Why is /lit/ so religious?

[Anonymous No.15857170]

Since intelligent people aren't, is /lit/ actually a bunch of brainlets LARPing as patricians?

[Anonymous No.15857176]

>>15857170
larping, mostly

[Anonymous No.15857180]

>>15857170
Explain to me how atheists are smarter.

[Anonymous No.15857190]

You must be 18 to post on this site

[Anonymous No.15857191]

>>15857170
>intelligent people aren't religious
intelligent people recognize that you don't have to read something as a literal representation of reality and instead take it as an abstraction of something 10s of billions of humans understood through action rather than a scientific understanding before science even existed.

i don't read lord of the rings and think that Balrogs are real but I still recognize the significance of Tolkiens stories on society.

[Anonymous No.15857193]

>>15857170
Every 4chan poster is a retard

[Anonymous No.15857198]

>>15857170
They're midwits anon, and there's plenty of evidence to show why a swede is easier to be influenced by say cultural marxism than a nigger.

[Anonymous No.15857207]

They want to feel as above the "cringe atheists".
It's ok to be religious. It's ok to be an atheist. Just be silent about it, nobody except the (anti-)theists of the other side cares. And those people will just argue without even considering the other side.

[Anonymous No.15857215]

>>15857170
The average /lit/ poster is American and 23 years old, joke's on you for having any kind of expectations towards this board.

[Anonymous No.15857218]

>>15857180
Smart people are usually atheist, or at least agnostic. I don't know how to explain a fact to you.
>>15857191
No one is disputing the significance of religion on mankind. But to believe that nonsense in the 21st century is insanity.

[Anonymous No.15857231]

>>15857170
"Atheists" are more religious than they'd like to believe. They just have different sins, their bible is hollywood, and their priesthood various kikes.

[Anonymous No.15857253]

>>15857231
That not religious, that's just being a degenerate. And I doubt atheists indulge in such autism any more frequently that theists.

[Anonymous No.15857267]

>No one is disputing the significance of religion on mankind. But to believe that nonsense in the 21st century is insanity.

[Anonymous No.15857281]

>>15857218
>i dont know how to explain it
>its a fact tho
cant you see your contradictions, but you obviously you cant or you wound never be a fedora tipper

[Anonymous No.15857293]

>>15857170
Militant atheists are as retarded and obnoxious as Christians.
Am I religious? Sure, in my own way. I have my own conclusions on these issues instead of belonging to a sect. I think people should keep their beliefs on these issues to them-fucking-selves. Religion will enjoy greater purity without being organized into corrupt human structures, and people won't have to argue about which organized structure is better or whether or not they should believe in it at all.

[Anonymous No.15857294]

>>15857191
what are you on about, are you trying to pull a "just methaphors bro" or are you one of those cultural christians that don't believe their own religion

[Anonymous No.15857322]

This thread

[Anonymous No.15857345]

There are truly very few atheists. Most atheists are actually Liberals. Liberalism is a sect of Christianity. If you ask a Liberal if they believe in a Creator, they'll say yes, and say that they believe he interferes in the world to bring good things to people. Liberals believe good things come from the Creator, and only really, really, REALLY bad people (like Hitler) are punished by him. This is sometimes referred to as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

So, really, being religious is actually the norm. This is especially the case in the US, where Liberalism is the state religion and is enforced as such. You HAVE to hold this religion to have status, power, and privilege in the US, you're just locked out if you don't. To that end, people who want status, power, and privilege adopt Liberalism, or at least ape it, to acquire these things. They often know it's a crock of shit, but hey, they want power, privilege, and status, so what can you do?

New Atheism came in the early 2000s as an attempt to fight off Liberalism. A wave of people saw that Liberalism was a Christian sect, and said "If we kill Christianity, we can kill Liberalism". They're right. The problem is that Liberalism adopted atheism as a means of further heights of piety and virtue (the tl;dr is that if you're only Good because God said so, you're not good at all, so let's kill God to demonstrate that we're Good because we're Good and be Good for Good's own sake). This just furthered the actual core tenets of Liberalism, as it abstracts the Creator away even further, reinforcing MTD.

