/theo/

File: 155 KB, 900x675, 2ndcoming-tweaked.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/theo/ Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:28:36 2015 No.6029069 [Reply] [Original]

Theology general. God is great, all the time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:29:57 2015 No.6029072 >being a Christian >being an atheist Die

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:31:40 2015 No.6029078 >>6029069 How many angels can dance on a pinhead? Also, if angels aren't made of matter, and plurality is of the material world as unity is of god, how can there be multiple angels?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:32:34 2015 No.6029082 These threads would be good if people were interested in discussing anything other than Abrahamic religions

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:34:16 2015 No.6029092 I prae erryday

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:34:24 2015 No.6029093 What are angels?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:39:54 2015 No.6029130 Praise Athena

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:40:13 2015 No.6029131 >>6029078 Angels don't dance. >>6029082 Is there theology beyond the Abrahamic religions?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:42:09 2015 No.6029140 >>6029131 >Is there theology beyond the Abrahamic religions? >theology is a greek word, first recorded in plato

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:44:35 2015 No.6029155 >>6029131 >angels don't dance [citation needed] Puritans I swear. Anyway, how many angels can piously stand around on a pinhead?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:45:19 2015 No.6029157 >>6029140 Origins don't matter. Nowadays there is theosophy and theology, with theology being dominated by the Abrahamic religions. Does anyone outside of them practice theology and not just theosophy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:46:32 2015 No.6029161 >>6029082 Give it time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:48:04 2015 No.6029170 >>6029155 Angels are purely spiritual beings, this question is completely irrelevant

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:49:38 2015 No.6029178 >>6029170 The bible speaks of physical interaction between humans and angels, so the question is clearly relevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:09:36 2015 No.6029238 >>6029178 Where?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:12:19 2015 No.6029253 >>6029238 Lot, for insrance, let angels into his house, and protected them from getting gang-sodomized. Pretty physical imo.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:15:55 2015 No.6029269 >>6029253 >taking it this literally >not believing in metaphysical protection of your house

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:17:20 2015 No.6029274 Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? Also, what are the lottery numbers of next week?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:18:32 2015 No.6029281 >>6029269 I have metaphysical insurance as well, but so far hasn't been the ground of its being *bedum tss

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:21:11 2015 No.6029295 >>6029269 >it's all a metaphor guise Then what prevents me from saying, God is just a metaphor?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:23:13 2015 No.6029303 >>6029274 No. God cannot create something He cannot have an impact on. 1 5 6 29 43 20 19 28 37 49 29 10 29 38 47 59 19 20 39 83 79 8 92 29 28 38 49 59 69 01 92 01 03 48 27 37 48

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:24:57 2015 No.6029313

>>6029269
Every religion thread I've been to the past few days has had this identical answer to every single objection that was raised against integral coherence of scripture, or any rebuttal to someone's claim in general.
>lol, he takes this literally
>it's all metaphore guys!

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:25:12 2015 No.6029314

>>6029274
'Rock so heavy god can't lift it' is, like 'square circle' or ' dark enlightenment' a nonsensical concept that doesn't describe anything that could exist in any possible world. So, no, god can't do that, but that limits his omnipotence in about the same way as the fact that he also can't die.

The lottery numbers aren't given away by god because he doesn't want people to believe in him for exploits.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:25:31 2015 No.6029318 >>6029295 a metaphor for what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:27:50 2015 No.6029327 >>6029318 Idk, my superego? The universe? My dad? The mind? Life?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:28:46 2015 No.6029333 If God created man in His image, who created His image?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:28:56 2015 No.6029334 >>6029303 So he can't create a situation in which I'm not banging your mom?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:29:01 2015 No.6029335 Truth is not something to be analyzed. It is something to be responded to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:32:24 2015 No.6029347 >>6029335 Yeah maaaaan, and then, like, you should like, touch the Truth, and like, feel it duuuude

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:34:06 2015 No.6029354 >>6029314 >square circle Define square. Define circle. >dark enlightenment Define dark. Define enlightenment. >a nonsensical concept that doesn't describe anything that could exist in any possible world. nigga what

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:35:25 2015 No.6029363 >>6029314 >So, no, god can't do that What a useless faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:37:40 2015 No.6029372 >>6029354 >define Do you have trouble figuring out what the concepts of circle, or dark, refer to? Their definitions are pretty much set, just, like, google the words.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:38:51 2015 No.6029376 >>6029313 ...whats your point? does the statement that moses split the red sea be true for you to believe in god?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:39:18 2015 No.6029379 >>6029347 Yes. Truth is to be experienced, and any attempt to separate it from experience cheapens it. Humanizing God and the experience He entails cheapens the whole thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:40:33 2015 No.6029388 So much edginess in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:40:42 2015 No.6029389 >>6029363 >i demand logically impossible creations, or else i can't believe you're going to hell m8

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:42:43 2015 No.6029395

reposting
>>6029304
>Would it be fair to say that of the abramahic faiths only the God of the Christians is different?
Yes. Massively. Christianity believes in Trinity, the splitting of God into three, and God being a human, plus God having a son.
Islam is hugely opposed to this.

The fundamentals of Islamic theology are
1. God is one and only one
2. God is beyond our understanding, definitely not a human being or any other idol
3. God does not have children, it's polytheism when Gods start having kids
4. Do not ever worship idols, images, or humans

The types of Christianity which were more popular in the early days, where Jesus was just a prophet, God is still one, is still compatible with Islam.

Islam believes that in time most people revert to idol worship, and this is very true and very noticeable. Christianity got corrupted easily and now they all worship Jesus, a human being and they actually call him God. In the OT we see that Moses' followers started worshipping a Cow as soon as he went away for a while and stopped preaching to them of God.

Even the Muslims commit this sin but on less of scale because Islam denounces it so much. Muslims copy Muhammad, they have resorted to a miniature form of worship of Muhammad. They hold him in higher regard than other prophets despite all prophets being equal, (they will deny this), which is obvious due to the fact that they grow beards just like he did, they act as he did, they wear what he did, they even try to sleep like he did. They include Muhammads name in their prayers, when if all prophets are equal, why not include all prophets, or none? A lot of them also believe Muhammad will intercede with God on their behalf, which is directly denounced in the Qur'an.

So even Muslims are not immune to idol worship, and i can guarantee you, if Islam did not so heavily denounce the worship of Idols, within a few centuries of it's foundation, there would be Muhammad as the son of God, little statues of him everywhere, and people praying directly to him. This is the real cause of the Charlie Hebo shootings. To allow drawings of Muhammad would be to undermine the entire faith and lead to its eventual downfall. Not that i condone the shootings at all, non muslims are free to draw what they like although obviously offensive drawings are going to piss off some psychopaths so i wouldnt recommend it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:42:58 2015 No.6029396 >>6029372 >What is polysemy. >What is ambiguity. >What is literal interpretation. >What are metaphors :^)) A circle could refer to a mathematical/Platonic idea or to a shape that resembles it. Dark could mean either wicked or extremely unlit.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:43:06 2015 No.6029397

>>6029274
There is no limit to God's power, so he can create a rock too heavy for him to lift, but he would still be able to lift it.

>>6029333
God created us in his image, but our body is not us. God is light, we are light. He is light because light is just energy, a wave, it's the most primitive 'form', so he takes that form.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:46:47 2015 No.6029413

>>6029395
>The types of Christianity which were more popular in the early days, where Jesus was just a prophet,

The earliest creeds of Christianity affirm that Jesus is God. Just see 1 Corinthians 15, which has the oldest Christian creed we know of and affirms Jesus as God and as dying for our sins.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:47:34 2015 No.6029415 >>6029397 >our body is not us. Yes, it is. >we are light Elaborate.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:48:56 2015 No.6029419

>>6029396
Yah well, if either of the concepts 'god' or 'object he can't pck up' ismused ambiguously, then, yeah, he probaby could create such a thing, but that's not really valuable as an insight. Before you sperg out some more, I know what 'dark enlightenment' is supposed to mean.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:49:54 2015 No.6029422

>>6029376
My point is that it's very easy to skim over every inconsistency or disagreeable part in scripture if you wave everything you don't agree with or consider possible away as ''just a metaphor'', while upholding the rest of it as the infallible word of The Lord God, all knowing and all those epithets.

