/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23405718]

I want to believe in some kind of God. Some divine force who embodies compassion, virtue and wisdom. How can I even approach this issue without feeling that I am being suckered into joining a pyramid scheme which just happens to be popular in my geographical area?

I live in Western Europe so I naturally feel inclined to approach Christianity in some form, but it feels cucked because I may just be doing it because it's more popular culturally here than Buddhism, or Islam, or Gabonese voodoo worship.

How do religious people get over the fact that they just happen to believe in the religion which is popular in their culture, their family, and/or their time period?

[Anonymous No.23405735]

>>23405718
You have to meet God. Are you willing to give up everything and anything to do so? If you are, pray to Him and tell Him so. Ask Him to be your God and reveal Himself in your life. Ask Him to reveal Himself in His Word. Ask Him to reveal Christ. Start reading your Bible. God will move in your life if you are really ready to receive Him.

[Anonymous No.23405738]

>>23405718
bible
/thread

[Anonymous No.23405748]

>>23405718
Meditate

[Anonymous No.23405749]

>>23405735
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.23405764]

>>23405718
>How do religious people get over the fact that they just happen to believe in the religion which is popular in their culture, their family, and/or their time period?
There is an assumption that something being cultural means that it is arbitrary or irrational, but this assumption is unwarranted.
It's true that, in our time and culture, we believe in the rule of law and not Anglo-Saxon blood feud or honor killings mostly because of common custom, but this accident of culture does not necessarily mean that our beliefs are irrational. I hope you aren't considering murdering your boss for making a joke at your expense at the water cooler because your belief in the rule of law is a cultural accident!
>How can I even approach this issue without feeling that I am being suckered into joining a pyramid scheme which just happens to be popular in my geographical area?
At least in my country, priests and ordained clergy tend to live modestly. If I want to control people and earn money immorally, I personally would choose a more secular career instead of investing over a decade in seminary education and insincere prayer!
The existence of God is knowable by unaided reason. Here are some paleo-Thomist manuals:
isidore.co/aquinas/
aquinas.cc
isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Woodbury, Austin Maloney, S.M., 1899-1979/
isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Pohle, Joseph, 1852-1922/
maritain.nd.edu/jmc/aristotl.htm
https://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2014-the-collapse-of-the-manualist-tradition
https://onepeterfive.com/defense-manuals-manualism/
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/11/neo-scholastic-revival.html

[Anonymous No.23405866]

>>23405718
> How do religious people get over the fact that they just happen to believe in the religion which is popular in their culture, their family, and/or their time period?

I grew up agnostic. You have to search honestly for the truth and if you do God will help you. I started by understanding that a real ontological difference between the creator and creation were necessary and sifted things out from there; that cuts out most stuff except the Abrahamics and Islam/Protestantism are out the door immediately due to being ahistorical. Eventually wound up Orthodox.

https://files.catbox.moe/24azdy.pdf
This is The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism. It's an epistemological paper that explains why divine revelation is logically necessary.

The essence/energies distinction completes it, as it's the only way to have a God Who is both beyond creation and can still interact in the world in a real direct way.

https://librivox.org/the-orthodox-faith-by-saint-john-of-damascus/

St. John of Damascus explains the distinction. You can also find text versions online. He's who ultimately got me to go with Orthodox over RC (more reasons became clear later on).

[Anonymous No.23405903]

>>23405764
>>23405866
You'll notice that the Thomist position falls under "foundationalism" in "The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism".

When Roman Catholicism split off, they pretty soon after tried to prop everything up with Aristotelian philosophy. It didn't work. Today, you don't even need to affirm Thomism to be in communion with Rome. They have uniates who venerate Orthodox and Nestorian saints in their services.

Roman Catholicism is a crab trap that appeals to guys who think it's all perfectly rational Aristotelian philosophy, but there are two problems:

1. None of that Aristotle gets you to the Trinity; it'd prove the god of Islam or Freemasonry just as easily.

2. The Roman Catholic Church is primarily a political rather than theological institution. To prove this, argue with any Roman Catholic on any point of theology. Once they call your position heretical (essence-energies, for example, which are a no-no under Thomist absolute divine simplicity), point out that Byzcaths commemorate St. Gregory Palamas (post-schism anti-Rome Orthodox saint who defended essence/energies) in their liturgies.

You'll immediately drive them onto their back foot and the argument will shift to being about the authority of the Pope. It's the one and only doctrine they're willing to defend as necessary for being in communion with Rome.

