/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16050893]

Any short texts to help convince Christians and atheists to return to belief in the single Creator and Sustainer of the All?

[Anonymous No.16051231]

>>16050893
You mean Monism or Gnosticism or one of the other de-personalized esoterics?
You can always peddle the Force from Star Wars; that worked well with consumers.

Or are you referring to God the Father?

[Anonymous No.16051285]

>>16051231
He means Islam

[Anonymous No.16051321]

>>16051285
So God the Father.
OT God that spoke to Abraham, father of Ishmael.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16051347]

>>16050893
There isn’t a “single creator” or our infinite eternal universe. Why should we return to such a dark period? You think it was a good time?

[Anonymous No.16051360]

>>16051231
Any monism [or esotericsm for that matter] worth its salt can balance personal and non-personal conceptions. Its actually an empty distinction on a higher level, imo.
>God the Father
I mean the one and only God.
>>16051285
Islam is more metaphysically accurate than christian trinitarianism imo.

[Anonymous No.16051407]

>>16051360
But have you ever talked to God and asked Him how it works?
Like who does God pray to?

Even Christ as God prayed to Someone:
>Our Father, who art in Heaven...

The divine mechanisms are quite interesting...

[Anonymous No.16051508]

>>16051347
Thats your opinion. This thread is irrelevant to you. And yes I do.
>>16051407
It doesn't make sense. Why would God need to pray to Himself? I can understand we as fragments reintegrating with source through prayer and meditation. But why if he is fully divine, i.e. a whole divinity, does he need to pray at all? What is he praying for? These are rhetoricals. I'd rather you think about the questions than actually respond to them.

[Anonymous No.16051512]

>>16051347
Weren't you doxxed? You're as ugly as I always thought you'd be. Are you a tranny or do you just look like one you pig?

[Anonymous No.16051521]

>>16051512
OP here. Lets not be rude. Just ignore them.

[Anonymous No.16051539]

>>16051521
No, it needs to kill itself. We have to egg it on.

[Anonymous No.16051557]

>>16051539
You should not encourage others to sin my friend. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. God doesn't want the wicked to die. He wants them to repent and return to His righteous path.

[Anonymous No.16051579]

>>16051557
I'm trying to clean up the board not save its soul. Was its home address doxxed or just its picture? I'll kill it myself if it won't suicide.

[Anonymous No.16051595]

>>16051579
Whats more important:
>Your desire for a clean board
>Avoiding sin and entreating others to faith?

You have to set an example.

[Anonymous No.16051607]

>>16050893
https://doorofperception.com/2016/10/islamic-architecture-mosque-ceilings/
This stuff is mindblowing. The site name is appropriate in some manner I reckon.

[Anonymous No.16051622]

>>16051508
Why do you have inner monologue?
Anywho, I think it has something to do with divine growth. Solves the problem of a static God / unmoved mover.
Beyond that, also solves the problem of an uncreated God interacting with creation on any level.

Imagine yourself a singular static omnipresent, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Nothing; just being in essence. No becoming. Just lonely.
First thing I'd do is create a copy of myself.
Congrats, you have 2. But there's no differentiation between them; no communication.
So you create a 3; a means to interact. A means to bounce off each other; poke eachother, test each other, challenge eachother, learn and grow despite being made of the same divine essence.
And that is the building block of reality; an infinite God that can grow infinity through self-interaction. The beginning of the concept of Identity. The beginning of the concept of Becoming.
1 has no identity on it's own. 2 is a reflection of identity. 3 reinforces identity.

Much like if I gave you a mathematical sequence of
>{1..}
>{1,2..}
>{1,2,3..}
Which ones makes the most coherent sense to continue the sequence (given that number theory yet exists in this paradigm)?
The first two can go anywhere, any incoherent reality, while the last one has the most coherency without having to be redundant (I don't have to add 4, 5, 6, n+1 to the sequence for fullness).

