[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 31 KB, 317x500, 28819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5073064 No.5073064[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Good afternoon, e/lit/ists,

I am a converted Catholic looking for material to strengthen my faith. I was raised in an areligious family and unlike most religious people, I have no idea what it feels like to be certain that God exists; like ex-fat people, I still feel fat.

90% of how I got to conversion was done through reading. The Bible, books about the Bible, CS Lewis' theology books, and a number of courses at university.

I'm aware that my position is unusual, and it saddens me. Learned people look down on me because they assume religion is a thing of the past; religious people don't understand my struggle and look suspiciously at my curiosity and questions.

I'll bump with books I found helpful. Thanks for any help.

>> No.5073067

>Learned people look down on me because they assume religion is a thing of the past;
as they should

>religious people don't understand my struggle and look suspiciously at my curiosity and questions.
and rightly so

>> No.5073072

i mean have you even read Neitshzchie? he says pretty clearly that god doesnt even exist I mean come on

>> No.5073081

Schleiermacher

>> No.5073084

>>5073072
You misspelled that, I think you mean Neitzyxcöe

>> No.5073085

Believing a god exists is reasonable, but the whole "divine Jesus" thing...

I don't know what to tell you, anon.

>> No.5073091

>>5073067

OP's pic shows you a man who was more learned than any of them, or you, and he did not look down on religion.

There is no rational reason to look down on religion, especially if you don't understand/know much about it.

You have a far too simplified version of things; to you, idiots believe and educated people don't, and that's all it is for you.

Dig deeper, you'll find that this isn't as simple.

>> No.5073104

>>5073085

I know. For the Christ part, I rely on faith more than anything. There isn't much to go on otherwise, but the same is true on going against it.

I'm surprised that so many antitheists haven't read much theology.

>know your enemy

In 99% of cases, no militant atheists knows anything about theodicy, or even the word itself. This isn't serious.

>> No.5073122

>>5073085
Believing a god exists is reasonable, being a christfag theist and engineering your life so you please a high maintenance god...

I don't know what to tell you anon. Whatever works I guess.

>> No.5073146

>>5073122

My God isn't the Old Testament God if that's what you're thinking. And yes, I know what you want to say, and I know the 8 next moves you may make depending on what I say because I've played that chess game dozens of times. Don't bother, it ends up with you saying I'm not a real Christian.

That said, you're wrong about your assumptions. I "engineer" my life to do as much good as I can. That was the birth of my faith, the idea that helping others was central. I've built my life around caring for others. I don't regret that. Christianity was the only ideology where this notion was central, so I took a look.

>> No.5073171

>>5073146
Sure, more power to you! Whatever keeps you going. I have no beef with intelligent moderates like yourself. I don't like the theist bit, because it implies intellectual unreliability can arise. But as I've said, whatever works.

As for the chess game, I'm open to learning new things and I'd really appreciate it if you could direct me towards texts that address the moves that follow my claim that you're not a real christian.

>> No.5073190

>>5073171
>I don't like the theist bit, because it implies intellectual unreliability can arise.

Yes, I clearly don't live in certainty and clearly use my logical abilities to discover the limits of logic and reason.

>moderate

I wish I was considered the real deal and the "extremists" the half-baked deal, because that's how it is.

Anyone high enough in my Church has several Ph.D's under his belt.

As to chess, I'd recommend reading about the context of the books of the Bible, thus you'd learn that Leviticus is just a handbook written by one rabbi to be consulted by other rabbis and that Hebrews were never literal and discussed everything. Protestants take the text and leave the context, which leads to fundamentalism, a bad habit that came with literacy and printing. That's also why Protestants rely on the text more than Catholics. We rely on experts, scholars, people who know the context and don't treat the text as the direct, infallible word of God.

You seem civil enough, so I'll indulge in questions and remarks for a bit.

>> No.5073205

>>5073064
Fear & Trembling pushed me closer to Christianity than anything else. But it's fideism (which the Catholic Church implicitly rejects) & its a troll argument that Kierkegaard himself probably didn't believe in [/Spoiler]

>> No.5073228

>>5073190
>I wish I was considered the real deal and the "extremists" the half-baked deal, because that's how it is.

I take your point about being moderate. I wasn't implying extremists are the norm within christianity. Although dumb people are, just saying, not resorting to ad hominems though.

>Protestants take the text and leave the context, which leads to fundamentalism, a bad habit that came with literacy and printing. That's also why Protestants rely on the text more than Catholics.

Funny how I come from a christian background, yet I've come to know more about 'biblical' literalism and reliance on theologians more within the shia-sunni relations. I had no idea protestants are bigger on literalism. Will read a bit around the context of the books of the bible.

>Yes, I clearly don't live in certainty and clearly use my logical abilities to discover the limits of logic and reason.
+
>Christianity was the only ideology where this notion was central, so I took a look.
+
>Leviticus is just a handbook written by one rabbi to be consulted by other rabbis and that Hebrews were never literal and discussed everything

If you're just in it for the study of morality within a community whose analytical and moral paradigms are relatable to yourself, then why theism and why filling that hole of uncertainty with a god or creator? although I'm not sure if by saying that you're a christian and that your "god isn't the old testament god" implies that being a christian doesn't necessarily warrant the belief in a supernatural interventionist creator.