Atheism thus split into one half which just reinforces Liberalism (the "Christian" side of the Christianity vs Atheism debate is also made up of Liberals), and one half that wants to do away with Liberalism. The problem is that Atheism isn't actually a religion, it's just a series of statements about how (you think) the world works. There were a few attempts to make an actual religion out of Atheism, none of them succeeded (Liberalism doesn't like competition). Thus, the illiberal half of Atheism adopted new, illiberal, religions. This makes sense when you realize that it was never really about religion or belief as a whole, but a very specific belief: Liberalism.

You can't not have a religion, but you can adopt a religion that says it's not a religion, but just because you say it's not a religion doesn't mean it's not a religion.

[Anonymous No.15857349]

>>15857170
An imaginary friend is better than no friend.

[Anonymous No.15857386]

>>15857345
This.

[Anonymous No.15857414]

>>15857281
keep coping

[Anonymous No.15857416]

>>15857170

I hate to burst your bubble but the majority of celebrated authors, thinkers, scientists, and artists from the last few millennia were religious
But of course then you realize that it had nothing to do with their intelligence any way and the vast majority of people in the past were religious in some capacity

The stereotype of religious people being stupid didn't start until very recently
And that's because at this point the most intelligent people have given up even talking about religion because they've realized it's a waste of time that gets them nowhere and there are much bigger things to worry about than beliefs that by nature are much more nebulous

[Anonymous No.15857453]

>>15857414
He's right, you're a moron. I'm not even religious, but someone saying, "I don't know how to explain a fact to you" is a philosophical illiterate.

[Anonymous No.15857513]

>>15857170
>itt Voltaire seething he isn't on par with actual great men who are religious

[Anonymous No.15857530]

>>15857453
Why should I have to explain what makes a fact true to you when, in the first place, I wasn't arguing for any kind of stance, but merely asking an innocuous question?

[Anonymous No.15857559]

>>15857170
Since you're an atheist and commit a correlation-causation fallacy, hopefully you will recognize your error.

[Anonymous No.15857592]

>>15857180
When forming judgement on some matter, it is a mark of an intelligent mind to largely neglect a large chunk of contributing factors which lead people to become religious, such as customs of their society, conformity to popular opinion and opinion of people in their immedeate surrounding, various superstitions and trust of unreliable epistemology (i.e. trust to testimony of religious experience). Though it is not guaranteed, considering the prevalence of physicalist worldview in the upper circles these days chances are that modern intelligent person is an atheist, or at least statistically speaking there are more atheists among intelligent people than among the general population in any given well-developed country.

[jesus No.15857608]

>>15857176
>>15857207
exactly this. NPC programmed to larp. driver: fear of parents, social detachment and pity. basically original sin.

[Anonymous No.15857611]

>>15857170
Let me explain. Stupid people are religious, people of slightly above average intelligence are atheists, and highly intelligent people are religious.

[Anonymous No.15857635]

>>15857559
I never implied that being intelligent causes you to become atheist, only that in general intelligent people are non-religious.

[Anonymous No.15857669]

>>15857608
Thanks, Jesus.

[Anonymous No.15857692]

>>15857170
CUZ WE'RE NOT FILTHY MATERIALISTS

[Anonymous No.15857709]

>>15857170
>Since intelligent people aren't, is /lit/ actually a bunch of
>Evelyn Waugh is not intelligent
>Graham Greene is not intelligent
>Werner Heisenberg is not intelligent
>Georg Cantor is not intelligent
>Thomas Traherne is not intelligent
>William Blake is not intelligent
>WH Auden is not intelligent
>Leo Tolstoy is not intelligent
>Aleicter Crowley is not intelligent
>Lewis Carroll is not intelligent
k

[Anonymous No.15857722]

Life is an initiation into its mysteries and its rite of passage is death.
People in this board are anesthetized both spiritually and intellectually, they have no idea about what religion is and no consciousness of life.

