/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20856518]

Why did he destroy aristotelianism and start the enlightenment?

[Anonymous No.20856647]

>>20856518
Descartes didn't destroy aristotelianism all by himself. In fact, since the 14th century aristotelian scholastic theology had been constantly challenged and attacked by the nominalism of Ockham and his later followers (amongst them, the early reformers John Wycliff and Jan Hus, who would go on to inspire Luther). Even Francisco Suarez, the most important figure of the scholastic revival of the 16th century and whose works Descartes had to read during his school years, had also included many concessions to nominalism within his thought. During Descartes' time, Europe was thus at a metaphysical and theological dead end, with the horrors of the ongoing Wars of Religion being its most violent manifestation.

Thinkers like Descartes realized that the only solution to this problem was to start philosophy "anew" from a different foundation apart from God; that philosophy ought to be more concerned with improving the human condition in this life than with otherwordly matters. That's not to say that God stopped playing a role in early modern thought (far from it), but its importance certainly started to diminish. Descartes chose man and the subject as the foundation for his new science, while Hobbes favoured the material world, thus starting the two different trends that would define modern thought. The attributes that prior to modernity had been traditionally asigned to God in order to make sense of the world started to be progressively trasnferred to either human or natural forces (examples of this are Rousseau's notion of the infallibility of the general will, Adam Smith's invisible hand, Kant's conception of human beings as infinitely valuable ends in themselves, Hobbes' deterministic view of nature that was heavily inspired by his Calvinist upbringing, the teleological view of history shared by Enlightenment thinkers...). The surge of atheism at the end of the 18th century was only possible because God was now completely irrelevant thanks to the process that had started more than a century before.

Michael Allen Gillespie's book "The Theological Origins of Modernity" goes into much greater detail about this, and its chapter on Descartes is simply excellent and fascinating. I highly reccomend it anon.

[Anonymous No.20856689]

>>20856647

[Anonymous No.20856705]

>>20856647
Quality post

[Anonymous No.20856754]

>>20856647
rare quality poster, highly appreciated

[Anonymous No.20856773]

>>20856647
How much damage did Nominalism actually do to Aristotleanism? I know it had so affect on Scholasticism in general.

[Anonymous No.20856791]

>>20856647
>aristotelian scholastic theology had been constantly challenged and attacked by the nominalism of Ockham
Ockham was reinterpreting Aristotle as a nominalist because no one could decide what the consequences of Aristotle's philosophical queries were (naturally too complicated for the average churchman). Some thought Aristotle was a nominalist, others conceptualist, others realist. Realism just happened to become dominant due to, namely, Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.20856852]

>>20856773
The nominalists' overall argument was that the Aristotelian realism of Aquinas undermined God's radical freedom and omnipotence by "subjecting" him to the essences of the things He had created in the first place (for example, according to Thomists God could never command anything that went against what the natural law told humans to do). By denying the existence of universals and seeing language as nothing more than the product of human convention, Ockham and his followers said that God was so radically different from his creation that He was in no way obliged to be consistent or to act according to either the laws of nature or to our own human moral expectations. This belief in divine command theory (inspired by the voluntarism of Duns Scotus) is probably best exemplified by Ockham's famous claim that God could even have commanded us to hate him, which in that case would be our best course of action as humans. At most, God was bound by the laws of logic (and even that was eventually doubted by Descartes, as his famous "evil demon" is nothing more than the nominalist God), but there was still no guarantee that God would fulfill his promises (thoughbmost nominalist took a probabilist position on the matter, albeit this was wishful thinking more than anything). The world was thus a chaotic and unforgiving realm that was solely dependent of God's indifferent and inescrutable will. Of course, this had horrifying implications when it came to one's eternal fate, and the events that marked the crisis of the 14th century (Hundred Years War, Black Death, Western Schism...) greatly contributed to this theological pessimism. If God was "no man's debtor", then there was simply nothing you could do to be sure that you would be saved from the fires of hell. Some nominalists such as Gabriel Biel tried to mitigate this anxiety by proposing the Facientibus principle (i.e. God will save every man that does everything that is within his power to be saved). But this didn't help much considering that nominalism had denied any common human essence, so one man's maximun effort was different from another's, so the uncertainty continued.