>> No.5073261

>>5073228
>I had no idea protestants are bigger on literalism.

They are because Protestantism was literally born of the text. The idea that anyone could read the Bible and understand God from there was born with print. Before that, people relied on experts, which is honestly the best way.

Now you get crazy people who think they got it all figured out because of their feefees. That's why Protestantism has very little unity: lowest common denominator. In Catholicism, we don't care what you have to say about the Bible unless you have a doctorate in something relevant.

Reliance on text, this way, gave birth to literalism. I don't feel obligated to do what Leviticus says because:

1. I actually know what Leviticus IS
2. the text isn't the corner stone of my faith

----------

As to the rest, reading the gospel of John was the real trigger. It's my favourite book of the Bible.

The rest of my faith is based on intuition, itself based on how I feel towards Christ, people, and the universe.

I can't imagine a universe without a God, but have a hard time believing in such a God.

>> No.5073268

>>5073064

Given that you seem quite articulate about your faith and willing to discuss it, I have a few questions:

Do you consider your faith falsifiable? I.E. what hypothetical scenario would have to arise in order for you to reject it?

Do you believe literally that the Abrahamic 'God' of the Bible exists, is omnipotent/omnibenevolent etc, and created the universe in 6 days? Do you believe in the Bible literally or do you consider it more of a 'guideline for a good life'?

How do you (if at all) reconcile your faith with modern science and technology? Do you believe God to be 'extra-material'?

>> No.5073274

>>5073268
>Do you consider your faith falsifiable?

If you mean in the scientific manner, I suppose not. It's not a scientific theory, that's for sure. And yes, that is indeed a problem but that's the nature of faith, it's very wishy-washy at worst, and a decision at best.

> I.E. what hypothetical scenario would have to arise in order for you to reject it?

That depends. God in general would be difficult to prove or disprove in any clear way. Christ is closer to possibility. I'm not sure what clear evidence would kill my faith entirely.

I'll post that. I'm playing poker right now, so I may not be able to be very quick. I'll answer the rest soon.

>> No.5073283

>>5073268
>Do you believe literally that the Abrahamic 'God' of the Bible exists, is omnipotent/omnibenevolent etc, and created the universe in 6 days? Do you believe in the Bible literally or do you consider it more of a 'guideline for a good life'?

I'm not big on the OT. It's mostly context to me, as to many Catholics. We're not literalists either.

>6 days

The text itself doesn't say that, it says "cycles". I don't believe in reading those texts critically without expert knowledge of the original tongues they were written in. A cycle can be 24 hours of millions of years. No Catholic believes in Creationism.

Nobody read the Bible literally until fairly recently.

As to a guideline for a good life, yes and no. It is, but if you ignore what Christ said about being God (albeit subtly), it would be far less than it really is. Christ was either a liar, a lunatic, or He was what He claimed He was. No middle ground here.

>> No.5073287

>>5073268
>How do you (if at all) reconcile your faith with modern science and technology? Do you believe God to be 'extra-material'?

I never had any problem doing that. Science strengthens my faith if anything.

I believe God to be immanent and transcendent, meaning He is both in all things and outside of them as well, so yes. I wouldn't say "extra material" because I don't like this definition. God exists in ways we don't understand, yes, but does that make Him immaterial? I wouldn't go this far, knowing that matter itself is a flimsy concept.

>> No.5073288

>>5073064
Hi, I have no idea. But Meister Eckhart's writings are quite intersting.

>> No.5073290

>>5073288

Yes, I heard of him a bit. On the list with Kierkegaard. Any specific volume?

>> No.5073295

Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky's

>> No.5073300

>>5073295

Dostoyevsky was essential in my conversion to Christianity. Brothers Karamazov specifically.

>> No.5073305

>>5073261
>The idea that anyone could read the Bible and understand God from there was born with print. Before that, people relied on experts, which is honestly the best way.

interesting.

i see the proliferation of the printing press as revolutionary and liberating- the rise of literacy facilitated greater knowledge of arbitrarily powerful institutions, how to subvert them and so on.

maybe its a populist stance but the way i see it the catholic church was desperate to maintain power which heavily relied on interpretation and dissemination of ideas and ideals by 'experts'. a literate populace was undesirable for this reason.

you could even draw parallels with todays record industry/hollywood going apeshit at the ubiquity of piracy. suddenly the power to access cultural knowledge lies in the hands of the masses. not what big corporate wants is it? maintenance of a monopoly is pretty vital to their general strategy right?

yeah yeah sophomoric marxist critique call it what you want but you cant deny the papacy was deeply fearful of literacy.

>> No.5073316

>>5073290
As I've said, I have no idea. I bought a german copy of his writings with a large introductory foreword. That's a pro.
Emil K. Pohl, Bertelsmann, 1959, published by Gerhard Stenzel. They know what they talk about.