[Anonymous No.15857734]

>>15857635
cite 5 super intelligent atheists. i'll reply with 5 religious ones.

[jesus No.15857792]

>>15857734
jesus, buddha, krishna, castaneda, me.

[Anonymous No.15857816]

You shouldn't presuppose the obviously incorrect. Irreligious is the default today and irreligious fanatics the most braindead, so you have to be individualistic and intelligent to come to the religious. I think the LARPers here recognise a problem in themselves and society, and decide that the solution is faith and contemplation.

[Anonymous No.15857817]

Because atheism is for children and liberals

[Anonymous No.15857818]

>>15857170
All men are religious. Excepting for the severely mentally impaired i.e. vegetables

[jesus No.15857829]

>>15857817
be like children (C) me 2k years ago

[Anonymous No.15857837]

>>15857345
>(the tl;dr is that if you're only Good because God said so, you're not good at all, so let's kill God to demonstrate that we're Good because we're Good and be Good for Good's own sake)
you're gonna have to elaborate on that bucko

[Anonymous No.15857872]

>>15857837
God says that if you do Good, you get heaven. If you do unGood you get hell. Heaven is nice, you want heaven. Hell is bad, you don't want hell. At some level, you're doing Good because you want heaven and don't want hell. If unGood got you heaven, at some level you would want to do unGood to get it. You'd be willing to do a bad thing to get a good thing. Liberals say that's not good enough, however. Doing Good to get a reward isn't doing Good. You have to be Good for no reason than because it is Good. If you're getting a reward or a punishment, you're doing it for the reward or out of fear, not because it's Good.

By killing God, by saying he's not real or decreasing his interference in the world to such that he might as well not be real, you also remove heaven and hell from the equation. In doing so, you create a system with no incentives to do Good. The only reason to do Good is because it is Good. This allows you to demonstrate that you are Good, because you get no rewards for it. You're Good for Good's own sake. You're totally free of self-interest.

This is important because Liberals are INCREDIBLY concerned with what other people think. They desperately want other people to think they're Good. They desperately want to be TOLD that they're Good by other people. They desperately want other people to think that they're Good and not just in it for their own benefit. Killing God removes the possibility of self-interest (there's no heaven or hell, you get NOTHING by being Good or unGood), meaning that anyone who is Good can clearly be understood to be Good for no reason but Good itself. They're Good because they're Good, not because they're getting a reward for it.

[Anonymous No.15857875]

>>15857170
Pretty good bait. The issue is where the bell curve is centered. The middle-right side of it is generally less religious than the left side of it. But the far-right side (where the really big IQs are) goes back to being more religious. On average an intelligent person you meet is less likely to be religious than a stupid person you meet. But the very intelligent people are once again more likely to be religious.

[Anonymous No.15857975]

>>15857872
>God says that if you do Good, you get heaven. If you do unGood you get hell
Which Protestant church is this?

[Anonymous No.15857977]

>>15857875
>But the far-right side (where the really big IQs are) goes back to being more religious
Did you find data about this? Everything I've seen about this shows religiosity decrease with intelligence and never go back up.

[Anonymous No.15857988]

>>15857345
>everything is a religion
Only if you consider some schizo definition of religion that nobody would agree with. Religion is simply belief in a supernatural creator. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. If I reject that idea, you don't get to make up some reason as to why I've actually only abstracted away the creator, but deep down still believe in him.

[Anonymous No.15858016]

>>15857218
▶Smart people are usually atheist, or at least agnostic. I don't know how to explain a fact to you.
most midwits* (110-135 IQ)

[Anonymous No.15858034]

>>15857988


>Religion is simoly the believe in a supernatural creator.

You have to be 18 to post here.

[Anonymous No.15858051]

>>15858016
A distinction needs to be made between intelligent and wise people. There aren't any stats to back it up, but I'm willing to bet wise people are almost universally non-religious.

[Anonymous No.15858067]

>>15858051
>wise people are almost universally non-religious.
Most wisdom texts form the basis of religions though. Subjects where you can be intelligent but not wise, like mathematical texts, rarely find the same kind of following.