Luther himself was influenced by the Facientibus principle and the teachings of nominalists such as Biel, which lead him to being extremely scrupolous with every little action he took so as to try to fulfill the Facientibus principle. Eventually, this became too much pressure for him to bear and he thus decided that he could only be sure of his salvation through sheer subjective faith alone, thus rejecting the doctrine of works.

Thus, the nominalists' emphasis on divine omnipotence lead to the radically theocentric worldview of the Reformation. But, interestingly enough, their rejection of a shared human essence and their affirmation of the radical individuality of each man also lead to the anthropocentrism of the Renaissance. In any case, check Gillespie's book if you want to know more.

[Anonymous No.20856857]

>>20856773
It's also worth mentionig that Ockham's protoempiricist epistemology laid the fundations for modern science, whose discoveries would go on to further discredit Aristotle's physical, cosmological and biological teachings.

[Anonymous No.20856881]

>>20856857
Modern science has not really discredited anything of significant value thought of by Aristotle. Much of it even presupposes Aristotelian ideas.

[Anonymous No.20856929]

Bacon destroyed aristotelianism retards

[Anonymous No.20856952]

>>20856881
I was refering to Aristotle's ideas concerning the natural sciences (physics, astronomy, biology...) Of course the findings of modern science have nothing to say regarding the validity of his metaphysical ideas, if that's what you are thinking of. Still, Aristotle being proven wrong in, say, the field of biology further diminished the prestige of his overall thought during the early modern age, whether you consider this a positive development or not is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.20857013]

>>20856647
The history of our civilization is the history of its liberation from Greek and Christian thought.

[Anonymous No.20857085]

>>20857013
Well, I wouldn't put it in those terms. Both Greek and Christian thought contributed to the rise of our modern, secular age. For example, the discovery of the writings of the Pyrrhonic school in the second half of the 16th century greatly influenced the skepticism of late renaissance thinkers such as Francisco Sánchez, Montaigne and Charron, which in turn influenced Descartes' notion of radical doubt. The same could be said about Christian heresies such as Pelagianism, whose positive view of human free will inspired many of the Italian humanists. Of course, as Gillespie points out, this all depends on what groups do you think count as Christians or not, but it's best to work with a broad definition to fully understand how these heterodox groups contributed to the rise of modernity and (ironically enough) to the "self dissolution" of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20857198]

Bump

[Anonymous No.20857338]

>>20856647
>Thinkers like Descartes realized that the only solution to this problem was to start philosophy "anew" from a different foundation apart from God; that philosophy ought to be more concerned with improving the human condition in this life than with otherwordly matters.
He never said anything of that sort. Have you read his meditations?

[Anonymous No.20857441]

>>20857338
> Descartes realized that the only solution to this problem was to start philosophy "anew"
He did. Have you ever read his discourse? That’s his whole thing.
> that philosophy ought to be more concerned with improving the human condition in this life than with otherwordly matters
He didn’t say otherwise

[Anonymous No.20857463]

>>20857338
In the Meditations Descartes postulates the subjective self as the basis for all knowledge. In his system God is secondary and ultimately dependant upon the cogito and the innate idea of the infinite which he finds within his own mind (a conception of God which differs in many respects from traditional Christianity, by the way).

Also, in his published works Descartes is clearly trying to hide and avoid the revolutionary implications of his philosophy when it comes to religion, morals and politics. But in his private letters he admits that his method presupossed "great changes in the order of things. The whole world would have to be a terrestrial paradise -and that is too much to suggest outside of fairyland." (letter to Mersenne, November 1629). During the years in which he travelled through Holland and Germany in the context of the 30 years war, Descartes came into close contact with the Rosicrucians, and was inspired by their goals of improving the human condition through science and Hermetic esotericism.

I could go on, but this video covers Gillespie's chapter on Descartes if you don't have time for the book itself: https://youtu.be/nZ2OF3RpPm0

[Anonymous No.20857490]

>>20856647
why didn't people just go back to Duns Scotus?

[Anonymous No.20857498]

>>20857463
>In the Meditations Descartes postulates the subjective self as the basis for all knowledge. In his system God is secondary and ultimately dependant upon the cogito
This seems like an attempt to discredit Descarte's catholicism. But isn't the whole point of Descarte's philosophy that because God exists, we can trust our reasoning? God wouldn't allow us to be deceived by a demon. I feel like you have God's placement in his system backwards, even though yes, literally Descartes talks about the cogito first. But it's been a while since i read his meditations.