>> No.5073318

>>5073261
These
>I can't imagine a universe without a God, but have a hard time believing in such a God.
>The rest of my faith is based on intuition, itself based on how I feel towards Christ, people, and the universe.
>God in general would be difficult to prove or disprove in any clear way. Christ is closer to possibility. I'm not sure what clear evidence would kill my faith entirely.

I find your position fascinatingly unbearable. Also, I don't understand it.

>> No.5073328

>>5073305

I see what you're saying, and yes, it was good that everyone could read the Bible, but where it went wrong was the idea that everyone's take on it was equal. Imagine if everyone was the same worth of a scientist as everyone else, we'd go nowhere within science. A scientist with a degree isn't the same as a random guy on the street. Catholicism had many wrongs at the time, of course.

The Catholich Church wasn't against the spread of printed Bibles. Problems arose much later on.

>you could even draw parallels with todays record industry/hollywood going apeshit at the ubiquity of piracy. suddenly the power to access cultural knowledge lies in the hands of the masses. not what big corporate wants is it? maintenance of a monopoly is pretty vital to their general strategy right?

Except the masses aren't downloading Karl Marx or Nietzsche in drones, they download Katy Perry and Transformers, which leads me back to my original assumption: humans at large don't do elitism much and if you want excellence, you'll have to be elitist and put certain individuals in charge; don't expect everyone to be excellent all the time for good reasons. It won't happen.

>cultural knowledge

You gave me a sad. All cultural knowledge is available for free at any library, in any town. It's completely free, you don't even need a computer. People at large don't care that much.

Moreover, I honestly doubt that knowledge is a threat to corporations, they're just worried about making less money.

>yeah yeah sophomoric marxist critique call it what you want but you cant deny the papacy was deeply fearful of literacy.

I'm nott hat sure. I'm not an expert on that time period, but I honestly doubt that the Church expected harm from literacy. It was the relationship to the text, rather than ability to read the text, that gave birth to the problem. The idea that you didn't need anybody or anything to read the word of God. That gave birth to literalism and fundamentalism and all sorts of craziness like Creationism, which was never supported by religious people before this idea that the text was literal and infallible.

>> No.5073335

>>5073318

Bearable or not, that's where I'm at. The basis of it is that we don't know that much about the universe, this I know from studying science and looking beyond its limited scope.

If you have more precise questions, I'm available, having lost at poker.

>> No.5073347

>>5073335
Where do you stand on absurdism and the idea that questions related to moral/metaphysical meaningfulness are humane, yet stupid/non-questions(the equivalent of asking what is the purpose/meaning of this rock) and that god seems to be the thing happens to perfectly fill your personal purposeless hole at this moment in time?

>> No.5073352

>>5073316

http://www.amazon.de/Complete-Mystical-Works-Meister-Eckhart/dp/0824525175/ref=sr_1_5?s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1404048763&sr=1-5&keywords=Meister+Eckhart

Found this, but Jesus Christ, it's expensive.

>> No.5073353

>>5073347
>question related to *your* moral/metaphysical [...]

>> No.5073360

>>5073347

Your question is quite convoluted. You seem to assume something I'm unsure I've even touched upon.

I'll take your rock example. I don't think rocks and humans are the same, so there is no reason to assume the same questions would apply to both and if something is stupid to ask about a rock it'd also be stupid about a human. Humans are sentient, rocks are not; that alone makes a huge difference to me. The idea that everything is relative, rocks and humans are the same, all this isn't part of my approach.

That said, even if I could believe in God 100%, that doesn't automatically mean my life would gain meaning, nor that the universe would. I used to feel that way, but I no longer do. There may not be any sort of grand goal beyond existing and being free and doing what we want. God doesn't automatically mean I'm satisfied with my questions.

>> No.5073371

>>5073352

http://www.amazon.de/Meister-Eckhart-Essential-Translation-Torchbooks/dp/006130008X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404049795&sr=8-1&keywords=9780061300080

This is more affordable, and shorter. Yes?

>> No.5073379

>>5073328
it also gave birth to martin luther...

>> No.5073381

>>5073360
My question wasn't related to anything you've said before.

I just was just curious to see where you stand on absurdism and wanted to see your 'defense' to the claim that god is your response to it.

I admit my rock example wasn't a very good illustration, but let's not dwell on that for too long, because-sophistry trap. All I wanted to know was if you find questions of metaphysical meaning relevant and if you seek purpose as a result of that. You sort of answered this by saying you don't know/aren't sure and that in god isn't a need to fill a gap which may or may not be there, which is a sensible answer I guess.

If you don't mind getting too personal, could you tell us how it is that you found and gradually embraced christianity?

>> No.5073384

>>5073379

Yes, which is sad too. He gave birth to Protestantism, which is irrational.

Martin Luther was wrong on many counts and made many mistakes; he also was a furious antisemite. I do not admire the man, but you choose your heroes.

>> No.5073391
File: 283 KB, 500x772, catechism-of-the-catholic-church-second-edition1634xl.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5073391

>>5073381

I was an atheist before I converted, mainly because the Old Testament pissed me off. I was very anti-Christianity for years.