To quote a lame song that is surprisingly relevant here:
>One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do
>Two can be as bad as one
>It's the loneliest number since the number one

[jesus No.16051712]

>>16050893
have sex

[Anonymous No.16051735]

>>16051622
>Why do you have inner monologue?
If your suggesting that our prayers are like God's inner monologue I'm not going to necessarily disagree. What does that have to do with the divinity of a created being? Idk

As for the rest of what you've said: fair enough. This is basically the 42nd verse of the Dao De Ching:
>The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things.
Exchange God for Tao in this context.
The process is similar to the the idea of The Ein, The Ein Soph, and The Ein Soph Or in Kabbalah.
The point is: why are you worshipping the three instead of the One, or indeed, if we use the Taoist conception, why are you worshipping something that comes out of the tao [God] and not the tao itself? The answer is simple enough even though I get the sense that you really wont like it: Christianity is idolatry. I say this with no contempt for idolatry other than the distance I want to maintain from it due to the divine mandates against it. Fair enough if you want to be a pagan idolater, thats your prerogative, just don't deceive yourself or others into thinking its monotheism when its not. I mean come on, look at all the idolatry and the second commandment is don't make a carved image.
Thank you though, and thank God, I arrived at a text that was the original intent of the post: the 42 verse of the Dao De Ching.

[Anonymous No.16051737]

>>16050893
>>16051231
>>16051285
>>16051321
>>16051347
>>16051360
>>16051407
>>16051508
OOGA BOOGA!

[Anonymous No.16051746]

>>16051712
Only to make children, God willing.

As a side note, to the above post ending in 735, I can't wait to read that Guenon book about daoist and sufist mysticism.

[Anonymous No.16051840]

>>16051735
>Exchange God for Tao in this context.
Yeah, it's compatible.

The point being that one on its own, it's sufficient. Neither is two; even among the Yin and Yang. You need a bridge, a third. A mechanism of interaction for completeness of form; else you're stuck in the status of the 1, or the illusion of the duality of 2.
Not much different than say having a mind (Father), body (Son), and soul (Holy Spirit) to be ontological complete as a self-identity.

It's a pattern of reality and our created universe and this pattern can be traced back to a divine "building block". Otherwise, nothing moves or changes or is even created in the first place.

Same as saying you need 3 points to create a perfect sphere; 1 is just a point, 2 could lead to arbitrary/imperfect ellipses.
With 3, you can build complex the complex and coherent geometry we know as reality.

I know it sounds kinda heady and weird, but it makes more sense looking at this from different angles other than the mere theological.

oh and
>If your suggesting that our prayers are like God's inner monologue I'm not going to necessarily disagree. What does that have to do with the divinity of a created being? Idk
I'm just illustrating the ability for God to communicate with Himself. Why does this mechanism exist and why is it inherited in man? If it were just One, then self-communication would be impossible. Just like with myself, I am communicating to something non-one schema internally; with the aim of some sort of growth or progression; whether I'm in a state of joy or suffering or confusion etc.
So even though I appear as a holistic one, I'm more complex than that as I recognize an inner dialogue, a self beyond the one, and a mechanism to communicate with that other self (i.e. inner monologue, prayer, etc.).

[Anonymous No.16052034]

>>16051840
>>16051840
God is sufficient. Hence why there is multiplicity.

Sibling even within your post your making God in your image.

Surely you understand this. Obviously He is sufficient in Himself otherwise how did the multiplicity arise out of Him... I just dont see the logic in worshipping something that is a result of His creative power and not The Blessed One Himself, the source of that power and that creation.

[Anonymous No.16052066]

I don't understand Trinity
How do christcucks even cope with having three gods, but they're actually one?

[Anonymous No.16052106]

>>16052034
I was made in His image, hence why I can contemplate Him.

And while we are a derivative of Him through His creation, I can analyze myself in order to gain insight on my Creator. If I pray to God, God prays back to me. If I suffer, then God must know of suffering and thus knows of suffering. This seems completely logical unless God is not God and I am not I.
If I can grow. Thus God can grow.
If God can grow, then God is beyond One.

While the concept of One is simple, it is incomplete without Oneness.
What is the multiplicity with the distinction? What is multiplicity without a unity?
The Trinity affords the One multiplicity, while maintaining unity.

