/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15599368]

>dude just accept a dead 2000 year old jew as your savior and you'll become immortal in happy land
the absolute state of christcucks

[Anonymous No.15599397]

>dude all of our forefathers were dumb stupid idiots, my electric jew told me so!

[Anonymous No.15599413]

>>15599368
>if i just restate the main idea it in simple language with autistic wording, that'll refute it
i hate this website

[Anonymous No.15599427]

>>15599397
>>15599413
not an argument

[Anonymous No.15599508]

christoids btfo it seems

[Anonymous No.15599515]

>>15599397
no, just groomed since childhood

[Anonymous No.15599517]

>>15599397
yes. it is true. not just ancestors, but zoomers boomers as well. civilized people are extremely stupid.

[Anonymous No.15599525]

>>15599368
bible is one huge corruption of jesus teaching, and absolutely outdated. it makes people retards.

[Anonymous No.15599573]

>>15599525
based

[Anonymous No.15599609]

>>15599368
>ok, sounds like He was pretty based, i will accept Him as my Lord and Saviour

[Anonymous No.15599666]

>>15599368
The Maccabees converted Edom and Petra to Judaism

[Anonymous No.15599691]

>>15599666
Jesus and Buddha taught how to convert to yourself.

[Anonymous No.15599693]

>>15599666
Petra is such a qt name.

[Anonymous No.15599702]

>>15599368
I wholeheartedly agree that the sola fide model of salvation that you've laid out is pretty retarded.

[Anonymous No.15599710]

>not one refutation
Where are the tradcaths today lads?

[Anonymous No.15599713]

>>15599710
>>15599702

[Anonymous No.15599775]

>>15599427
It is; if you reduce anything that's even remotely complex down to a single sentence and intentionally use the most retarded verbiage possible you can make anything "BTFO"
>>15599413
Same
>>15599702
Don't the Roman Catholics accept a sense of sola fide wherein it's our faith that saves us but it has to produce/be accompanied by works? It's sola fide in a more Lutheran sense rather than the antinomian OSAS group of chucklefucks goes with, but it's still sola fide as far as I know.

[Anonymous No.15599792]

>>15599775
how and why does accepting jesus and worshiping him guarantee our entry to heaven?

[Anonymous No.15599805]

>>15599775
The real distinction is imputed vs infused righteousness.

[Anonymous No.15599867]

>>15599368
based

[Anonymous No.15599897]

>>15599792
To make it as succinct as possible: The Son of God became man so that we might become God. The wages of sin are death, but Christ defeated death upon the cross. The best metaphor would be a drain, and since God is infinite and can't die, yet Christ did die upon the cross, it makes a sort of problem. Ergo we can die, but it doesn't really "stick" so to speak. Granted, soteriology, eschatology, etc. aren't my forte. As for Heaven/Hell, they're not literal places, they're differing experiences of the same thing. To use a metaphor of God as a fire, it can either be warm and comfortable for those in Heaven, or it can be painful for those so mired in sin that the direct experience of God (and thus goodness itself) is painful. That said, I'm no expert on this specific subject and there's probably someone who could point out that I'm misrepresenting some part of it; I'd recommend reading proper literature on the topic. This is /lit/, after all.
>>15599805
Wouldn't that have been hashed out in the agreement with the Lutherans though?

[Anonymous No.15599903]

>>15599397
the majority of your forefathers weren’t christian

[Anonymous No.15599926]

>>15599897
I believe in the concept of God, but this sounds like schizo desert babbling

[Anonymous No.15599952]

>>15599926
I did mention that I'm not very versed in this; https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/are-we-gods touches on the topic of divinization enough that it works for a primer of sorts

[Anonymous No.15600010]

>>15599952
so you're not versed in it yet you fully believe in it?

[Anonymous No.15600285]

>>15599897
>we might become God
heresy
>As for Heaven/Hell, they're not literal places
heresy

[Anonymous No.15600972]

>>15600285
Tell that one to Athanasius, the Catholics, Orthodox, and basically every other Christian, friend. If you're not in either of those denoms, or with the Anglicans, I don't care about your thoughts desu
>>15600010
How well can you explain the effects of gravity upon celestial bodies? How about the exact processes in which genes are passed down? The inability to explain the minutiae of a specific system don't mean that one can't/shouldn't believe in it.

[Anonymous No.15601029]

>>15599897
fuck off Jordan Peterson
with this you might as well reduce God to some archetype of the Father or whatever the fuck
Go read Edward Feser you are deluded

[Anonymous No.15601058]

>>15600972
The Protestant reformation was a product of power centralisation.
Duke of Lancaster promoting John Wycliffe, Bohemian royalty promoting the Hussites, Elector of Saxony, Frederick III promoting Martin Luther.
Scripture doesn't support the solas unless you deracinate it of its context (i.e. St. Paul of the context of works under jewish law which is almost always the argument made by prots).
Walpole and the Whig Oligarchs also irreversibly corrupted Anglican theology by forcing Locke and Newton into churches in order to centralise power, displacing the Filmerian Tories [Geoffery Holmes - Age of Oligarchy].

[Anonymous No.15601205]

>>15601029
I don't read Peterson.
That said, only on 4chan would I get told "Read this dude who's only really known for his explanations of Aquinas" in response to a quote from a Church Father (Athanasius) and a rough summary of an idea present within Roman Catholicism (admittedly, more present in Eastern Orthodoxy though). You got me, that's pretty funny, unless you're serious, which is even funnier.
>>15601058
How is that a response to what I wrote?

