/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21990801]

What essay or book would you use to try and show someone that Christianity is true?

[Anonymous No.21990802]

But it's not.

[Anonymous No.21990805]

>>21990801
Jainism is the true religion, sorry

[Anonymous No.21990976]

>>21990801
Screwtape Letters.

[Anonymous No.21990984]

>>21990801
Tractatus logico Philosophicus and tolstoys notes on the gospel

[Anonymous No.21991005]

It really depends on the person's background.
In Antiquity you have models of the kind like the Pedagogue of Clement of Alexandria or the Evangelic Demonstration of Eusebius. Pure greatness but it wouldn't work much today unless the person is some serious antiqueboo.

[Anonymous No.21991012]

>>21990984
>Tractatus logico Philosophicus

I haven't read the Tractatus yet, but where does the Christianity fit in? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.21991015]

If I thought it was, like if I felt Christ's existence and hope for salvation was as real as my desk, I have no idea how I'd be able to contain myself.

I would basically be filming myself every hour, talking to everyone, telling them that its okay, you just have to believe and do as he says and its going to be okay. I don't even know how I would eat or sleep, I would be so happy.

Its weird that instead the true believers try to make as much money as possible, engage in endless nitpicky debates citing confusing philosophy, say shitty things about people instead of try to throw some of that assurance their way, that kind of thing.

I would be so overwhelmed with joy that you think it would be infectious, not chastising and academic.

[Anonymous No.21991021]

>>21991012
Nowhere. The person is retard and just being a pseud

[Anonymous No.21991023]

>>21990801
The Brothers Karamazov

[Anonymous No.21991028]

>>21991021

K ya that's what I thought

[Anonymous No.21991092]

>>21990801
Probably picrel. The globe earth model was created in an attempt to kill faith in God. If we're all spinning on a ball flying through nothingness and believing in macroevolution and dinosaurs then God can't exist. Except He does exist.
The sad fact of the matter is that the majority of people who read this will have a gut reaction to laugh and hand-wave it away as crazy. The few people who look into it will hop onto youtube and watch strawman arguments against flat earth.
This book is just a jumping off point.

[Anonymous No.21991120]

How come different Christians sometimes have complete opposite views on things?
For example, compare the pope in this picture to what this Orthodox guy says in this video.
https://youtu.be/asfgJ9YOeQU

[Anonymous No.21991173]

>>21991015
Well some are that way.

[Anonymous No.21991177]

>>21991120
You don't need to go to an orthodox guy, Bishops like Schneider or Sarah disagree with him.

[Anonymous No.21991188]

>>21991120

(a) Because the Bible contradicts itself; (b) Because, like many texts, the Bible accepts multiple interpretations.

[Anonymous No.21991212]

>>21991120
>How come Christians sometimes disagree with each other?
Only twice in the history of the Catholic Church has a pope made an infallible declaration. Catholics are not obligated to agree with every single thing he says. We are all still imperfect people with limited judgment and intellect. We turn to God for guidance, but it would seem that His will is not to give us the answers all at once.

[Anonymous No.21991218]

On the Masonic lie of evolution
https://youtu.be/qLnOA2NdYjc

[Anonymous No.21991230]

>>21990801
On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ by Saint Maximus the Confessor

[Anonymous No.21991240]

On the "covid vaccine"
https://youtu.be/h-12i4mIBco

[Anonymous No.21991242]

>>21991218
Based

[Anonymous No.21991254]

On UFOs and aliens
https://youtu.be/0c-paQGSiFw

[Anonymous No.21991466]

On transhumanism and how it is satanic
https://youtu.be/7kJytiN4f8s

[Anonymous No.21991482]

I am a theist and I think the most important thing to do is to try to convince someone that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead
Of course you could be more sceptical and state that perhaps Jesus was not God but still rose from the dead or that some demonic force tricked the apostles into seeing a risen Jesus in order to spread Christianity but take the simplest case
Usually the above argument requires the establishment of a number of basic facts, for example that Jesus was executed by the Romans, that the tomb was empty, that his followers believed that he had been resurrected, etc you can find arguments like this on the internet
Either that or you use an emotional appeal to get them to take a leap of faith
Anything else is kind of pointless

[Anonymous No.21991487]

>>21990976
Why do u say that?