[Anonymous No.23405914]

>>23405735
>>23405738
>>23405748
>Prayer, meditation, bible reading

I do this and feel nothing.

[Anonymous No.23405935]

>What is the difference between the genius who founds a religion and other kinds of genius ? What is it that has led him to found the religion ?

>The main difference is no other than that he did not always believe in the God he worships. Tradition relates of Buddha, as of Christ, that they were subject to greater temptations than other men. Two others, Mahomet and Luther, were epileptic. Epilepsy is the disease of the criminal; Caesar, Narses, Napoleon, the greatest of the criminals, were epileptics.

>The founder of a religion is the man who has lived without God and yet has struggled towards the greatest faith. How is it possible for a bad man to transform himself ? As Kant, although he was compelled to admit the fact, asked in his " Philosophy of Religion," how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit ? The inconceivable mystery of the transformation into a good man of one who has lived evilly all the days and years of his life has actually realised itself in the case of some six or seven historical personages. These have been the founders of religions.


>The founder of a religion is the man for whom no problem has been solved from his birth. He is the man with the least possible sureness of conviction, for whom everything is doubtful and uncertain, and who has to conquer everything for himself in this life. One has to struggle against illness and physical weakness, another trembles on the brink of the crimes which are possible for him, yet another has been in the bonds of sin from his birth. It is only a formal statement to say that original sin is the same in all persons; it differs materially for each person. Here one, there another, each as he was born, has chosen what is senseless and worthless, has preferred instinct to his will, or pleasure to love; only the founder of a religion has had original sin in its absolute form; in him everything is doubtful, everything is in question. He has to meet every problem and free himself from all guilt. In him was all error and all guilt; in him there comes to be all expiation and redemption.

>Thus the founder of a religion is the greatest of the geniuses, for he has vanquished the most. He is the man who has accomplished victoriously what the deepest thinkers of mankind have thought of only timorously as a possibility, the complete regeneration of a man, the reversal of his will

>I am not disposed to believe, with Chamberlain, that the birth of the Saviour in Palestine was an accident. Christ was a Jew, precisely that He might overcome the Judaism within Him, for he who triumphs over the deepest doubt reaches the highest faith; he who has raised himself above the most desolate negation is most sure in his position of affirmation. Judaism was the peculiar, original sin of Christ; it was His victory over Judaism that made Him greater than Buddha or Confucius. Christ was the greatest man because He conquered the greatest enemy.

[Anonymous No.23405957]

>>23405935
In Christians pride and humility
in Jews haughtiness and cringing
are ever at strife
in the former self-consciousness and contrition
in the latter arrogance and bigotry

nothing. easier. than. to. be. jewish. nothing. so. difficult. as. to. be. christian.

[Anonymous No.23406059]

>>23405866
>When Roman Catholicism split off, they pretty soon after tried to prop everything up with Aristotelian philosophy.
Any decent academic volume of the history of ideas up to the late medieval period would demonstrate that your account of Catholic thought is, at best, tenuous and unacceptable.
>Today, you don't even need to affirm Thomism to be in communion with Rome.
You do not, but St. Thomas is the safest standard of Catholic theology and universal doctor of the Church. There have also been distinct Augustinian and Franciscan schools of theology, so not being a paleo-Thomist has never been against the Church. That said, unless he has a solid prayer life and is intellectually formed, there is no reason for a Catholic to depart from St. Thomas.
>Roman Catholicism is a crab trap that appeals to guys who think it's all perfectly rational Aristotelian philosophy
In Thomism, a "theologian" who materially memorizes theological formulae without prayer is not formally doing theology. Thomists are not rationalists and St. Thomas should be read for his biblical commentaries as much as or even more than for his philosophical theology. Fr. Austin Woodbury's dissertation "What Studies Owes to The Interior Life" in his Commentary on the Summa Theologiæ demonstrates this point more eloquently than I ever could.
>None of that Aristotle gets you to the Trinity; it'd prove the god of Islam
This is true. You cannot prove as a logical necessity the mystery of the Trinity from unaided reason. You destroy the natural virtue of religion if you deny that Muslims direct their worship, however mutilated and deformed, toward the same God as Catholics.
>or Freemasonry just as easily.
At least in America, Freemasons (here, I think of Franklin, the Founding Father for whom I have the most respect after Jefferson) were deists who confessed belief in an impersonal God, but Thomists confess that God is both providential and, because he is perfect, has an intellect and a will.
>They have uniates who venerate Orthodox and Nestorian saints in their services.
>point out that Byzcaths commemorate St. Gregory Palamas (post-schism anti-Rome Orthodox saint who defended essence/energies) in their liturgies.
First, the local veneration of schismatics is hardly the argument that undermines Catholicism the most. The Filioque and ecclesiology are much more important differences.
Second, let's see a universally approved papal law permitting the universal veneration of these schismatics.
>You'll immediately drive them onto their back foot and the argument will shift to being about the authority of the Pope. It's the one and only doctrine they're willing to defend as necessary for being in communion with Rome.
That is why you should read manuals and works of scholastic theology, preferably from the Baroque or late medieval era, that work from principles to conclusion rather than argue with random laymen who could not distinguish between a predicamental and predicable accident.