Reading about spirituality helped. I was the sort of militant atheist that unconsciously wanted God to exist, but had to attack theism very hard, to be sure that if I found something it'd be solid.

I found some real life Christians who changed my mind. I thought Christians were all dumb people, then I discovered my French teacher was a Christian and couldn't believe it.

I worked on Pascal and Descartes, expecting to side with the D Man on God, but I eventually much preferred Pascal's approach. Big surprise to me.

Dostoyevsky helped as well, also CS Lewis. A whole lot of reading, basically.

Catholicism helped because of their scholarly approach and how intelligent and educated their material is, pic related.

>> No.5073400

>>5073384
what i meant is he was a massive threat to the hegemony of the church. he was a direct and inevitable product of increasing standards of literacy and rapid dissemination of biblical texts.

i dont mean to offend you personally but do you really fail to grasp just how powerful the papacy was pre 1600? it was far more than a religious institution. surely you dont believe its members motivations were solely, or even remotely based upon altruism? such a suggestion sounds very naiive to me.

>> No.5073408

>>5073391
So what made you be on Pascal's side? I'm assuming as a former atheist you would have vehemently dismissed his wager. Could you provide some insight into the shift in your perspective, as I'm assuming this is a matter of perspective?

Also, from what you've said so far, I take it that you don't feel that christianity is a tool for explaining the universe, but instead, an epistemological tool?

Also, do you rituals?

>> No.5073414

>>5073400

I'm not naive, I know how the Church behaved back then and why. That doesn't make me appreciate Protestantism any more, though.

Showing me a big turd won't make me appreciate rabbit shit balls just because they're smaller.

>> No.5073420

>>5073414
im not even religious. just pointing out that opposition to protestantism/subversion of priesthood was motivated by concerns of wealth and power.

>> No.5073423

>>5073408

I expected to side with D man because His God was a concept, whereas Pascal's God was a personal God, the kind learned people find ridiculous.

First, Pascal was superior in intelligence. His book is awesome. D Man thought animals weren't conscious and that French was the best language to think in, not realising that anyone thinks in their native language and would be inclined to say the exact same thing.

D Man eventually pissed me off so much with his silly assumptions that I started looking at P with more and more respect.

D Man was arguing silly stuff with trivial ideas; P was arguing insane stuff with convincing ideas. I could only respect his ass.

As to his wager, I personally think it's an illustration of an idea rather than anything actually serious. Pascal thought more respectfully of faith and God. It also only works in the context of Christianity or nothing. It doesn't work in our world.

I see Christianity as a relationship to God and other humans, and to everything else to some degree.

I'm not even sure I'd deem it an epistemological tool.

I don't do classic rituals, for various reasons. I pray less than I used to. I think about God and such very often, but I'm weak in my faith and praying pains me for this reason.

It took me ages to get to pray without feeling like a retard.

>> No.5073428

>>5073420

I can only back that opposition.

>> No.5073436

>>5073400
> what i meant is he was a massive threat to the hegemony of the church
Church had lost its hegemony in the western schism - while it remained as the strongest cultural institution around, its political powers were severely curtailed and it had shown weakness during the schism which led to its decline in the eyes of, well, everyone. The rise of beggar monk sects, large number of heresies and major cults (Hussites, Waldensians, Vespers, Savonarola), internal decay of church exemplified by council of Florence (hosted by two popes simultaneously and in which western and eastern churches unified for nine years), shit popes etc. caused the loss of churches hegemony. 1300-1500 were busy years, in which a lot of internal conflict caused the decline of Pope's power.

Martin Luther's reformation happened because church had lost its hegemony before it; which made Pope unable to combat it, rather than it destroying the hegemony. Luther was no different to Hus, except for that.

> surely you dont believe its members motivations were solely, or even remotely based upon altruism? such a suggestion sounds very naiive to me.
I find it rather naive to judge something so blindly. Churches acts had a lot of altruistic aspects, even though it might be easier to accept "corrupt and all around evil church" narrative.

>> No.5073495

>>5073423
Still can't wrap my head around this sort of faith (ie:interventionist god). I can't imagine the struggle of the rational being who holds it.

Unfortunately, I have to bounce for a couple of hours, I'll see if I can come up with some follow-ups to frame my bewilderment for when I'm back if the thread's still alive..

I think your church (although I don't discriminate against other churches in this matter) is vile, but at least I'm walking away with some food for though in regards to non-literalism, christianity and most importantly an increased interest to investigate theistic faith, so thanks.

>> No.5073528

>>5073495
>Still can't wrap my head around this sort of faith (ie:interventionist god). I can't imagine the struggle of the rational being who holds it.

It helps when you witness a miracle. Not my case.

Glad you appreciated the thread.

>> No.5073551

What do you think of sex before marriage OP?

>> No.5073558

>>5073551

No big deal. What matters is how you fuck and how you treat people. Real marriage is two people teaming up for life, respecting and helping each other.