[Anonymous No.21991492]

>>21990801
Being and Time.

[Anonymous No.21991516]

If dimwit, GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy
If midwit, Augustine's Confessions
If highwit, Augustine's City of God

[Anonymous No.21991524]

Rationality can't even prove rationality.

I've been working on something like Christian koans. They're probably pretty bad.

When you can separate the signal from the noise, it flips a switch in you. What do you think is the noise? What do you think is the signal?

What is the root of all foolishness? What is the root of all wisdom?

When a person asks a question, is it to fulfill an emotional need or a rational need?

Is there any fear in perfect love?

[Anonymous No.21991526]

https://youtu.be/yLMM6wxrXfI

[Anonymous No.21991530]

>>21991516
What if STEMcel?

[Anonymous No.21991535]

>>21991482
So The God Incarnate by Swinburne?

[Anonymous No.21991561]

>>21991535
>Until now, argument has centred upon the veracity of explicit New Testament accounts of the events following Jesus's crucifixion, often ending in deadlock
Is the argument I think should be made
If the goodread's reviews are to be trust then this has to be an amazing book if it makes a convincing case that God, transcendent and timeless, had to become incarnate and raise Himself from the dead with no reference to the Bible or Biblical concepts only the facts of existence

[Anonymous No.21991575]

>>21991561
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8lkuuhVkOI
Is a good example of what I meant
You go from this, accepting that Jesus was resurrected, to asking what is the message that Jesus preached and for that you read the New Testament
Since the New Testament sees Jesus as fulfilling the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament you go there and read it

[Anonymous No.21991645]

There are no books that prove that Christianity is true. An atheist will pick holes in all arguments made.

The best you can do is show them the lifestyle and make them crave it. Mormon life is notoriously enviable for instance, those people always seem happy.

[Anonymous No.21991650]

>>21991645
Demonic looking woman

[Anonymous No.21991699]

>>21991645
>An atheist will pick holes in all arguments made.
literally the opposite actually
https://youtu.be/x6wUqoJXKHs

[Anonymous No.21991750]

>>21991645
there is practically nothing a typical secular person wants from us
>no drugs
>no immoral sex
>sitting in church for 2-3 hours every week
>people holding you accountable
>being around people whose hobbies include READING THE BIBLE

I mean, theism is pretty boring from an outsider's perspective.
The only reason I think anyone "feels" like converting is like...
1. Sensuality isn't enough to give life meaning
2. The path that they're on is making them seriously unhappy
3. They can't forgive themselves for a moral failure

Not to mention once you join, you find a lot of church people are hypocritical and lack spirituality because culture is so pervasive. The marriage to conservativism is particular unpalatable. No, this is not for "lifestyle" shoppers. Anyone lukewarm to the ideas should stay away.

[Anonymous No.21991769]

I don't think any book is going to convert someone alone. Tolstoy's Gospel in Brief is a bit of a more pragmatic take on things that might resonate with non-believers more.

[Anonymous No.21991782]

>>21990801
What's up with that lil' fella on the right down corner?

[Anonymous No.21991816]

>>21990802
Lol you hope it isn't...

[Anonymous No.21991830]

The Book of Mormon

[Anonymous No.21992050]

>>21990801
Impossible task, especially given the following logical problems: God's omniscience/foreknowledge is incompatible with our freedom, and the current extent of nonmoral natural evils trivializes God's omnibenevolence.