[Anonymous No.15858072]

>>15858051
A distinction need to be made between wisdom and knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15858075]

>>15857817
Nice LARP

[Anonymous No.15858078]

>>15857975
That's Christianity period, simplified to a point of lacking any nuance what so ever. That simplification is, again, part of Liberalism. It's one of the core parts, in fact. It's an attempt at achieving a state of purity, without worthless trappings that get in the way.

[Anonymous No.15858083]

>>15857345
Based Moldbug

[Anonymous No.15858091]

>>15857170
I think it's a mix of

1. nationalists from 2012 who believe religion can create the authoritarian society they want, so they LARP as religious. I've met these kinda people in IRL churches, and they're ticking time bombs that will undermine the church when they get influential enough because they lack genuine spirituality.

2. People who cling on to its mystical side to help them cope with life, believing it will give them a Peterson-esque transformation to be strong, but not in a positively spiritual way, rather in a way that lets them feel righteous and safe in their cynical judgement of others.

I too have felt the allure of religion before, in both forms #1 and #2, motivating myself to keep seeking purpose and spirituality with worship music that moved the soul. But I realised that it was the music itself that was spiritual, not the dogma attached to the lyrics.

That's because real spirituality, real transcendental experience is good, it makes you a better person more aware of yourself, others, and empowers you to make the right choices and let love enter your life, but medieval religious systems hijack it and try to destroy its existence outside of them (and each other too).

They'll grow out of it, hopefully, but for now you gotta ignore the noise on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.15858097]

>>15858034
Invalid rebuttal. Quit schiziposting because nobody is buying your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15858102]

>>15857170
>Since intelligent people aren't
literally the most intelligent people to ever exist, including Einstein and Newton, believe in God. post-modernist atheists will go against God and promote their atheism so they can chase fame and fortune instead of following the scientific method and obeying a higher order. this rids them the guilt of pushing their "studies" without peer review so they can chase political ideology instead.

in other words, you have to be at least 18 to post on this site, but even then I'd recommend about 20 so you can at least put two years into trying to act like an adult.

[Anonymous No.15858103]

>>15858075
nice cope

[Anonymous No.15858121]

>>15858067
You can absolutely be wise in science. What do you think wisdom is?

[Anonymous No.15858124]

>>15858078
>That's Christianity period
No, the best support for Hell in Christianity is the Gospel of Nicodemus, which you might notice is not mainstream. Most sects within Christianity do not believe that >>15857872
>God says that if you do Good, you get heaven. If you do unGood you get hell
Catholics believe that they are saved by Grace or
>you do good or ungood, God might still invite you to his party
Calvinists believe in a predestined elect of
>You do good or ungood and God still keeps you on the invite list because he already printed placecards
Salvation by faith sects believe that by accepting Jesus as your saviour you're saved or
>whether you do good or ungood, it doesn't matter because God announced the party on snap so obviously he wants everyone and their mother to come to the party
A lot of sects don't even believe in a Hell to send the ungood people to, and the way you get into heaven is very very rarely through good acts. Read more

[Anonymous No.15858129]

>>15857207
>both are okay
>but follow mine it's the right one

[Anonymous No.15858143]

>>15858121
>What do you think wisdom is?
Knowing that you don't know, which would be at odds to science since it comes from sciere (to know).

[Anonymous No.15858151]

>>15858143
this. that is why there is no greater expression of reality and god than apophatic theology

[Anonymous No.15858159]

>>15858102
You keep reaching for the OP even though I've clearly corrected myself multiple times to say I meant in general. Using a few outliers to disprove the average is a sign ignorance, or deceit. Which one is it?

[Anonymous No.15858164]

>>15857170
read Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.15858176]

>>15857988
A religion is a series of prescriptive and descriptive statements about reality backed up by ethical and metaphysical systems and theories. Defining it just as "hurp durp do you believe in a creator Y/N" is a worthless definition, namely because in doing so you say that there are many Atheists who are religious and many religious people who are Atheists. This is completely counter to what you're trying to do (reify a hard distinction between Atheism and Religion in order to save a privileged place for Christianity) because in doing so you make the term "religion" totally worthless by your own definition.

