Heidegger, Aquinas, and Ontotheology

[Anonymous No.20035018]

>Also, if the history of western philosophy has shown one thing, it's that debating in a vacuum about the existence of God is the most fruitless and sterile endeavor there is. Two conflicting systems can be logically sound.
>That is correct, although there have been interesting debates like the one between Copleston and Russell, which the former won because of the intellectual dishonesty of the latter. Or Heidegger's ontotheology challenge in which he ended up admitting that Aquinas had already solved it centuries before he even formulated it. Very interesting, really.
Where does Heidegger talk about this and allegedly "admit" that Aquinas solved this problem? I thought he pointed out that ontotheology isn't the answer because grounding Being in one particular kind of being (God being that being) sidesteps the question of Being.

[Anonymous No.20035049]

Just fuck off

[Anonymous No.20035058]

>>20035049
No u. Bump

[Anonymous No.20035061]

>>20035049
This is the most high effort thread (in terms of ideas scraping at the ceiling of human understanding, to tackle a question that, if not answered decisively soon, may unravel all of civilization) that this board has probably seen in weeks, if not months.

And you're telling me to fuck off?

I've been here for almost a decade. I came here to get the liberal arts education that was denied to me at the prestigious university I attended (because they don't care anymore). This place is my home. I love it more than anything.

And you're telling me to fuck off?

I'm usually nice, but you've crossed some boundaries. You should kill yourself immediately. Or log off and at least read a book.

[Anonymous No.20035070]

>>20035061
kek
now this is what i'm talkin' about right here!

[Anonymous No.20035140]

>>20035018
Wisdom in the Face of Modernity by Thomas Joseph White is what you're looking for. It directly addresses Heideggers claims of ontotheology and how they don't apply to Aquinas. David Bentley Hart addresses it too, pic related

[Anonymous No.20035165]

>>20035140
Thank you, that sounds wonderful. I suppose there'll be citations or something so I can track that development in Heidegger's later work.

Also, in response to your linked picture, I don't really see Heidegger as being mistaken but rather just doing what a philosopher is supposed to be doing. Philosophers seek to understand through reason or something like that, right?. Unfortunately, there are limits to that. So he eventually gave up (or realized the truth) and returned to the faith a few months before he died.

[Anonymous No.20035485]

>>20035061
based

[Anonymous No.20036109]

dump

[Anonymous No.20036140]

>>20035049
Why? This seems interesting or at least has some sort of depth to it. Better instead of the countless celebrity worship threads.

[Anonymous No.20037151]

>>20035061
>Been here a decade
>Reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.20037666]

>>20035018
Is this book worth reading, OP? I've been thinking about the idea of Christ as the reincarnation of the Tao, but I wonder what's really discussed. For example, are there Bible verses compared to Taoist writings, or is it more of a philosophical argumentative book? Interesting that Heidegger is mentioned though

[Anonymous No.20038318]

>>20037666
I haven’t read it, but my PhD high IQ Ortho-bro friend highly recommended it, so I know it’s good.

I think the future of Christianity is in finding compatibility between Palamist theology, Thomist philosophy, Daoist cosmology, the best spiritual practices of the Indian subcontinent, and science (by repairing the Bible through careful textual criticism using what we know from archaeology). Having a better understanding of what Plato and Aristotle deemed “the indeterminate dyad” (the Tao) would have saved Christianity a lot of autistic theological debates over problems they logically could not solve (e.g. essence-energeia distinction, the dual natures of Christ, etc.).

[Anonymous No.20038320]

>>20038318
I should have said “the taijitu” instead of the Tao to be more precise.

[Anonymous No.20038513]

>>20037666
It's a little bit of analysis from an orthodox perspective but a large part of it is essentially rewriting the TTC and the gospels in a way that makes them more complimentary. I really enjoyed the analysis but also thought parts of the rewrites could get a bit fanfiction-esque. Solid book overall.

