/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17438178]

People are reading it. Atheists are seething. All is right within the world

[Anonymous No.17438237]

>'The reason the very concept of God has become at once so impoverished, so thoroughly mythical, and ultimately so incredible for so many modern persons is not because of all the interesting things we have learned over the past few centuries, but because of all the vital things we have forgotten.' - David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss

[Anonymous No.17438276]

>>17438237
Does he mean like dehellenization?

[Anonymous No.17438331]

How can Dawkins even recover?

>One cannot, alas, remain an infant forever; we must all sooner or later put away childish things; toy-land, toy-land, once you pass its portals . . . (and so on). In the end, if we want to think deeply about ultimate questions, Dawkins is not the man for us. We all have to outgrow him and his kind and all that they represent. Happily, the buoyant callowness of his most recent book invites us to do just that. In a sense, it gives expression to a degree of self-awareness on Dawkins’s part that has never been conspicuous in his work in the past, and of which he had seemed until now incapable. It suggests that, at some level, he has learned to recognize his ideas as essentially idle diversions for unformed minds—something on the order of a birthday-party clowns or miniature ponies or balloon-animals—and in this way it gives us license to ignore him with more geniality than we might otherwise have been able to manage. He means well, after all; he simply is not—and never will be—a thinker for adults. So, though outgrow him we must, we need not do so with rancor or disdain. We can even, if we wish, pause one last time before departing the nursery to appreciate his awkward but earnest ingenuousness, smile at his artless games and rambling stories, and perhaps fondly pat him on the head. In that sense, this book is a gift.

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/richard-dawkins-discovers-his-ideal-idiom-and-audience/

[Anonymous No.17438343]

>>17438276
He means the more you understand something the less you know it.

[Anonymous No.17438364]

>>17438331
Beautiful

[Anonymous No.17438365]

>>17438237

I love how Habermas is an atheist and bodies this very complaint in his Theory of Communicative Action.

[Anonymous No.17438459]

>>17438178
Does this book contain a proof of god's existence? If not it's not worth my time

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17438474]

>>17438331
>and so, Santa Claus IS real!
Is what it boils down to. A younger sibling defiant of the shocking news that ruins all his expectations.
Will christians ever grow up in time?

[Anonymous No.17438478]

>>17438237
Nah, it's more that people got tired of performing mental gymnastics to explain God's hiddenness. They also started noticing more absurdity in the universe around them: the pointless little ant, the superfluous lumps of rock circling the sun, etc. If God exists, it's the deist's conception, not the Christian's.

[Anonymous No.17438486]

>>17438237
>The reason the very concept of God has become at once so impoverished, so thoroughly mythical, and ultimately so incredible for so many modern persons
Cool. All is right with the world.

[Anonymous No.17438497]

>>17438459
No. Just the usual sentimental apologetics and 'feelz > realz'.

[Anonymous No.17438513]

>>17438178
4chan-tier Christians would be seething more about that book than atheists, desu. Have you read it?

[Anonymous No.17438519]

>>17438178
“Seething” implies that people outside this book’s target audience even know what it is.

[Anonymous No.17438569]

>>17438459
It’s meant to explain what is traditionally meant by the term “God” since he feels that the modern understanding of God, especially among atheists, and sadly among many theists as well, has become truly impoverished. It is not the point of the book to provide rigorous proofs.

[Anonymous No.17438573]

>>17438513
Why’s that?

[Anonymous No.17438843]

>>17438569
>since he feels that the modern understanding of God, especially among atheists, and sadly among many theists as well, has become truly impoverished
It's certainly not among philosophers of religion, and among laymen it was always superficial

[Anonymous No.17438858]

never heard of it

[Anonymous No.17438872]

>>17438474
lol you talk about "growing up" but your posts read like a really angry teenager making his first post in r/atheism venting your frustration because adults just dont understand you

[Anonymous No.17438915]

Explanations for the existence of God are plenty. Explanations for the existence of the Christian God - that's where Christians get in trouble. The most cogent explanation I've heard was that the Christian God is perceived in the heart. Of course, internet Christians never make this argument and instead huff and puff and act like retards. I swear they'll make atheism cool again with their faggotry.