The problem is you're trying to reify YOUR personal views of the world, rather than actually looking at how the world works. You might as well just go ahead and say "everyone who disagrees with my personal metaphysical and theological views is an atheist, even if they believe in and actively worship some kind of divine beings; you cannot be religious unless you agree with me", because that's what you're trying to do.

Or, we can use the actual definition, which I gave above, which accurately describes how all people act (you cannot NOT have metaphysical and theological beliefs, you just don't actively think about them). The alternative, what you suggest, results in there being people who don't have fundamental beliefs about how reality works, which is so silly as to be disregarded outright.

[Anonymous No.15858188]

>>15858124
>denies that Christians believe in hell
>calls others schizos
I'm not sure you thought this one through. Did me pointing out that Liberalism is a Christian sect really make you that butthurt?

[Anonymous No.15858202]

>>15858124
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell
hell shows up several times, anon. have you ever actually opened a bible in your life?

[Anonymous No.15858208]

>>15858188
I didn't call anyone a schizo. And yes, plenty of Christian sects deny the existence of hell. I didn't address your belief that Liberalism is a Christian sect. I only explained why your characterization of Christians' beliefs about how to get into heaven are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15858221]

>>15857293
Only intelligent answer itt

[Anonymous No.15858225]

>>15858202
>have you ever actually opened a bible in your life?
You realise the support for Hell is not in the Bible? Your insistence that it must be, when it comes from contact with the Norse in the middle ages, and your other views on Christianity are why I asked which Protestant sect this theory is based on.

[Anonymous No.15858228]

This has to do with 4chan and how the ideas on this site develop on different boards. 4chan has always been about being edgy by going against what society deems as cool. At first this manifested in an anti-authoritarian way, as evidenced by the “anonymous” movement and work against Scientology.
Later on, as you do when you get a bunch of nerdy white dudes who have an insular community, a lot of anger towards women started popping up as society started dealing with feminism more actively. This manifested itself in Gamergate as the site started to shift its edgy culture towards being against the sort of inclusiveness that society was starting to promote. This led to the formation of the alt-right and suddenly conservatism being considered cool and edgy as it was counter to mainstream culture.
As society has started to move towards secularism and liberal ideas more and more, 4chan is reacting by turning towards religion and conservatism. This manifests on /lit/ in terms of the “enlightened Christian figure”, who rejects the more mainstream secular philosophy that has taken hold in the academic world.

I’ve left out a lot here (and I honestly think someone should write a book about the radicalization of the white male through internet culture, especially 4chan), but this is what I’ve seen as I’ve frequented this site and popping in and out throughout the past 15 years. Basically, it’s edgy to be religious right now.

[Anonymous No.15858247]

>>15858228
Ah the old
>4chan is just contrary, there's not actually anything wrong
kys, retard.

[Anonymous No.15858248]

>>15858208
Who cares about your personal specific interpretation of Christianity? For one, I'm talking about Liberalism, so whatever Catholics and Calvinists believe (they do believe in hell) is irrelevant. This is how Liberals see the world operating. Liberals disagree with Catholics and Calvinists, so even if you were right (you aren't)j it's a moot point. Secondly, yes, Catholics and Calvinists do believe in hell. They both believe in hell operating under such mechanisms that "a person goes to hell" is a good enough term to refer to how it works, and that "hell" is a good enough term to describe how this place works, and they both believe that "place" is a good enough approximation to describe hell when speaking colloquially and not in a strict theological sense. It's okay that I'm using colloquialisms, as we're not talking about Catholicism or Calvinism, we're talking about Liberalism.. The Liberal view of hell is obviously far more simplified than that of Calvinists and Catholics, and I outlined the reason why in the very post you first quoted. So, again, fucking obviously there will be disagreements about the minutiae of how hell works, because LIBERALS AREN'T CATHOLICS AND CALVINISTS.

