/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4891990]

Theology General
Let's talk about theology. What works have you read? Anything you want to discuss with fellow /lit/izens?
Please don't post if you want to troll.

[Anonymous No.4892003]

What is the function of Melchizedek? I get the fact that one should see him as a jewish (I doubt it's a later-added christian element) foreshadow of the messiah, but what is the reason for doing this?

[Anonymous No.4892041]

Currently reading the Exegesis of PKD. I was into the gnostics some years ago. I liked Pistis Sophia. Am agnostic, but suspecting ole Dick got most of it right.

[Anonymous No.4894189]

bump

[Elisif !XeberWMtdA No.4894195]

When did you realize Satan is the true hero of Paradise Lost?

[Anonymous No.4894197]

>>4892003
Paul, especially in Hebrews, attempts to relate Jesus with the high priest, whose prototype Melchizedek was.

[Anonymous No.4894251]

What have the best arguments for "Why Christianity compared to only religions" been? Has anyone done it for, say, Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.4894316]

>>4894251
Buddhism is just a philosophy devised by some rich dude
Christianity is based on the historical event of Christ's resurrection

[Anonymous No.4894326]

Is there any difference between studying theology and, lets say, studying the Game of Thrones Universe?

[Anonymous No.4894330]

>>4894326
Yes, one is philosophy, the other is some shitty fantasy book.

[Anonymous No.4894333]

Theology is the Queen of the Sciences and the reason why the modern world is so awful is because it has abandoned true theology and true religion.

St. Thomas could have saved us, but we wouldn't listen, WE WOULD NOT LISTEN.

[Anonymous No.4894337]

>>4894195
He isn't. The Holy Spirit is the true hero of Paradise Lost.

[Anonymous No.4894341]

>>4894337
i thought it was r2-d2. or was that another film

[Anonymous No.4894346]

>>4892041
hmmmm . . .

>In that instant, as I stared at the gleaming fish sign and heard her words, I suddenly experienced what I later learned is called anamnesis—a Greek word meaning, literally, "loss of forgetfulness." I remembered who I was and where I was. In an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, it all came back to me. And not only could I remember it but I could see it. The girl was a secret Christian and so was I. We lived in fear of detection by the Romans. We had to communicate with cryptic signs. She had just told me all this, and it was true.

>For a short time, as hard as this is to believe or explain, I saw fading into view the black, prisonlike contours of hateful Rome. But, of much more importance, I remembered Jesus, who had just recently been with us, and had gone temporarily away, and would very soon return. My emotion was one of joy. We were secretly preparing to welcome Him back. It would not be long. And the Romans did not know. They thought He was dead, forever dead. That was our great secret, our joyous knowledge. Despite all appearances, Christ was going to return, and our delight and anticipation were boundless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exegesis_of_Philip_K._Dick

What an idiot. Has he even read The Bible. If he did he would have known that nobody was expecting the resurrection until Mary found the tomb empty. His vision was a false vision, and if he had read any Catholic theologians he would have known that he had been tricked diabolically. Catholic theologians say ad nauseum that you have to test these kidns of visions because "Satan likes to appear as an angel of light."

[Anonymous No.4894350]

>>4894333
>>4894333
Go to bed Ignatius

[Anonymous No.4894354]

>>4894333
⇒Theology is the Queen of the Sciences

Theology is the opposite of science. Science is about facts and logic, not ludicrous beliefs.

[Anonymous No.4894376]

>>4894354
>crazy arrow girl still frequenting /lit/
>still clueless about the inner workings of science
>still perpetuating scientism

Still mentally degenerated, I see.

[Anonymous No.4894381]

>>4894330
>one is philosophy
Assuming an answer is not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4894386]

>>4894381
So the Greeks, rationalism, empiricism etc. are not philosophy too?

[Anonymous No.4894391]

>>4894333
>modern world is so awful
I too, have unfounded romantic feelings for a past that never existed. :3

[Anonymous No.4894405]

>>4894386
>There is a God and let's find facts to support this.
What does this unfounded assumption have anything to with the Greeks, rationalists, etc?

I don't know much of empiricism, but both the Greeks and Rationalists questioned the existence of God. And they weren't only limited to, and listened to, answers and facts that pointed to yes, like the Jesuits and other pseudo-open minded schools are.

[Anonymous No.4894416]

>>4894405
Completely ignorant of what theology is and how it works, I see.
The start of theology is arriving at God through reasoning.