[Anonymous No.20038663]

>>20035018
Was literally just listening to a talk on this

https://youtu.be/JQbVm8wAyX0

[Anonymous No.20038667]

>>20035061
>a decade

Lurk moar newfag

I swear posting should be unlocked after 11 years of lurking

[Anonymous No.20038677]

>>20038318
>Future of Christianity is in syncretism

I doubt your orthobro intended you to extract this idea from the book

What about Catholic theology is insufficient that requires it to be harmonised with other philosophies? It's interesting as an intellectual exercise but it doesn't make sense theologically imo

[Anonymous No.20038752]

>>20035061
You tell him, OP. It feels like a lot of us wind up here because there's no other place to go.

[Anonymous No.20038767]

>>20038318
>can't make up his mind so he combines half a dozen belief systems
christers have been doing this for two thousand years

[Anonymous No.20039307]

>>20038767
And atheists are now trying to do what Christians have done for two thousand years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychical_nomadism

[Anonymous No.20039310]

>>20037151

You don’t know what Redditspacing is or how it came to be. There’s a lot of newfags who try too hard to fit in during the great migration of 2016, who think formatting a post to be pleasantly readable is automatically Redditspacing, and it has led to a perceptible decline in the quality of post. Hint: I intentionally avoided spacing so I could clearly Redditspace here. Lurk moar

[Anonymous No.20039319]

>>20038677
>>20038767
I’m not combining randomly. If it’s shit, it’s out. If it works with the Bible, it’s in. The logos was with God, so I feel comfortable in doing this.

[Anonymous No.20039334]

>>20038677
Oh I forgot to answer the question. Thomism is incompatible with a personal God and the trinity if you really think about it. And I think the Catholic Church was irresponsible and lost the right as an institution to lead Christendom, after improperly promoting the trinity (which is true) properly through editing scripture (sacrilege) instead of tradition—so many conflicts over religion in the early modern period can be traced back to Europe losing faith in divine revelation thanks to the discovery of the Johannine comma.

[Anonymous No.20039347]

>>20039307
Atheists don't have a covenant theology they need to upkeep, of course they can adapt to whatever suits one's disposition.
>>20039319
I didn't say it was random, I said it was a combination. And it is. Christers take neoplatonic theology and say the One must be Yahweh, they take soteriological mystery cults about the wine god who is the son of the father god and say that's Jesus, they take the divine mother cult and say it is Mary, they take tutelary gods and goddesses of cities and transfer their attributes to saints martyred in those cities for defying those gods, etc.

[Anonymous No.20039366]

>>20039347
>Christers take neoplatonic theology and say the One must be Yahweh, they take soteriological mystery cults about the wine god who is the son of the father god and say that's Jesus, they take the divine mother cult and say it is Mary, they take tutelary gods and goddesses of cities and transfer their attributes to saints martyred in those cities for defying those gods, etc.
says you
i think we just found the argumentative jackass who started this stupid thread
if you're having questions about Christianity the first place to start is by learning more about it, not telling others how little you know

[Anonymous No.20039390]

>>20038318
If you can reconcile Christianity with traditional mysticism (such as Advaita Vedanta) you have solved the grand mystery.

Christ was an ordinary man who achieved a permanent state of mysticism. The first of his kind.
In the normal mystical state, one's awareness is replaced by the awareness of God, the True Self.
Jesus fully surrendered to the will of God, so that in his perpetual mystical state he also perceived the Logos (or Divine Thought).
He became an avatar of God, or God aware of His creation.

We are called to become as Christ, the Logos. If you scour the gospel you will find traces of the truth, but nothing directly, as Christ purposefully spoke in a cryptic manner.

"The kingdom of heaven is within you."

[Anonymous No.20039392]

>>20039366
I didn't start the thread. I'm not "having questions" about what you consider normative, I have my own formed opinions on it. Feel free to argue against any of those points, or keep praying to a volcano whose son is a rip-off of Dionysus peddled to the slave population of the Roman empire by those who failed to overturn it militarily.

[Anonymous No.20039399]

>>20039390
>Christ was an ordinary man who achieved a permanent state of mysticism.
And you've already stopped being Christian! How is this "reconciling" Christianity with something else? Christianity ends with denying Christ. You're done. Now you are just a Vedantist trying to appeal to badly christened Christians who admire Jesus but don't like religion

[Anonymous No.20039424]

>>20039399
If I proclaim that Jesus and God are One and Jesus was a Divine Human, than how is that "denying Christ"?