It wasn't all that odd to genuinely believe those things in the times they were written. Hell, they believed crazier things almost a thousand years later, still. But because it doesn't suit you now, it's all just a metaphor, God was just setting up some cryptic messages, apart from all the things that you choose to believe in, they are 100% real and should be obeyed. Splitting the sea is obviously bogus, right? But Heaven and Hell make total sense, and are 100% real, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:50:33 2015 No.6029425 >>6029397 >so he can create a rock too heavy for him to lift, but he would still be able to lift it. Can't believe in a God that tolerates that level of willful stupidity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:51:37 2015 No.6029427 MFW all the arguments against god only apply to the Abrahamic god. Why don't we just adopt pantheism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:52:57 2015 No.6029433 >>6029427 they argue against the Abrahamic God because they recognize He is the only one that exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:54:16 2015 No.6029437 >>6029419 >ismused wot

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:55:25 2015 No.6029441 MFW arguments against the existence of god only work against the Abrahamic god. Why not just adopt Polytheism? >>6029433 You mean it's the only god which does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:55:51 2015 No.6029442 >>6029437 Sorry, hit the m key instead of the space bar. Didn't I tell you not to sperg tho?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:58:44 2015 No.6029455
File: 2.15 MB, 3078x2000, timeline of the universe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6029415
If our bodies are us, then we would die when our bodies stop working.
It's quite hard to explain why we're light, but pic related pretty much says it

>>6029425
It's not stupid, it's just hard to understand as a human. God created logic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:59:00 2015 No.6029458 >>6029413 Yes but many early versions of the faith disagreed that Jesus was God or his son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Christianity

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:01:30 2015 No.6029469

>>6029422
Would you agree if i said that religions were an efficient code of practice in a time where you couldnt enforce laws?
You can be inspired by religious texts, and many do when they have a crisis of meaning, are ill or just feel really bad.

Do you think that the world would be worse or better if everyone obeyed the ten commandments?
Do you think human rights were not inspired by christian value systems?

You are arguing as if you genuinely believed that every believer believed word for word instead of deducing a code of conduct and seeking hope in a harsh world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:02:36 2015 No.6029472 What is your opinion of Thomas Merton?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:03:45 2015 No.6029475 >>6029442 >Didn't I tell you not to sperg tho? epick meem dood So what does dark enlightenment mean?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:03:54 2015 No.6029477 >>6029458 Disagreed, but in the end Pauline Christianity won out, and did so by the will of God.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:05:14 2015 No.6029488

>>6029455
>god created logic
Aka i ain't gotta explain shit. Again, if god isn't pissed at that bullshit, I clearly don't get him.
It isn't hard, but impossible to understand, as 'p and not p' (god can and cannot lift that rock) is false by definition. So if you believe, actually, that this isn't a problem solvable by logic, true answer isn't 'yes he can' but, we can't meaningfully talk about this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:05:42 2015 No.6029490 >>6029458 Your list is a bit lacking since the earliest confirmable group came later than the earliest Christians which just demonstrates the idea that Jesus wasn't God was a dissension rather than the earliest adopted faith.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:07:36 2015 No.6029504 File: 42 KB, 500x589, 327.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6029488 Can we meaningfully talk about 4-dimensional cubes?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:08:12 2015 No.6029506 >>6029475 Dat neoreaction memeshit, basically. Whereas I used the words literally, taking it to mean 'making things brighter in a dark way' to illustrate a nonsensical concept.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:08:52 2015 No.6029510 >>6029477 It did win, which is unfortunate, but only natural for humans to want their prophet to be God himself. >>6029490 It isn't my list. It's just a useful page.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:09:44 2015 No.6029514 >>6029504 Yes, a lot. What we can't do is look at them or imagine what they'd look like.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:10:04 2015 No.6029516 >>6029488 "God created logic" is not "I ain't gotta explain shit" because God actually did create logic. Omnipotence is infinite, absolutely no limits. God can contradict himself, he doesn't give a fuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:13:18 2015 No.6029523 File: 123 KB, 1024x768, checkmate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6029514 Eh, so what makes you think you could grasp a being that created something you can't imagine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:15:37 2015 No.6029531 >>6029516 >god can contradict himself Being wrong is not a capacity or achievement, it is a flaw. Your god is flawed, all because you're too anti-intellectual to understand that god is logos, the word.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:18:17 2015 No.6029542 >>6029510 >It isn't my list. It's just a useful page I suppose, but it demonstrates that the earlier belief is that Jesus is God and that Him not being God was a later development of human rationality rather than the development of legend.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:20:11 2015 No.6029546 >>6029523 Not being able to imagine the look of a thing doesn't preclude me from applying reason to it. I can calculate the proportions of a tesseract, and I can use a consistent definiition of omnipotence.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:21:50 2015 No.6029556

>>6029542
>I suppose, but it demonstrates that the earlier belief is that Jesus is God and that Him not being God was a later development of human rationality rather than the development of legend.
I think it is the other way around. Humans are more quick to say Jesus is God than to say he isn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:23:11 2015 No.6029562 >>6029531 God is not only the Logos but also the incomprehensible absolute Being of the Father, about whom one cannot help but speak in contradictions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:24:34 2015 No.6029567 >>6029556 That's not what history has demonstrated. The earliest creeds for Christianity claim divinity, but as time went on groups started denying divinity from His nature. Denial of Jesus being God developed after claims to His Godhood.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:25:29 2015 No.6029572 Nonbelievers must realize that Faith animates all discussion with believers. What seems incomprehensible to the former seems totally natural to the latter, in large part due to Faith.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:27:33 2015 No.6029586 >>6029546 You can describe it mathematically. But you understand it as much as the description of colour from a tetrachromat. >trying to apply reason to faith Why? That has been done before you were born and much more elegant at that.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:27:48 2015 No.6029588

>>6029567
I think it's more that different groups got different interpretations, they didn't all say he wasn't divine, just some.

>Denial of Jesus being God developed after claims to His Godhood.
Exactly, because people always claim that prophets are God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:27:51 2015 No.6029589 >>6029562 That's a cop-out and you know it. If the origin of logic is itself illogical, logic as such is obsolete, and scripture is just gibberish.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:29:37 2015 No.6029592 >>6029589 >Scripture >Logical >Not being able to Hegel or Kierkegaard your way around contradictions >Trying to deny that the Logos is an aspect of God and not all of God Do you even John 1:1?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:30:52 2015 No.6029598

>>6029588
If that were the case where are the people claiming Moses was God, or Muhammed? Of all the prophets the only one claimed to be God is Jesus and it's clear from reading the early sources that the claim He was God happened fairly quickly rather than a slow build of legend.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:32:08 2015 No.6029602 >>6029586 >why apply reason to faith What do you think the -logy part of theology means?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:37:08 2015 No.6029615 >>6029602 The whole premise is that god created the everything from nothing. Trying to apply paradoxa to undermine the premise is not theology.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:37:22 2015 No.6029616

>>6029592
>Hegel or Kierkegaard
Hegel doesn't, contrary to popular belief, work like that. Also, my conclusion that god can't do the logically impossible is pretty sound from a dialecticalmperspective. After all, Hegel's god is Geist, pure intellect.
Kierkegaard, yeah, he'd tell me to ignore logic and just believe, but in that case, there's not even a conflict, as my faith doesn't demand an illogical god.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:37:46 2015 No.6029619 Why Christianity and not Pantheism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:38:53 2015 No.6029624 >>6029598 Well both Judaism and Islam strongly condemn worshiping prophets, while Christianity encourages it. Muslims sometimes border on worshiping Muhammad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:39:26 2015 No.6029628 >>6029615 >ex nihilo How's that, on the other hand, a logical problem? Or related to the 'omnipotence paradox' which isn't a paradox at all?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:39:33 2015 No.6029630 >>6029619 >muh heaven

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:42:54 2015 No.6029643

There is so much debate over Jesus' divinity because everyone is God, Jesus just has more God in him, or rather, he allows the spirit to flow through him more freely. You could be a prophet, you just have to be an empty vessel, then the spirit will fill you

>>6029619
Because while pantheism is correct, it is also underdeveloped, unpopular and vague.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:43:03 2015 No.6029644 why are atheists so quick to attack believers in hostile ways? Like, what is the agenda?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:43:04 2015 No.6029645

>>6029624
Christianity hardly encourages worshiping prophets. The only way your claim works is if Jesus is nothing but a prophet, but no other prophet has ever been ascribed Godhood and the fact that the earliest claims were not that He is merely a prophet but was God incarnate dispels any claims that it was a legendary development so your whole argument falls apart.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:44:05 2015 No.6029647 >>6029616 And yet the Christian God is beyond comprehension. How can He be logical if he cannot be comprehended? If you think God is the Logos but not the Father you're doing something wrong.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:46:49 2015 No.6029655

Everyone knows that Jews are evil, but is Judaism evil? It seems very odd to me, I tried to find the Jewish prophet on Google and I couldn't find them. Do they have a primary prophet or do they really have 50 of them? The religion seems very focused on daily life and unimportant shit

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:47:14 2015 No.6029657

>>6029274
Why do people base judgements on god from our universes logic? If we assume god exists, why do we assume he is bound to the arbitrary rules he has placed our universe in? Under an example of a god, this universe is whatever it wants it to be, our laws are only universal within our own sphere of existence.