[Anonymous No.17438965]

>>17438178
>tfw believe in God but not a christian

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17438967]

>>17438872
>venting your frustration
Which post?

[Anonymous No.17438985]

>>17438967
hey butterfly, i noticed you were using your trip unprovoked in this thread and given that you said you dont actually like using it I was wondering what drove you to do so here?

[Anonymous No.17439015]

>>17438573
There are more Christians seething that the book dispenses with Christian Biblical dogma than there are atheists seething that there's another mild-mannered theist book to add to their bookshelves. The kinds of atheists who'd even read this book are happy to read Plantinga, Pruss, etc.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17439019]

>>17438985
Better?

[Anonymous No.17439129]

>>17439019
why would that be better? youre still very clearly trying to make yourself stand out and garner attention, its virtually the same thing. why would you even post this lol?

[Anonymous No.17439210]

>>17438497
sounds like a useless piece of trash

[Anonymous No.17439236]

>>17438178
Fucking based anon. Love seeing DBH being mentioned here.

[Anonymous No.17439244]

>>17439015
>noooo... I'm in danger of being exposed as the intellectual fraud that I am... what shall I solo?
>I KNOW! I will just assrrt something completely fucking baseless and asinine to pull a switcheroo and declare victory!
>I am so smart! Chad will never recover!
may you live forever, ephialtes.

[Anonymous No.17439250]

>>17439015 #
>noooo... I'm in danger of being exposed as the intellectual fraud that I am... what shall I dooo?
>I KNOW! I will just assert something completely fucking baseless and asinine to pull a switcheroo and declare victory!
>I am so smart! Chad will never recover!
may you live forever, ephialtes

[Anonymous No.17439255]

Holy shit atheists are so retarded, all they have to do is claim God exists but there is no way to prove whether it's the Christian God or any other God and the Bible was written by men so all the Christian morality is just the figment of a bunch of the imagination of a bunch of bronze age desert tribes

[Anonymous No.17439279]

>>17438459
No. Read Feser and Pruss instead. To be charitable, check out Graham Oppy for the best academic case for atheism.

Also, if any other anons are interested in academic Christianity in general, check out the following reading list I posted in another thread (I haven't read all of these admittedly but I have a soft spot for Feser, Pruss and DBH):

>Alexander Pruss - The Existence of God + Necessary Reason
>Justin L. Barrett - Born Believers
>Andy Bannister - The Atheist Who Didn't Exist: Or: the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments
>Anthony DeStefano - Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There Is No God
>Christian Smith - Atheist Overreach: What Atheism Can't Deliver
>David Bentley Hart - Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies + The Experience of God + The Beauty of the Infinite
>David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
>David J. Randall - Why I Am Not an Atheist: Facing the Inadequacies of Unbelief
>Edward Feser - The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
>Ian S. Markham - Against Atheism: Why Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris Are Fundamentally Wrong
>John C Lennox - Determined to Believe: The Sovereignty of God, Freedom, Faith and Human
>Justin Brierley - Unbelievable?: Why after ten years of talking with atheists, I'm still a Christian
>Mitch Stokes - How to Be an Atheist Why Many Skeptics Aren't Skeptical Enough
>Nick Spencer - Atheists: The Origin of the Species
>Norman L. Geisler & Daniel J. McCoy - The Atheist’s Fatal Flaw: Exposing Conflicting Beliefs
>Rupert Shortt - Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-Ups
>Timothy Keller - The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism
>Trent Horn - Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity
>Samuel Gregg - Reason, Faith, and the Struggle for Western Civilization
>Stephen T. Asma - Why We Need Religion

[Anonymous No.17439286]

>>17439250
>Chad will never recover!
This is the saddest thing I have ever read. Please get help.

[Anonymous No.17439295]

>>17438915
>The most cogent explanation I've heard was that the Christian God is perceived in the heart
Isn't that the same for Hindu Brahman?

[Anonymous No.17439305]

>>17439255
>all they have to do is claim God exists but there is no way to prove whether it's the Christian God or any other God
There is no reason to believe God exists and we know certainly it's not the christian God based on internal incosistency, failed preservation of the text and false claims.