And it's cute you think almost every major philosopher didn't assume conclusions beforehand.

[Anonymous No.4894426]

>>4894416
You're arrogant and a douche, just like most Christians whenever they're questioned. And no, most philosophers didn't put "Yes, there must be a God" before everything else, including truth. You live in a fantasy world, running a simulation of reason that will always plays out with the answer you want it to. Never wrong, always answers that prove the Church right. Grow some balls douchebag.

[Anonymous No.4894437]

>theology
>relevant

Nah, I'll stick to these.

[Anonymous No.4894445]

I really want Catholics to leave my board.

[Anonymous No.4894454]

>>4894437

>your bait
>good

At least you tried.

[Anonymous No.4894480]

I read this theology book and I find it pretty convincing.

[Anonymous No.4894493]

>>4894445
Why would you want the people from one of the few Christian sects that encourages scholarship and critical thinking to leave?

[Anonymous No.4894511]

John of Damascus. Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory Nazianzus. Augustine of Hippo.

[Anonymous No.4894517]

>>4894195
>>4894326
>>4894346
>>4894426
>>4894437
>>4894445
>>4894480
Fedora pls go

[Anonymous No.4894518]

>>4894437
Okay, enjoy your bro-science and neo-con journalism.

[Anonymous No.4894558]

I used to fancy myself an atheist. I have hard copies of "God is not Great" and "the God Delusion", I also study physics at a university level, I am a third year student. Now, before my descent into faithlessness I was a practicing Catholic but I also spent some time in Baptist churches (due to my mother's upbringing).

I have only as of late began to get into theology and seriously considering the existence of a God from a philosophical and metaphysical level. I've read C.S Lewis and Thomas Aquinas, along with some work on early Christian Gnostic beliefs. I have a bible in english and romanian (which I enjoy more due to its closer Latin narrative).

What I want to say is this, as a former atheist. Thinking about God and reality as created by an unmoved mover is a far more trying intellectual experience than I encounter at school or in any textbook. If God infact works throughout the universe and beyond it, we cannot apply rationality and logic in our sense of their understanding. Evidence does not feed faith. I can compare the sensation of grasping theological concepts to one of trying to understand higher level concepts of modern physics. This is the type of work your brain engages in when trying to tackle the greater truths. I feel sorry for those who will never truly understand reality due to being entangled in the materialism of it.

[Anonymous No.4894564]

>>4894316
Christianity is just a philosophy devised by some poor dude
Buddhism is based on the historical event of Siddartha Gautama's enlightenment

[Anonymous No.4894566]

>>4894558

But the unmoved mover implies what it denies

[Anonymous No.4894571]

>>4894566
> implying god is outside being implied upon

[Anonymous No.4894575]

>>4894571

That's another contradiction. You propose that the laws of the universe are absolute, and then propose an entity that can bypass them, which would make them not absolute.

So what are they? Are the laws of the universe absolute or aren't they absolute? Also, what is all this stuff about 'non-material' things? If this is stuff that you can't demonstrate in any way to be real, then why should anyone assert that it definitely is real?

All of this stuff just sounds like bullshit cop-outs to avoid having to say that you either don't know or that you're wrong. It certainly isn't very strong as a case for any god

[Anonymous No.4894597]

>>4894575
The laws of this universe are absolute. The laws of another universe are absolutely different. We can propose of physics that bypass absolute laws, can we not propose a higher nature that bypasses them all? We can demonstrate many things to be real materially, but when explained scientifically they lack their intrinsic value. The hard problem of consciousness hasn't been solved, we know consciousness resides in the brain and we know it interacts with the environment in very specific ways. It has an evolutionary advantage but it also does things which are humanity specific (culture, art, creativity, imagination, etc). A very illusive substance we try to grasp materially. When you often see things in a material lens they lose their value. If we see other people entirely materially they lose their value and we lose our humanity.

[Anonymous No.4894601]

>>4894597
>The laws of this universe are absolute. The laws of another universe are absolutely different. We can propose of physics that bypass absolute laws, can we not propose a higher nature that bypasses them all?

Because that would make them not absolute? Absolute means they cannot be bypassed by anyone or anything.

>We can demonstrate many things to be real materially, but when explained scientifically they lack their intrinsic value.

Science isn't about value. Nor is the question whether something is or isn't real.