Especially when almost every divine concept completely breaks the rules we understand, why do people keep asking these questions?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:49:20 2015 No.6029665 >>6029069 Guys I have a confession to make: I'm addicted to shitposting. Like I fucking love it. That's why when I see religious threads I get a raging boner. This shit sustains me. Thanks OP

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:53:16 2015 No.6029683

>>6029655
It isn't meant to be understood by goyim, you won't get a straight answer.
Moses is their main prophet. The writing of the Pentateuch is attributed to him, and he made the covenant with the Jewish God (i.e., the text of the Mosaic Law). The other prophets were just men God spoke to.
Modern Judaism is different from the Israelite religion, though. The Hebrew Bible was written during the Babylonian captivity, being the final form of numerous ancient oral traditions. After the Christian era began, what we now know as Judaism emerged.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:55:36 2015 No.6029691

>I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second, or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer—not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc.—is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:57:12 2015 No.6029695 >>6029691 I tried this and counted 8. Fuck the ghost of Jorge Luis Borges.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:58:56 2015 No.6029699 >>6029655 >but is Judaism evil Yes. Look up the Talmud.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:01:08 2015 No.6029707
File: 857 KB, 150x150, 1415434082727.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6029691
>integer is inconceivable

Because it's based on you trying to remember the integer from a second long vision, the memory of which will change every time you remember it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:01:42 2015 No.6029709 >>6029699 >books are evil fascist

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:10:03 2015 No.6029741 >>6029709 http://www.christusrex.org/www3/talmud-exposed/talmud.htm http://www.talmudunmasked.com/

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:11:49 2015 No.6029749

>>6029707
To expand on this so I don't just sound like I am raging, the number of birds was definite. The phenomenon of the vision happened in your brain, it was a concrete real chemical reaction that you experienced. What is indefinite is your memory.

In the same vein, looking into the night sky, there is a specific number of stars. You can't count them in a second, but they are there. You don't claim the number of stars is indefinite simply because you couldn't count them all from memory. Nothing in this question hinges on the belief of some greater being that "needs" to have counted them all for some kind of retarded arbitrary logic to make sense, it's just human fallibility.

>>6029644
Because they shitpost philosophy and political discussions with some of the most backwards retarded logic there is nowadays. No one cares to hear someones unfalsifiable personal ramblings on the existence of something incomprehensible while everyone else is trying to have an intelligent conversation. And we definitely don't need these retards stirring threads away from discussion and towards whether or not it is justified to criticize them for their bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:14:55 2015 No.6029761 >>6029741 not even gonna bother your clicking your antisemitic propaganda written by delusioned autists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:20:24 2015 No.6029774 How can people still not believe in god with Thomas's great arguments. They are infallible,

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:23:05 2015 No.6029782 >>6029774 What appear to be axioms actually reach beyond the limitations of human knowledge

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:26:49 2015 No.6029797 >>6029761 >I won't read something that disagrees with me Literally hitler m8

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:55:21 2015 No.6029922 >>6029069 Are you fucking kidding me?, this shit is facebook tier.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:58:46 2015 No.6029939 >>6029069 Hinduism and Christianity are the only theological religions. Prove me wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 22:06:04 2015 No.6029981 File: 30 KB, 450x600, 1420815280976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6029069 All the time, God is great

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 22:14:47 2015 No.6030021 >>6029939 No.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 22:46:03 2015 No.6030166 File: 277 KB, 800x574, light.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6029774 God chooses whether a person believes or not

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 22:48:44 2015 No.6030180 >>6030021 i desperately want human interaction tho

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:04:26 2015 No.6030256 >>6030166 i don't think so

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:06:23 2015 No.6030268
File: 96 KB, 628x870, Jesus_holding_lamb_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6029981
>>6030166
Amen.

Anyone wanna form a prayer group? Lets start by reciting the

Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:08:39 2015 No.6030275
File: 363 KB, 1536x2033, prayerofhope.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6030268

Virgin, rejoice,
Mary full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
for thou hast borne Christ the Saviour,
the Deliverer of our souls.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:13:43 2015 No.6030295 [DELETED]

File: 385 KB, 2278x1709, 1397072174968.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you just found this attractive please be informed that you are now going to hell. If you didn't it means you are gay or have no taste, and are also going to hell.

regards,

Jesus H. God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:19:22 2015 No.6030317 Wait, what is god? Is god real? How do you know (justified true belief) ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:20:56 2015 No.6030323 File: 1.41 MB, 1862x2539, 1420150675735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6030268 >My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed,” saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee. feels good bro

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:25:37 2015 No.6030332 >>6030317 is it relevant if god is real?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:27:23 2015 No.6030342 God is dead OP

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:28:23 2015 No.6030345 >>6030332 The statement 'god is great' implies knowledge of existence and quality

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:49:44 2015 No.6030422

>>6029313
>>6029422
>because it doesn't suit you now, it's all just a metaphor
>now

Genesis was never meant to be taken literally

>Origen of Alexandria (3rd century)
>For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:53:27 2015 No.6030441 What does it mean if I don't really care if God created the universe or not, and that I'm really only interested in the teleological implications of there being a deity who not necessarily created us, but definitely rules over us.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:56:43 2015 No.6030451 File: 12 KB, 201x201, 1421816203053.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6029314 >square circle That was done a little over a century ago.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:57:29 2015 No.6030458

>>6030422

>it's a metaphor
>also it's true and it's the holy word of god, you just have to interpret it correctly as being loosely about history or whatever XD
>my pastors are all invariably astute at hermeneutics, which is why they believe in remarkably similar readings of ancient text across diverse fields of theosophy
>totally has nothing to do with the social ordering of belief and desire
>god is totes real guys, the metaphors are there to help

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:58:57 2015 No.6030463 >>6030451 those are squares set inside circles

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:06:50 2015 No.6030500

>>6030458
You forget that the church traces its community back to Christ himself, who is the authority on interpretation of scripture.
>Jesus rose from death
>and he taught the apostles what passages in the Law, the Writings and the Prophets referred to him.
it says this at the end of the Gospel of Luke.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:07:48 2015 No.6030503 >>6030500 >the scripture told me how to interpret the scripture >tautology is the same as justified true belief

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:08:42 2015 No.6030512 >>6030222 Anybody?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:13:32 2015 No.6030538 >>6030503 The NT told me how to interpret the OT and the Church told me how to interpret the NT and I judge the Church as a valid authority because I have seen Christians and heard stories about saints and I want to be as happy and nice as they are.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:17:43 2015 No.6030555

>>6029644
>Like, what is the agenda

They want to get back at mommy and daddy for dragging them to church. They are constantly make up easily disprovable lies to make themselves feel better about being an atheist.

>muh stupid old people thought the world was flat
>muh Christian dark ages
>muh church burning all knowledge
>muh Jesus never even existed
>muh rip off of older myths
>muh desert people
>muh indulgences/inquisition/crusades
>muh Constantine changing the church/faith/bible
>muh re-translated re-translated re-translated re-translated copied copied bibles

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:19:17 2015 No.6030560
File: 36 KB, 448x412, ecstatic frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6030342
That statement, while true, does not mean that our creator is dead, but rather that our man-made concept of him has been removed from our culture. The death of God is a new era, of knowing God not as a feared ruler, but as a loving father — personal, and more vivid than ever before.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:19:59 2015 No.6030563 >>6030538 >I judge the church as a valid authority

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:20:53 2015 No.6030570 >>6030563 >I want to have fun with Jesus and work in my Father's vineyard

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:21:17 2015 No.6030571

>>6030538

> I have seen Christians and heard stories about saints and I want to be as happy and nice as they are.

Hare Krishna are happy and nice. Why don't you follow their arbitrary tenets of faith instead of a westernized version of an ancient Jewish one?

Oh, wait, that might require a moment of thought, and I'd hardly put the ability to think past you as a person who respects institutional authority using the emotional stability of its members as a metric for its worth

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:22:27 2015 No.6030575 >>6030463 It's a bijection between a square and a circle so it's a "square circle"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:25:14 2015 No.6030589 >>6030575 >bijection it's just squares set inside of circles, not squared circles. get over it

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:26:02 2015 No.6030593

>>6030571
Hare Krishna are spiritually unstable.
They chant and get really high, and then they come down and preach/moralize.
Their morals are disconnected from their spiritual heights.

That's not true of Christianity. all our morals flow from baptism and the cross.
To live according to God's true Spirit requires that we become Lambs of God like Jesus, willing to donate all of ourselves to Christ.
Then we have given everything and we become free and happy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:27:54 2015 No.6030602 >>6030593 Why is spiritual stability preferable? What does your personal preference of spiritual flow through time have to do with the truth value of your belief? Why are Anglo Christians empty headed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:29:50 2015 No.6030608 >>6030602 true means trustworthy. So temporal consistency has everything to do with the truth value of a belief.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:34:19 2015 No.6030622

>>6030602
It's preferable because I will know peace when I know I am building on a stable foundation.