[Anonymous No.21992133]

>>21992050
There are no logical problems. There are only emotional problems

[Anonymous No.21992145]

>>21992133

[Anonymous No.21992163]

>>21992145
This only appears like a logical problem to you because this is what you think logic looks like. The truth is that things that appear illogical to you make you uncomfortable. The feeling you get isn't rational at all.

What would a purely rational animal look like? Would it still have instinct?

[Anonymous No.21992175]

>>21992163
Fantastic cope that addressed nothing about the argument.

[Anonymous No.21992189]

God's knowledge of something happening does not cancel out our free will. His knowledge is based off our actions done in free will. God exists outside of time.

[Anonymous No.21992195]

>>21992175
>This sentence is false
Oops I broke rhetoric. Looks like it's a crappy tool for understanding reality. Can we move on?

[Anonymous No.21992196]

>>21991092
While geocentrism lends credence to creationism it doesn't directly substantiate the idea that Jesus Christ was the son of God and savior of man who died on the cross and was resurrected three days later.

The reality is that the world has no shape. Quantum physics experiments have demonstrated that the physical world is entirely dependent on perception. Space, time, and matter have no standalone existence outside of perception. In other words each of us renders our own physical world internally, but space, time, and matter are not fundamental to reality. There really is a world out there beyond our own internal world of perceptions, but that world is not physical.

[Anonymous No.21992220]

>>21991015
that's the exact problem.
people will think you're insane if you so joyfully start preaching.

it doesn't get through to them
that's exactly how it feels, you see the light but cannot force someone to see it.

[Anonymous No.21992235]

>>21992189
Suppose that God's knowledge of mortal actions occurs after the fact. If that were the case, then God is not immutable since He undergoes change with each new action. This also implies God could have wrong belief. However, even if this be granted, that God's knowledge follows from our mortal actions, our existence is grounded upon God's intentional act of creation. Therefore, everything is ultimately grounded in the will of God, and what occurs could not be otherwise.
>>21992195
Most pathetic cope I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.21992256]

>>21992145
fallacious argument, making a non sequitur conclusion.

there's no reason for God to "believe something will happen".

maybe the issue is time and seeing it as a line that God peeks into.
it's a continuum and He is in every moment, so God knows because He is there, not as some sort of predestined knowledge.
God knows because He is in the exact moment you made each choice, all at the same time.

you can freely choose.
the simplest way of saying this is that prescience does not equal predestination.

[Anonymous No.21992261]

>>21992235
>God makes the rules
>God breaks the rules

>N-NOOO

[Anonymous No.21992270]

>>21992256
Would that be A-Theory of B-Theory?

[Anonymous No.21992279]

>>21992235
again with a false conclusion. it's not necessary for God to have created what He did, nor to have done the actions He did.

what makes those so called intentional acts identical and merges them into one?

it doesn't occur after the fact, it occurs during the fact.
God knows since He is (in the absolute sense of "being") at all points. that does not make it so the choice is set, just that it is already known.

[Anonymous No.21992281]

>>21992270
i'm unacquainted, what are those two theories?

[Anonymous No.21992284]

>>21992281

[Anonymous No.21992290]

>>21992284
mysterious.

[Anonymous No.21992294]

>>21992290
I tried replying with the skull emoji but it wouldn't post here. Anyways what I meant to convey with that was the oddity of involving yourself in a theological argument without the relevant background knowledge.

[Anonymous No.21992303]

>>21992294
I did not just read that first sentence. I didn't.

[Anonymous No.21992312]

>>21992303

[Anonymous No.21992323]

>>21992196
Imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.21992346]

>>21992294
now you're doing the ad hominem you've called an anon out on doing.
i'll try to reason from the brief skim i've done.
God's knowledge and omnipresence does not make reality be as eternal as He is.

again, it's a false conclusion. God being eternal does not make things eternal alongside by His knowledge of them.

it just means He is, was, and will forever be.
God is outside our sense of "existence", as He truly is (again with the complete sense of being; that is also the name God tells Moses to call Him to the people, "the one who is"
and, as Christ affirms, "before Abraham was, I AM".