>The hard problem of consciousness hasn't been solved, we know consciousness resides in the brain and we know it interacts with the environment in very specific ways. It has an evolutionary advantage but it also does things which are humanity specific (culture, art, creativity, imagination, etc). A very illusive substance we try to grasp materially.

That doesn't make consciousness a non-material, it makes it an unknown

[Anonymous No.4894620]

>>4894601

> Because that would make them not absolute? Absolute means they cannot be bypassed by anyone or anything.

God would not be just anyone or anything. An ultimate reality which extend beyond our own would bypass things exclusive and limiting to our own. Much like things in another dimension would behave erratically different to our perception, a God would not be subject to such trifles. Man created absolute laws, the laws of physics are absolute to mans ignorant perspective. Useful little things to calculate and hold measuring sticks up to.

> Science isn't about value. Nor is the question whether something is or isn't real.

Then why apply the scientific method to God?

> That doesn't make consciousness a non-material, it makes it an unknown

Yes an unknown, with an unknown source and an unknown aim.

[Anonymous No.4894625]

>>4894620
>God would not be just anyone or anything. An ultimate reality which extend beyond our own would bypass things exclusive and limiting to our own. Much like things in another dimension would behave erratically different to our perception, a God would not be subject to such trifles. Man created absolute laws, the laws of physics are absolute to mans ignorant perspective. Useful little things to calculate and hold measuring sticks up to.

If the laws of physics are not absolute and God apparently fudges around with them all the time, we probably would have noticed by now.

>Then why apply the scientific method to God?

Why not? He's is supposed to be real after all, so there should be loads of evidence, especially since you propose him as the most real thing possible.

>Yes an unknown, with an unknown source and an unknown aim.

Which is why research is much more helpful than just declaring it a piece of fuzzy material we can detect, but definitely exists

[Anonymous No.4894637]

>>4894625

> If the laws of physics are not absolute and God apparently fudges around with them all the time, we probably would have noticed by now.

What need he to fudge with them? He's fudged with alot considering alternate universes and string theory. I never claimed God actively tweaks the laws of physics in our universe. Nor would he need to.

> Why not? He's is supposed to be real after all, so there should be loads of evidence, especially since you propose him as the most real thing possible.

But you just said the question whether something is or isn't real is not one for science did you not? Well enough, if I misunderstood, I will answer this way. I said he would exist in an ultimate reality, as real as the strings of the universe are to you and me. We know of them by secondhand and scientists know of them through mathematics. Are they real? You would firmly state so. I firmly state the prophets translated to us real things which seem unreal to us to deal with materially. We just lack the mathematics, so to say.

> Which is why research is much more helpful than just declaring it a piece of fuzzy material we can detect, but definitely exists

I would endorse its research as I would endorse research into all matters. Consciousness exists, but what does it aim for and whence did it come from?

[Anonymous No.4894649]

>>4894637
>I never claimed God actively tweaks the laws of physics in our universe.

Your Bible does

>But you just said the question whether something is or isn't real is not one for science did you not?

No, I said that science doesn't have a mostly normative function, it has an epistemological function for the most part.

>Are they real? You would firmly state so.

Math is a descriptive tool. It has no prescriptive function.

[Anonymous No.4894678]

What do you guys think of William Lane Craig?

I'm an agnostic/atheist but I've been reading Q&As and articles on his website for the last week because they are interesting. If nothing else, he has illuminated to me the intellectual vacuity of the New Atheists.

[Anonymous No.4894706]

>>4894678

>William Lane Craig

[Anonymous No.4894721]

>>4894649
>science isn't normative
>math isn't prescriptive
Not him, but that seems false. Research programs -- that's one. Second, math is prescribed all over the world, starting from primary schools and ending up with universities.

>>4894678
While WLC is more philosophically sophisticated than the New Atheists, that doesn't necessarily mean his doctrine is any more valid. Surely, him and Plantinga have done an immense service to the Philosophy of Religion and the contemporary metaphysics of modal logic, but damn, you have to be nuts to use the tools of mathematics so eagerly to justify the improbable existence of a Judeo-Christian God.

[Anonymous No.4894725]

>>4894678

I'm an atheist but he is rather compelling

[Anonymous No.4894732]

>>4894678
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.4894740]

>>4894732
I don't even know what this means anymore

[Anonymous No.4894748]

Why are people convinced of the existence of, for instance, the Christian God?