When I know that Christ was slain for all sinners in every place and time, when I know that God sends his Spirit on those who confess Christ, and speaks to Christians through the Bible and through sermons and through communion, then I can actually set priorities for my life.

I know that the Eternal stuff is handled, so to speak. I no longer have existential crises about what I should say on 4chan.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:35:53 2015 No.6030626
File: 542 KB, 388x496, christ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6030317
God is what came before all things. In existence, everything is flowing, and God is that which is still. It is the eternal force that created everything, and will create everything.
We know that God is real because when there is nothing, omnipotence's value is also nothing, therefore, 'nothing' has omnipotence.
We know that God is real because the first thing to ever exist could not possibly be relative to anything, so it would not be limited, and would therefore be omnipotent.
We know that God is real because people have died and seen him.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:36:26 2015 No.6030629

>>6030622

>When I know that Christ was slain for all sinners in every place and time, when I know that God sends his Spirit on those who confess Christ, and speaks to Christians through the Bible and through sermons and through communion, then I can actually set priorities for my life.

How can you KNOW any of this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:38:10 2015 No.6030635 >>6030629 u jelly because god doesnt talk to u? d'aww dont be mad :(

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:44:45 2015 No.6030655

>>6030629
a kid told me about Jesus in 3rd grade.

In college, I went onto a club's website, and they said, "ask Jesus to make himself known to you." I thought it was dumb, but I did it.

I started attending a church in college.

I stopped jerking off about Buddhism and started talking to other Christians.

I took communion, said the psalms, did christian forms of meditation.

>it has helped me relate to my father IRL.
>that's a good a test of any as far as I know.
>I am sleeping better
>I just know that God is the only thing that interests me, and that I get happier the closer I get to God.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:53:06 2015 No.6030682

>>6030629
you know it in your conscience.
You remember the times you were happiest, or at peace, or you understood something completely and then you just try to follow the "sense" of that memory down the rabbit hole.
The pursuit of that brought me to the church.

Or if you have no memory, you just start where you are now.
And you do what you want to do and check does it make you happy.
I did a lot of porn-viewing and masturbating.
I started to consistently see that it wasn't making me happy.
I did a lot of beta m'ladying whiteknighting and I began to see in my own experience that it never provided me with lasting satisfaction.
Now I don't do those things as often, and I think God would be proud of me for that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:56:02 2015 No.6030702 >>6030635 I'm not jealous of your schizophrenia

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:57:24 2015 No.6030709 File: 48 KB, 500x500, 1415306857294.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6030702 hf in hell

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:59:02 2015 No.6030715 >>6030655 Well, whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. Still don't see how you can really "know" what God is or that you're getting closer at all. Faith and knowledge are not the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 01:15:41 2015 No.6030779 >>6030715 I started believing in God last year simply because the logic makes more sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 04:02:05 2015 No.6031413

>>6029469
>Would you agree if i said that religions were an efficient code of practice in a time where you couldnt enforce laws?

Dogmatic, monotheistic belief systems aren't that great for enforcing laws anyways. The principles taught by the Bible didn't just fall from the sky, they contain plenty of already existing rules. You might really enjoy ''Eye for an Eye'' by William Ian Miller. It's about the talion and ancient ''laws'', following some of the principles taught in the Bible throughout the ages, and about societies that function without properly solidified laws or central authorities to enforce them (Saga Iceland being his specialty)

>You can be inspired by religious texts, and many do when they have a crisis of meaning, are ill or just feel really bad.
You can also do LSD, what's your point? This doesn't make any particular religion true or worthy of belief.

>Do you think that the world would be worse or better if everyone obeyed the ten commandments?
These principles already existed in the law of the talion and remained to exist in honor societies. And it's not like the ten commandments are all that innovative or amazing anyways. ''Don't kill eachother - don't cheat, etc''

>Do you think human rights were not inspired by christian value systems?
Really misleading. Human rights were inspired by the Enlightenment, the atrocities of two devastating wars, and plenty of other phenomena over the centuries. Christianity was a part of society, but this does not mean it is the prime motivation for every actor in society.

>You are arguing as if you genuinely believed that every believer believed word for word instead of deducing a code of conduct and seeking hope in a harsh world.
Because that's what I think you should, in fact, I have a friend who does. He genuinely believes Moses split the sea, the bush was on fire and brought forth the voice of God, the Earth is 6000 years old, etc. Why? Because the word of The Lord says so. And if you want to throw away half of his word because you just think it's silly, you're a heathen in my view. How can you possibly surrender your life to an all powerful being, the prime mover, the only reason you even exist at all, and then ignore his all knowing, infallible words when he took the fucking time to have people write it down for you?

>>6030422
This is a scholar, so what? This is like citing Omar Khayyam as your excuse to get drunk even though you're a muslim.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:36:50 2015 No.6031655 >>6029078 read swedenborg nerd

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:48:30 2015 No.6031672 >>6029069 Are theologies nothing but metaphysics ?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:52:25 2015 No.6031678

It's remarkable how much more intelligent and sophisticated are certain schools of Mahayana Buddhism than any Western religion. And unlike, say, Christianity, this is a religion that is compatible with all modern scientific knowledge. I'm so glad I left Catholicism. I've become so much more happy, vivacious, and fulfilled. The Tao Te Ching, which largely influenced East Asian Buddhistic thought, is more profound than any part of the bible. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I'm trying to help some of you out. Christianity will only increase your anxieties and petty annoyances; Buddhism will allow you to live a joyful, much-less-stressful life. Christianity forces you to put your faith in abstractions, which causes its followers to become inhumane in the name of their rigid, absolute beliefs. Buddhism allows you to see and accept life as it is, which allows you to embrace it and care for it, not because they live by any moral code, but because creating unnecessary problems for yourself (the consequences of harming others, for example) impedes your ability to become liberated.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:53:53 2015 No.6031684 >>6031655 >swedenborg nerd Who is Swedenborg Nerd?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:07:16 2015 No.6031851

>>6031678
There's a vast tradition of Christian mysticism/asceticism that embraces apophaticism, i.e. the position that knowledge is gained not by meditating on abstraction, but from clearing your mind from abstractions and opening your heart to spiritual intimations. All of this stuff about having inner peace and less stress is there in Christian praxis too.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:55:49 2015 No.6031935

I'm not a thinker, as there is no discipline or method to the way I think. I have scraps of thought and that's all. Regardless, lately I've been gathering my thoughts.

I've taken a glance at all the poets and philosophers, and I'm convinced now that the only reason for their continued existence is to spread confusion. Every half-century the poets change the definition of beauty, and the philosophers change the definition of truth, so that when you first dunk your head into the waters of history there seems to be no order, but only chaos. There's a passage in Plato where Socrates laments those that have struggled to find the truth and have found only half-truths and sophistical arguments, and who therefore give up on the search for truth altogether. He calls these men the most unfortunate. This is one of the two positions that I've been attracted to though, as it relieves me of a burden which has caused me a lot of anxiety. The words from Ecclesiastes express it best: "Only this I have found, that God made man right, and he hath entangled himself with an infinity of questions. Who is as the wise man? and who hath known the resolution of the word?"

So I was thinking about embracing the Tao De Ching and all the rest of the phenomenologists who say that all there is in reality is sensation. This opens the way to an easy going way of life, an Epicureanism of sorts. I would just live my life having the most pleasant of sensations; and because I know that the best sensations aren't the most ecstatic (whether it's through sex, or through art, or through war/sport, or whatever), but those sensations are best which are emptiest and bring tranquility - I would do quite well with this kind of philosophy, I think. I wouldn't read any book other than the Tao De Ching and maybe a certain poet I have found who expresses thoughtlessness and its tranquillity better than anyone I have come across. I wouldn't have any ambitions or desires. I wouldn't worry about falling in love, making the world a better place, or any other ideal. I'd just practice breathing calmly and I would go on pleasant walks through woods and recite pleasant poetry to myself. Perhaps I would work so that I would have comfortable shelter, but I'd work as little as possible. One day I would die peacefully, and that would be it; but I wouldn't worry about death, because I'd treat death as just an abstraction that has no reality.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:57:30 2015 No.6031946

