil act has to always be evil to truly be evil.

[Anonymous No.14168494]

>>14168481
No, it depends on the outcome. God tells us what’s good for us. No such thing as good or evil in itself

[Anonymous No.14168522]

>>14168494
if God commands good ends, and we achieve them through violating His moral law, we are at fault, though He still makes good of our sin

[Anonymous No.14168595]

>>14168439
>If it is not what it seems to be, the teleological suspension of the ethical is deemed arbitrary...
His point is that our everyday understanding of ethics is lacking, in relation to absolute morality. Therefore, if we assess God's actions through the lens of human ethics, we get the unpalatable result that either God commands murder, or Abraham is a murderer who had no blessing after all, neither of which seems right. Therefore, our understanding must be amended. In what sense is this amendment arbitrary then?

>There is no true suspension if it only seems so
The suspension is the real deal, because Ethics are not the highest standard for action.

>There is no need for worrying about what SEEMS to be unethical if you are commanded.
Easier said than done, unless you're attempting to say that what Abraham did was easy? If it were so, does this not negate the weight of the covenant with God he gained by having the faith to follow through? You're approaching very shaky ground here.

>Once again, if you do something that seems unethical knowing it is unethical, you are a tragic hero, not a knight of faith.
No, the tragic hero is the one who is able to justify his actions for some "greater good". You're thinking of the Knight of Infinite Resignation, but even then, they don't fully commit to the idea that what they are doing is unethical as immorality.

What exactly is your point in all of this? And why have you not responded to the fact that the Knight of Faith as a figure without recourse to aesthetics, Ethics, or intellectualization is exactly the way its supposed to be?

[Anonymous No.14168597]

>>14168439
I think his point is that humans have limited understanding of what is good, so if God orders you to do something you should obey unconditionally, because it is impossible that God will command you to do something evil, while humans can be mistaken about an action being evil (hence God's command might appear as immoral). Do you think that we should disobey God if his orders appear immoral to us?

[Anonymous No.14168611]

>>14168597
No, you're just making stuff up. He specifically points to Abraham suspending the ethical by obeying God. Of course you shouldn't disobey God. All of his orders are unfathomably righteous.

[Anonymous No.14168636]

>>14168611
You shouldn't disobey him even if he commands you to murder your son?

[Anonymous No.14168653]

>>14168636
sacrifice*

[Anonymous No.14168727]

>>14168653
So abortion is murder but sacrificing your son isn't?

[Anonymous No.14168786]

>>14168636
Well, yeah, that’s the point. It was a test of faith. It was also meant to be an example for those who read the Word. Everything that was done to the Hebrews was meant to test the Hebrews, but it was also meant to be shown as a lesson to those who read the Word. You might think of it as a cruel joke, but it is said much later that the wisdom of man is foolishness; we have the understanding of children, to YHWH. YHWH wants us to always seek to learn about Him, but He also makes it clear that we will never completely understand His ways. He says as much in Job when Job’s friends were trying to find fault with him. YHWH comes down in a whirlwind after Job’s friends make hasty assumptions about how YHWH operates, and YHWH succinctly explains to them how little they really know. For example, He asks them whether or not they could, with confidence, number the clouds in the sky.

[Anonymous No.14168790]

>>14168198
Stay away from anything Jewish, anon. Their religions are poison to humanity, and to every species in existence. Vile, bloodthirsty cultures, born of hatred for themselves and everyone else. Cults of death, which still plague our planet due to how heavily they exploit basic elements of human psychology.

Look into Eastern philosophy if you wish. Buddhism is a very profound system of teachings, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.14168802]

>>14168727

[Anonymous No.14168810]

>>14168310

>Leave Christianity
>Go humanist

S m h the state of this board

[Anonymous No.14168836]

>>14168253
Based.

[Anonymous No.14168882]

>>14168494
>No such thing as good or evil in itself
>implying that God isn't good in and of himself

[Anonymous No.14168883]

>>14168882
meaningless. What is good? Would God be good even without the creation?

[Anonymous No.14168886]

>>14168198
Buddhism
read the nikayas, then nagarjuna, then vasubandhu, then explore the mahayana further

[Anonymous No.14168897]

>>14168883
God is good. It's not relative.

[Anonymous No.14168901]

>>14168897
>God is good
why?

[Anonymous No.14168907]

>>14168901
because existence is good and god made it. read aquinas

[Anonymous No.14168934]

>>14168907
Then why did you say that God is good even without existence?
>>14168883
>>14168897

[Anonymous No.14168951]

>>14168198
Try the works of Alfred Tarski, then read Achille C. Varzi.

I will warn you that this is getting dropped intl the deep end. If you aren't prepared for metalanguage and formal semantics, you'll quickly find yourself over your head. So I would recommend seeking out primers on these and other related topics before you delve elbow deep.

Also read Star Maker. It pissed off C.S. Lewis something fierce, he went to his grave in eternal asshurt over that book.

[Anonymous No.14168971]

>>14168810
Christians hate humanity, it's no secret by now. Tacitus diagnosed it very early on in their history, shrewd observer he was. The only humans they care about are deceased, specifically the figures of their holy scriptures. They hate animals too, except those which have been associated with the figure of Jesus. The rest are merely "beasts" (that their deity also created as beasts, and created their beastly nature), which humanity can do with as they like.

[Anonymous No.14168995]

>>14168198
Take the Sagan pill

[Anonymous No.14169105]

Confessions and Free Will by Saint Augustine

[Anonymous No.14169197]

>>14168198

Gospel of Thomas and Philip, Pistis Sophia.

[Anonymous No.14169222]

>>14168439
If God cannot do evil then how is He omnipotent? Is there a set of right and wrong that exists externally to Him, by which He abjdes? Then how is He God?

[Anonymous No.14169232]

>>14168198
Read Joseph Campbell Myths To Live By and Jung's Man and His Symbols

[Anonymous No.14169249]

>>14169222
God is omnipotent in that he can do anything he wills. Evil is the absence of God. God therefore cannot do that which is absent from him, as that is a logical impossibility akin to asking God to create nothing. It is impossible to create nothing, as nothing does not exist. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything, not nothing.

[Anonymous No.14169253]

>>14168439
>God is omniscient, therefore he is unable to change His mind

Eh?

[Anonymous No.14169276]

>>14169222
God is omnipotent and all righteous. His judgement is just. He is goodness. That is how He’s described at times in the Word. He exemplifies such traits all throughout creation and the Word. He can’t be evil because He is all righteous, and He is never in the wrong because He is all just. As it says in the Word, the wisdom of man is foolishness.

[Anonymous No.14170278]

>>14168198
Read Moldbug.
Pretty sure he's the guy, via his pseudonym Bronze Age Pervert, that coined the term bugman in the first place.
You obviously don't have to agree with everything he says, but he is a very interesting read.

[Anonymous No.14170285]

>>14169253
He already knows everything. It's a static state