[Anonymous No.4894760]

>>4894575

If you postulate a plurality of universes, your conundrum disappears. Different universes, could easily have different sets of rules.

[Anonymous No.4894929]

>>4894649
Same guy here, sorry was away for a few hours:

> Your Bible does

It's not my Bible at all, it's the Bible handed down to me by the prophets. A text of study for myself and understanding, but it would be false to say I prescribe to all Christian teachings or Abrahamic laws. There are few who can accept all, without room for doubt. I am not here to convert anybody, I do not wish you to share my views, only consider them. The only person I have to convince is myself.

> No, I said that science doesn't have a mostly normative function, it has an epistemological function for the most part.

It might not have a normative function but it is utilized and seen to have one by its most ardent supporters (fedoras)

> Math is a descriptive tool. It has no prescriptive function.

Yes a descriptive tool used to describe the material realm from a human perspective. Looking through a pinhole at a much bigger picture.

[Anonymous No.4894934]

>>4894748
Why are people convinced of the State? Or human equality?

[Anonymous No.4894961]

>>4894760

I have no reason to do so

[Anonymous No.4895549]

Why do atheists have to stifle any discussions based on religion? Why are they so constantly butthurt about it?

[Anonymous No.4895553]

>>4894558
Bro-five
I've been having very similar thoughts

[Anonymous No.4895562]

>>4895549
Why are people butthurt about opposing views?

[Anonymous No.4895572]

>people thinking they can empirically verify the existence of Being itself

[Anonymous No.4895575]

>>4895562
In this instance, people are only butthurt about opposing views from edgy underage b&s and manchildren

[Anonymous No.4895730]

>>4894416

>theology...reason towards God.

Kierkegaard laughs at this post from his grave.

[Anonymous No.4895774]

>>4895730
Fideism is the death of God.

[Anonymous No.4896006]

>>4895774

You don't understand the limits of human reason. Read more philosophy

[Anonymous No.4896351]

>>4894564
OP is just a faggot
Your post is based on the historical events of your stepping out of the closet

[Anonymous No.4896903]

>>4894566
No, it doesn't. You'll have to actually study it to realize that though. The "unmoved mover" of Aquinas and Aristotle is very specific. It doesn't posit, ever, that "All things have a mover". Even the term "movement" is a broad term for change, not the physical transition for one point in space and time to another, but all change of potential to actual.
>All potential that has been actualized must actualized by something else, because no thing of potential can actualize itself except by something itself in a state of actuality
>i.e., a rock potentially on the ground cannot spontaneously hurl itself from a cliff to actually be on the ground without being acted upon or changed.

The rest of the argument based on that post I see in the thread seems to either allows the poster to continue this entry-level mistake/misunderstanding, or implicitly accepts it. It's fundamentally wrong.

[Anonymous No.4896907]

>>4896903
forgot the last bit
>everything can changed from a state of potentiality to actuality only by another thing or being itself in a state of actuality, and this itself must be actualized by something else that is actual, so on and so forth
>therefore, there must necessarily exist a being or thing that is "pure actuality", otherwise there would exist nothing in a state of actuality at all, were it not first set by something else in actuality

[Anonymous No.4896960]

>>4895549
0/10

How can an unchanging god be capable of doing anything without being rendered incoherent?

[Ehhh? >.< Nani, Satan-kun? v.v(...) No.4897007]

I keep hearing that Aquinas is amazing, even from atheists. As of this point, I've read nothing directly concerning theology outside of Dawkins' anti-religious polemic, I forget what it was called. Also read a little bit of Hitch's 'God is not Great'

[Anonymous No.4897020]

>>4897007
I think his are shitty attempts at jamming older and far superior Greek works so that they fit into dead jew on a stick traditions and misunderstanding both in the process. And I'm a christfag. All my patrician christfag friends say the same.

[Anonymous No.4897049]

Right off the bad I'll admit that I havn't read any of the major works. Close to zilch. I have read essays about them.

Most of the major works were written far before my time. I wouldn't be able to understand them, because god is an entirely different concept to the writers of these works and to me. God is a very personal matter.

I'd rather talk about them with people who do believe, I've had some very interesting discussions with my professors about God. They are older than me, and I presume they had a more religious upbringing (not that hard) so they understand it better than a sybaritic digital godless young heathen like myself. One told me about Jesus being both fully-god and fully-man. That was an interesting concept, it may be because God is everything that there is no such thing as half-god. Also, because Jesus isn't a "prophet" in the traditional sense, God isn't speaking to him, but speaking through him. It often makes me wonder about those Evangelicals who claim to have conversations with god on a regular basis. I often see them as the reason which I don't believe in god.