[Anonymous No.20857543]

>>20857498
>This seems like an attempt to discredit Descarte's catholicism.
While Descartes' religious views are still widely debated by specialists, I think we have strong reasons to doubt his sincerity. I mean, in his treatise "The world" he outright denies the possibility of miracles, so it's no wonder that the Catholic Church included his books in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. As I said, his conception of God is a very secularised one, and has a lot more in common with the later Spinozistic conception of God than it is usually thought.

[Anonymous No.20857565]

>>20857543
So I am not at all familiar with this, but I have two questions:

1. Is it the case that Descartes outright says that miracles don't happen, or is it just that miracles are not discussed.
2. And if it is the latter, is it really so strange that miracles are not discussed in a book about the physical laws of nature? It's a modern view of science for sure, but if God is transcendent, why should we expect science to explain miracles?

[Anonymous No.20857567]

>>20856647
>>20856852
>>20856791
where does Duns Scotus fit into the picture?

[Anonymous No.20857615]

>>20857490
Scotus had already laid the groundworks for Ockham's thought both regarding ontology and the relationship between God and morality. Scotus believed that God's creation (specially when it came to human beings) could not be reduced to matter (which is pure indeterminacy), nor form (which is universal to all specimens) nor a mere composite of both, as the individual is consist of much more than those two elements. His emphasis on the principle of individuation and "haecceitas" thus contributed to Ockham's later denial of universals.
Moreover, while Scotus' voluntarism did not go as far as Ockham's (he thought that God could not have commanded us to do otherwise when it comes to the obligation of believing and adoring only Him), it nonetheless separated God's morality from the natural law, rejecting the Thomist doctrine of the convertibility of being and good ("ens et bonum non convertuntur").

And, while we shouldn't see the history of philosophy as a mere slippery slope, it should be pointed out that Ockham was a student of Scotus at the end of the day.

[Anonymous No.20857631]

>>20857615
Why did voluntarism become so compelling to Church philosophers? What exactly is so scary about rational freedom? i.e. that God could do otherwise, but he simply wouldn't because he's good, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. Can't rational freedom have a voluntarist aspect, i.e. there are aspects about creation that have little to do with duty but have everything to do with goodness and rationality, like creating art? I can see the consequences reverberating today, where people fear trying to live an ethical life because it would make them less "free." But freedom for freedom's sake is hollow. Freedom... to do what?

[Anonymous No.20857658]

>>20857565
1. Is it the case that Descartes outright says that miracles don't happen, or is it just that miracles are not discussed.
It's the former. His whole project of an apodictic science rests upon the belief that God is not a deceiver in any respect, so he has to reject miracles a priori as they are violations of the supossedly eternal laws of nature. Here's the exact quote from "The World":
>"And so that there will be nothing to prevent this, we shall, if you please,
assume in addition that God will never perform a miracle in the new
world, and that the intelligences, or rational souls, which we might later
suppose to be there, will not disrupt the ordinary course of nature in any
way."

[Anonymous No.20857728]

>>20857631
>Why did voluntarism become so compelling to Church philosophers? What exactly is so scary about rational freedom?
In the case of God, voluntarist theologians thought that His sovereignty and freedom would be compromised by the belief that God's commands were in some way limited by what the natural law states (for Aquinas, God's commandments may add to the natural law, but they could never contradict it). I mean, all Christians have to agree that God is beyond human comprehension in many respects, so why not also when it comes to morality? Also, the scriptural case for divine command theory is pretty strong: just look at the story of Abraham and Isaac, in which God commands something which goes completely against the natural law (in this case, murdering one's own innocent son). Scotus also pointed out that the natural law for humans was not eternal anyway, since our nature was not the same before the Fall, after the Fall, and after the Resurrection.