>>6031935

There's something I noticed about this philosophy however, something very mysterious. Let me refer to Plato's allegory of the cave, because I think this myth contains all philosophy; I think it's the greatest of myths. Now, in the allegory of the cave you have those in the cave watching the shadows on the wall; then you have the fire that is casting the shadows on the wall by which said captives are bewitched; and then you have the place of light and liberty outside of the cave where is true reality. Now, the phenomenologist/sensationist philosophy is that the shadows on the cave wall is reality, that there is no other reality, and that wisdom consists of not being troubled by these shadows / closing your eyes to them (all forms of quietism), or looking only at only the most pleasing shadows and enjoying them as much as you can (all forms of Epicureanism). Now, here's what I noticed: in this scenario the kings of this world are those controlling the flame which determines the shape of the shadows which the captives see. The aforementioned phenomenologists/sensationists will deny that there is any flame behind them and will deny that there is someone controlling the flame and the shadows it casts, but what if, nevertheless, these masters of the flame exist? And then I look at the Gnostics, the Neoplatonists, the Hermeticists, the Rosicrucians, the Occultists, the Kabbalists, the Masons, the Ancient Mysteries of the Pagans, those that belong to Witchcraft, and all the rest of this crew, and I see - the masters of the flame. These are the secret societies that meet in secret to worship who knows what spirits, who distinguish between the "profane" (those looking at the shadows) and the "enlightened" or "knowing ones" (those controlling the flame). They are mentioned in the Book of Isaiah, I believe, as those that meet secretly in groves. They are the secret sects of all ages, that are very ancient. Now you might say - no, these occultists aren't the flame masters, but those outside the cave who perceive the light. There is a problem with this, namely: they themselves meet in secret and separate their societies into different degrees of "initiation", and they purposefully keep those in the lower degrees of initiation "in the dark", so that only those at the very top of the society are said to be "enlightened" or "illuminated". This is in itself an admission that they manipulate the flame to keep people in the dark.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:58:56 2015 No.6031953

>>6031946
The most important words to remember are those of Christ: "And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil." If these occultists/cabalists were really those that represents light and liberty, then why would they need to meet in the darkness of secrecy and spread their doctrines surreptitiously and through mysterious rites of progressive initiation? Straight away you have to compare this kind of cult with the Catholic cult, which openly declares its doctrine for everyone to hear and asks everyone to join and participate in the holiest of its mysteries. And those in positions of authority in the Catholic Church aren't there because they are said to be the most enlightened of the mysteries, but that the saints and martyrs - those most enlightened by the mysteries - have often come from places of little to no authority in the Church hierarchy. So the only conclusion I can draw is that the Catholic Church represents, in Plato's myth, those that stand for the outer light. Plato himself did not stand for the light, but for the flame masters, and his Republic is an ancient manual on how to control people through manipulation of the flame (the flame of ideology, ideas, through education and media, which the rulers of this world had been using before Plato and continue to up to today). I sympathize with the quietists, the various Buddhistic, Hinduistic, Taoistic, philosophies of emptiness and tranquility. These are people that are fed up of staring at the shadows of the wall, fed up of trying to break free and find the light outside the cave, and so just try and make themselves as comfortable as they can in the place that they find themselves.

We here today about the Catholic Inquisition (how evil it was), and how witches were poor persecuted women, and how occultists were champion of "freethinking" (lately on Black Science Guy's show Giordano Bruno was eulogized as a freethinker martyred by the evil and backwards Catholic Church). What if the reason why we are hearing this is not because it is the case, but because the history of the past 500 years has been the history of the gradual replacement of the Catholic priesthood which operated openly in the light of day, by the Gnostic priesthood which does not declare itself publicly and rules from the shadows. We are told that we are not ruled by a priesthood any more but rather by a secular government that has no superstitions, and yet the number of politicians belonging to Masonry suggests otherwise.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:00:36 2015 No.6031958

>>6031953
Now, it could still be that the Taoists and the rest are right; the shadows really is all there is; the flame is artificial and exists only in the warped perceptions of the occultists; that the place outside the cave and its light is just a particularly bright shadow that men mistakenly think is substantially different from any of the other shadows. History has no order or purpose or direction to it like the one I was suggesting just above. Things just are, and humanity "enchants" naked reality with a clothing of thought and abstraction that seduces, deceives, perverts. But then I come to two of the most important concepts in the Abrahamic tradition - the concepts of Authority and of the Sign (or Miracle). In the Abrahamic tradition it is generally accepted that, due to effects of the Fall of Man, we are indeed generally ignorant and filled with superstition. However, every now and then God, who ruled over us before the Fall, endows someone with Authority and sends him to preach his doctrine to man so that man can find his way back to God. And in order to make it clear to man that this prophet or preacher does indeed have Authority, he causes a "Sign from Heaven" or Miracle to show that the Almighty is indeed on the side of the prophet (of course false prophets will create false signs, but these exceptions prove the rule). In the Old Testament you have the Exodus of the people of Israel from the place of bondage (Egypt), across the Red Sea, and to the Promised Land, led by the prophet Moses. Similarly, in the New Testament you have Man led from the place of bondage (the world), through the waters of baptism, and to the Promised Land (the Kingdom of Heaven), lead by the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who Moses and the prophets had foretold. This myth of redemption, of revolution, of overcoming the oppressor and going into the Promised Land, is the myth at the centre of the human heart, the hope of hopes, and the very thing that the quietists are trying to distance themselves from. I said earlier that I thought that these poets and philosophers that are presented to us as being "canonical" are only canonical in order to spread confusion. Why I think this is true: there are only three philosophies. The philosophy of the dreamer who thinks that "we are the stuff that dreams are made of", "life is but a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", "nothing is either good or evil, but thinking makes it so", "all the world's a stage"; then the philosophy of the wizard who believes its his calling to manipulate the dreams of others in order to further his own Power; and then the philosophy of the prophet or redeemer who wants to abolish illusion and bring men to reality and truth. But if there really is a "truth" behind "illusion", and "illusion" is not all there is, then how are we to know which prophets are bringing the truth, and which are false prophets bringing delusions that will give them power?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:08:38 2015 No.6031985

>>6031958
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep."

Christ claims to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Pilate represents ordinary humanity that either doesn't distinguish between truth or illusion or at least has no idea what the truth is, causing him to ask "what is truth?" when Truth itself is stood right before him.

Now this is the thing: I could forget about the Christian mysteries and go the Taoist route that Pilate would like to take, where I would shrug myself, say "what is truth?", and then give over the Messiah to be crucified. But then how would I be able to wash my hands of this innocent blood? Of course, I would reject concepts like "Messiah" and "innocence" and "guilt" so that I wouldn't be troubled by them. But then I think of the martyrs who died with Christ in their eyes telling the very people that were killing them that they wished them all the best. What am I to make of this? Is this just another illusion, albeit a very beautiful one? "It's just rhetoric, Christ was just the greatest of rhetoricians. The martyrs were just bewitched by this greatest of rhetoricians, this Grand Wizard; pay no attention." OK, but at this point, when we come to an illusion this beautiful and that "cut to the heart" (the words of St. Stephen), and we say: this is not the truth to the exclusion of any other truths, it is just one perspective among many, not inherently superior to any of the others. But then you have to think about Christ the Saviour crucified by the very people who he intends to save; and think: how true, that humanity has no idea what is good for it, such that if its saviour appeared it wouldn't even notice and would get rid of him as a pest.
I don't know at this point. All I know is that if Christ isn't the truth then there is no such thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:10:42 2015 No.6031992 File: 90 KB, 668x632, the king.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What if you can get behind Aquinas' arguments, but just not for Christianity and the Christian God?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:11:56 2015 No.6031995 >>6031678 Read this. It's short and contains everything good about Buddhism without any of the evils. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/albert/cleaving.pdf

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:13:44 2015 No.6031998

>>6031995
I am now completely convinced that you will recognise from these arguments that the
more you strip yourself of the products of your imagination and all worldly and created
things, and are united to God with your intellect by a good will, the closer you will approach
the state of innocence and perfection. What could be better? And what could be more happy
and joyful? Above all it is important for you to keep your mind bare - without imaginations
and images and free of any sort of entanglement, so that you are not concerned about either
the world, friends, prosperity or adversity, or anything present, past or future, whether in
yourself or in others - not even your own sins. But consider yourself with a certain pure
simplicity to be alone with God outside the world, and as if your mind were already in
eternity and separated from the body so that it will certainly not bother about worldly things
or be concerned about the state of the world, about peace or war, about good weather or
rain, or about anything at all in this world, but with complete docility will turn to God alone,
be empty for him and cleave to him. So now in this way ignore your body and all created
things, present or future, and direct the high point of your mind and spirit directly, as best
you can, naked and unencumbered on the uncreated light. And let your spirit be cleansed
in this way from all imaginations, coverings and things obscuring its vision, like an angel
(not) tied to a body, who is not hindered by the works of the flesh nor tangled in vain and
wandering thoughts. Let your spirit therefore arm itself against all temptations, vexations,
and injuries so that it can persevere steadily in God when attacked by either face of fortune.
So that when some inner disturbance or boredom or mental confusion come you will not
be indignant or dejected because of it, nor run back to vocal prayers or other forms of consolation,
but only to lift yourself up in your intellect by a good will to hold on to God with
your mind whether the natural inclination of the body wills it or not. The religious-minded
soul should be so united to God and should have or render its will so conformed to the divine
will that it is not occupied with any created thing or cling to it any more than before it was
created, and as if nothing existed except God and the soul itself. And in this way it should
accept everything confidently and equally, in general and in particular, from the hand of
divine providence, agreeing in everything with the Lord in patience, peace and silence. The
thing is that the most important thing of all for a spiritual life is to strip the mind of all
imaginations so that one can be united in one’s intellect to God by a good will, and conformed
to him. Besides, nothing will then be intermediary between you and God

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:14:13 2015 No.6032000
File: 57 KB, 539x350, 93a8cb23da8793c3ff097f892f8d34ba.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

How is suicide treated in the context of Gnosticism? If the material world was created by accident/is flawed, and the idea is to escape it and return to Pleroma, then isnt suicide the shortest path?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:15:45 2015 No.6032005 >>6032000 They probably would say that if you did that your soul will just be recycled and chained to another body.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:22:10 2015 No.6032021

>>6031678
>The Tao Te Ching, which largely influenced East Asian Buddhistic thought, is more profound than any part of the bible.