>> No.5073559

>>5073091
>i find you uncivilised, therefore let me dismiss you, as i would a child, by just saying 'it's a complicated issue'

>> No.5073560

God's not real you idiot

>> No.5073571

>>5073558
>how you fuck
wat

but I think it's shit like that which scares modern people away from religion these days, they still think Christianity is about abstinence and lives in the stone-age

Also, could you recommend some of the texts you speak about before, regarding the books of the bible?

>> No.5073572

>>5073559

That's not what happened. If someone comes up to you and calls you a moron, you have no reason to do much more than anon did there.

Telling someone they don't know what they're talking about is a fair thing to do. It's true in this case.

>anon being an ad hominem faggot
>OP responds with class, gives an example of a learned gentleman that didn't look down on religion

10/10 nothing to reproach OP with.

>> No.5073579
File: 25 KB, 500x500, Oxford Bible.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5073579

>>5073571

Even within marriage, you can sex up your partner without respect (that means not caring what they like, etc).

As to books about the Bible, pic related is a good place to start.

>> No.5073584

>>5073283
>no catholic believes in creationism
that's not true at all

just because the church's official position says evolution happened doesn't mean everyone agrees, just look at how many catholics use condoms

>> No.5073585

>>5073579
thanks OP

quick question, why Christianity and not islam, buddhism, Hinduism etc etc?

>> No.5073603

>>5073584
>just because the church's official position says evolution happened doesn't mean everyone agrees, just look at how many catholics use condoms

How are condoms related to Creationism?

>>5073585

Because I've looked into all of these and, sorry to say, but Christianity came out on top.

Islam is too dodgy and holds some beliefs I can't go with, specifically about women, children, etc. Also, I tend not to trust when a holy book comes solely from a single person, as in, actually written or dictated by that person. The way the Quran reads sounds like BS, I can't put it in any better way. It's not comparable to the Bible, in countless ways.

Buddhism has inherent contradictions that make it hard to take seriously, also the divide between the three Buddhisms make it even harder. It ends up feeling like a feel good philosophy with little truth. I don't dislike Buddhism, though, just not what I'm after.

Hinduism I know little about, but it's a "gods religion" like many others. Those are in a completely different category to me.

>> No.5073608

>>5073603
they're not, it's just another thing the church says (condoms are bad) that a lot of catholics ignore

on the creationism bit, i speak from experience, my mother is both catholic and a creationist

she is aware of the church's position on the issue

>> No.5073613

>>5073603
is it not possible to take a non-literal perspective of the Quran though? Doesn't that deal with the women, children issue in the same way it deals with issues in the Bible?

>> No.5073614

>>5073572
>ad hominem
That's not what it was. The anon, albeit aggressively, was only stating their contrariety. If, after that, we assume he was hoping to open and close the argument on that statement, or that he was only bellowing for the sake, well, then we're making lot of assumptions; rather, it looked to me like a perfectly useable opening for a discussion. But, because of its style, it was recieved, by your 'gentleman', and in good elitist fashion, with what was effectively a 'tut tut, how rude, respect your betters'.

>> No.5073622

>>5073608
>they're not, it's just another thing the church says (condoms are bad) that a lot of catholics ignore

Of course, but there is a difference between a rather specific ethics of sex which isn't supported by anything in the Bible and Creationism, which comes from literally nothing except American Protestants in need of education.

Where the hell did your mother get her Creationism?

>> No.5073629

>>5073613

It's not, because the Quran presents itself as the direct dictation of God to Mohammad. There's only one author and only one context, also only one language.

The Bible covers millennia and is written by dozens of authors at different times and places, and with different contexts, ranging from history, to poetry, to chronicles, to fiction, to politics, etc.

Each requires a specific reading, the same you'd give to a recipe or a biology textbook, or a book of poetry. This isn't true of the Quran.

When Mohammad tells you to beat your wife every now and then, there isn't much you can say about it. It's not part of a story, it's not history either. He just tells you to do that.

Christ never wrote a book, nor did God, to us Christians.

>> No.5073633

>>5073614

OP gave a case of a learned man who didn't look down on religions. What more do you want?

Don't you think it's pretty damn dumb to just assume any educated person is an atheist?

Nobody should waste time discussing such stupid crap. OP was nice enough to elaborate, I wouldn't have.

Next time, tip your fedora and move on, OP, because even when you try, those faggots still act like you're hurting their feelings.

>> No.5073695

I recently inherited some books belonging to a Catholic bishop, so I guess I might be able to help. His interest seemed to be in challenging his faith, however; so he's got Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell, and a lot of Eastern religious literature. But here's some of the Christian stuff:

In Tune With The Infinite : Ralph Waldo Trine
Christianity and Dogma: Prof. Angus to his critic
Audacity to Believe : Sheila Cassidy
Good Friday People : --
High-Flying Geese : Browne Barr
Who Will Roll The Stone Away? : Mercy Oduyoye
Green Shoots In The Concrete : Peter Kaldor

Most of these will be of no interest at all, and also parochial to Australia, and probably of low quality, and likely inaccessible. But they were in a bishop's bookshelf, so all the same.

While I have you - how could reference to a god produce an internally consistent moral philosophy? The contradictions of morality would have the same annihilating effect in religious as in secular logic, if that dichotomy's even meaningful.