[Anonymous No.17439312]

>>17439279
I'd also add that Alasdair MacIntyre (a Marxist who converted to Catholicism) does a brilliant job of reviving virtue ethics in his "After Virtue"

If any anon cares for a non-apologetic discussion of a need for religion in society. look at Lescek Kołakowski's a (former Marxist turned staunch critic of Marxism modern secularism) various books on the matter. My favourites are Modernity on Endless Trial, Metaphysical Horror and his collected essays in Religion, If There is No God".

[Anonymous No.17439320]

>>17439312
>a Marxist who converted to Catholicism
More proof for me that these two things are two sides of the same coin. Christianity is a plague on the world, and Marxism is only its final extension.

[Anonymous No.17439325]

>>17439312
MacIntyre is garbage and so are his arguments.
t. someone who actually read MacIntyre

[Anonymous No.17439353]

>>17439325
How?
t. someone who has also read MacIntyre

[Anonymous No.17439375]

>>17439295
Is it? The heart thing is the Orthodox explanation.

[Anonymous No.17439396]

>>17439375
Yes. The perennialists/traditionalists are probably unironically right. There's no point declaring either of them to be above the other (even though we will see the less intelligent Christian dogmatists doing just that).

[Anonymous No.17439398]

>>17439320
>le epic LARPagan

[Anonymous No.17439407]

>>17439320
Marxism and in general modernism (which persuaded you to become pavan) are both heresies of Christianity.
If you want to blame the church for not having been efficient enought in the persecution of heretics I am with you.

[Anonymous No.17439413]

>>17439286
no (You)

[Anonymous No.17439423]

>>17439398
>>17439407
>anyone who disagrees with me is a pagan
Was Julian a modernist then too? God, I wish he finished you faggots off. Marxism never would've existed then, either.

[Anonymous No.17439427]

>>17439423
litteraly not what I said lol. did your Gods make you forget how to read?

[Anonymous No.17439431]

>>17439353
He never really substantiates his conclusions he just wants them to be true.
He claims we can measure the value of a watch by whether or not it shows the time which is already not true in watches and then does zero to justify a teleological purpose for humans. It's just affirmation for people who want virtue ethics to be true.

[Anonymous No.17439438]

>>17439427
God is singular, but he is not Christian. This makes Christians seethe even harder than someone who claims to be a pagan, in my experience. Not sure what you find hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.17439457]

>>17438343
Isnt that like... the dunning-kruger effect? The mental problem that was discovered because a fucking man thought he could not be seen by CCTV cameras if he doused himself in orange juice?

[Anonymous No.17439477]

>>17438237
>the eternal virgin's reading list

[Anonymous No.17439483]

>>17439457
no running Krueger is believing you are way more competent than you actually are, just like all nu-atheist thinkers.

[Anonymous No.17439484]

>>17438331
He didn't offer any argument, at least not in that paragraph (I won't read the article).
He also writes badly. Too many adjectives and non-concrete references ("toy-land, toy-land") or just too general, meaningless ("miniature ponies or balloon-animals").
He probably thinks he writes well.

[Anonymous No.17439488]

>>17439019
Butter, I dislike you, but I like you.
At least we agree on some fundamental things...

[Anonymous No.17439489]

>>17439438
I find nothing hard to understand, you are at the level of cope where you are saying I'm intollerant because I failed to be intollerant enought to persecute you.
Also apparently I'm seething.

[Anonymous No.17439492]

>>17438178
This book frustrated me. I really love DBH! He's my favorite theistic writer! But I think this is one of his weaker books - he really showed in this book that he's primarily a polemicist, not someone who's, well, very good at putting forward a philosophical argument for theism.

To his credit, he does say that's not his main purpose: his main purpose is just to explain the classical theist conception of God rather than defend his existence. And he does that somewhat, though unfortunately I ended up walking away more convinced of the untenability of the classical theistic God than I was before (DBH's explanation of divine simplicity and his waving away of its well-known problems does not do divine simplicity any credit). I was also bothered by outright errors in explaining concepts like the principle of sufficient reason and necessity and contingency, and these errors seemed basically fundamental to his arguments in part I. Really, I had issues with this book all around.