[Anonymous No.16052602]

>>16052106
>The Trinity affords the One multiplicity, while maintaining unity.
A human concept affords God nothing. God is capable of generating multiplicity
because He is God, not because of anything people have thought about Him. God is a perfect unity with the All, as it is written,

>“There is no one holy like the Lord,
Indeed, there is NO ONE besides You,
Nor is there any rock like our God" -1 Samuel 2:2; or

>“Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and THERE IS NO OTHER;
I am God, and there is no one like Me" - Isaiah 46:9. Etc


The great mystery is why He let the trinity happen in my opinion. I feel like the only way you can justify the trinity to yourself is by limiting God within a humanly intellectual framework. Why would an infinite, eternal creator even be capable of being understood by a contingent, ephemeral consciousness.. except by revelation. Surely you understand the contradictory nature of thinking yourself a monotheist and at the same time believing in three instances of divinity. Its like you want to have your cake and eat it to: why even have faith if you try to force your conceptions on God?

Consider this an admonition. You wont be able to say you weren't warned on judgement day.

[Anonymous No.16052634]

>>16051360
Nah, Trinitarianism is the cutting edge, the only doctrine of God capable of fully reconciling the finite and the infinite. It is because relationality and love are intrinsic to the one God that these things reveal rather than obscure him. If right relation is impossible, then creation is impossible, and one reverts into either a sterile pantheism or tyrannical occasionalism, which amount to basically the same thing.

[Anonymous No.16052641]

>>16051512
>Weren't you doxxed
link?

[Anonymous No.16052660]

>>16052066
By rationalizing and philosophizing. That’s why philosophy is fundamentally pointless. You can justify anything to anyone using anything

[Anonymous No.16052680]

>>16052634
No doctrine is capable of comprehending The Infinte. How do you know what is intrinsic to God- except through what He reveals?
>If right relation is impossible, then creation is impossible
How can you say what is possible for an omnipotent being?
Why even have faith when you've reduced The All-Mighty to a concept you can play with? It reminds me of someone carving idols and naming them and selling them to people.

[Anonymous No.16052690]

>>16050893

[Anonymous No.16052728]

>>16052680

The point is not to ‘comprehend.’ Doctrine provides the conceptual guardrails which exclude error, pointing one toward the truth in itself. The Trinity, of course, is a revealed doctrine, and one which does reconcile God and the world in just the manner that I said. The doctrine of the Trinity points us to the means of reconciliation- to participate in the intrinsic relations of God to himself. It does exactly what a concept is supposed to do, and its resistance to easy comprehension is precisely a guard against human intellectual arrogance.

One can say what is possible for an omnipotent being by analysing one’s own words, to see whether one is in fact expressing something about God or the world, or just uttering nonsense. The limits of possibility are not limits in God, which don’t exist, but limits in our ability to say things, which are perfectly accessible to reason.

The Trinity reconciles the world and God by rendering the language of love and relation spiritually fecund and reflective of the true nature of God. Anything less reduces everything we say of creation to nonsense, and cuts off one’s thinking from the fruits of faith.

[Anonymous No.16052731]

>>16052690
Obviously nihilism is the problem. Looks interesting but it wont do. You might notice than in the OP i included Christians in the group of people that need to return to faith in the One creating, sustaining universal Governer. Christianity is part of the problem and its breakdown- which was always bound to happen evidently, probably because of its erroneous, arrogant theological innovations- is a source of nihilism imo.

[Anonymous No.16052743]

>>16052731
>impersonal creators are the solution
cringe, deism is pure garbage, might as well believe is nothing just as relevant

[Anonymous No.16052776]

>>16051231
>Gnosticism
Lmao. What is that, the belief in gnomes?

[Anonymous No.16052812]

