trends in theology

[Anonymous No.17452317]

Why are /lit/ /his/ and /tv/ talking so much about different religions all of a sudden?

I've noticed a massive uptick in the number of threads devoted to religion on these three boards in particular in the past couple of weeks.

Is there any literature to explain this phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.17452365]

>Why are /lit/ /his/ and /tv/ talking so much about different religions all of a sudden?

Probably a big influx of incels

[Anonymous No.17452374]

>>17452365
I don't think that's it. People who can't have sex having been coming to these boards for a long, long time.

[Anonymous No.17452383]

>>17452317
It's called man's yearning for God - there is no place for it in the mainstream so it ends up here of all places

[Anonymous No.17452388]

>>17452374
And those people tend to be susceptible to simplistic explanations to their complex problems, and religious and ideological fundamentalism provides such a simple explanation

[Anonymous No.17452425]

I think lots of people were obsessing over Trump for the past few years. Now they need something new to blame their problems on or expect to fix their life.

[Anonymous No.17452426]

>>17452317
> Is there any literature to explain this phenomenon?

Rene Guenon (pbuh) - collected works

[Anonymous No.17452461]

>>17452388
I hardly think slavish devotion to fads of logic and a lifestyle predicated on consumerism prior to the cold embrace of the void are all that better.

[Anonymous No.17452845]

>>17452461
Time and time again I see this simple lack of real rational thinking on part of religious people, and continuous appeals to emotion and whims.

Your post here amounts to "but many atheists tend to be liberals!" which is not a critique of atheism or irreligiosity, but of 21st century Western liberals.

>>17452317
Board culture tends to be feedback loop and moves in one or another direction at a time. I remember when Guenon was obscure but still posted here before he was really picked up and then spammed to all shit. That could be to blame. I think it most likely has to do with a reaction of modern atheism on the internet and in society, a reaction to the internet skeptic community and such, and especially many becoming dissatisfied with the lack of answers skepticism provides after the vitality of the internet skeptic "movement" fizzled out.

[Anonymous No.17452913]

Only paleo-Spinozism can beat back the hyper-Thomists

[Anonymous No.17452915]

>>17452317
Any modern books about theology?

[Anonymous No.17452950]

>>17452913
What does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.17452949]

>>17452317
It’s been like this for a while. It moves in ebbs and flows

/lit/ used to have non stop catholic threads. It was pretty much the religion board before /his/

[Anonymous No.17452959]

>>17452950
He thinks Spinoza is right about god and the Christians are wrong

[Anonymous No.17452966]

>>17452317
/tv/? They discuss religion??

[Anonymous No.17453037]

>>17452845
>Time and time again I see this simple lack of real rational thinking on part of religious people, and continuous appeals to emotion and whims.

However, let us put ourselves for a moment in the position of those who pin their hopes to the ideal of material welfare and who therefore rejoice at all the improvements to life furnished by modern “progress”; are they quite sure that they are not being made dupes? Is it true that men are happier today than they used to be simply because they command swifter means of transport and other things of that kind, or because of their more agitated and complicated mode of life? The truth would appear to be quite the contrary; disequilibrium cannot be the condition of any real happiness; moreover, the more needs a man has the greater likelihood there is of his lacking something, and consequently of his being unhappy; modern civilization aims at creating ever greater and greater artificial needs, and, as we have already remarked, it will always create more needs than it can satisfy, because, once launched upon such a course, it becomes exceedingly difficult to pull up, and, indeed, there is no reason for pulling up at one stage rather than at another. It was no hardship for people to do without things that did not exist and which they could never have even dreamed of; now, on the contrary, they are bound to suffer when deprived of those things, since they have grown accustomed to regarding them as necessities, with the result that they have in fact really become necessary to them. Consequently, with all the power at their disposal, they struggle to acquire whatever can procure them material satisfactions, the only kind they are capable of appreciating; they become absorbed in “making money,” because it is money which enables them to obtain these things, and the more they possess the more they desire because they are continually discovering fresh needs, until this pursuit becomes their only aim in life. Hence that ferocious competition which certain “evolutionists” have raised to the dignity of a scientific law under the name of the “struggle for existence,” the logical result of which is that only the strongest, in the most narrowly material sense of the word, have a right to exist. Hence also the envy and even hatred with which those possessed of wealth are regarded by those who are not so endowed; how could men to whom equalitarian theories have been preached fail to react when all around they see inequality in the most material order of things, the order to which they are bound to be most sensitive?

[Anonymous No.17453047]

>>17453037
If modern civilization is destined to collapse some day under the pressure of the disorderly appetites it has aroused in the masses, one would have to be blind indeed not to perceive therein the just punishment of its fundamental vice, or, to express oneself without recourse to moral phraseology, the repercussion of its own action in that same sphere in which it was exercised. It is written in the Gospel: “All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword”; those who unloose the brute forces of matter will perish, crushed by those same forces, of which they are no longer masters when they rashly set them in motion, and which they cannot claim to hold back indefinitely once launched on their fatal course; forces of nature or forces of mass man, or both in combination, it makes little difference, because in either case it is the laws of matter which come into play and which will inexorably destroy those who believed it possible to manipulate them without themselves rising superior to matter. The Gospel also says: “If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand”; this saying too is directly applicable to the modern world with its material civilization, which cannot fail, from its very nature, to provoke strife and division in all directions.

[Anonymous No.17453070]

>>17452950
>>17452959
Spinoza's theology is as rational as theology will get. The hyper-Thomists are atheists who tell you to read Aquinas because they googled Catholic philosophers/theologians.

[Anonymous No.17453078]

>>17453070
Ok

[Anonymous No.17453082]

>>17453070
Spinoza was literally a crypto atheist. "Spinozism" was just another word for being an atheist for quite a while.

[Anonymous No.17453098]

>>17453082
>spiderman argues that god isn't skydaddy punishing people in accordance with legalistic treatises wielded by priests but just the infinite substance of the universe
>noooooo that's atheism you have to listen to me I have a theology license

[Anonymous No.17453132]

>>17453098
It's definitely not religion in any capacity.

[Anonymous No.17453141]

>>17453098
The concept of god seems pointless then

[Anonymous No.17453153]

>>17452317
/lit/ has always talked about religion as much as philosophy of not more.

[Anonymous No.17453177]

>>17453132
>>17453141
>only Abrahamism is religion

[Anonymous No.17453366]

>>17453177
Not true, but spinozism is really just the long way of saying you're an atheist.

[Anonymous No.17453396]

>>17452383

[Anonymous No.17454612]

>>17452317
A real, breathing party.
He notices a signal:
what a joke. The worst.

[Anonymous No.17454713]

>>17452365
This.