God is the eternal creator and supporting framework of everything created and ephemeral.

so, i'd say that technically fills into A-theory, since God is the eternal, which excludes creation.
might be mistaken from the quick skim i've done.

there's two leaps of logic in that image.
reality does not equal existence, or creation.
secondly, why would knowledge of things somehow make them eternal aswell?

[Anonymous No.21992352]

>>21992346
or, to put it better, reality is derived from God's being (not in the sense of exist, but of "being", again) but that does not make it inherit the same qualities God has.

[Anonymous No.21992359]

>>21992352
This view was refuted by Duns Scotus. Being is univocal.

[Anonymous No.21992365]

>>21992359
sure, i just want to avoid a very obvious "gotcha" of misinterpreting my use of the word being for an empty argument.

[Anonymous No.21992366]

>>21992346
>reality does not equal existence, or creation
lol

[Anonymous No.21992372]

>>21992366
reality does not require your existence to be itself, nor is creation necessary, since God chose to create it at a point.

[Anonymous No.21992385]

>>21990801
There is nothing as convincing as the direct experience of the Holy Spirit. Go to Divine Liturgy and be attentive with reverence.

[Anonymous No.21992386]

>>21992372
>We do therefore not proceed on a forbidden path, if we comprehend the deed of God, as if it was a motivated act of volition, and consequently provisionally, merely for the judgement of the deed, assign will and mind to the essence of God.
>That we have to assign him will and mind, and not will alone, is clear, for God was in absolute solitude, and nothing existed beside him. He could not be motivated from outside, only by himself. In his self-consciousness his being alone was mirrored, nothing else
>From this follows with logical coercion, that the freedom of God (the liberum arbitrum indefferentia) could find application in one single choice: namely, either to remain, as he is, or to not be. He had indeed also the freedom, to be different, but for this being
something else the freedom must remain latent in all directions, for we can imagine no more perfected and better being, than the basic unity.
>Consequently only one deed was possible for God, and indeed a free deed, because he was under no coercion, because he could just as well have not executed it, as executing it, namely, going into absolute nothingness, in the nihil negativum , i.e. to completely annihilate himself, to stop existing.
>Because this was his only possible deed and we stand before a totally different deed, the world, whose being is a continual becoming, we are confronted with the question: why did God, if he wanted nonexistence, not immediately vanish into nothing?

The theologians of all times have without second thoughts assigned God the predicate of omnipotence, i.e. they gave him the might, to be able to do, everything, which he wanted. In doing so, not one of them had thought of possibility, that God could also want, to become nothing himself. This possibility, none of them had considered it. But if one considers it in all seriousness, then one sees, that this is the only case where God’s omnipotence, simply by itself, is limited, that it is no omnipotence towards itself.

[Anonymous No.21992409]

>>21992386
because that is illogical.
it's the same as thinking God could make a stone that He could not lift.
that is illogical by the exact same notion of omnipotence that you're questioning it with.
omnipotence cannot overpower itself.

God, "being", cannot choose to "not be".

not to mention the nonsensical notion of God wanting to "not be", which has no logical basis besides being assumed for this fallacious argument.

[Anonymous No.21992414]

>>21992409
>omnipotence cannot overpower itself
>notion of God wanting to "not be
lol
typical religious cuck dodging the point and being snakey

[Anonymous No.21992421]

>>21991816
yes, I also hope sun worship isn't correct, as do you, because you're also burning in their hell
welcome to Pascal's Wager, there is nothing beyond good deeds, because there are several thousand different hells and only one heaven. Odds are poor for you just picking a faith, best to do actual good things and let God sort out the rest.
with that in mind, A Canticle for Liebowitz is by far the most persuasive religious text for skeptical/non-religious people. At least it provides a clear purpose for religion beyond simply navel-gazing about faith and the human spirit all day.