The Tao De Ching isn't profound. It's the opposite of profound. It's all simplicity and surface and cheerful humour. The Bible is profound: deep, mysterious, covered in shroud.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:24:46 2015 No.6032025 Is it possible to summarize what ascetics genuinely benefit from their abstinence? Or is what they pursue so transcendent it can't be described?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:25:29 2015 No.6032027 >>6032021 cont. There's nothing more profound than the crucifixion of the Christ.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:27:54 2015 No.6032030

>>6032025
Both.
You describe it as purity of heart, inner peace, tranquility, and so on.
These words won't be understood until you've experienced these things yourself, though.

Most people have experienced things that are transcendent. For example, looking at the stars induces a feeling of mystery in people. But how would you describe that mystical feeling to someone who had never experienced it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:27:56 2015 No.6032032 >>6032021 The Bible is all murder and donkey ejaculate. Maybe the Tao Te Ching is too metaphysical for you. Try reading Zhuangzi.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:28:32 2015 No.6032033 >>6029425 It's called a miracle

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:32:18 2015 No.6032038

>>6032032
>Maybe the Tao Te Ching is too metaphysical for you.

What does this mean? I don't think the book is metaphysical at all. I think the entire point of it is to cease metaphysical speculation and embrace a tranquil experience that is prior to thought.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:36:33 2015 No.6032045

>>6032032
This is a stupid comparison. The Bible isn't one book, but a collection of books of different genres. Of course the historical books of the Old Testament will generally have less mystical reflection than a book that is entirely dedicated to mystical reflection. However, if you take one of the books out of the Bible dedicated to this, like this one http://drbo.org/chapter/25001.htm, is more profound than the Tao De Ching.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:40:57 2015 No.6032050

To compare the Tao De Ching to the Bible: the Tao De Ching does not take the problem of evil seriously, it dismisses evil as an accident or a mistake, brushes it off casually. Therefore it has no real sympathy for those who are the victim of evil. The Bible is precisely that: sympathy for the sons of Adam who are suffering. It takes the sufferings of man as a REALITY, whereas the Eastern religions dismiss suffering as a form of illusion. Therefore the Bible has the Messiah, the Saviour, the Liberator, who will come down to man's level and suffer for his sake, so that man can be relieved of his own suffering. This idea is a thousand times more profound than Eastern quietism.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:43:27 2015 No.6032054

>>6032050
The concept of a the Saviour sweating and bleeding on the cross for the redemption of man is something that doesn't even enter into that Eastern consciousness. However, this is precisely the most profound of thoughts, especially when the Saviour is crucified by the very people he is trying to save.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:53:47 2015 No.6032070 >>6032054 But don't get me wrong. I think the Tao De Ching is very beautiful and contains a lot that is true; it's just that I don't think the Bible should be denigrated for the sake of its promotion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:18:36 2015 No.6032117 >>6031992 The Christian God isn't even accurate. God in real life is much more loving, forgiving and accepting. Please please do not stray away from religion, there are tonnes of great faiths out there. Look up "Baha'i", "NDE" and "Unitarianism"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:23:09 2015 No.6032124 >>6032033 >a miracle >and then, behold, god tried to lift the stone, but couldn't, and the third part of mankind lost all faith, while the other two third parts, who never gave much thought to anything, just felt slightly fuzzy in the head

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:27:51 2015 No.6032135 >>6029647 >god cannot be comprehended Says who?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:28:24 2015 No.6032136 File: 48 KB, 365x363, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Ecclesiastes

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:30:06 2015 No.6032140 >>6032033 Otherwise known as 'bullshit'

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:32:11 2015 No.6032147

What words did you just speak against Me, you little one? Truly I say to you, I graduated top of my class to the right hand of the Father, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret mercies on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed signs. I am trained in gorilla miracles and I’m the top saviour in the entire kingdom of heaven. You are everything to me, but just a lost sheep. I will redeem you with salvation the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth. He who has ears to hear let him hear. You think you can get away with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit over the Internet? Think again, sinner. Truly I say to you, I am contacting My Holy Spirit across eternity and your thoughts are being known right now so you better prepare for the judgment, offspring of vipers. The lake of fire that wipes out the condemned little thing you call your life. You’re dead in sin, Gentile. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can fill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with My life-giving Spirit. Not only am I extensively trained in unyielding mercy, but I have access to the entire properties of the Triune God and I will use it to its full extent to reconcile your sinful flesh before the face of the judgment, you little one. If only you could have known what eternal punishment your little “clever” existence was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have visited the temple. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now I have paid the price, you are forgiven. I will dispense mercy and grace all over you and you will be saturated with living water. You’re completely saved, brother.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:34:09 2015 No.6032151 >>6029082 Eastern religions are dogshit anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:40:50 2015 No.6032167 >>6030655 You have extremely low standards of evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:43:03 2015 No.6032173 >>6030655 The name of that kid? George Washington

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:43:29 2015 No.6032178

>>6032151
Christianity is Middle Eastern, which is basically Eastern in the end. Western religion is dead.

>non-Abrahamic means oriental
>no other religions have value except my own

Sure, sure. A nonbeliever can see the credibility of your unbiased opinion here, given your extensive reasoning behind it.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:44:27 2015 No.6032184

>>6032050
But isn't this complete sympathy for human suffering that perpetuates human suffering? I mean, isn't Christ complete affirmation of life a bad thing, thinking quantitatively? If you negate action and, therefore, life, aren´t you actually minimizing the extent of human suffering?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:45:06 2015 No.6032186 >>6032136 Ecclesiastes is the shit. >>6032117 You choose what to believe, on base on what you want and what you like? Instead of following the Truth? Fucking degenerate >>6032167 >I demand empirical evidence on metaphysical things Fucking pleb.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:45:31 2015 No.6032188

I don't really get why so many people are hung up about wether God "exists" or not. He is/would be the fundament of existence, and it is kinda tricky to call that "existing". Most of my theological friends don't really care if God "exists".
Any opinions on that?

>>6029397
>There is no limit to God's power
Citation please? I am serious now. I'd like to know where in the Bible God is called "omnipotent", and what hebrew word is used and what exactly that hebrew word means.

"Omnipotent" (lat.=allmighty) could mean "being able to do everything that is possible in this world", it could mean "being able to to everything that is thinkable in this world", or it could mean "being able to do everything, even that which is unthinkable". "Everything" after all refers to existing things. So I'd like some hebrew up in this bitch to clear things up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:46:44 2015 No.6032193 >>6032184 those who suffer inherit the most in kingdom come

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:47:32 2015 No.6032194 >>6032186 >>I demand empirical evidence on metaphysical things >metaphysical things So if you by default can't produce evidence for this, how do you know it exists in the first place? You're basically admitting your beliefs are a bunch of bullshit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:47:43 2015 No.6032196 >>6032186 > the Truth read more, young adult

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:48:04 2015 No.6032197 >>6032188 he's called the all-sufficient

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:48:38 2015 No.6032198 >>6032188 >I don't really get why so many people are hung up about wether God "exists" or not. I don't know, the fact that this is very core of your religion, and that the validity of just about everything you believe depends on this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:53:59 2015 No.6032217 >>6032198 Well, you got faith for that. If you have faith, you don't care about if God does real or not, because he is real for you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:55:50 2015 No.6032221 >>6032217 >real for you religion dropped

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:56:35 2015 No.6032222

>>6032217

Then what does the -logy part in theology refer to?

Your justification for your beliefs is the opposite of logic. It's the justification of contradictions by assumption alone, not by any proof whatsoever. On top of that, you still find it incredibly strange that people doubt all of this

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:57:22 2015 No.6032224

>>6032194
You are so stupid. Holy shit.