[Anonymous No.17439497]

>>17438331
lol that whole article is nothing more than bitter name-calling
he bitches about the selfish gene but his description of it is utterly absurd, almost as if he has either never actually read it, or read it with a mind so deliberately closed to understanding it that he might as well have had his eyes shut as he turned the pages

[Anonymous No.17439499]

>>17439320
Marxism is a heavily Christian doctrine, despite being atheistic. Bertrand Russell had noticed this, although his scheme is too small. Many other parallels can be traced:

Garden of Eden : Primitive communism (i.e. golden age myth)
Evil Spirit/Devil : Self-interest
The Apple : Private property
The Fall : Beginning of agricultural society
Periods of Captivity in Egypt, Babylon etc. : Economic history before capitalism (slavery, serfdom etc.)
Rise of Rome / John the Baptist : Industrial Revolution and capitalism
Jesus Christ : Karl Marx
The Apostles : Engels / Marxist philosophers
The Gospels : Das Kapital
The Church : The Party
Missionary movement : Marxist education
Missionary internationalism : Communist internationalism
Conversion: When you become a Marxist / party member
The martyrs : Gramsci and others
The sacred shrines and relics: Lenin's Mummy etc.
Festivities : Worker's Day, parades etc.
The Anti-Pope: Trotsky and other dissidents
The confusion before the Final Judgement : Late stage capitalism, accentuation of its "contradictions"
The Final Judgement : Communist revolution
Hell : Punishment of the capitalists
Purgatory : Transitory state between the revolution and "real communism", in which the remaining sins are slowly washed away as the system gradually attains perfection
Paradise : the completion of the process, i.e., perfect communism

"The first will be the last, and the last will be the first" : "The rich will be gulag'd, and the poor will be rich"

[Anonymous No.17439505]

>>17439499
That's extremely dumb and forced. You clearly have no idea of either christianity or marxism.

[Anonymous No.17439509]

Does he give a possible case in which he’ll reject the idea of God?

If not, I’m not interested

[Anonymous No.17439523]

>>17439505
Of course! I know.
Now just look at it from the outside perspective. Look at it the way an Ancient Roman would look.

[Anonymous No.17439524]

>>17439505
And you clearly have no idea about the religious theme of the salvation history, where it came from and how widely it spread beyond religion

[Anonymous No.17439528]

>>17438331
>ad hom, ad infinitum

The only argument this person puts forth is that we need to grow up. How is having the need for an almighty all knowing imaginary parent a step towards adulthood? This fucker just refuted his own argument without the interference of anyone else. He’s an atheist in disguise, trollan christians lmao

[Anonymous No.17439532]

>>17439528
>>ad hom, ad infinitum
>expecting anything else from fedora Christianity

[Anonymous No.17439537]

>>17439499
yes, Marxism is an heresy. we all agree.

[Anonymous No.17439545]

>>17439532
>>17439528
>>17439497

[Anonymous No.17439563]

>>17439477
>eternal
yes, reprobate.

[Anonymous No.17439567]

>>17439375

The Logos of God is like a grain of mustard seed (cf. Matt. I3:3I) : before cultivation it looks extremely small, but when cultivated in the right way it grows so large that the highest principles of both sensible and intelligible creation come like birds to revive themselves in it. For the principles or inner essences of all things are embraced by the Logos, but the Logos is not embraced by anything. The grain of mustard seed is the Lord, who by faith is sown spiritually in the hearts of those who accept Him. He who diligently cultivates the seed by practising the virtues moves the mountain of earth-bound pride and, through the power he has gained, he expels from himself the obdurate habit of sin. In this way he revives in him self the activity of the principles and qualities or divine powers present in the commandments, as though they were birds.

- Maximus the Confessor

My Self within my heart is smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a grain of millet, smaller even than the kernel of a grain of millet. The Self in my heart is larger than the earth, larger than the mid-region, larger than heaven, and larger even than all these worlds. He who is the sole creator, whose desires are the desires of all, whose odours are the odours of all, whose tastes are the tastes of all, who is everywhere, who has no sense organs, and who is free from desires—he is my Self and is in my heart. He is no other than Brahman. When I leave this body, I shall attain him. He who firmly believes this has no doubt in his mind. This is what Śāṇḍilya has said.

- Chandogya Upanishad

[Anonymous No.17440028]

>>17439563
Loser.

[Anonymous No.17440057]

>>17439250
What the hell are you raving about? It seems you're just throwing around petulant word salad and hoping to score points by mere bluff and befuddlement.

