/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17106994]

I'm a cultural conservative centrist. I love tradition and old architecture. But I feel like an outsider in many ways because I'm not religious and never could be. I long grown out of the idea that all religious people are fucking idiots--I know that's not the case. In fact, I even respect theologians more than whole hosts of tedious twenty something atheists. I used to think of Christianity as entirely dominating and evil, especially given that I'm an ecologist and the idea of "Man is highest" is mostly an abhorrent to me. This past year I've really been shifting in my worldview, but I know that I can't fully accept a lot of actually conservative ideals. I'm not pro-life, for one. Is it "okay" to be a conservative without religion? I just can't get behind religion because of the simple fact that there are thousands of them, comparative mythology exists and... well.. many others. I just can't do it. This thread is about literature. Just hold on. I'm asking this sincerely: are there actual answers in the intelligent treaties, e.g. Aquinas, etc.? I just can't see Christianity being the truth. It's just one of many, many religions.

[Anonymous No.17107029]

>Conservatism
>>He doesn't know

[Anonymous No.17107045]

>>17106994
Scepticism often engenders a certain political conservatism, for instance in the cases of Cicero and David Hume.

[Anonymous No.17107054]

Have sex incel

[Anonymous No.17107146]

>>17107029
I don't think op is a capitalist conservative that Kaczynski was talking about.

>>17106994
If you are looking for arguments for Christianity being the true religion you should read The Summa Contra Gentiles by Aquinas.
Just because there are many religions doesn't mean Christianity is not the true religion. Just like there are many numbers there is only one answer for 2+2=4.

Also remember that it is almost impossible to have a conservative cultural society without religion as the cornerstone. Without a higher authority order cannot be achieved and liberalism will prevail through man's limited reason. Joseph de Maistre talks about this:

>“Nothing is more vital to him than prejudices. Let us not take this word in bad part. It does not necessarily signify false ideas, but only, in the strict sense of the word, any opinions adopted without examination. Now, these kinds of opinion are essential to man; they are the real basis of his happiness and the palladium of empires. Without them, there can be neither religion, morality, nor government. There should be a state religion just as there is a state political system; or rather, religion and political dogmas, mingled and merged together, should together form a general or national mind sufficiently strong to repress the aberrations of the individual reason which is, of its nature, the mortal enemy of any association whatever because it gives birth only to divergent opinions.”

[Anonymous No.17107180]

>>17107146
>Just because there are many religions doesn't mean Christianity is not the true religion. Just like there are many numbers there is only one answer for 2+2=4.
There is at least a generally accepted criterion for settling the question of whether 2 and 2 equals 4. The disputation between different religious beliefs is so irreconcilable because there is no means of settling the questions religion poses. We do not seem to have a way of vetting or proving metaphysical claims. And so we cannot seem to have certain - or perhaps even justified - religious opinions.

[Anonymous No.17107251]

>>17107180
Neither can you disprove a single religion because of the "many religions" argument either. You say there is no way of vetting metaphysical claims so you resort to agnosticism and atheism? How do we vet the metaphysical opinions that say there is no God or there is no religion? Do we simply live in disbelief until we can come to a mathematical proof of something? The "many religions" argument is terrible , and imo, if we were to look at the best possible evidence, Christianity would be the best choice. But I guess it would depend on your epistemic approach and what you deem sufficient enough to convince you.

[Anonymous No.17107278]

Look into Perenialism and Hinduism

[Anonymous No.17107297]

>>17107251
I’m not the OP. I don’t positively assert that there is no God. I only say that I don’t and, insofar as I can tell, cannot - by any of the powers naturally available to me - know whether there is or isn’t a God. This sceptical position leads some people to fideism (Pascal, Kierkegaard) and others to atheistic agnosticism. It’s not that God or the Christian conception of the universe is implausible or anything. I just wish I had some method of *knowing*.

The many religions argument is compelling insofar as all the religions are epistemologically alike - have the same level of justification. Obviously this is an open question.

[Anonymous No.17107303]

>>17107251
>if we were to look at the best possible evidence, Christianity would be the best choice
Do explain

[Anonymous No.17107338]

>>17107297
Do you think that it's impossible to prove the existence of "a" God? Or is it only impossible to prove a specific God?

>>17107303
The Historicity of Jesus in secondary sources, such as, Josephus and Tacitus.
Numerous Christian martyrs near the time of Jesus' death including the apostles demonstrating their faith in Christ.
Proofs of his resurrection in pic related >>17107146

[Anonymous No.17107527]

>>17107338
So because a historical figure existed, that's prove that Christianity is the religion? I'm OP btw. This is what annoys me. This isn't even an intelligent argument. I want actual reasons for the belief in Christianity. Strong reasons. According to your argument, Islam might as well be the real religion since Mohammed existed... There are many prophets. There are many religions. And they're all very similar and interconnected.