>> No.5073703

>>5073633
I've dealt with every argument you're trying out here. You're now behaving childlishly. And also, the OP was not the replier, and hasn't actually been involved in this.

>> No.5073762

Why have you not converted to Islam?
The prophet Mohammed has brought to us the most recent and up to date word of God.

Converting to Catholicism is like studying Law from 50 years old books. You aint gonna be an effective lawyer that way.

>> No.5073797

Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Joyce
The Waste Land, T.S. Eliot
Winter Sun, Margaret Avison
Justine, Sade
Le Désespéré, Bloy
Journal, Gide

>> No.5073869

>>5073528
Back.

Couldn't think of any other questions relative to my puzzlement, but I don't think miracles would help much. Not a rational person anyway. Miracles are a posteriori knowledge, which is of no use in this specific case as those who claim they have witnessed miracles haven't witnessed the same miracle, in order to have had the same experience and investigate its truth value. A rational person knows this. Being that claims of miracles are so rare, if an event like this were to be witnessed by a rational person, he/she couldn't stop toying with its dismissal on the account of hallucinations/neurological gimmicks.

>> No.5073900

>>5073146
>I "engineer" my life to do as much good as I can. That was the birth of my faith, the idea that helping others was central. I've built my life around caring for others. I don't regret that. Christianity was the only ideology where this notion was central, so I took a look.

What is Utilitarianism? What is Ethical Altruism?

>> No.5073907

Read Meister Eckhart's sermons.

>>5073613
>is it not possible to take a non-literal perspective of the Quran though?

It's virtually unavoidable with some types of passages. The book itself acknowledges that it's full of allegorical language. The real issue is whether people will be willing to accept whatever interpretation you put forward.

>>5073629
>There's only one author and only one context

There's certainly more than one context. That scripture was revealed to an audience whose circumstances changed pretty drastically over 22 years.

>When Mohammad tells you to beat your wife every now and then, there isn't much you can say about it. It's not part of a story, it's not history either. He just tells you to do that.

But when Paul tells women to pipe down and cover themselves in church, we can cry "historical context" and sweep his teachings under the rug? This betrays a double standard or a terrible lack of imagination on your part, not to mention a lack of familiarity with even the broad outlines of the Islamic exegetical tradition. Fortunately, plenty of Muslim interpreters have shown more enterprise than you give them credit for.

>> No.5074079

>>5073622
idk, her mom? she's from mexico, so it's definitely not an american protestant thing

>> No.5074086

>>5073762
>implying there's a point studying islam when i'm going to be the next great prophet

just chill dudes, everything will be obsolete in about twenty years

>> No.5074089

>>5073900
util centers pleasure, the second might work though.
(not that guy, just pointing out why util probs wouldn't work)

>> No.5074092

>>5073703

There was no argument. Anon said "Religion is for idiots" and OP showed you otherwise. That's hardly "every argument".

>> No.5074098

>>5073762

Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses are even more recent. Recent bullshit is still bullshit.

>> No.5074099

>>5073900

Whatever they are, they aren't Christ.

>> No.5074109

>>5074092
This is trolling-tier. I resign; you're too good for me.

>> No.5074129

>>5074109

Have it your way.

>> No.5074133

>>5074089
>util centers pleasure
That's partially correct. It centers around utility, hence the name. Historically, utility was identified as pleasure by Epicurus and Bentham. However, utilitarianism also has a history of its proponents tweaking the notion of utility for the sake of making the philosophy more rigorous.

There are versions of utilitarianism where the specified utility is "good", and in that sense OP is a utilitarian even if he doesn't know it.

My point is: utilitarianism offers a clearer, more straightforward solution to OP's goal, and requires far fewer leaps of faith and assumptions by its proponents.

Not that I am a utilitarian (though I do love Mill), but I am accusing OP of using an extremely complicated and uncertain method to achieve a certain goal, when other more expedient and straightforward solutions are available.

Thanks for responding by the way, I love these kinds of conversations.

>> No.5074158

>>5074133

My goal isn't just to do good. That's my daily life. I'm interested in the reality in which I live too. Utilitarianism has little to offer in those areas.

>> No.5074195

>>5074158
>My goal isn't just to do good. That's my daily life
Good, a more complex goal emerges.

>I'm interested in the reality in which I live too. Utilitarianism has little to offer in those areas.
I wholeheartedly agree. In that case, and I apologize if this has already been answered, what makes you think that Christianity yields a greater or more complete approximation of reality than, say Plato's Form of the Good or Aristotle's Substance?

I say this as someone who was raised in a Protestant family, then rejected it. I am open to either possibility, as long as it admits of sufficient proof or is more conductive to achieving the best life.

>> No.5074214

>>5073064

Augustine.
Besides the Confessions, take a shot at his late works (415+), especially the ones which argue against "Pelagianism".

>> No.5074226

>>5074195
>what makes you think that Christianity yields a greater or more complete approximation of reality than, say Plato's Form of the Good or Aristotle's Substance?

Nothing, my good friend, but you make it sound like Christianity and those things are mutually exclusive. This isn't a competition. The things Christianity assert are rarely in contradiction with any of these other things.