[Anonymous No.15858256]

>>15858247
Thank you for helping to prove my thesis.

[Anonymous No.15858259]

>>15858225
so yes you have literally never opened the bible in your life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell#New_Testament

[Anonymous No.15858273]

>>15858247
He's right though. None of the /pol/faggots real believe any of that shit, or they wouldn't be /pol/faggots.

[Anonymous No.15858288]

>>15858228
>it is edgy to admit life is a mystery and that god is by definition inscrutable
yeah you're a retard

[Anonymous No.15858297]

>>15858176
No, that's not what religion is. You can't manufacture an esoteric definition that fits your narrative and use it to disprove my point. Mine is rudimentary, but it is the most common definition. Of course, it can be expanded upon to include Buddhists, pagans, etc, but it still remain a simple definition from which follows that religious people will have certain behaviours, practices, worldviews, morals, etc. But if I reject that axiom in the first place, none of what follows applies to me.

[Anonymous No.15858299]

>>15858228
why did you spend all this time writing such a garbage post? nobody who could suck your dick for virtue signalling will see it, and everyone else knows you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.15858301]

>>15858248
>personal specific interpretation
not him, but anon, just read about apokatastasis

[Anonymous No.15858307]

>>15858259
Not the person you are responding to.
Heaven and Hell are Greek ideas. They aren't in the Old Testament, and weren't part of the Jewish religion Jesus was part of.
The New Testament adds these ideas, and one might wonder, "How did Greek shit end up in my Jesus Adventures stories"
Well, look up what language the New Testament was written in and you have your answer.

[Anonymous No.15858312]

>>15857170
Some are born without a soul and are meant simply to work. See the Indian caste system.

[Anonymous No.15858320]

>>15858247
>>15858288
>>15858299
These posts are indicative of the fact that the above theory is probably hitting on some sort of truth. They drip with the power of the edgelord being hit in a sore spot.

[Anonymous No.15858326]

>>15858297
If we accept that there are authoritative definitions, then your definition is wrong, because that's not what the word means. If we accept that we can redefine words to better suit some task, then your definition is wrong, because it's overly constrictive to the point of worthlessness.

You want to be able to say "you're an atheist unless you agree with me". That's dumb, and pointless, and this kind of stupidity is part of why Liberalism is allowed to run rampant and cause all of the harm that it does.

[Anonymous No.15858337]

>>15858307
>there's no support for hell in the bible
>yes there is, here it is
>well that's just foreign gibberish anyways, who cares what's in the bible
moving the goal posts, i see

[Anonymous No.15858355]

>>15857170
In my experience, there are the blind-faith stupid religious, the midwits who are atheist because 'hurrr muh science', and then the intelligent who are 50-50 because they have the capacity to consider metaphysics and come to independent logical conclusions about whether the universe has will or not.

Source is my ass, but many 'religious' posters often tend to have well-written logic that clearly suggests a level of intelligence despite the blind-faith 'religious stupidity' meme that the midwits believe in.

[Anonymous No.15858381]

>>15858337
>moving the goal posts, i see
Its just pure fact. Cope with that how you want.
This is just another reason why Christianity should have just dropped Old Testament. Not only does it make your God a fucking asshole, it is filled with historical contradiction and falsehoods.

[Anonymous No.15858397]

>>15858326
It's only your opinion that it's overly constructive. I think it's a perfectly suitable first principle which can be used to derive everything else we know or do not know about religion.

I don't want to say that. I want to be able to say that I am non-religious, since according to you, that's impossible, and I would still be religious, just LARPing as an atheist.

[Anonymous No.15858404]

>>15858307
>Not the person you are responding to.
>>15858337
>>there's no support for hell in the bible
This is why reading comprehension is important.

[Anonymous No.15858690]

>>15858129
>>but follow mine it's the right one
Where did I imply that?