[Anonymous No.21992426]

>>21992256
God must believe for all things to happen, as Godhead is all things, and all consciousness.
At least, nominally so.
>>21992261
yes, that's a serious problem. Violation of the covenant voids it for both parties, why should humans worship a god that will not honor its half of the bargain?
I assume you have read Answer to Job?

[Anonymous No.21992432]

>>21992409
God had three modes
>Creating everything
>Doing nothing and remaining by himself
>Destroying himself without creating anything thus there never being anything
How or why doesn't matter but he clearly chose the first.
To say God is omnipresent means the third mode would never have been possible, thus not only not omnipresent but not omnipotent
To say God is omnipotent is to say he had the means to create everything in the same instance as not creating everything
Such a thing can't be, it's not possible for God to create everything while not creating everything
To say God is omniscient disproves free will

[Anonymous No.21992442]

>>21992426
answer to Job is fallacious, again taking for granted points like a misunderstanding of the temptation being "allowed".
indeed a notoriously difficult text to understand.

yes, but that happening is not forced by His belief, since it is freely allowed to be what it chose, and God believes since He knows and was there at the moment of choice.

>>21992414
i agree the notion of not being was unnecessary, but what have you about the first point?
it makes perfect sense.
omnipotence, by definition, is absolute. it cannot be "more absolute" than it is.

[Anonymous No.21992456]

>>21992432
>literally doing the same thing again saying omnipotence not overpowering itself disproves it.

God cannot "destroy" Himself, since He is.
God could've chosen to not create anything else, no problem.
the third point is again trying to say that "because God cannot do something illogical, it can't be omnipotence".

[Anonymous No.21992461]

>>21992432
or, to simplify it further, you're taking the absolute qualities of God and saying that because they, having logic derived from them, cannot be illogical, that it somehow disproves them.
that is simply nonsense.

[Anonymous No.21992464]

>>21992442
>omnipotence, by definition, is absolute. it cannot be "more absolute" than it is.
this is sort of the problem with omnipotence as a concept in general. It's infinity represented as power, and humans really struggle with the concept of infinity anything.
anyone who is truly omnipotent has to be constantly dealing the the problem of suicide, especially if they're also omniscient and omnipresent.
>>21992456
but WHY must I assume God cannot destroy himself? I think, therefore I am, and I definitely have the ability to destroy myself. Am I in this one way more powerful than God? It doesn't make sense, of course an entity has the ability to take its own life.

[Anonymous No.21992471]

>>21992456
>God cannot "destroy" Himself
not omnipotent then
>"because God cannot do something illogical, it can't be omnipotence".
but it's not illogical, it's logical

[Anonymous No.21992491]

>>21992464
>>21992471
this is just going in circles with the same fallacious argument.

you can kill youself because you are not omnipresent and omnipotent. it, further, does not destroy you utterly, it simply kills your body, since you have a soul.
you're not exerting any power besides destroying created mass.
God cannot since He is being, which i could point out well as omnipresence.
there isn't a "non-being" state, since being derives from God being.
it's the metaphorical "impossible to lift stone"; it is simply something illogical.

second post is just repeating the same fallacy over and over.

[Anonymous No.21992495]

>>21990801
The Nag Hammadi library

[Anonymous No.21992496]

>>21992464
or, better put, it isn't something God cannot do, it simply isn't something at all.