>>5074214

Thank you.

>> No.5074278
File: 25 KB, 420x630, 2458-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5074278

Pic related is a good place to start.

>> No.5074285

>>5074226
I think I see. I think it is most important that we try to live the best possible life. Are you saying that it isn't necessary to be a Christian in order to live the best possible life?

>> No.5074308

>>5074285
go on

>> No.5074328

>>5074308
About what? I asked a question.

>> No.5074358

>>5074328
Not the guy you were addressing the question to, but as I am not a follower of any theist doctrines I wouldn't know if being a christian is a prerequisite for the 'best possible life'; however, after observing your relationship with christianity I am saying that it is possible to negotiate morality and humanity in the way that you do through christianity without it.

I assumed you were implying that being a christian is necessary to live the 'best possible life' so I wanted you to expand on that.

>> No.5074372

>>5074285
>Are you saying that it isn't necessary to be a Christian in order to live the best possible life?

It depends what one imagines to be the best life possible and whether Christianity is true or not.

I can't answer your question without those parameters in check.

>> No.5074438

>>5074358
Gotcha.

> I am saying that it is possible to negotiate morality and humanity in the way that you do through christianity without it.
Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned this. Now that I think about it, it seems like the answer I was looking for was almost contained in the question. Much like begging the question, but still.

Either way, you've answered my question. Thanks.

>>5074372
>It depends what one imagines to be the best life possible
I'm working on figuring that out with pic related. This Alasdair MacIntyre is on to something with his reconciliation of Virtue-based, Utilitarian, and Deontological ethics. Until I finish his excerpt, I think the best life possible can be achieved through a kind of Aristotelian-Nietzschean hybrid in which one works to form virtuous habits and so completely self-identify with being virtuous that one doesn't need to think about acting virtuously.

>and whether Christianity is true or not.
Considering the influence of Thomas Aquinas, and given that his theology was basically Aristotelian with God shoehorned in everywhere, I don't think these parameters would conflict, regardless of the truth of Christianity.

What do you guys think?

>> No.5074468

>>5073064
Read Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton. Pretty good

>> No.5074696

Schliermacher
James (Varieties of Religious Experience is amazing)
C.S. Lewis
Augustine may be worth reading, and Aquinas as well

>> No.5074716

I don't have enough fedoras for this thread.

Anyway OP, can I convince you to take up Lutheranism instead?

Please disregard the heretics.

>> No.5074879

>>5074716

Try convincing me.

>> No.5075095

>>5073436
thank you for that info anon, i was unaware.

>> No.5075154

>>5073064
>I have no idea what it feels like to be certain that God exists
Then you are not Catholic.

>> No.5075222

>>5075154
bullshit, part of being Christian is having doubts.

>> No.5075234

>>5075154
>>5073064

No faith is absolute. Belief is not knowledge. To say that you know for certain that god exists is to lie or to fool yourself.

>> No.5075236

>>5075222
Lol

>> No.5075247

>>5073064
Kierkegaard, Augustine, specific parts of Aquinas such as his talks on Faith vs. Reason, the Five Ways, the nature of the Divine, etc. The ontological argument for God's existence by St. Anselm is fun, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Pascal's Pensee and Pascal's Wager is a LOT deeper than people strawman it to be.

Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is fun to skim, and Pope Encyclicals are great too. I don't see anything wrong with just googling important encyclicals and finding one on a subject that interests you.

The Mystics are always really inspiring. But if you are looking for something which just sort of INSPIRES you to God, I find art is better for that. Brothers Karamazov and all of Dostoevsky is good, as well as Terrence Malick films, ESPECIALLY Tree of Life, which, in my opinion, just perfectly captures a Catholic cosmological view.

Anyway, I'm a Catholic, and I think you're in for a fun ride reading all the theology of the Catholic Church. There's an infinite amount to read,and trust me, if anyone has some sort of gripe about the Church, a million people and apologists have responded to it, making for some great debate. The Church has great views on Faith and Reason, as well as some great views on things like Creation and Adam and Eve that stem back to Augustine.

Speaking of that, don't let all these fundamentalist nuts on /lit/ get to you. Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve in 400, there's a Pope Encyclical arguing that evolution is probably real but doesn't change anything written in the 1950's, and the Church inspired a lot of learning and progress in the middle ages. (Galileo only got fucked over because he called the Pope an idiot). Anyway, I'll pray for you, good luck, have a fun time, and cling to your faith when things look bad, and God will reward you.

>> No.5075252

>>5075234
so absolutely everyone is agnostic?

>> No.5075254

>>5075252
God himself is agnostic; read Job.

>> No.5075295

>>5075247
Could you point towards some texts that would challenge how I generically strawman Pascal's wager? I feel there's more to it, but can't quite solidify my thoughts yet.

>> No.5075324

>>5075247
>Tree of Life - catholic cosmological view

care to elaborate? I'd love to see a review in that fashion.