[Anonymous No.20039432]

>>20039424
Is an "ordinary man" literally God? Do you not read your own posts?

[Anonymous No.20039448]

>>20039432
Well I think he started off as any ordinary man would and then through his spiritual journey became God Himself.

[Anonymous No.20039462]

>>20039448
Christians don't believe that. I know your angle is the atman=brahman bit but Christianity does not have that, it has covenant theology and god is an agent in the history of mankind who intervenes to save man from sin if he will be obedient and worshipful.

[Anonymous No.20039470]

>>20039448
That's not Christian. Jesus was born fully God and fully man. Also, Jesus existed in the beginning before he was born man.

[Anonymous No.20039471]

>>20039448
This contradicts basic orthodox Christianity. The Logos became incarnate as a man. Jesus started off as God. What you’re describing is adoptionism.

[Anonymous No.20039494]

>>20039392
>Feel free to argue against any of those points,
this is a literature board you titanic turbo faggot

[Anonymous No.20039495]

>>20039462
>>20039470
>>20039471

I would say it's not traditional Christianity, but I still classify myself as Christian. I'm more of a perennial philosophy variation thereof though.

[Anonymous No.20039500]

>>20039494
Oh well in that case, have some books I guess. It seemed like this was just an unsolicited opinions on theology thread

[Anonymous No.20039690]

>>20039500
>Assmann

[Anonymous No.20039770]

>>20039399
You haven’t been talking to me, the OP, who suggested syncretism. But I don’t see how accepting tenets of advaita Vedanta goes against divine revelation, the trinity, etc. I agree you can’t pick and choose. But Christianity in its best form already gives you the framework for a universal mysticism. I’m just going to be like Aquinas and start and end with the Bible, using the aid of the best Christian theology (a blend of Thomism and Palamism).

[Anonymous No.20039896]

>>20039770
>the OP
Sweet! There you are!
Remember me?
>>20035049
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.20039907]

>>20039770
I guess Exodus doesn't matter and you can claim Jesus is the deified Vedic reality principle. But why?

[Anonymous No.20040710]

>>20039896
Make me
>>20039907
I don't get what you're talking about. I don't see the necessary contradiction that you're asserting.

[Anonymous No.20042548]

>>20039500
>Nietzsche
>Pre-Fedora

[Anonymous No.20042603]

>>20042548
Fedoras always attack Christianity from the perspective of scientific materialism, whereas Nietzsche was free thinking enough to do almost the opposite.

[Anonymous No.20042638]

>>20035061
>being rich enough to attend college
Fuck off some more

[Anonymous No.20042643]

>>20039307
Hakim Bey wasn't really an atheist

[Anonymous No.20042718]

>>20042638
I’m going for free. Actually, with the stipend they give me, I’m being paid to go to college.

Seethe pleb. Should have studied for your SATs LOL

[Anonymous No.20043033]

>>20040710
>Make me
I wouldn't get within 30 feet of you

[Anonymous No.20043036]

>you made this?
>I made this
There, summed up the book and the majority of christian "theology" for you

[Anonymous No.20043048]

Were you people raised christians or something
I am incapable of even putting myself in the shoes of those who believe in this stuff

[Anonymous No.20043085]

>>20035140
thank you for the rec

>>20035018
I didn't know that, but Heidegger did reconnect with Catholicism at the end of his life and received a Catholic burial. Seems he realized his hyper-Lutheran atheist philosophy was all for naught.

[Anonymous No.20043088]

>>20043033
it is unfortunate that you were so weak. I guess I'm free to pollute this board then =3

[Anonymous No.20043089]

>>20043085
>he realized his hyper-Lutheran atheist philosophy was all for naught.
He probably just realized he was gonna die and got scared, like most people.