[Anonymous No.21992517]

>>21992491
>"impossible to lift stone"
the impossible to lift stone isn't nonsensical because it's already been solved, it's just an infinite loop with no end but time as God's creation would allow it to be such that it transpires eternally
God ending his existence isn't illogical because (1)unlike the stone question before answered, questions all 3 of the states of God(omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) rather than only one (2) God as "being" only holds significance as a starter, as a catalyst, not a constant if he didn't choose it to be so, the non-being state exists so long as God created reality and time creating a point for God to exist and not exist should he choose to

It's not illogical, you're framing is missing the point

[Anonymous No.21992544]

>>21992517
reality is derived from God being.
there is no "nothing" without him, it is an illogical proposition.

what God chose to create was creation itself, as in other things and time.

your "solution" to the impossible to lift stone problem makes no sense. as i've already said, omnipotence cannot overpower itself, since it is absolute.

there is no point at which God began existing, as you try to imply by framing creation as "reality".
God is since eternity. and, by consequence of his being, there is reality.

God's being is a constant, and is included in the same three states you mention.

God cannot do something impossible(illogical), due to it breaking the logic derived from the absolute constants.
that does not challenge omnipotence, since, again, it isn't something "God cannot do" but instead it isn't something at all.

God did not bring Himself into existence and reality; He is, His being is a constant, as much as the three modes, and that reality is a consequence of His being.

[Anonymous No.21992567]

>>21990801
Anything will be sufficiently compelling, provided God has called them. I don't think a purely rational argument or particular arrangement of words will do the job.

[Anonymous No.21992575]

>>21992567
the perfection of God.
in keeping to free will, there is but the slightest gap, that requires faith to be crossed over. once you do cross over by faith, God shows Himself in all His glory.

conversely, if you'd foolishly desire to, you could blow up that minuscule gap into an abyss, since forcing someone who would do so to believe would lead not to love of God, but to resentment and fear of punishment.

[Anonymous No.21992586]

>>21992575
Mine is a more purely Calvinistic approach. However, regardless of the particular details, I think we can agree that pure rationality or a good argument will never be the path to a relationship with Christ.

Although, maybe the right book is the vessel through which God reveals himself to someone. I guess my point is that human agency isn't the essential component.

[Anonymous No.21992593]

>>21990801

[Anonymous No.21992600]

>>21992586
i'd say agency is the pinnacle at which choosing salvation rests.

i do agree about the rationality and argument idea.
i'll add that it does, however, wonders in strengthening faith.

yeah, often something in apologetics, or anything else can help fill that last bit of the step you need before believing.

i think we're saying the same thing up to the point of you either being pulled to God with no free will, or being at the point where you choose belief and faith with your free will.

[Anonymous No.21992606]

>>21992586
>>21992600
will also add that while not being the path to a relationship, it can very well be the first step towards it.
countless unbelievers i've met hold to it out of misunderstandings.

[Anonymous No.21992607]

>>21992567
for the sake of the argument, how can God in the calvinist idea be good if He chooses people who will be saved, and by consequence also decides which face eternal torment?

[Anonymous No.21992618]

>>21992607
and, as i might as well add, why did God, since there is no free will, allow Adam and Eve to sin, alongside every single sinner?

what point does Christ's sacrifice have, if nothing was chosen up to that point, and is merely a show of puppets?

[Anonymous No.21992625]

>>21991530
You end yourself

[Anonymous No.21992627]

>>21992607
>>21992618
God being the quintessential 'good' is axiomatic. Everything else is interpreted around that fact, in my eyes. Every single thing that happens would be for God's glorification, including the damnation of sinners (even if it's beyond their control, they are the embodiment of the sin). It's my desire that God saves everyone, regardless of their errors.

>>21992600
>>21992606
Fair points. I'm certainly sympathetic and open-minded to this view. Human's having a choice definitely sounds like a nicer system.

[Anonymous No.21992628]

>>21991699
Nope

[Anonymous No.21992632]

>>21992627
*Humans

[Anonymous No.21992634]

>>21992575
Human free will connects the Holy Ghost to Christ into God

[Anonymous No.21992639]

>>21992414
Atheist genocide would work wonders for this world

[Anonymous No.21993100]

>>21991015
You might want to go to a monastery or meet some Franciscans or nuns. This is, for Holy Orders and some laity, not terribly uncommon.