[Anonymous No.17440078]

>>17439457
lemon juice

[Anonymous No.17440081]

>>17439250
back to /pol/, guy.
your insecurity about being called a dumb redneck/christcuck all your life is rearing its head.

[Anonymous No.17440124]

>>17439499
You can do this for nearly anything due to the fact we exist within time.

[Anonymous No.17440243]

>>17438178
>hmmmm god exists because I FEEL like he does
>waow atheists BTFOd!!!!

[Anonymous No.17440258]

>>17440081
>insecurity
I will quite litteraly dance on your graves.

[Anonymous No.17440271]

>>17439509
No, of course not, the Torah said Yahweh is real.

[Anonymous No.17440330]

>>17440124
Completely wrong.
Can't do that for most doctrines. Can't do that for existentialism, can't do that for neoliberalism, can't do that for classical (non-Christian) British conservatism, can't do that for atheism, can't do that for pessimism, can't do that for the Roman worldview, Confucianism etc.

In some cases there are similarities (example: Greeks believed in a golden age too), but they're not systematic.

[Anonymous No.17440419]

>>17440330
You can do it for all of those things, especially considering how hard you had to stretch on some of them lol.

[Anonymous No.17440445]

>>17440243
>god exists because I FEEL like he does
Yes. Atheists who can’t intuitively feel God and who are reliant on autistic “proofs” are truly pitiable creatures.

[Anonymous No.17440465]

>>17439019

I like you butters.
You may be a godless sapphist but I will still pray for your soul.

[Anonymous No.17440692]

>>17440419
Then do it.

[Anonymous No.17440753]

It was an alright read and parts of it did make things more clear for me but Hart spends way too much time bashing atheists for my taste, both in this book and in his works in general.
I also put little stock in the words of universal salvationists, no matter how well-spoken they are.

[Anonymous No.17440824]

FAGGOT
balls. cock. jizz.

[Anonymous No.17440849]

>>17440419
honestly it didn't seem that stretched to me, and I'm happy that both christianity and communism existed

[Anonymous No.17440850]

the author is a prick but the book is good. just read it the other day. ive read abandonment to divine providence, the cloud of unknowing, the interior castle. any other godpilled lit?

[Anonymous No.17441002]

>>17438459
I but ‘The Science before Science’ by Anthony Rizzi does

[Anonymous No.17441012]

>>17438915
Pascal says that Christianity is better because of its emphasis on God's silence

[Anonymous No.17441217]

>>17439489
There is a God, but he isnt the Christian God.

[Anonymous No.17441240]

>>17438478
ants are based and so are rocks. You're just a bitter hard-hearted person.

[Anonymous No.17441594]

reminder that god having any antrhopomorphic qualities is the stupidest thing ever and if your definition of god doesnt have those qualities, you might as well stop calling it "god"

[Anonymous No.17441619]

>>17441594
God isn't anthropomorphic, man is theomorphic.

[Anonymous No.17441623]

>>17441619
Potato tomato

[Anonymous No.17441638]

>>17441619
The Jewish people*, you mean. Gentiles are not theomorphic in the slightest. Source: The Torah.

[Anonymous No.17441641]

>>17441619
why is man more theomorphic than anything else? if everything is theomorphic, than god becomes something like everything. again, why call him god as the word loses its meaning as almost everyone believes in the concept of "everything"

[Anonymous No.17441680]

>>17438478
Simply including a demiurge in one's cosmology entirely solves the problem of evil or the absurdity of the universe

[Anonymous No.17441688]

>>17441594
Have you ever considered that the anthropos is in fact theomorphic?

[Anonymous No.17441716]

>>17441641
>>17441688

[Anonymous No.17441742]

>>17441641
That's a meaningless question. Why shouldn't man be? Do you think God only produces strictly equal things? If not, why should there not be a part of his creation that is most especially akin to him?

[Anonymous No.17442041]

>>17438178
millitant atheist like Dawkin still opperate on the christian mentality that fallowing the truth is always for the best, it's perfectly possible that there is no god but that it's better to believe in one to live a fufilling life

[Anonymous No.17443170]

>>17441680
No it doesn’t you brainlet. It is meaningless since demiurge is subordinate to the One and One knows all. So it is all God’s plan all along. It doesn’t explain shit.