[Anonymous No.17107537]

>>17107338
>many people join jew cult
>this mean jew cult is real

[Anonymous No.17107556]

>>17107527
Also, looking at the image posted for whether or not Jesus rose from the dead... The level of argument is STILL this:
Did he rise from the dead?
Yes, it was written about in a book.
Okay, so I'm supposed to disregard the fact that billions have died and not risen, evolution is a thing, and the many many many other reasons that a tomb could've been empty, etc. It's so juvenile. Sorry. It is. I respect a lot of Christian sentiments now, but it's so obviously not real.

[Anonymous No.17107591]

>>17106994
I empathize with your pain and confusion, as I myself have felt the pull of traditional forms but also felt a simultaneous exasperation at the problems of traditional religion, or more properly my own traditional Catholic religion.

My answer has been to view religion as simply a (very important) element of traditional culture which does NOT require strict adherence to be enjoyed and profited from. You can attend Mass, go to confession, memorize prayers and psalms, and avail yourself of the timeless treasury of Christian tradition without committing yourself to be pro-life, never use contraception, never masturbate, etc.

You can appreciate religion *from a distance*, and you will probably appreciate it more than the people who wholeheartedly commit themselves to the project of brainwashing themselves and their children for the next 100 generations.

Another thought: belief can be a momentary thing. I can commit myself to belief during the time when I am in church and in prayer. When I am in life I might view these moments with bemusement. But they are separate.

[Anonymous No.17107614]

>>17107527
Many atheists deny that Jesus even existed. I was there to prove that there is sufficient evidence to prove that he existed. It doesn't prove Christianity in totality. The other arguments do.

>>17107537
no but it does sufficiently disprove in my opinion, fabrication by the apostles of Jesus' resurrection. Why would the apostles sacrifice their lives for something they made up?

>>17107556
This is not what the graphic is trying to argue and I think you are arguing in bad faith here or didn't actually read it. There is no explanation of why the apostles would choose a woman to provide testimony to Jesus' tomb being empty in those times since female testimony was considered untrustworthy. There is no explanation of why numerous people saw him alive after he was dead.

[Anonymous No.17107690]

>>17107614
>Why would the apostles sacrifice their lives for something they made up?
To add credibility to the story you fucking nigger, and as the other anon said you could make the same argument about Mohammad because countless martyrs died for him and his ideology.

[Anonymous No.17107699]

>>17106994
This is a literature board. Not your blog.

[Anonymous No.17107792]

>>17107690
>apostles were willing to die and be tortured for a fake story
You don't seriously believe this right? There's a difference between people directly connected to the "story" dying and followers dying.

[Anonymous No.17107830]

>>17107792
>>apostles were willing to die and be tortured for a fake story
Yes, if they were brainwashed into thinking they'd get rewarded after death they wouldn't value their lives as those who had a sound mind. They probably didn't even give a shit about perpetuating the tale as long as they received their reward by dying for their cult. The Bible itself demands people to hate the world and sell your whole identity and humanity to God, if the abrahamic God isn't a demon i don't know what it is.

[Anonymous No.17107967]

>>17107830
OP here. I also agree with parts of this. The insane level of masochism is what I can't get over and will therefore never convert to the religion because of it. The idea that all humans are worthless worms before the face of god is frankly insulting. Children are told that they're intrinsically sinful. There are a lot of good things about Christianity, humility one of them, but it takes it too far.

[Anonymous No.17108116]

>>17107967
Just take what's valuable from Christianity and be a non-religious mystic. Not even Jesus was a prime example of humility because he openly declared to be the messiah in front of the jews after reading the Torah and did not move a finger when whores washed his feet. This isn't blasphemy, it's just the objective truth that even the messiah was a stuck up cunt with a superiority complex deep inside.

[Anonymous No.17108213]

>>17107830
Wait so are you saying the apostles did believe what they were saying? They weren't making it up?So now you are claiming that the apostles and many other disciples of Christ were simply brainwashed. But by what exactly? You're moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous No.17108229]

>>17108213
Collective schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.17108237]

>>17107967
>children are taught that they are intrinsically sinful
Yes because we are. A real conservative understands the necessity of order in society and recognizes the anarchy of the human mind. Stop appealing to emotion.

[Anonymous No.17108241]

>>17107967

Why do you desire so much to be on equal footing with the creature of everything? Is it really that horrible to you to be lower than God?

[Anonymous No.17108252]

>>17108229
There is no scientific evidence of mass hallucinations ever happening. Stop arguing in bad faith. Peter denied Christ before his crucifixion. He wasn't convinced then. But he started to become a schizo after his death for some reason? please... Mass schizophrenia is not the best explanation.