[Anonymous No.20043095]

>>20043085
>He resigned as head of the university in April 1934. Within a few years, he came to see Nazism as merely another totalitarian technopoly, a sort of flip-side of the neo-Scholastic theology that dominated Catholicism. By 1936, Heidegger had turned to a mystical quietism, which he described mysteriously as the anticipation of an unknown “last god’’ who would both end and save us. After the war, he mellowed towards his Catholic past, noting cryptically in 1953 that one’s “origins always remain one’s future”. On his death in May 1976, at the age of 86, Heidegger had a Catholic funeral.
He "reconnected" insofar as he just became less confrontational towards it. This is common in old age.

[Anonymous No.20043098]

>>20043089
Wittgenstein and Heidegger both "got scared" unlike onions bugmen who perceive things so clearly. Got it.

[Anonymous No.20043102]

>>20043098
>these two philosophers reconnected with their upbringing before they died so that means desert zombie jew
I don't come to this board that often anymore, the larping has gotten worse

[Anonymous No.20043104]

>>20043095
He personally met repeatedly with a priest and received a Catholic burial. This is a huge turn from the hyper-Lutheranism of his 1930s/40s not just philosophically, they raised their kids Lutheran.

Heidegger came back full circle to where he started out, wanting to become a Catholic priest.

[Anonymous No.20043115]

>>20043104
>He personally met repeatedly with a priest and received a Catholic burial.
How does that go against what I said?
I don't understand why you think Heidegger being drawn to Christianity as he was dying is somehow an argument in favor of Christianity being true. It's silly
>wanting to become a Catholic priest
Where is this stated

[Anonymous No.20043116]

>>20043115
>Where is this stated

You're too retarded to be worthy of debate. You haven't done even the most basic research about Wittgenstein and Heidegger.

No, Heidegger returning to Christianity doesn't prove Christianity, you fucking mongrel. It does however make much of Heidegger's own philosophy pointless by his own admission.

[Anonymous No.20043119]

>>20043115
>I don't understand why you think Heidegger being drawn to Christianity as he was dying is somehow an argument in favor of Christianity being true.
If you understand anything about Heidegger's existential philosophy, specifically being-towards-death, you'd understand the profound meaning behind his choice to receive Catholic rites before he died. For his last choice, he had many possibilities before him, but he chose to be Catholic, the choice that would define him forever after he died. Why?

[Anonymous No.20043123]

>>20043116
>a guy discarding his own opinions before he dies somehow devalues his entire life's work
So I guess thomism is worthless? Keep seething I guess.
>>20043119
Because he was terrified and theorizing doesn't help when you're at death's door. You are so full of shit kek

[Anonymous No.20043130]

>>20043123
>Because he was terrified and theorizing doesn't help when you're at death's door. You are so full of shit kek

You're so absolutely out of your depth here. If you don't understand how Heidegger's philosophy argues for meaning being shaped by a real acknowledgment of death then you'd know the consequences of him moving to Catholicism. Turns out his entire philosophy is actually "the They" speaking. You're just a giant retard. Go back to reddork, go die in Ukraine, do whatever. Just never imagine yourself to be intelligent.

[Anonymous No.20043139]

>>20043123
>So I guess thomism is worthless? Keep seething I guess.

Aquinas on his death bed said what he wrote about the eucharist was true.

[Anonymous No.20043144]

>>20043130
>bro his desperation at death's door is totally a deliberate move in adequation with his philosophy because [mental gymnastics]
As all brainlets, you very confidently spout complete nonsense. Seethe and cope.

[Anonymous No.20043147]

>>20043123
>he was terrified
Source?

[Anonymous No.20043152]

>>20040710
I don't know, wouldn't Brahman count as having "other gods before me"? I know you get around the "son of God" being one such god by making him his own father, so I guess something equally untenable could be dogmatically asserted regarding Brahman

[Anonymous No.20043153]

>>20043147
>source on people being scared of death?
The level of disingenuousness from christrannies lmao

[Anonymous No.20043159]

>>20043153
People may be scared of death in general, but some persons overcome their fear of death. In fact, we probably could not do great things if such a thing were not possible.