[Anonymous No.23406063]

>>23405903
>>23406059
(in continuation—Thomists have every virtue but brevity!)
To avoid being polemical and rude, I would simply like to observe that, in this very exchange, the Thomist demonstrates his conclusions by reasoning from principles to conclusions and appealing to the theological loci, the Orthodox by listing objections and appealing to grand narratives.
With my will, I love my Orthodox brethren for their sacramental vision. With my intellect, I respect my Lutherans and Dutch Reformed cousins for their scientific rigor.
I suggest that you read Pohle's manuals, which I have converted to from PDF to HTML, before listing further objections to Thomism:
archive.is/qKtYR
archive.is/s47LG
archive.is/Uxx6G
archive.is/M0nbI
archive.is/s24wv
archive.is/gOqts
archive.is/TOcAT
archive.is/eVzjb
archive.is/Zc1Lm
archive.is/yy2oY
archive.is/zJgc0

[Anonymous No.23406079]

>>23405718
If idpol is on your mind: believe it or not, but pretty much all Caucasoid races have been Buddhists at one point or another. Based on autosomal samples I've looked into, the Yuezhi did have strong genetic affinities to Germanics and Finnish people for example. There were also Iranian Buddhists.
Regardless, you pick a tradition based on whether it's closest to the truth. Buddhism seems evidently true to me since there's no avoiding impermanence, old age, sickness, and death in all possible worlds.

[Anonymous No.23406086]

>>23405914
>and feel nothing
That's the point, you rise above and into nothingness
>>23405718
>How can I even approach this issue without feeling that I am
>I am
There's God

[Anonymous No.23406112]

>>23405718
Go to Divine Liturgy.

[Anonymous No.23406125]

>>23405718

I don't. I hate having to share a world with large number of stupid people who incline towards an unwarranted and unjustified belief in a god, which appears to be a fundamental defect of the human condition itself. I want the human species itself to be reengineered at the molecualr level, so that we quite literally become inhuman, because we no longer feel any impulse toward the false idea of god. That is the world that I want to live in. A world where we have done with that stupid cope of a fiction, once and for all.

[Anonymous No.23406135]

God is love, God is within you. The light of the Lord Christ is in your soul, the Kingdom of God is within you.

So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

1 John 4:16

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Luke 17:21

[Anonymous No.23406144]

I'm a philosophical theist
Personally my aesthetic inclinations are the closest to liturgical Christianity and it inspires how I think about God

[Anonymous No.23406148]

>>23406086

No. What is most essential, most characteristic in the idea of god is not existence, but rather non-existence. the "I am that I am" is a tautological and deeply unsatisfying proclamation which tries and fails to gainsay all reality, all evidence. The only reason why it works is the defect of human psychology.

[Anonymous No.23406207]

>>23405718
I came from a totally secular background before I started looking into it almost a decade ago now. I get how weird/alien it is. As other anons have said as weird as it feels trying praying and asking for guidance, God if you are real please show me what I should do, that sort of thing just try to express your thoughts honestly.

In terms of your like cultural bias question, there aren't really that many religions, or rather sort of consistent ones. There aren't really any religious groups with consistent beleifs, hinduism, varities of paganism, bhuddism, islam, judaism, even christianity etc all have like thousands of disagreeing sects.

What is consistent is sort of the philosophical aspect, there has been sort of several aspects of nature, and of God that many philosophies and religions agree upon in various ways. You can get some understanding of this about God you know, there being one fundamental source of all being, having like consistent rational/moral principles that aren't just like haphazard and self contradictory.

I think the most crucial thing though, is if God is real, and if what we think about him and how we act in relation to him has any significance, there ought to be some reliable means of knowing how we ought to do that. (As it would be rather absurd to be expected to do something with no means of knowing what.)