[Anonymous No.17108263]

>>17108241
Hard to believe the guy is conservative. Hiearchy is the fundamental bedrock of conservatism.

[Anonymous No.17108290]

>>17108241
>lower than god
I don't believe he exists. This is the same juvenile, thoughtless argument as, "Stupid atheist, why do you hate god?".Honestly, I'm deeply unimpressed with any argument so far. I wanted some serious, sincere arguments.

[Anonymous No.17108297]

>>17108241
>Why do you desire so much to be on equal footing
Nobody said this you fucking brainlet, nobody has even got a huge fucking God complex as much as christcucks who want to impose their backwards laws on everybody. Your God is an idol, your religion is a cult and you're a fucking retard for believing God would even need to have the mindset of bronze age jews in the first place.

>>17108252
>There is no scientific evidence of mass hallucinations ever happening
Yeah plenty of evidence unless you're not looking for it.
>Peter denied Christ before his crucifixion. He wasn't convinced then. But he started to become a schizo after his death for some reason?
They were into it together, if you offer the reward of an afterlife to a pack of life-hating morons they'll follow you unto death. And unsurprisingly enough in almost every account of the life of the saints you'll find out they were bitter, disgusting and hateful misanthropes who looked down on everything for the sake of an imaginary reward in the afterlife.

[Anonymous No.17108311]

>>17108290
First you claim God is stupid because be makes you feel bad. Then you say he's stupid because he's not real. Ok so which one is it.

[Anonymous No.17108323]

>>17108290
>The idea that all humans are worthless worms before the face of god is frankly insulting

If he doesn't exist, then how can you be insulted? In general, if you presuppose that God doesn't exist, than why you are discussing at all why you can not be a Christian? None of your issues with the religion are relevant at all, since you do not believe.

[Anonymous No.17108335]

>>17108297
>they were in on it.
Again you change your position. We're they schizos? Or did they make the story up? Which one is it.

[Anonymous No.17108346]

>>17108297
>Nobody said this you fucking brainlet,
The guy said he was offended by the idea that humans are worthless in the face of God. I took it to mean a desire to be equal to God.
You seem unreasonably angry about all of this though.

[Anonymous No.17108363]

>>17108311
Okay, this is bait then. I was trying to have a sincere discussion but you're saying stuff, like "first you claim god is stupid." What are you even on about? I didnt say anything close to that. I said I didn't believe in any god...Read.

[Anonymous No.17108366]

>>17106994
>I just can't get behind religion because of the simple fact that there are thousands of them
that so many radically different cultures and races all developed philosophies pointing toward the absolute is hardly a refutation of the idea of the absolute.

[Anonymous No.17108370]

>>17108323
Not very smart are you. I'm not insulted because of "god", I'm insulted because of the ideology that humans made surrounding god.

[Anonymous No.17108382]

>>17108366
It is though. It really is. Just think about it for even five minutes. It's either that deities really exist OR, maybe, just fucking maybe, humans evolved the idea of gods to get them through hardship and many other reasons.

[Anonymous No.17108408]

>>17108370

Seems petty and rather silly to depend your belief in God on what some random other people believe about God.
Again, what are you even trying to achieve here if your position is simply that you do not believe in God.

[Anonymous No.17108423]

>>17108382
it's the former

[Anonymous No.17108447]

>>17108408
Because if I'm going to believe in something, t aught to be well supported and founded on concrete evidence. But I suppose it's all about faith, isn't it? That's why I can't ever be religious. Because it's just nothingness. Vague ambiguities through and through. The way you write about it even suggests that literally no evidence is required and all you need to do is BELIEVE IN GOD. JUST BELIEVE. Every other belief in the entire universe of human thought is predicated on rationality... but apparently with god all you need to do is believe. Believe in what, I don't know. It's so depressing. It takes no actual thought at all.

Here I was looking for some actually deep metaphysical argument. Instead I got "lel faggot just believe."

[Anonymous No.17108452]

>>17108423
Okay, so my argument is based on evolution, evolutionary pyschology, anthropology and compartive mythology. Yours is "deities exist."

Fuck this.

[Anonymous No.17108463]

>>17106994
>But I feel like an outsider in many ways because I'm not religious and never could be.
I belong because I live in a country where the majority is atheist. Feels good man.

[Anonymous No.17108471]

>>17108463
So do I. But I meant outsider in the sense that if I walk around a cathedral, even though I love it I can't fully get behind the true meaning of it.

[Anonymous No.17108486]

>>17108452
your argument is that every culture on the planet developed some kind of sky daddy because evolution, which you've yet to prove, until it's proven how can i believe you?

[Anonymous No.17108505]

>>17108382
>>17108447
Argument from motion? Not sure if you want proof of a deity or proof of a religion.