>> No.5075328

>>5075295
I was just pointing out that a lot of people on lit sum the whole argument up into "believe in God or else you might go to Hell" and then bring up these points like "but that works for every religion!" and "but that works for flying spaghetti monster!" and "but making the wager based solely on that isn't faith and God wouldn't like it!" and the great "but God doesn't exist anyway so there's nothing to lose!"

All of these are directly anticipated and countered by Pascal in his Pensees, which nobody seems to have actually read on lit when they discuss it. They just seem to think Pascal wrote up a game chart and published that.

So, no, I don't have any other text to recommend but the original by Pascal himself. I could do more research on the subject, but it would just have to go in the good old backlog.

>> No.5075369

>>5075324
>>5075324
Man, you just opened up a can of worms!! There's so much to freaking say on the subject! And others have done it too, you could probably just google that for some little reviews.

I guess one of my favorite parts of the movie is when the mother is lamenting the death of her son, and she asks in her sorrow, presumably to God in prayer, "What are we to you?" Right at this moment we are taken into space, and witness the growth of the universe, so large and powerful compared to our tiny sufferings, giving a seemingly job-like message. What are we to the universe, or to a God who made such wonders? Why does the life of one boy matter?

But it's not that simple. As the universe is being created, the Lacrimosa, a funeral canticle about sorrow is being played. The universe, and God, are not just huge, untouchable entities. The universe ITSELF was feeling sorrow for this boy and his mother, and presumably all of the suffering in the world. The entire created order is crying out in grief.

But, at the end of the film, we see the mother finally accept all this suffering, accept the world as God made it, and she says, "I give him to you, I give you my son." All is made perfect in this moment. The dead son goes out into the white field, which I presume is heaven/paradise, for communion with God. We don't witness the son's trip into this paradise, we only witness the mother's. By giving away her son, by firmly submitting herself to the will of God, she has become like God, for what did Jesus do but be completely humble? And if we accept Jesus as God, then it is this humbleness which is the path to divinity. When the mother gives up her son, she is accompanied by two other women, who touch eachother in perfect communion, as a reflection of the trinity. She has become like God through her obedience to him, and all is as it was meant to be.

There are a million other things that happen in the movie, all which work within this overarching picture.

I don't know how specifically Catholic that is, maybe Christian is a better word. I've just always connected it to Catholicism because the family in the film is Catholic and so am I.

>> No.5075461

>>5075369
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Although as an atheist (the rational kind that doesn't know if gods exist, but also the kind that thinks your church -all churches- are vile) and a fan of Malick I would take pleasure in dismissing your view on account of placing the label of christianity on a looser moral paradigm and commentary, I can't turn a blind eye to how the almost overt 'paradise' scene is a perfect last jigsaw to your interpretation. You got me thinking anon.

>> No.5075645

>>5073064
Read The Year of Living Biblically, Kierkegaards spirtual writings, Fear and Trembling, St Augustines Confessions.
Coming across a passage or statement that fills you with a profoundness about your religion is a bit rare, but it happens. Just last week I had such a moment when I read this: "But if no proof can be provided, does that mean doubt cannot be brought to a halt? By no means. If proof could be provided in the way that doubt wants, then doubt couldn't be stopped any more than a sickness can be stopped by administering whatever medicine the sick person wants."
Soren Kierkegaard.
I never before had my doubt put so clearly. I'm sure I'll still doubt in the future, but this puts 'proof' into perspective for me.

>> No.5075651

>>5075328
If they're so good, then surely you can repeat them

>> No.5075678

Dear /lit/

Is it possible to be so nihilistic that you randomly adopt the most popular religion just to fit in?

>> No.5075735

>>5075678
>>5075678
no, because then you are putting value on conformity

Not so nihilistic.

>> No.5075745

>>5075678
That's how I got through childhood.

>> No.5075755

>>5075745
seconded

>> No.5076471

>>5073585
>why the highest religion instead of the lesser ones

>> No.5076665

>>5075735
What if it just seems easier and more painless that way? Is that Utilitarian?

>> No.5077883

>>5073064
Good for you anon.

Tolkien
Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
The Divine Comedy
Percy Walker's 'Lost in the Cosmos'
Vasari's 'Lives of the Artists' (devout Catholics to a man)
Don Quixote, just read it on the toilet a few lines at a time.
Shusake Endo's 'Silence'
Paradise Lost, read it out loud to yourself
Anything by Sts Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. Anything by any saint I suppose.
Growth of the Soil
The autoboigraphies of Garcia Marquez.

>> No.5078483

Hey OP. No matter how hard I try to be an Ubermensche, I always end up feeling attracted to Catholicism. I used to be a hardcore Catholic--I even wanted to be a priest and almost applied to a seminary--but I lost my faith. I still love the Church and her rituals though. Perhaps faith will return to me someday.

God bless.

>> No.5078527

>>5073104

Look up William Lane Craig's historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus. Also read shit by Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.

>> No.5078991
File: 9 KB, 190x238, Teilhard_de_Chardin(1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5078991

Some consider Teilhard de Chardin (picrelated) as a heretic because he embraced the Omega-point concept. Basically he found a little nice place in Physics to put God in. Also calld Teilhardism.