You are basically left with two paths, religious pluralism where what we say about God and how we act doesn't really matter, it's more about fitting in with our culture. That or there has to be a sure reliable means of coming know how we are expected to act, and that we are able to know what we ought to know.

For that path you could make an argument that we can learn that philosophically, however this discounts low iq normal people which I don't think is just. The only means then is having a global institution, that somehow is guaranteed to give confidence they can rely on it to give them instruction on the faith and how they ought to act.
This means that the believers would actually have agreement in beliefs and practice, because it is not something they are choosing but rather it is something they are receiving from an authority who is able to correct them. The only way that is at all attainable is through the Catholic Church. I don't think there is really any other alternative, it's that or religious pluralism. I'd recommend checking out a mass, or go to Adoration it's the throne of God on earth if they are correct. You don't need to talk to anyone to do that or fall for anything, it's just going to a silent room and sitting before what they say is the throne of God. So worth a peek at least if you ask me, would be a good place to pray and ask the questions you have.

[Anonymous No.23406216]

>>23406207
For some additional background context the whole idea of the Church is Christ established his authority here on earth so we can have a sure guide for the minimum. There is quite a bit of breadth for varieties of opinion but at least the minimum is ensured. There is a clear sign of you being in line with it by if you are in communion with the Pope, so there can be no dispute.
So long as what is true, or how we ought to act depends on human judgement or something that can be argued over to me that just isn't satisfactory. There will be infinite interpretations that can never be resolved, the Catholic Church isn't about like laying out explicit things "we have to believe" (but they do try to do that as well https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM ) but rather it's about entering into a relationship with God where you can be subject to his authority in a way that actually gives feedback in this world. If you are doing something bad and you aren't sure, you go to confession and hear it for sure. If you aren't sure if an idea is true of God and the Church condemns it you get pushback on that. It's about getting determinate feedback rather then having an exhaustive list of ideas.

That document I linked is the catechism, it's like a complete overview of the Church's views. The beginning part seems relevant to you:
CHAPTER ONE MAN'S CAPACITY FOR GOD
I. The Desire for God
II. Ways of Coming to Know God
III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church
IV. How Can We Speak about God?

[Anonymous No.23406234]

Pray the rosary every day for a month, anon. Learn how to do it and put your heart and soul into doing it every day that you do it. For a whole month. It’ll help more than reading any book. You may say it’s silly, and it could be, but it could also change your life forever.

[Anonymous No.23406242]

>>23405903
>Roman Catholicism is a crab trap that appeals to guys who think it's all perfectly rational Aristotelian philosophy
This is a caricature of Thomism.

Cf. Eric Perl:
>For over half a century, thoughtful philosophical scholarship has been revealing Platonic dimensions in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, to such an extent that it is now possible, although doubtless still controversial, to say that “Aquinas employs Aristotelianism … in the service of what is in fact a Christianized version of Platonism.”
Source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/esse-tantum-and-the-one-perl.pdf

>2. ...Once they call your position heretical (essence-energies, for example, which are a no-no under Thomist absolute divine simplicity)
A handful of Catholic theologians have addressed Palamism, and come to different conclusions as to its compatibility, vel non, with Catholic theology. The Church has taken no dogmatic position on the issue.

A healthier perspective on East-West issues, that goes beyond reductive antinomies, is seen in the approach of the Catholic theologian Louis Bouyer, as discussed, in particular, in the first chapter of The Trinitarian Wisdom of God: Louis Bouyer's Theology of the God-World Relationship by Keith Lemna, an outstanding book. Pic semi-related (it's from a book by Norman Russell).

[Anonymous No.23406297]

>>23406242
>The Church has taken no dogmatic position on the issue.
According to some paleo-Thomists, the Constitution "Benedictus Deus" of Pope Benedict XII implicitly condemns Palamism or the essence-energies distinction in defining the beatific vision:
>It has been defined by Benedict XII (1336) and by the Florentine Council (1439), that the beatific vision of the Blessed in Heaven is directed to the infinite substance of God, nay, to the Blessed Trinity itself, which the Elect intue immediate, nude, clare et aperte.
>>23405866
Also, on the topic of controversial paleo-Thomism:
>You have to search honestly for the truth and if you do God will help you.
I choose to interpret this charitably and in the most orthodox sense possible, but a stricter, less charitable paleo-Thomist could accuse this thesis of Pelagianism. There is no injustice in God allowing the reprobate to fall into sin and eternal conscious torture even after decades of sincere prayer and study. Denial of paleo-Thomistic reprobation is the most baleful hindrance to our Lutheran and Dutch Reformed cousins.