You made a claim that a particular person, Heidegger, was terrified of death. But where is the evidence? All you have are baseless claims that you're not willing to substantiate.

[Anonymous No.20043160]

>>20042603
This but also I would associate "fedora" with the anglo bugman writers of the late 20th and 21st centuries whose response to theology consists of mocking low church protestants and who otherwise have no beliefs beyond thinking atheism makes you a better person

[Anonymous No.20043165]

>duuude this dying old man sought some kind of comfort and guidance as he felt death approaching and went back to something that provided both familiarity and certainty in the form of the faith he was raised in since childhood
>surely this means it's all true

[Anonymous No.20043181]

>>20043165
It was years in the making and he had long running conversations with a Catholic priest, the one who has to bury him. You're dismissive about something you know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.20043183]

Heidegger is remembered for his extremely un-Catholic writings, not his funeral rites. The only reason you even care to claim him as Catholic is because of the popularity and influence of those works. It's hardly different from what is done to the Platonist philosophers, who are too dead to criticize your adoption of them into Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20043185]

>>20043183
Yep. It all goes back to >>20043036

[Anonymous No.20043190]

>>20043181
>feel that you don't have much longer
>realize the books you wrote are just books, your ideas are just ideas
>viscerally feel the approach of the great unknown, for the first time in your life not merely intellectualizing it
>start doubting and fearing
>"uuuh yeah I'm not so sure about all this shit I wrote about anymore, where's the priest"

[Anonymous No.20043193]

>>20043183
I don't care to claim him as Catholic, or even that I'm a Catholic. His philosophy is overrated and he's famous because he was propped up by Sartre and Derrida after the war because Heidegger is useful for a cosmopolitan neo-liberalism. But it's true that his personal shift to Catholicism is extremely significant. Just like how Beauvoir, a feminist, raped underaged females.

https://www.telospress.com/heideggers-being-and-time-a-collection-of-pretentious-and-vague-platitudes/

[Anonymous No.20043196]

>>20043193
>His philosophy is overrated
True, just go directly to Zen

[Anonymous No.20043207]

>>20043193
>wait, now people don't like him?
>nevermind we don't want him anymore he's a stinky neo-liberal
unbelieve christcope

[Anonymous No.20043225]

>>20043165
source? Heidegger never really cared about comfort lmao, he was a Nazi

[Anonymous No.20043230]

>>20043190
now you're just making things up because you're afraid of dealing with the truth

[Anonymous No.20043234]

>>20043225
>source on people seeking comfort as they're dying
>>20043230
>old man being scared of death is less likely than zombie jews
the eternal christlarper.
You're right I used to be afraid of dealing with the truth but now I've made my peace with it.

[Anonymous No.20043254]

>>20043234
>source on people seeking comfort as they're dying
yeah but some people are not afraid of death. so you're going to have to prove to me that Heidegger, the guy whose entire existential philosophy can be thought of as rationally approaching the possibility the death and bracketing out every other possible influence other than reason, was actually really afraid of it.

it doesn't seem likely to me. you're relying on a generalization that doesn't apply in this particular case because of what we know about Heidegger. and now you're getting angry because I'm asking for concrete evidence that would change my mind... that you are unable to provide (because you made it up the claim and are unwilling to defend it with anything but insults)

maybe you're the one coping lol. read some Heidegger. I promise you, it will change your life. Start with this link: https://www.sfu.ca/~andrewf/tech2a.htm

[Anonymous No.20043260]

>>20043152
>Brahman
I still don't see it. Care to explain more? I don't see Brahman as incompatible with the "Christian" God.

[Anonymous No.20043278]

>>20043254
>some people are not afraid of death
The fear is instinctual, not much you can do against it. You're the one who needs to provide evidence that an instinctual fear can be overridden by the rational mind. And no, Heidegger was not a buddhist monk who spent his entire life rewiring his brain through asceticism and meditation
Don't care about your condescension, I have no horse in this race

[Anonymous No.20043293]

>>20043278
>You're the one who needs to provide evidence that an instinctual fear can be overridden by the rational mind.
The Buddhist monk lighting himself on fire yet remaining serene. I can't imagine a more powerful overcoming of one's instincts than that. That's proof enough for me, and apparently even for you since you ran with the comparison later.