The empirical method, the scientific method, only applies to Matter.

That doesn't mean that only matter exist. You fucking pleb. You should feel ashamed of yourself. Holy shit.

>>6032196

>I only follow and believe what i like

good one :^&

>>6032188

depends on what you consider omnipotence. But if we take it as a complete absolute, then, He doesn't need any proofs whatsoever.
And discussing about is a waste of time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:57:57 2015 No.6032226 I recently picked up 2 books that went about Socialism in my country and i notiched it was a Christian Socialist Movement and the other book was about Communist Christianity. Still have to read them but what do you guys think of Christian Socialism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:58:44 2015 No.6032228 >>6032222 >Your justification for your beliefs is the opposite of logic the tippyist of the tips

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:00:09 2015 No.6032234 >>6032222 Not that guy, but theology is largely not about god's existence, like psychology is not about the existence of the psyche, or sociology is not about the existence of society.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:01:08 2015 No.6032235

>>6032224

>>6032224

First off, nice namecalling.

Secondly

>That doesn't mean that only matter exist.

First off, the scientific method not only applies to matter, since matter is just one of a number of energy phenomenon. You probably mean reality. Secondly, how do you know there's more out there than reality?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:01:55 2015 No.6032240 >>6032193 Ok, but let me explain further what I was trying to say. If you negate life, aren't you, paradoxically, affirmating life, and, therefore, that's a valid way of conduct? If you can prove me that it isn't, well, I will go full christian.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:02:09 2015 No.6032241 >>6032228 >the argumentum ad fedorum Great retort, is that Aquinas you're quoting?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:02:17 2015 No.6032242

>>6032197
That doesn't sound hebrew at all.

>>6032221
Well, yeah. Many people do.

>>6032222
The -logy comes from the greek "logos" which can mean all kinds of wacky stuff, like knowledge, spoken word, lesson, teaching, doctrine, theory etc. It does not necessarily mean "reason", it is a very general term.

>Your justification for your beliefs
Hold the phone there, buddy, where are you taking from that I am religious in any way? I agree that theology is mostly bullocks and analyzing of arbitrarily "canon"-declared works of text.

>>6032224
>depends on what you consider omnipotence.
Well, yeah, that is the very point of my question.
For example, why take it as a complete "absolute"? Why would we? Who would? I want to have citations from the original hebrew texts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:03:11 2015 No.6032249 >>6032234 No, but at the very least, psychology and sociology do have the advantage over theology that the mind and society actually exists

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:03:32 2015 No.6032250

>>6032217

The third person don't. But the first person do.

>>6032226

Tolstoy

>>6032222

Honest questions here, please answer them.
>are u an atheist?
>would you call yourself a Fedora?
> what's your knowledge on religion, what books have you read, what documentary have you watch, whether anti or pro religion.
>have you ever google a question you had towards a religious topic, looking for the religious answer of it?

captcha: Norea

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:03:43 2015 No.6032252

>>6032242
>>>6032224
>>depends on what you consider omnipotence.
>Well, yeah, that is the very point of my question.
>For example, why take it as a complete "absolute"? Why would we? Who would? I want to have citations from the original hebrew texts.
Also, and that point I actually wanted to make clear here aswell but I forgot: why does it matter if God is "omnipotent" or not?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:07:18 2015 No.6032260

>>6032250
>>are u an atheist?

It's spelled 'you', retard, and yes, I would call myself an atheist.

>>would you call yourself a Fedora?

I have no idea what this is. If the best justification for your beliefs is namecalling and misrepresentation, then your beliefs are fucking pathetic

>>what's your knowledge on religion, what books have you read, what documentary have you watch, whether anti or pro religion.

A dozen books, mostly on the history of religion

>>have you ever google a question you had towards a religious topic, looking for the religious answer of it?

Why would a religious answer matter?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:09:46 2015 No.6032265

>>6032235

Reality, really?

Are you an objectivist?

Since you look like a fedora, the one who prefers to argue on technicalities. Even light can be considered and regarded as matter, or, if you prefer, even matter can be regarded as Energy. So the best word you would use, would be Energy, not Reality.

The scientific method doesn't mean that only Energy exist.
This energy being an empirically one, of course.

>>6032242

Do you know hebrew?
I have some notes and articles laying around about the omnipotence thing. Give some time to search on them.

And on the matter of the absolute, well, because for some people, if you define omnipotence in realm of logic, than that means is not a real "omnipotence". Even though that's false.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:13:09 2015 No.6032275

>>6032260
>I have no idea what this is.
Not that anon, but a "fedora" is basically someone who has a superiority complex because of his atheism, and thinks that the whole world cares about his lack of belief, and that he is better than religious people simply because he does not believe in "le old man in the clouds", even if he his himself turning atheism into a religion.

>A dozen books, mostly on the history of religion
Like what?

>Why would a religious answer matter?
To get the opinion from a different point of view. Many fedoras (see above for the explanatio of this term) "refute" religion by thinking up some (often well-known) paradox, think that it debunks the entire religious tradtions of 2 millenia, and doesn't check if maybe someone ever tried to answer that.

>>6032265
>Do you know hebrew?
Nah, sadly not. I was hoping someone here does.

>And on the matter of the absolute, well, because for some people, if you define omnipotence in realm of logic, than that means is not a real "omnipotence". Even though that's false.
Yeah, but why would God need to be "omnipotent", as in absolutely omnipotent and capable even of the unthinkable?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:13:48 2015 No.6032278 >>6032260 Comfeermd 4 beeing an fedora with confeermation bias. Please name the donzes uppon dosesns of bucks u has read

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:16:02 2015 No.6032284

>>6032265
>Since you look like a fedora

And more namecalling. Way to go, Aristotle. I suggest that if you don't want to come across as a 15 year old, you stop namecalling everyone you disagree with

>The scientific method doesn't mean that only Energy exist.

That has nothing to do with what I posted. I'm going to ask you again, how does one figure out not only that there even is anything beyond reality, and, on top of that, not only that there are sentient, conscious beings there, but also their exact opinions on what to cut off from your genitals?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:17:42 2015 No.6032287 >>6032278 >with confeermation bias. For what, things that are demonstrably real?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:24:06 2015 No.6032297

>>6032275

On /pol/ there used to be a few anon that were way more knowledgeable than me in this topic. Some spoke Latin and Hebrew.
I haven't see them on a while, sadly.

Well, He doesn't need it. There's a quote that said something like
>we are trying to know about God as much as we can with our limited capabilities, as worthless it may seem, not doing so would be deniying our complete set of capabilities.

The whole thing I considered comes from philosophy, why is the Christian God more philosophically sound than Zeus, or Thor?
Its because the philosophical prepositions attributed to them.

>>6032287
>>6032284

Srry eef i eensulted u Fedoramam

You don't think philosophy is real, right?
.
post the bucks u has readeded on releegiun pl0x

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:25:34 2015 No.6032301

>>6032284
>And more namecalling. Way to go, Aristotle. I suggest that if you don't want to come across as a 15 year old, you stop namecalling everyone you disagree with
This is how you notice a 15 yo on 4chan, he calls others 15 yos because his butt can't take all the fedoracock

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:26:00 2015 No.6032303 Is the very idea of an inconceivable entity being the cause of all creation conceivable to the extent that it couldn't exist? Does 'God' have to be conceivable to exist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:32:57 2015 No.6032315 >>6032303 My personal opinion is the same as the free will dilemma. If we have an illusion of it, then its real. I like Plantinga argument on that. Look it up, since his delivery is better than mine.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 12:25:06 2015 No.6032524 >>6029691 gr8 b8, m8

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 12:42:22 2015 No.6032554 >>6032297 >Srry eef i eensulted u Fedoramam Literally the response of a child. Good luck with the rest of your life, you'll need it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 12:43:49 2015 No.6032557 >>6032554 srry eef i made u feel wong, pls 4give mee

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 14:31:11 2015 No.6032895

>>6031413
>Dogmatic, monotheistic belief systems aren't that great for enforcing laws anyways. The principles taught by the Bible didn't just fall from the sky, they contain plenty of already existing rules. You might really enjoy ''Eye for an Eye'' by William Ian Miller. It's about the talion and ancient ''laws'', following some of the principles taught in the Bible throughout the ages, and about societies that function without properly solidified laws or central authorities to enforce them (Saga Iceland being his specialty)

You seem to be misinformed about what Christianity's ethics are. That it conformed its rules to the current laws is not surprising when you realize that the underlying ethic is one of virtue, not rule-keeping.

>Really misleading. Human rights were inspired by the Enlightenment, the atrocities of two devastating wars, and plenty of other phenomena over the centuries. Christianity was a part of society, but this does not mean it is the prime motivation for every actor in society.

And the authors arguing in favor of natural rights did so on the basis of creation. If the rights are not inherent to persons, then they are privileges conveyed by a government.