[Anonymous No.21993105]

>>21991530
Honestly a good primer might be trying to show that supernatural things exist for Catholics. This is a scientific argument for the burial shroud of Jesus https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HAbuG-oVq1Q&pp=ygUXcGludHMgd2l0aCBhcXVuYXMgdHVyaW4%3D

[Anonymous No.21993109]

>>21993105
Yeah I loved that one. One of my fav episodes ever. The Father is also STEM minded since he started in that field.

[Anonymous No.21993117]

>>21993109
Yes definitely. It's basically pure science and once you are open to science and miracles being both one then you can make headway.

[Anonymous No.21993150]

>>21993117
What I found creepy is the "point" quantizations that criminal sketch artists use to find suspects exceeding the minimal threshold for suspicion by a huge margin.

(Comparing the shroud to the classic byzantine paintings)

Like really?

[Anonymous No.21994175]

>>21990801
If atheists were capable of being swayed by logic and reason, they wouldn't be atheists in the first place, and no amount of evidence or argument will change them.

That being said:
Mere Christianity,
Screwtape Letters,
Summa Theologica

[Anonymous No.21994402]

>>21992145
Jesus Christ. Refuted 6 millionth times through history. Say Leibniz for definiteness but there are so many others it's hard to pick. How can someone be this confident spouting such bullshit? Knowledge is not a constraint and isn't (here) linked to necessity. You completely fail to assess contingency or spontaneity, not to mention conflating grounding, causation and deducibility. Should that non-argument be correct, there wouldn't be empirical knowledge.

[Anonymous No.21994438]

>>21994402
Possible worlds aren't the magical bullet to the problem. If a possible world is a maximally complete world, then there are no indeterminate outcomes. If we aren't free to choose which world to make actual, since God alone has that power, then God alone is free in His actions.

[Anonymous No.21994778]

>>21990801
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton are the big two I can recommend that I have personally read.

[Anonymous No.21994854]

>>21991645
>As part of the temple endowment ceremony each Mormon receives a new name which they are instructed that they "should always remember and which (they) must keep sacred and never reveal, except at a certain place..."
>Since January 1, 1965 each Mormon who goes through the temple on any given day receives the exact same new name, regardless of which temple they attend across the globe.
>These names are given to the temple workers each day during a special prayer meeting. Every temple has a set of placards with male and female names on them, in addition to a small number. The number is the day of the month. The choice of which new name a temple patron receives depends only on their gender and the day of the month.
>Fanny Stenhouse wrote that in 1860...
>>"A new name was then whispered into my ear, which I was told I must never mention to any living soul except my husband in the Endowment House... There was among our number a deaf woman; Mrs. Whitney had to tell her her name once or twice over, loud enough for me to hear, and thus I found that her new name, as well as mine, was Sarah. To make the matter worse, another sister whispered: 'Why that is my name too.' This entirely dispelled any enthusiasm which otherwise I might have felt. I could well understand that I might yet become a Sarah in Israel, but if we all were Sarahs, there would not be much distinction or honor in being called by that name. As a matter of course I supposed that the men would all become Abrahams."
>Hans P. Freece wrote to his son...
>>"Yes, I have been in the Endowment House more than once. In 1865 my first wife and I, with others of the faithful, went through ...we had received new names, and we had lost our identities. My new name was a secret until I heard some one yell into the ear of a deaf brother, 'Your new name is Abraham.' I gave a sudden start, for I thought that name was for me alone. Forty years have rolled by, and every man with whom I have had conversation has told me that his name was Abraham."
https://www.fullerconsideration.com/TempleNameOracle/

[Anonymous No.21994870]

>>21994854
Why dont they just write it down, show it and then burn the note

[Anonymous No.21994903]

>>21991120
Pope Francis isn't a Christian. Next question

[Anonymous No.21994977]

>>21991645
>Mormon life is notoriously enviable for instance, those people always seem happy.
They are not.
I'd love for it to be so, but the core of Mormon life is constant lying and doublethink.
t. born and raised Mormon

[Anonymous No.21996365]

>>21990801
The puritan sermon "Sinners in the hands of an angry god". Has the imagery of a spider dangling over hells fire.