In the case of man, Scotus and his followers thought that reducing morality to mere reason would reduce the gravity of sin. Aquinas, following Aristotle, said that the will always chooses to act according to what the intellect believes to be good. Scotus pointed out that this meant that inmoral actions were merely a product of lack of information on the sinner's part, instead of being a product of malicious intent. Aristotelian ethics thus in a way inherited the same problems of Socratic intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.20857772]

>>20857728
>I mean, all Christians have to agree that God is beyond human comprehension in many respects, so why not also when it comes to morality?
If God is too incomprehensible then it is impossible to follow him. It also undermines our understanding of God with regards to our own conscience, which we were all created with. Finally, I don't think humans are capable of being erratically irrational, only subjected to whims, lest we go insane like Nietzsche trying to put all the pieces together. I like to rationalize it in the sense that:
1) We were created in His image;
2) We have the ability to feel, think, and will, just like Him;
3) If God were too easily understood, then His word could be manipulated by sinful beings; and
4) Our problem is mortality. If we had infinity to contemplate Him, given that He is responsible for everything, we would understand Him.
>In the case of man, Scotus and his followers thought that reducing morality to mere reason would reduce the gravity of sin. Aquinas, following Aristotle, said that the will always chooses to act according to what the intellect believes to be good. Scotus pointed out that this meant that immoral actions were merely a product of lack of information on the sinner's part, instead of being a product of malicious intent. Aristotelian ethics thus in a way inherited the same problems of Socratic intellectualism.
Where do emotions fall into the story here? Or faith? Is faith still necessary with complete gnosis?

[Anonymous No.20857833]

>>20857772
>If God is too incomprehensible then it is impossible to follow him. It also undermines our understanding of God with regards to our own conscience, which we were all created with.
I agree, that's why I'm not a Christian. The problem is that all Christians have to "suspend" their reason at one point or another (be it with the Trinity, the Incarnation, the problem of evil, predestination...). At one point you have to do a leap of faith and ignore the contradictions (which are conveniently labeled as "mysteries"), no matter how sophisticated or rational your "natural theology" is.
>Where do emotions fall into the story here? Or faith? Is faith still necessary with complete gnosis?
Both Aquinas and Scotus believed that faith was necessary and superior to reason, though the latter greatly reduced the power of reason when it came to demonstrating the contents of revelation. While Aquinas thought that the existence of God (and all of his omni attributes) alongisde the inmortality of the soul could all be demonstrated through reason alone, Scotus believed that we could only prove that an infinite, necessary cause of all things exists. You could only go beyond that through faith.

[Anonymous No.20857838]

>>20857658
Okay. thanks for sharing. I don't actually think this quote does contradict a catholic view of science, but i can see why this may have caused some speculation about his private beliefs. but in any case, it definitely is a secular, modern view of things.

[Anonymous No.20857842]

>>20857833
Who do you believe is most compatible with Immanuel Kant? Aquinas, Scotus, or Ockham?

[Anonymous No.20857892]

>>20857833
Man is the measure but the measure is a fractal void.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv0c7R8brjE

[Anonymous No.20857903]

>>20857842
It's really hard to say. Kant is simply working within a completely different paradigm than the scholastics. In a genealogical sense he is certainly closer to Ockham (as nominalism in a way kickstarted the process that would lead to modern philosophy). Kant would have also agreed with Scotus and Ockham's claim that reason cannot determine whether the soul is inmortal or not, and that we have to trust that it is on the basis of faith alone. However, Kant would also agree with Aquinas that at least part of morality is not contingent but eternal and can be derived from reason alone (though Aquinas would have certainly found Kant's view of human beings as ends in themselves to be blasphemous, and the virtue ethics of the former conflict with the hard deontology of the latter).

That's pretty much all the similarities I can think of. Kant's got his knowledge of scholastic philosophy from Wolff, who in turn got it from Leibniz, who in turn got it from Suarez, whose thought encompasses influences from both Thomism and nominalism.

[Anonymous No.20858544]

>>20857498
>But isn't the whole point of Descarte's philosophy that because God exists, we can trust our reasoning?
NTA, but but really? I mean, it's an argument offered to counter a specific argument, it isn't the core of his philosophy.
I think however that qualifying the intent of what Descartes was doing as atheistic in nature is just ridiculous however. His intent was not to "transfer" attributes previously attributed to God, and viewing it this way is just a fucking weird claim, exactly what attributes of consciousness described by Descartes does he steal from God?

[Anonymous No.20858567]

>>20858544
Holy fuck not fully awake, sorry for that...
> but not* really?