[Anonymous No.15601220]

>>15599368
>muh jews
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15601293]

>>15601205
> If you're not in either of those denoms, or with the Anglicans, I don't care about your thoughts desu
giving more weigh to what you said, I never said I was arguing against you

[Anonymous No.15601367]

>>15601293
Apologies, since I saw the
>irreversibly corrupted Anglican theology
I thought it was an argument against me, at least to some degree, given that I said I was fine with Anglicans (especially since I am one). Though if the Oxford Movement hadn't occurred and we were still a bunch of super-Reformed people, I don't think I would be. Plus a lot of people here like to argue over the dumbest shit with no understanding of what's going on so I wasn't sure.

[Anonymous No.15601376]

>Christians: accept this dead dude and his teachings to be saved
>OP: I suck on massive cocks
>Buddhists: accept this dead dude and his teachings to be enlightened
>OP: I have nothing to say because my critique of Christianity has nothing to do with the actual content of the religion but rather is rooted in rebellion against my parents/culture

[Anonymous No.15601383]

>>15599525
what is the non corrupt teaching? I've found a lot of Buddhist/Yogi crossover concepts

[Anonymous No.15601394]

>>15601376

[Anonymous No.15601422]

>>15601376
>rebellion against my parents/culture
>against
no, he's participating in the same exact rebellion of his culture.

[Anonymous No.15601450]

why in the fuck is this thread still up did the janny kill himself

[Anonymous No.15601463]

>>15599897
How do you know this? There is no way to verify this information, you just have to trust that some bronze age savages lucked out and had God sit them down and explain how things really were. There are many aspects in life that require faith to assent to, but I cannot see any reason to put my faith in any institution that in current times is only made up of lazy, self righteous boomers, rejects who have been ejected from late stage liberalism desperately trying (and failing) to preserve any tradition that may be remaining and pedophiles. Christianity is dead, just accept it and move on. Maybe try Nietzsche if you're looking for something to fill the void.

[Anonymous No.15601619]

>>15601463
Well, we can't know for certain, that's why it's called faith. As for why believe it, it's not like the "bronze age savages" were actually a bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes; just because they were scientifically inferior to us doesn't mean they were crack-smoking morons who made shit up wildly, they tried following logic to the best that they could. Hence there's no reason to believe that they'd just make shit up and die willy-nilly, especially since we've got a traceable line of ideology from the modern day to then (even if there have been some hiccups along the way and some of the clergy are assholes who can't follow their own rules). Plus monotheism is the only belief system that makes sense imo, and I don't think that any God that isn't Love is worth worshipping, given that otherwise God is either susceptible to whims (and thus could be a monstrous asshole for no reason) or God is a monster that needs worshippers. Love can't exist in a vacuum and needs a recipient, hence binitarianism or trinitarianism is necessary, or else we're divine (since we're ontologically necessary in this case). That said, the philosophical arguments for the trinity are probably shaky, especially since I'm no brilliant logician, just a shitposter on /lit/. That said, if I were to go with just philosophy rather than accepting philosophical works in my religious views (as I've met Christians who are big fans of Nietzsche) I'd probably go with Derrida, I've seen an interview with him and he was a fun guy.

[Anonymous No.15601621]

>>15601376
Holy projection

[Anonymous No.15601818]

>>15601619
>it's not like the "bronze age savages" were actually a bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes
This is the only conclusion I can come to after reading the old testament though. There are very few books that are worthy of serious consideration in the OT, and all the development of advanced theology and related philosophy happened well after these books were written. On a purely intellectual level the idea of God is very pleasing, however seeing as the only method that is offered to be reconciled with this God is to join and participate in a particular tradition, and every tradition has been ruined by simple-minded hedonists I see no reason to actually participate.

[Anonymous No.15601960]

>>15599368
defend the euro culture by believing in asian god

[Anonymous No.15602070]

>>15601621
How so?

[Anonymous No.15602092]

>>15601818
I can't even fathom the idea of being as much of a brainlet as you are

[Anonymous No.15602113]

>>15599775
>Don't the Roman Catholics accept a sense of sola fide wherein it's our faith that saves us but it has to produce/be accompanied by works?
No, because the "faith vs. works" dichotomy is an invention of the Reformation designed specifically to downplay the role that our individual human wills play in the process of salvation.

[Anonymous No.15602377]

>>15602113
They signed an agreement with the Lutherans on this, to the best of my knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15602948]

>>15599903
The majority of your forefathers were single-celled organisms. Am I supposed to worship an amoeba?

[Anonymous No.15602961]

>>15601818
>the Old Testament Hebrews didn't even have reddit -- why should I take their opinions seriously?

[Anonymous No.15603644]

>>15602948
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15603691]

>>15599368
>dead 2000 year old jew
He was only dead for a few days. Tip harder next time.

[Anonymous No.15604085]

>>15599368

[Anonymous No.15604099]

>our God is love!
>also, if you disagree with him, he’ll torture you forever!

What did christcultists mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15604156]

>>15599413
>>15599775
It sounds fucking stupid even if you try to dress it up in the prettiest language possible.

[Anonymous No.15605687]

>>15604099
Well, we don't die (forever) as Christ defeated death, and Hell is just the same experience of being in the presence of God as Heaven it just hurts because you're in active resistance to good/love. You being a midwit doesn't make it wrong