>And no, Heidegger was not a buddhist monk who spent his entire life rewiring his brain through asceticism and meditation
Heidegger practiced a ton of asceticism and meditation though. Haven't you heard of "the turn"? That's a key part of his biography. From the late 1930s onwards, he became less interested in "philosophy", more interested in "thinking" and "poetry", and even changed his lifestyle, preferring to live simply in a chalet in the Black Forest than anywhere near the bustling city.

Why do you like pretending to know about things that you've never bothered to explore? I thought you liked truth.
>Don't care about your condescension, I have no horse in this race
Then stop replying.

[Anonymous No.20043317]

>>20043260
Well you are doing with Vedanta what was done with Neoplatonic theology. The Bible doesn't tell you how to exegete itself, it demands fideism. So apologists would take whatever theology satisfied their intellectual tastes and then align as much of it as possible with the Bible, because anyone who couldn't be convinced on fideism could be better reached by philosophy. It's already spurious for Jesus to literally be Yahweh, and even less sound for them to both to be the Platonic One, how much more so for them to now be the absolute reality principle of the Vedas, who we must now imagine came down on Sinai to make a nation of the followers of Moses and give them his covenant, only to rewrite it centuries later by becoming his own son and allowing himself to be executed, only to raise himself from the dead and then promise eternal life for anyone who worships his father. Is that Vedic theology? Really now?

[Anonymous No.20043318]

>>20043293
What's your point? Some guy decided to return to the religion he was raised in as he was dying. So what? What's the big deal here? Just drop the mental gymnastics and come out with it

[Anonymous No.20043343]

>>20043116
>No, Heidegger returning to Christianity doesn't prove Christianity, you fucking mongrel. It does however make much of Heidegger's own philosophy pointless by his own admission.

Heidegger had a Catholic burial because that's how it was done where he lived and where he was born, he was a coward opportunist like during most of his life.

[Anonymous No.20043358]

>>20043343
Also shows the church entirely stopped caring about theology, the defense of its doctrines, etc.

[Anonymous No.20043359]

>>20043088
yep i've concluded you're a jannie and therefore a trannie and trannies always die by the own hand so enjoy it while it lasts you'll fuck off eventually they always do

[Anonymous No.20043432]

>>20039495
>but I still classify myself as Christian. I'm more of a perennial philosophy variation thereof though.
You're just a new age hippie who doesn't like christianity that much but hasn't gor the balls to completely abandon it for another system, so you're stuck attempting to mix whatever Christian beliefs you still cling to with eastern spirituality until you make a mockery of both.

[Anonymous No.20043456]

>>20043318
>continues to ignore all the proven biographical things because they don't fit his narrative
You're being very irrational right now, and it's getting embarrassing. If it's eternal power you're seeking, you ought to just give up and learn from somebody who is clearly in a better position than you.
>>20043359
I've actually been banned a ton of times for effortposting despite fastidiously following the rules of the board, especially over the past year, because the tranny jannies hate philosophy and want to kill the only board where good philosophy discussion happens. I'm on your side.

[Anonymous No.20043467]

>>20043317
I don't see what's the problem with starting with the Bible and ending with the Bible. You know, what Aquinas did with Aristotle. I feel like you're exaggerating the differences to attack the possibility of reconciliation. Reason and religion are not supposed to be in conflict.

[Anonymous No.20043559]

>>20043467
>start and end with the bible
then you don't need to copy from Vedanta or Neoplatonism at all, and doing so is just a method of proselytizing to people sympathetic to those systems and who are lessed swayed by fideism, as I have said
>reason and faith are not supposed to be in conflict
you don't actually have this in your religion, which is based on a covenant theology—if you break the covenant the volcano demon tortures you for eternity, not because of any reasoning, but because it is his power and right to dispose of you if you are not worthy of election

[Anonymous No.20043579]

>>20043559
>which is based on a covenant theology
And? I like the idea of a moral universe.
>the volcano demon
What is this?