[Anonymous No.15858701]

4chan are a bunch of contrarians. /pol/ and /his/ use ethno-historical reasons for being contrarian and /lit/ uses literature based reasons.
I dont think kids here realise how edgy being an atheist was back in the day. It was very similar to being young and religious today.

[Anonymous No.15858709]

>>15858355
this, it's another classic example of greater variability at high ends of a distribution, similar to political inclinations.

[Anonymous No.15858916]

>>15858248
>Who cares about your personal specific interpretation of Christianity
I gave you the beliefs of some of the largest and most common sects. Your personal beliefs about Christianity are not, for any reason I can see, preferred.

[Anonymous No.15858980]

>>15858259
>Hey look we translated three different concepts from outside Christianity into Viking inspired words which deal with a different afterlife
>That totally makes it in the original Bible
>Also please ignore that the Roman Catholic Church, the Pauline church, still interprets all the mentions of fire as Purgatory instead of hell
>Just because the only people who value Paul also don't believe in personal interpretation doesn't mean my personal interpretation of their faith could possibly be wrong
Again, these ways of thinking are more Protestant. The Catholics maintain that most of the references lists are about Purgatory and not hell (and everyone except the Virgin Mary will go through Purgatory, so doing good does not offer an escape), while translating it as Hell is a reference to a fourth afterlife which the original authors using Greek and Hebraic words would not recognise.

[Anonymous No.15859012]

>>15858103
Lmao, you're literally the one coping.

[Anonymous No.15859011]

>>15858980
To be fair, the sole fide churches believe in personal interpretation generally, but it wouldn't help his original point since they are pointed justified by faith alone and not acts of goodness.

[Anonymous No.15859037]

>>15859011
Yeah I'll concede the Lutherans do care about Paul and personal interpretation. Lots of sects do, but Lutherans are also not very fire and brimstone like anon wants them to be and they're one of the main sects representative of that view.

[Anonymous No.15859054]

>>15857170
>is /lit/ actually a bunch of brainlets LARPing as patricians?
Yes. They're also from /pol/

[Anonymous No.15859200]

>>15857170
>Since intelligent people aren't [religious]
Tell this to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Pascal, Einstein...

[Anonymous No.15859214]

>>15859054
Where did the people who actually wanted to discuss literature go?

[Anonymous No.15859247]

>>15858980
>The Catholics maintain that most of the references lists are about Purgatory and not hell (and everyone except the Virgin Mary will go through Purgatory, so doing good does not offer an escape)
Wrong on three accounts:
1.Catholics maintain many will end up in hell, which is an eternal separation from god and eternal punishment
2.Many people skip purgatory because of their holy lives, these are people you might have heard of called saints, people ask saints to pray for them precisely because they are believed to be with god already.
3.The church actually does teach that the references to hell are about a literal hell and not merely purgatory. See 1034
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

[Anonymous No.15859534]

>>15859247
>>15859247
>Many people skip purgatory because of their holy lives, these
No, saints are not sinless. And nobody escapes purgatory, as per 2 Maccabees.
The source you're quoting states that God does not predestine anyone for hell, and the catechism also says that Catholics cannot possibly know where anyone will end up, whether hell or heaven, and those that maintain to know are blaspheming.
Gehenna refers to an entryway, which is why it's held to be purgatory, and the fire being eternal for those who turn away is a reference to the fire being a temporal thing for those who have no chosen to turn from God. That is why Hades, which involves no fire, is also translated as Hell, but Gehenna is also translated as waiting room.

[Anonymous No.15859570]

>>15857170
It's the opposite, most /lit/ posters are LARPing as faith chads. I'm not religious myself, but believing in one's own interpretation of a religion is no different than believing in a political theory or an ideology.

[Anonymous No.15859614]

>>15857180
don't atheists have an higher average iq than religious people? Idk about the specific denominations tho

[Anonymous No.15859671]

>>15858355
Pretty nuch this, of course cletus is pretty dumb and religious, that does not mean there are no high iq religious people

[Anonymous No.15859685]

>>15857253
As it's impossible to disprove God, atheism is a matter of faith as well. Agnosticism is a different story.