[Anonymous No.17108511]

>>17107338
>Do you think that it's impossible to prove the existence of "a" God? Or is it only impossible to prove a specific God?
It’s possible to prove specific concepts of God, it’s not possible to prove some heeb desert god.

[Anonymous No.17108512]

>>17108486
The arguments are inherent in those fields. Read about them. Man, do you really think that because fallible humans all across the world saw thunder and created thunder gods (zeus, perun, thor, etc) that this validates an actual lightning god? I'm staggered by the absolute stupidity if you genuinely think that's the case.

[Anonymous No.17108523]

>>17106994
> Is it "okay" to be a conservative without religion?
Cringe
Stop trying to force your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to conform to your political beliefs. Politics is so far downstream from religion it’s not even funny. Figure out your relationship with the Divine, THEN assess your politics.

[Anonymous No.17108616]

>>17108512
Calling you a midwit would be far too charitable. You suffer from the common delusion that what you can't fathom can't exist. The images and conceptions that man has created over centuries of the absolute, based on their culture and limited faculties is not the absolute itself, it merely points to it imperfectly.

[Anonymous No.17108700]

>>17108447

I dont understand how this is news to you but yes, believing in God and a religion requires "just" believing in it.
No amount of rational or metaphysical arguments can ever lead you to deducing that God exists or not. You either believe in it or you don't.

[Anonymous No.17108708]

>>17106994
Read the Greeks. Christianity is just sandnigger garbage and a lot of it was influenced by Plato and Aristotle anyway.

[Anonymous No.17108725]

>>17108616
>>17108700
>Midwit, you suffer from delusion
>"God exists because god exists"

[Anonymous No.17108757]

>>17108725

You are replying to more than one person.

[Anonymous No.17108785]

>>17108757
Yes... because they're the same point. Are you new?

[Anonymous No.17108975]

>Is it "okay" to be a conservative without religion?

According to who? Whose approval are you looking for for what you think?

The question of christianity being the truth is really broad and if you want lit on it you'd be better off just reading the normal stuff everyone in the thread mentioned already. I can only speak for myself but the confessions of Augustine had a big impact on my faith personally and i'd recommend it. Faith is a supernatural thing and you wont arrive at it solely by being rationally convinced that christianity is true

[Anonymous No.17108990]

Leave conservatism behind, it's fucking retarded contop within the post-Enlightenment democratic systems. As for religion and traditionalism, though related, they are independent of each other. If you read Evola you'll see why many traditionalists respect religions even if they personally do not practice any. The idea is that when we look at practically all more or less successful civilizations which have developed we can observe surprisingly similar patterns and characteristics, sort of like observing carcinization in nature. So to answer your question, read Revolt Against the Modern World also check out the NRx canon

[Anonymous No.17109084]

>>17108785

They're not the same point at all. I wasn't arguing for the existence of God at all. I merely pointed out that you will never come to believe in God as the result of a rational argument, which is what the OP appeared to be looking for. You have to believe in it, you can't deduce it by metaphysical discussion.

[Anonymous No.17109212]

>>17106994
You want to read Evola, OP.

[Anonymous No.17109868]

>>17107792
I think those other peoples arguments are misguided. I don’t think the apostles, taken as a group, would have willingly fabricated the resurrection. But it is conceivable that they were misled. Maybe the women were hysterical or some shit. Etc. I used to think apostolic martyrdom was a strong argument for the resurrection but reading other ancient histories makes it clear how many superstitious omens and myths and shit otherwise rational and intelligent people spread and died for. Entire armies and cities perished because they acted upon some bird signs. And the signs and miracles and prophecies associated with Jesus lose credibility when you see the exact same thing used for Roman emperors in Suetonius’ histories.

[Anonymous No.17110010]

>>17106994
C.S lewis -problem of pain unironically read it, it will spark your curiosity.
>I long grown out of the idea that all religious people are fucking idiots--I know that's not the case.
yet you still swear as an atheist.
>I just can't get behind religion because of the simple fact that there are thousands of them, comparative mythology exists and... well.. many others.
correlation does not imply causation.cum hoc ergo propter hoc. you have a logical flaw there.the fact that many people have really different answers to the same question does not imply that the correct answer does not exist or does not affect existing answer. two plus two is always four. but some idiot can say that 2+2 is 6 and other idiot can argue that 2+2 is 10. if you assume that truth lies in between then 2+2 is 8.but truth does not lie in between, truth is truth and lies wherever it lies.by your way of thinking there is no correct political view because there are plenty of them and there exist similiarities between some of them. there were 450 prophets of Baal and one prophet of God and the prophet of God won.

[Anonymous No.17110051]

>>17110010
All of that just to essentially STILL say "god won because god won and god = 4". Nice.

[Anonymous No.17110150]

>>17110010
see >>17107180

[Anonymous No.17110291]

>>17109212
this