>>16052743
Did I say deism? The Blessed One sustains us every moment we exist, imo. We are only maintained because He wills it out of His unending mercy, I believe.
>>16052728
>The point is not to ‘comprehend.’
Then why do you need to invent doctrine?
>The Trinity, of course, is a revealed doctrine,
Quote the scripture where God states this unequivocally... I dont include the writings of Paul. I regard him as schismatic who scorned his covenant with his Lord and innovated his own ideology. Is there anything in Mark, Luke or Matthew about this? I don't remember Jesus ever saying God was three but I know he was a Jew and I knew Jews- the pious ones at least- are monotheists, not trinitarians.
>The doctrine of the Trinity points us to the means of reconciliation- to participate in the intrinsic relations of God to himself.
You don't need a doctrine to participate in a relationship with God. If there is non but Him, we can't help but be related to him constantly all the time. Repentance is how we are reconciled with God, not some pagan human sacrificial doctrine invented by ruthlessly power hungry impious innovators.
>It does exactly what a concept is supposed to do
It does precisely the opposite. If concepts are supposed to be intellectual vehicles for communicating our beliefs about truth, the trinity muddles the truth and produces erroneous beliefs.
>Its resistance to easy comprehension is precisely a guard against human intellectual arrogance.
The mystery of God's Oneness is sufficient for this. The trinity's incomprehensibility is more like a smokescreen for sophistry imo and a deliberate mechanism to confuse the ignorant into acquiescence.
>One can say what is possible for an omnipotent being by analysing one’s own word
Again you limiting God to human logic. Making God in the image of man. Idolatry and blaspheme.
Your last paragraph just reads like the empty sophistry of a jesuit. Everything we say of creation is nonsense. Read Ecclesiastes. Language [and logic] is only a symbol. Only God comprehends the Truth, we are simply guessing. Hence the necessity of faith.

[Anonymous No.16052814]

>>16052776
basically

[Anonymous No.16052818]

>>16052641
No idea I just saw someone post its picture on /tv/ when it posted their. They said it had been doxxed.

[Anonymous No.16052822]

>>16052818
>their

Er, there. Perhaps 4 am is time for bed.

[Anonymous No.16052843]

>>16052812
You statement are completely incoherent one you want quotes from scriptchure then you rejected it. Then you invoke it again , but only parts they you like.
You don't limit God by logic by denying the Trinity, then you calim him to be greater than logic.
You tell is God is personal yet you don't accept his prophets and Himslef made flesh.
You are on the level of early gnostics and there is a reason they don't exist anymore .
You have the shopping mall religion where you pick and choose what you like.

[Anonymous No.16052939]

>>16052843
I dont regard the epistles as scripture. Its just pauline propaganda. Show were it states the doctrine of the trinity unequivocally in the old testament- which Christians are supposed to believe in too-, or even the gospels.
>You don't limit God by logic by denying the Trinity, then you calim him to be greater than logic.
The trinity is a limitation by innovated doctrine. I deny that limitation. I deny all logical formulations can communicate truth about God. As is said only God knows the ultimate truth, I believe.
>You tell is God is personal yet you don't accept his prophets
I do. I accept all the prophets and Jesus as a prophet if you like and Muhammad [Peace, blessings and praise upon all the messengers of God]. I don't think Paul was a prophet at all because he attempted to erase the covenant he was supposed to keep.
Your last two sentences are just more empty rhetoric. I don't have a religion though, I have faith and a relationship.

May the Lord guide you into His Perfect Oneness and May He liberate you from the captivity of folly. Trust in Him and He shall bring it to pass.

[Anonymous No.16052983]

>>16052843
To reiterate my points about God being beyond human logic and comprehension:

>"Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? - Job 11:7

>Indeed, God is great--beyond our knowledge; the number of His years is unsearchable. - Job 36:26

>God thunders wondrously with His voice; He does great things we cannot comprehend. - Job 37:5

>What exists is out of reach and very deep. Who can fathom it? - Ecclesiastes 7:24
This one applies to that I say above: "Only God comprehends the Truth, we are simply guessing. Hence the necessity of faith." Which is why in the end Ecclesiastes [12:13] you get:
>Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.

Also:
>I saw every work of God, and that a man is unable to comprehend the work that is done under the sun. Despite his efforts to search it out, he cannot find its meaning; even if the wise man claims to know, he is unable to comprehend. - Ecclesiastes 8:17

[Anonymous No.16053046]

>>16052983
Also pic related. Some translations say 'The Subtle' rather than the phrase about comprehension. The very next verse is:

>There has come to you enlightenment from your Lord. So whoever will see does so for [the benefit of] his soul, and whoever is blind [does harm] against it. And [say], "I am not a guardian over you."

[Anonymous No.16053056]

>>16051231
>saying de-personalised as if it’s a bad thing
Personal gods and God are literal abbo-tier to appeal to people without rational training

[Anonymous No.16054089]

>>16050893
Why do you believe that there is only a single creator?