[Anonymous No.20858572]

>>20856518
descartes so gangsta

[Anonymous No.20859101]

>>20858544
>exactly what attributes of consciousness described by Descartes does he steal from God?
Namely, his infinite will. This is what Gillespie has to say about it in his book:
>"But how can man compete with God, for the mastery of appearances and the possesion of the world? The answer to this is fairly clear: man can only compete with God if man himself in some sense is omnipotent, that is, if man in some sense is already God. The key to understanding this titanic claim that lies at the heart of Descartes' thought is understanding that for Descartes both God and man are essentially willing beings. Descartes tells us that the human will is the same as the will of God. In his view it is infinite, indifferent, and perfectly free, not subordinate to reason or any other law or rule. It is consequently the sole basis of human perfection."
>"The different between God and man, Descartes suggests, lies not in their wills, which are identical, but in their knowledge. Man's will is infinite, he wants everything and his desires are insatiable, but his knowledge is finite."
>"Humans are therefore godlike but they are not yet god. To become God, to master nature utterly and dispossess God entirely one needs Cartesian science. This finally is the answer to the problem with which Descartes began his philosophizing: if the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, then wisdom is the means by which the Lord is captured, disarmed, dispossessed, and subsumed within the citadel of reason."

[Anonymous No.20859270]

>>20858544
No one is saying here that Descartes' intentions were atheistic, but rather that his philosophy posited the individual human subject (not God) as its foundation. His worldview, though certainly not godless, is nonetheless a secular one, and this came to define all of early modern philosophy. Descartes and Hobbes never intended to do away with the idea of God, but they started a process which would eventually culminate in God being made irrelevant through the aforementioned transfer of divine attributes to human or natural forces.

[Anonymous No.20859293]

>>20856647
Where does Galileo fit into the picture? He invented the scientific method and I seem to recall from school that this was a pretty big blow to scholasticism.

[Anonymous No.20859311]

>>20859270
>God being made irrelevant through the aforementioned transfer of divine attributes to human or natural forces.
I'm not sure if this follows from the rest of what you mentioned

[Anonymous No.20859446]

>>20859293
In the field of science, and as you pointed out, Galileo's discoveries refuted many of Aristotle's ideas in the fields of cosmology and physics, which further diminished the prestige of his overall philosophical thought.

But Galileo also played a pretty important role in the development of modern philosophy. His transposition of motion into the abstract world of geometry and his new understanding of inertia were crucial steps that made modern mathematical science possible. Moreover, he was the first to point out that heat was not something in nature but only a perception caused by something we do not experience directly, which had obvious consequences in the development of modern epistemology. Both Descartes and Hobbes tried to apply Galileo's mathematical analysis of motion to other fields. Descartes had known about him since he was a student at La Flèche and the Cartesian method, though innovative on its own, was indebted to that of Bacon and Galileo. Galileo's eventual demise (alongisde the skeptic crisis sparked by his evil demon hypothesis) also motivated Descartes to shore up the metaphysical and theological foundations of his new science, as he believed that Galileo's failure to do so had contributed to his condemnation. It is also theorised that Hobbes' central idea that everything is a form of mechanistic local motion may have arised as a consequence of his visit to Galileo in 1636.

[Anonymous No.20859462]

>>20859446
>Hobbes' central idea that everything is a form of mechanistic local motion
Didn't Aristotle actually say that all motion is ultimately local motion? I'm not even sure if that's right but I could've sworn that he did actually claim that at some point.

[Anonymous No.20859495]

>>20859462
No, Aristotle's understing of motion as the actualization of potency into act rests upon many metaphysial assumptions, amongst them his theory of the four causes: material, formal, efficient and final. Hobbes, on the other hand, is only really interested in material and efficient causality.

[Anonymous No.20859497]

>>20859446
Very interesting, thanks.

[Anonymous No.20859577]

>>20857903
>(though Aquinas would have certainly found Kant's view of human beings as ends in themselves to be blasphemous)
Why?

[Anonymous No.20859635]

>>20859577
Because for Aquinas the only end in itself is God. Every thing that happens occurs in order to manifest His glory. Human beings are just means for said manifestation: for example, He elected some to salvation so as to express his mercy, and He passed the rest by in order to manifest his "justice" by eternally damning them.

[Anonymous No.20859665]

>>20859635
I think all Kant really meant is that humans have free will. They legislate their own ends. For what purpose? I do not know. That's their choice.