Another told me about St Thomas and how he said that the existence of God could be proven empirically but to believe in Jesus required faith. At first I was inclined that faith was as Kierkegaard said, that we should not ask for tests of faith but simply believe. If god can by definition do anything, can`t he exist without existing? (Then there's the non-contradiction principle, which some sects follow.). I feel as if those Ken Ham sort are cheapening and defiling god by turning it into a mere scientific entity and not some inexplicable, inscrutable force. Most of all I feel like I have been cast out of paradise and left to wander being forever unable to believe. I'm not an atheist because of science. If creation science were taught instead of evolutionary biology, it would sound like the truth to me. I would never be able to tell, being imperfect and all.

Ultimatly, I wonder, what's the point of believing in god besides getting into heaven? I can't make myself believe in God. The odds of me finding the right way to curry favour are almost impossible. If there is a heaven, I'm not getting it. I am an atheist for the same reasons that atheists deride and vituperate believers, I want to believe in something pleasant, or at least better, and in this case, the void is better than eternal suffering.

[Anonymous No.4897109]

>>4897049
>Jesus isn't a "prophet" in the traditional sense, God isn't speak to him but speak through him

If Jesus is God, wouldn't that mean this distinction is meaningless?

>could be proven empirically

You're confusing empiricism and rationality

>If god can by definition do anything, can't he exist without existing?

You can't try to break logic in order to discover the divine.

[Anonymous No.4898440]

>>4897109
>You can't try to break logic in order to discover the divine.
Why not? Since god controls everything, it can do whatever it wants.

[Anonymous No.4900946]

>>4897020
>And I'm a christfag. All my patrician christfag friends say the same.
Pretty sure this is complete bullshit

[Anonymous No.4900970]

>>4900946
But I talk about all the problems Aquinas has to Christfags, and they all agree with me that he's for plebians maximals.

[Anonymous No.4901070]

>>4894558
>I feel sorry for those who will never truly understand reality due to being entangled in the materialism of it.

This is so annoying. Why is it that you people think you're intellectually superior because you manage to rationalise irrational beliefs?

It's also ironic because this "I'm so superior" attitude is the whole basis for the "le tippy fedora" meme where we make fun of atheists for thinking they're so intelligent. You're really no better, with this nonsense. (And I'm an atheist and I kek at that meme all the time.)

And it's a shame too because the whole of /lit/ is riddled with this crap. A bunch of contrarians who recognise that atheism is on the rise, so now to be edgy you have to find some way to feel superior to these people, and that's now done by clinging to weak arguments that sound sophisticated in order to rationalise a belief that cannot really be reasonable in the first place. It's fucking stupid.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4901149]

>Not using theoretical physics to rekindle the existence of an afterlife, therefore adopting "science-is-a-religion" for yourselves.


>>/lit/thread/4896805

[Anonymous No.4901173]

>>4901149

>needing to believe in an afterlife to secure the survival your ego terrified by the prospect of its inevitable non existnece
>not being satisfied that your good works will live on in subsequent generations and accepting that you are part of a finite process of change

[Anonymous No.4901175]

>>4900970
Why is he for plebian's?
Serious question, I was considering reading his work.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4901188]

>>4901173
Well yeah, right?

Theology general though.

[Anonymous No.4901343]

>>4901175
He's full of shit, probably has a "it's faith so I ain't gonna explain shit" outlook
The obsession with writers like Kirk on /lit/ just shows how they think of faith, they think it's something that has to be taken in spite of reason, as a leap against reason
That's complete bollocks though, you could justify any sort of belief in that way, however violent and crazy it is
Aquinas attempts to ground the Christian way of thinking into philosophical discourse and rational conclusion available to everyone, he doesn't just say "I believe it cuz it says so in the Bible and I believe the Bible cuz the bible says me to believe it", he has a whole system of theology that leads someone to the conclusion

And I respect that a lot. We either let everyone believe what they want or respond with hate and violence. There is a better way though, and it was practiced even at the time Thomas lived, because he corresponded and drew influence from Muslim scholars, Jews, Orthodox Christians etc. and didn't just tell them that they'll burn forever. He's the start of ecumenism.