[Anonymous No.23406298]

>>23405914
>>Prayer, meditation, bible reading
>I do this and feel nothing.
nta, but I suggest you continue to pray, in a gentle fashion. *Ask* for the gift of faith (by praying, you are already making an act of faith). It is all a matter of grace. Trust in the goodness of God. Ask for God's light and guidance as you seek the gift of faith -- to open the eyes of your mind to the truth. As is written in the Epistle of James: "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you." In my experience, this is true. As today, May 20, is the feast day of Mary, Mother of the Church, ask for her help also.

I'm not sure how well any of the standard recommendations I make as an American Catholic would go over for a European, but here they are: >>/lit/thread/S23233276#p23237888

Ratzinger:
>First of all, the believer is always threatened with the uncertainty which in moments of temptation can suddenly and unexpectedly cast a piercing light on the fragility of the whole that usually seems so self-evident to him. A few examples will help make this clear....
>That lovable saint Teresa of Lisieux had grown up in an atmosphere of complete religious security... Yet this very saint, a person apparently cocooned in complete security, left behind her, from the last weeks of her passion, shattering admissions which have only now come to light. She says, for example, “I am assailed by the worst temptations of atheism”. Everything has become questionable, everything dark. She feels tempted to take only the sheer void for granted. In other words, in what is apparently a flawlessly interlocking world someone here suddenly catches a glimpse of the abyss lurking – even for her – under the firm structure of the supporting conventions.
>Paul Claudel depicted this in a most convincing way in the great opening scene of the Soulier de Satin. A Jesuit missionary is shown as the survivor of a shipwreck. [He] is drifting on a piece of wood through the raging waters of the ocean. The play opens with his last monologue:

>>Lord, it sometimes happened that I found thy commands laborious... But now I could not be bound to thee more closely than I am, and however violently my limbs move they cannot get one inch away from thee. So I really am fastened to the cross, but the cross on which I hang is not fastened to anything else. It drifts on the sea.

>Fastened to the cross – with the cross fastened to nothing, drifting over the abyss. The situation of the contemporary believer could hardly be more accurately and impressively described. Only on a loose plank bobbing over the void seems to hold him up, and it looks as if he must eventually sink. Only a loose plank connects him to God, though certainly it connects him inescapably and in the last analysis he knows that his wood is stronger than the void which seethes beneath him and which remains nevertheless the really threatening force in this day-to-day life.
https://www.jknirparchive.com/ratzmore.htm

[Anonymous No.23406394]

>>23405914
I mean religion was never a private thing until like nowadays, the early Christians had no bible it was about about community
>For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
As I said above I'd recommend just checkout out a mass, or maybe adoration if you feel like doing something a little quieter. It feels super weird and out of place at first but everyone is very nice about it, if you just go to adoration chances are no one will even notice.

[Anonymous No.23406420]

>>23405718
Kierkegaard. Concluding unscientific postscript is good but might be a lot to start at. Sickness unto death is good and short. These along with what the first anon said will get you to the point where you're ready to make the leap of faith. Further Fear and Trembling is a good work to understand faith more deeply.

[Anonymous No.23406425]

>>23405718
>I want to believe in some kind of God
Brainlet take

[Anonymous No.23406433]

>>23405914
I never said to meditate. You need to pray to God in faith. Do you understand what that means? It means you must believe, at the very least, that if He is, and He is who the Bible says He is, that He will reveal Christ to you and come into your heart and life. If that's what you want—relationship with the Living God—then muster up every shred of yearning and belief that you can and place it at the Lord's feet. Be prepared to give up everything in your life for Him if needs be. I mean it. Do not hold some of yourself back. He's worth it.

[Anonymous No.23406441]

>>23405718

[Anonymous No.23406530]

>>23405718
>How can I even approach this issue without feeling that I am being suckered into joining a pyramid scheme which just happens to be popular in my geographical area?
by trying to figure out what is actually true and then believing that, not by figuring out what you want to believe and then believing that
both paths are vulnerable to fashion but if you are self-consciously trying to follow the first you're a little bit less vulnerable to fashion
>>23405914
this is fundamentally not about your feelings. as long as you think it's about feelings you're going to be hopelessly confused.