[Anonymous No.20043592]

>>20043456
>no answer, just pathetic kvetching
Alright then. Keep larping

[Anonymous No.20043617]

>>20043579
I am aware you like Christianity. But there is no covenant with Brahman

[Anonymous No.20043649]

>>20039334
>Thomism is incompatible with a personal God and the trinity if you really think about it

I don't agree, what makes you think that?

[Anonymous No.20043656]

>>20039390
Vedanta is not compatible with Christianity, nor should it be

[Anonymous No.20043662]

>>20043592
I already answered you. You have yet to tackle the point that Heidegger practiced asceticism in addition to a rational account of death, so that it is conceivable that he did not convert to Catholicism because he was just "afraid".

There's no point in repeating myself until you address it by giving specific proof that this man, Heidegger, was afraid. I'm not interested in generalities, only particular circumstances, which you don't feel comfortable providing (I suspect because you can't, you're relying on hunches and not reason).

When you have a proper rebuttal or until you give in, I'll be there to respond.
>>20043617
Okay. So I will incorporate Atman-Brahman into Christianity as a form of mysticism.

[Anonymous No.20043669]

>>20039495
There are many men on this board classifying themselves as women too, doesn't mean it's true

[Anonymous No.20043685]

>>20043662
>Okay. So I will incorporate Atman-Brahman into Christianity as a form of mysticism.

For what purpose?

Why do you think a form of mysticism needs to be added? Is existing Christian mysticism insufficient? And if so, why?

[Anonymous No.20043695]

>>20043685
I just like it. I think the mysteries are ultimately incomprehensible, but there is nothing more nobler than trying to understand it better.

Plus, I think it reinforces the covenant by stressing how we were made in God's image while also demonstrating the importance of revelation for knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20043734]

>>20043662
>>20043695
Imagine being this deep in delusion

[Anonymous No.20043800]

>>20043695
I don't see how it reinforces covenant theology to claim that God is an ultimate reality principle shrouded by illusions which prevent us from realizing our selves are actually this undifferentiated absolute. The God of the OT, Yahweh, makes man in his image, i.e. as a craftsman or demiurge, he gives laws unto the prophets to whom he speaks, ordering them to make themselves a holy people separated from the rest of humanity by their rites, practices, and legal code. He then impregnates a virgin and becomes his own son so he might argue with his own chosen people and goad them into killing him, which they do, then he comes back from the dead because by sacrificing himself to himself they've voided the contract and he offers them a new one. Act now and get a second life at no additional cost, just pay shipping and handling. Yes, truly this is what the pandits had in mind when they said Brahman=Atman, they were thinking about how to best explain the Roman conquest of their country and the destruction of the temple around which their cult had necessarily revolved.

[Anonymous No.20043872]

>>20043800
What do you mean? It's staring right in front of you.

[Anonymous No.20043881]

>>20043734
Got any more insults? Or are you ready to pick up where you left off and begin rational discourse again?

[Anonymous No.20043909]

>>20043872
The abyss also stares. Were I a devout christer I would suggest your fascination with indology is demonic. But I am not so I see it for what it is, being embarassed to affirm the Bible without a "reason" to do so, however ill-fitted that reasoning may be. You accept the fideism of the Bible because atman=brahman? That's your best angle since no one cares about platonic theology anymore? Using Vedanta to write apologetics? Were you that dialectically blown out by theosophy?

[Anonymous No.20043940]

>>20043881
Faggot

[Anonymous No.20044044]

>>20043909
What is wisdom but the appreciation of the Truth?
What is the Truth if not God?
You don’t need sophomore coursework in “philosophy” to see and appreciate what is (and therefore what isn’t) existing all around you.
What if a heathen observant intelligent Chinese person 300 years before Christ simply caught God’s coat-tail. After all, He is all around us. Believe it, or not.
Taoism isn’t a religion.
Repent, and profess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

[Anonymous No.20044055]

>>20044044

[Anonymous No.20044105]

>>20043909
>Were I a devout christer
I don't think you understand what it means to be a devout Christian. I could clearly see it in the way you proselytized for Neoplatonism in the beginning of your exegesis of the Bible, only for you to mock the sacrifice of Jesus Christ with contempt. Unironically, you're not even at the level of Jordan Peterson when it comes to spirituality.