[Anonymous No.21997351]

>>21990801

[Anonymous No.21997366]

>>21991015
This is an accurate description of a manic episode.

[Anonymous No.21998742]

>>21991482
Doesnt it say in the bible itself that some accused the apostles of bribing the guards to get acces to the tomb before dismising it as a lie? Something like that seems a reasonable explanation to me.

[Anonymous No.21998773]

>>21998742
the other way around. they were bribed to keep quiet.
Matthew 28:11-15

[Anonymous No.21998853]

>>21991092
>Ummmm geocentrism must be true be ummm the alternative disproves god I dunno how but just does ok
this just makes flat earth sound even more retarded

[Anonymous No.21998917]

>>21990801
The Gospels. Either believe it or dont. The miles and miles of text written trying to rationally argue or prove that it’s true or not true amount to little more than low quality toilet paper.

[Anonymous No.21999404]

>>21990801
Eriugena's Periphyseon.

[Anonymous No.21999479]

>>21991530
Aquinas is logically autistic enough for that endgame I'd presume.

[Anonymous No.21999499]

>>21999404
Why is Eriugena so fucking hard to find copies of. He seems like literally the only worthwhile Catholic writer to read in the centuries between Boethius and Dante.

I feel like I'd enjoy him but also feel like I need to fully read and understand Plato, Plotinus and Augustine before I even tried.

[Anonymous No.21999667]

>>21998853
>putting words in my mouth
There's indisputable proof in the book. But please assume you know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.21999673]

>>21990801
Bible
>kek we got em nerds, i did le trollage of the century

[Anonymous No.21999802]

>>21999499
You mainly need to read and understand Proclus' Elements of Theology and the complete works of Pseudo-Dionysius. For that, you may need to read and understand Plato, Plotinus and St. Augustine first, though. Origin and other patristic figures such as St. John Chrysostom are important too.

[Anonymous No.21999855]

>>21990801
You’re literally asking people to believe that some guy from 2,000 years ago was God and that he rose from the dead.

I’ve tried to convert, but ultimately I cannot because believing such a thing to be literally true is patently ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.22000057]

>>21990801
Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis, then the Bible, starting from Genesis up to the point where they feel they need to skip to Jesus. For me I got to Kings, but by the end of Judges it was a struggle not to skip, because the entire Old Testament is itself a prophecy and carries a potent sense of desperation. Without Christ, I am completely desolated and alone, but through Him I am rejuvenated, and bonded to all of you as fellow children of God.

[Anonymous No.22000206]

>>21998773
I see
>‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’
What if this was actually the case and the writer just added 'they received bags of money to say this bro trust me'

[Anonymous No.22000230]

>>21999855
You should check out Swinburne's The God Incarnate, at least the appendix.

[Anonymous No.22000286]

>>21990801

[Anonymous No.22000295]

>>22000206
because the soldiers would've been sent to a far worse fate if that wasn't just a cover up and they had actually fucked up.

[Anonymous No.22000842]

>>21990801
Confessions is what got to me, but its different for everyone

[Anonymous No.22000854]

>>21991516
this

[Anonymous No.22000867]

>>21992495
followed by Iraneus' Against Heresies

[Anonymous No.22000881]

>>21992593
>le family guy meme

[Anonymous No.22001357]

>>21994175
By what logic and reason can virgins get pregnant and dead bodies get literally resurrected?

[Anonymous No.22001395]

>>21990801
The Gospel According to St. Mark and Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz

[Anonymous No.22001404]

>>22001357
By the same power that made any of this possible to begin with.

[Anonymous No.22001601]

>>22001357
God did it