[Anonymous No.17443534]

>>17438178
I was raised Catholic but became an agnostic atheist for a plethora of reasons by the time I was ~15 and never changed. Fortunately I was never a pretentious little fheggit, I simply never experienced the "feeling" of believing in God. I really wish I did believe but I can't brute-force it. Is this book gonna make me a Christchad?

[Anonymous No.17444012]

>>17438178
Stop posting this book. DBH is actually too pure and too intelligent for this board.

[Anonymous No.17444091]

>>17444012
>DBH is actually too pure for this board
I guess you haven't seen his ridiculous feud with Feser then.
He would fit right in

[Anonymous No.17444496]

>>17438965
Based. Deism is the thinking man's religion.

[Anonymous No.17444596]

>>17444091
which one? Theyve feuded a lot lmao. Feser is a great thomist. Absolutely fucking stupid Theologian. DBH has bodied this man multiple times.

[Anonymous No.17444618]

I've been enjoying Edward Feser, CS Lewis, and just ordered a bunch of GK Chesterton and John Hick. Will this fit nicely into my growing collection?

[Anonymous No.17444624]

>>17444496
DBH BTFOs Deism in this book

[Anonymous No.17444625]

>>17438967
All of them

[Anonymous No.17444636]

>>17438178
Just read the Bible wtf

[Anonymous No.17444640]

>>17439484
Dawkins literally wrote "nar nar narnar narnar!" trying to rub in a point he makes in The God Delusion. My nigga Hart just responding.

[Anonymous No.17444657]

>>17439499
This is the most unbased thing I've ever read and I was tricked into reading Ready Player One

[Anonymous No.17444708]

>Harvard professor and popular science author Steven Pinker is not out of his depth in Enlightenment Now, as he is perfectly suited to the intellectual shallows.
>While reading Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress I was comforted by the knowledge that I would be compensated for my opinion of it. Here it is: Don’t bother.
>Enlightenment Now is the latest book by Pinker, a Harvard professor of psychology and prolific writer of pop academic books and articles. It is really two books for the price of one, but this is a burden, not a bargain.
>Throughout the book he misinterprets and misrepresents figures ranging from Burke to Hitler, and retcons anything he likes into the Enlightenment, and anything he dislikes out of it (i.e. attempts at the rationalization of society that failed horribly, such as communism). His historical and philosophical narratives tend to have more narrative than history or philosophy.
holy BASED

[Anonymous No.17445041]

>>17443534
>Is this book gonna make me a Christchad?
No but it may start the journey

[Anonymous No.17445075]

>>17439279
>apologetic trash
kek

[Anonymous No.17445270]

>>17444657
Yes, both Christoids and Marxoids get butthurt when exposed to just how similar they are to each other. Cope.

[Anonymous No.17445282]

>>17443170
Where in the Bible is it actually written that everything that happens happens according to God's design? There seems to be pretty random stuff happening God doesn't approve of, like Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge, people being sinful leading to the flood, etc

God doesn't really seem all-powerful in the Bible, in the sense that he controls everything. He just smashes the chessboard from the table every now and then.

[Anonymous No.17445317]

>>17439499
you could make this exact same post with like any other ideology or whatever

[Anonymous No.17445335]

most christians believe in that lie that god loves everyone. if this were the case he would not send most people to hell. you don't put people you love in a concentration camp to be tortured for all eternity

noah's flood suggests god hates mostly everyone. he'll save a few people like he did with noah and his family and then kill everyone else. this is what judgement is gonna be like

all these right-wing christians who think they will be saved with be destroyed

[Anonymous No.17445349]

right-wing christians never preach what the bible teaches

all throughout psalms, proverbs, isaiah it talks about defend the poor, the fatherless, the widow and the oppress. i never hear right-wingers talk about that shit.

[Anonymous No.17445357]

>>17441638
If God is one of those vile autistic creatures then I vow eternal enmity to it.

[Anonymous No.17445450]

>>17439499
They're just fundamentally so similar in ideals, minus any worship of God, that I don't know how more Marxists and Christians pick up on this. They're natural allies, if only they could get over the dispute about God.