[Anonymous No.20044107]

>>20044044
lol fuck off larper

[Anonymous No.20044113]

>>20044044
>>20044105
You will never be a real Christian.
You have no faith. You have no genuine belief in the metaphysical. You have no Christian virtues.
You are a disenfranchised 20-something male twisted by herd mentality and contrarianism into a crude mockery of a devout faithful.
>Taoism isn't a religion
Imagine being this monumentally stupid and so confident in your stupidity. Zoomer tradlarpers are something else.

[Anonymous No.20044114]

>>20044044
>what if virtuous pagan
Extreme cope. They had no covenant. They were not elect. And the pursuit of wisdom or of philosophy is irrelevant to the covenant, which is why the early christers scorned it and practiced pure fideism. You either follow the contract or you don't. Later, copes such as yours are invented by apologists: "actually this is just platonism but better," and today you are doing "actually this is just vedanta but better" or "actually this is just taoism but better" but this removes us from the Bible. It catholicizes, if you will, but the catholicized will always be tempted to inevitably read the book they were told they already agreed with in spirit, and when they do, they will become protestantized and CORRECTLY interpret that the texts are really covenant theology and not Platonism or whatever else, and then attempt to make themselves Israelites. Consider the Taiping Rebellion. No doubt, dishonest christer missionaries had converted Chinese people using Taoist vocabulary, but as soon as the Chinese themselves began to read the Bible, they turned on China like the christers turned on Rome. It's the same playbook. You don't actually have an appreciation for Vedanta or Taoism but would add them to the arsenal of slaves.

[Anonymous No.20044120]

>>20044114
Fuck, christianity really is the ultimate globohomo religion, the culmination of the idea of assimilation, dissolution, unification. Repulsive shit

[Anonymous No.20044123]

>>20044120
It's globo but not homo. Remember the Tower of Babel? Still on, thanks to the Pentecost.

[Anonymous No.20044129]

>>20044105
Peterson's take on Christianity is literally just responding to Nietzsche that "we need it so we're keeping it" and is entirely dishonest from a theological perspective, if the Lord will truly know his own. It's Pascal's wager for people too stupid to study anything in earnest. I would be honored to be denounced as beneath such a person so that I may not have to share their airspace.

[Anonymous No.20044136]

>>20044105
>nooo how can you disregard my religion
Shut the fuck up, not everyone is swayed by your cult's talking points.

[Anonymous No.20044186]

>>20044129
That's why faith is so important. Just say his name. You're already 99.9% of the way there.

[Anonymous No.20044203]

>>20044186
>Just say his name
Nothing happened.
Just accept that your religion is like every other, an unprovable superstition, and that you're not special, just deceived by bias

[Anonymous No.20044236]

>>20044186
You must have autism or adult illiteracy if you think you're succeeding in converting me or that I would be swayed by appealing to fideism. I have been consistently critical of the religion in every reply ITT.

[Anonymous No.20044287]

>>20044236
That's okay. I used to be like that. When you're ready to try something new, I'll be here.

[Anonymous No.20044309]

>>20044287
Are christrannies capable of anything else than smug, reddit-tier patronizing condescension when backed into a corner? Do you even realize how off-putting you're making your religion by behaving so obnoxiously?

[Anonymous No.20044331]

>>20044309
To measure how correct you are by how opposed you are of course reaches its apotheosis in martyrdom, and both the fedoras and the post-fedora christlarpers are descended from an actual Christian culture which venerated this inversion. It is where they learned it

[Anonymous No.20044336]

>>20044331
True, it's the perfect cult system
>do people agree with me? then I'm right [see larpers "claiming" western scientists]
>do people disagree with me? then I'm right [see claims of contemporary "persecution" by the current zeitgeist]
Very pernicious and effective.

[Anonymous No.20045471]

>>20044309
>>20044331
>>20044336
When you’re done seething, I’ll be here to help.