[Anonymous No.20859717]

>>20859665
I'm sorry but that's not what Kant's actually meant. I encourage you to look into his works on ethics, or secundary sources on the matter. His moral theory is not really that complicated.

[Anonymous No.20859746]

>>20859717
I read Critique of Practical Reason. That's my interpretation. I think it links well with What is Enlightenment and Perpetual Peace, but I think it's irreparably damaged by much of what he says in Critique of Pure Reason and, aesthetically speaking, a more depressing account of ethics than Aristotle's virtue ethics.

So, instead of telling me to read something I've already read about 2-3 times, how about you tell me what exactly I got wrong instead of being a smug prick?

[Anonymous No.20859772]

>>20857833
You say you're a christian, so what would you call yourself then? Care to make a case for your position? I know its not strictly related to the thread but I am curious

[Anonymous No.20859783]

>>20859772
Fuck, I meant to say *not a christian, hope you understood

[Anonymous No.20859788]

>>20859270
>posited the individual human subject (not God) as its foundation.
Are you confusing an epistemological foundation with metaphysical?

[Anonymous No.20859793]

>>20859788
>Are you confusing an epistemological foundation with metaphysical?
no hard difference between epistemology and metaphysics. it has to be connected with each other at the end of the day

[Anonymous No.20859859]

>>20859665
Forgive me for the tone I used, anon. But I just don't know where are you getting this idea that Kant is leaving morality up to our own choice. As vague as his language can be at times, he is clearly positing rational beings as the end of all moral actions. Moreover, the cathegorical imperative is a notoriously harsh version of deontology, so it can't all be reduced to our freedom to choose our own moral rules.

Please, explain yourself. I genuinely want to know.

[Anonymous No.20859864]

>>20859772
I'm not really going to make a case about it but I would call mysel an atheist in the sense that I lack belief in God and I favour a naturalistic explanation of the world.

[Anonymous No.20859916]

>>20859859
What do you think "autonomous" means?
>auto --> self
>nomos --> law
Kant's system is about self-legislating in such a way that it can be willed universally. Categorically. Now, where did you last hear about categories when you were reading Kant? In a different critique, of course! The categorical imperative is the capstone of law.
>Moreover, the cathegorical imperative is a notoriously harsh version of deontology, so it can't all be reduced to our freedom to choose our own moral rules.
It's yet another attempt to unite rationality, morality, and freedom. But notice what's missing from Kant's moral system. Categories are only half of the epistemology outlined in the Critique of Pure Reason, the reason part. Something else is missing!

[Anonymous No.20859927]

>>20859793
>no hard difference between epistemology and metaphysics.
There is.

[Anonymous No.20859932]

>>20859927
ultimately there isn't. metaphysics is the king of philosophy. when you don't have metaphysics, you don't have anything else secured.

[Anonymous No.20860019]

>>20859932
Metaphysics is king and epistemology is queen. They are two different things.

[Anonymous No.20860056]

>>20860019
I mean, that kind of proves my point further. But I see your point.

[Anonymous No.20860695]

>>20859932
Without epistemology you have no metaphysics. A thing confirmed by the fact that all great metaphysicians started their systems from epistemology.

[Anonymous No.20862199]

>>20857498
>But isn't the whole point of Descarte's philosophy that because God exists, we can trust our reasoning?
No, not at all, christcuck idiot.

[Anonymous No.20862201]

>>20857838
>a catholic view of science
There’s no such thing as a catholic view of science. Men don’t walk on water and snakes don’t talk.

[Anonymous No.20862639]

>>20859101
>Namely, his infinite will.
I don't understand how you can take issue with this. At most you can reduce it to a nearly purely onto-political statement, such as Hobbes.
Since when is it problematic to claim that aspects of human and divine nature are common? Jesus bloody Christ the fuck was Aristotle doing in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.20862652]

>>20859101
>>20862639
That's a good point. Infinite willing is a component of free will. And didn't Genesis say that man was created in God's image?

[Anonymous No.20862925]

Are there any thinkers in the league of Aristotle and Descartes that are alive today?

[Anonymous No.20863088]

>>20862652
At the end of the day, man already is God in Christianity. Modernity is just an evolution of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20863509]

>>20863088
but he's not in communion with God

[Anonymous No.20863577]

>>20862925
Jay Dyer is way above their league.