> Because that's what I think you should, in fact, I have a friend who does. He genuinely believes Moses split the sea, the bush was on fire and brought forth the voice of God, the Earth is 6000 years old, etc. Why? Because the word of The Lord says so. And if you want to throw away half of his word because you just think it's silly, you're a heathen in my view. How can you possibly surrender your life to an all powerful being, the prime mover, the only reason you even exist at all, and then ignore his all knowing, infallible words when he took the fucking time to have people write it down for you?

You realize that literalism is a new doctrine, do you not? Up until the 20th century most people recognized the Bible for what it is. Narratives meant to convey deeper truth, rather than literal histories. Though with the mindset common since the enlightenment people now think in these black and white terms where it's all or nothing. Literalism is nothing more than the bastard child of science and religion, not a true religious belief.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 15:59:57 2015 No.6033221

>>6032895
>You seem to be misinformed about what Christianity's ethics are. That it conformed its rules to the current laws is not surprising when you realize that the underlying ethic is one of virtue, not rule-keeping.

This seems in contrast with your original statement of:
>Would you agree if i said that religions were an efficient code of practice in a time where you couldnt enforce laws?
Because if there were already rules, and they were being upheld through virtue, birth, social rank and honor anyways, religion is pretty pointless. I'll once again point to Saga Iceland or Chivalric Europe, in which honor ruled, and any form of law and religion was only adhered to when it suited the people of higher rank.

>And the authors arguing in favor of natural rights did so on the basis of creation. If the rights are not inherent to persons, then they are privileges conveyed by a government.

I haven't read enlightenment thinkers yet, only about them, so I don't know their exact reasoning, however, they were still pretty big on rights on the basis of privilege extended by the government, they did not want the rabble messing with their politics, if I'm not mistaken.

>You realize that literalism is a new doctrine, do you not? Up until the 20th century most people recognized the Bible for what it is. Narratives meant to convey deeper truth, rather than literal histories.

Going to need some citations for this one. As far as I'm concerned, Luther, Calvin, but also others were pretty keen on following the Bible to the letter. Also, you just called reformed protestantism not a true religious belief, even though it's been the official state religion for the Republic of the Netherlands around 400 years ago.

It's funny, by the way, because our vision seems to be the complete opposite. You claim that people saw the Bible as ''narrative meant to convey deeper truth'', even though they sold saint's limbs and bones, carried them into battle, punished the relic when things went wrong, prayed on top of their graves, fought demons in tombs (Rosenwein, Short history of the Middle Ages), etc., which shows that believing a Bible story to be true isn't so strange at all. Greek mythology was believed as well, but I think I've said enough on this.

It has always been my idea that it's the ammount of ''It's just a metaphor, it's not literal'' is the bastard child of science clashing with religion. Over the years the Church has been assraped by science time and time again, even when every scientist was still deeply pious, they were changing their ideas only after persecuting everyone that spoke against it at first. Ancient scripture and classical texts were seen as infallible. If Aristotle said so, it's true, if Galenus said so, it's true, if the Bible says so, it's true. So it's remarkable that you think everyone used to think the Bible was this deeply cryptic work. Do you have sources for this? Have you studied it? Because I'd be pretty interested to see it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 16:11:54 2015 No.6033286 >>6032297 > why is the Christian God more philosophically sound than Zeus, or Thor? Because the classical gods were treated as merely the supreme beings, which is why they have been disproved through observations.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 16:14:58 2015 No.6033302 >>6033221 >As far as I'm concerned, Luther, Calvin, but also others were pretty keen on following the Bible to the letter. Which is why these heretics produced such an idiotic religious system.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 16:27:30 2015 No.6033352

>>6033221
>This seems in contrast with your original statement of:

I'm not the anon you were originally in a discussion with. Christian ethics aren't about enforcing rules or maintaining order, though. They're about developing character and the virtues of love.

>Going to need some citations for this one. As far as I'm concerned, Luther, Calvin, but also others were pretty keen on following the Bible to the letter. Also, you just called reformed protestantism not a true religious belief, even though it's been the official state religion for the Republic of the Netherlands around 400 years ago.

>It's funny, by the way, because our vision seems to be the complete opposite. You claim that people saw the Bible as ''narrative meant to convey deeper truth'', even though they sold saint's limbs and bones, carried them into battle, punished the relic when things went wrong, prayed on top of their graves, fought demons in tombs (Rosenwein, Short history of the Middle Ages), etc., which shows that believing a Bible story to be true isn't so strange at all. Greek mythology was believed as well, but I think I've said enough on this.

>It has always been my idea that it's the ammount of ''It's just a metaphor, it's not literal'' is the bastard child of science clashing with religion. Over the years the Church has been assraped by science time and time again, even when every scientist was still deeply pious, they were changing their ideas only after persecuting everyone that spoke against it at first. Ancient scripture and classical texts were seen as infallible. If Aristotle said so, it's true, if Galenus said so, it's true, if the Bible says so, it's true. So it's remarkable that you think everyone used to think the Bible was this deeply cryptic work. Do you have sources for this? Have you studied it? Because I'd be pretty interested to see it.

I never said it didn't contain truthful statements, or that none of the miracles in the Bible happened. Merely that the history hasn't been to treat it as a completely literal document. It wasn't until The Fundamentals were written in 1910-1915 that people began to treat the Bible as a completely infallible work of literal history. Calvin, Luther, and the other protestant reformers saw the Bible as the chief ruler of spiritual doctrine, but recognized other authorities and weren't literalists in their interpretation of scripture. The non-literal interpretation of Genesis pre-dates evolution, with writers like Origen and Augustine forwarding their own interpretations. In fact, Augustine was the first prominent thinker to fathom some form of evolution and he did it on a Biblical basis. It wasn't until the cultural ethos said that things are black and white, true or false, narrative has no value, that the heresy of literalism came to roost. Literalism is a reactionary doctrine for small minded people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 17:23:17 2015 No.6033601 File: 191 KB, 858x536, disdain for atheists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Disdain for atheists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 18:09:01 2015 No.6033794 >>6032167 >my beliefs are only filtered through reasoning because I can't use intuition for shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 18:32:04 2015 No.6033873 File: 331 KB, 1185x1241, pleb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6033601 Disdain for Christianity and its barbarism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 18:33:28 2015 No.6033879 >>6033873 >blaming christ for the works of satan hehe

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 18:36:25 2015 No.6033892

>>6033352
I haven't read Luther or Calvin, so I can't really say anything usefull regarding most of your post.
>Literalism is a reactionary doctrine for small minded people.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's all doctrine for small minded people, but it still seems rather insolent to treat the word of God like that. He is God after all, and he took His time to have a book written for you, Him being allknowing probably didn't fuck around to have people discuss his words for 2000 years. Seems kind of sketchy to me. Especially when ''christians'' are having sex before marriage and loving homosexuals and all that jazz.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 18:44:08 2015 No.6033936

>>6033892
>Don't get me wrong, I think it's all doctrine for small minded people, but it still seems rather insolent to treat the word of God like that. He is God after all, and he took His time to have a book written for you, Him being allknowing probably didn't fuck around to have people discuss his words for 2000 years. Seems kind of sketchy to me. Especially when ''christians'' are having sex before marriage and loving homosexuals and all that jazz.

It's divinely inspired, not dictated. It is the final word on all things ethical and spiritual, but it doesn't need to be literal history to operate as such. While the sex before marriage thing is problematic, I see no issue with Christians loving homosexuals given that the condemnation of it in the NT was a general condemnation of the Roman elites or specific practices(pederasty and prostitution) and the OT condemnation was because homosexual sex was done as a ritual sacrifice to the gods of Jewish neighbors. The whole point of the Bible is to point to Christ and what it means to live like Christ. Believing that Genesis is literally how the world was created isn't necessary for it to serve such a purpose, and it being narrative doesn't detract from it's importance as spiritual truth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 18:46:08 2015 No.6033945 >>6033936 >It's divinely inspired bad translation

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 18:56:07 2015 No.6033992 >>6033879 >adhering to a religion based around abstinence to then go up to your sky kingdom to look down at those that didn't adhere, eternally suffering for your own pleasure >not inherently barbaric Christianity is the edgy religion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 18:59:16 2015 No.6034011 >>6033992 >sky kingdom lol the kingdom manifests on earth

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:07:22 2015 No.6034051 >>6034011 lol not when you're dead retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:08:53 2015 No.6034059 >>6034011 >implying the criticism doesn't still apply in a metaphorical manner Yeah, it manifests on earth, of course it does or you wouldn't have the two-faced Christian 'love' for every sinner in the world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:09:25 2015 No.6034060 >>6034051 yes it does. have u read revelations?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:11:43 2015 No.6034069 IMO it's arrogan to say "god exists" or "god doesn't exist". I simply do not know if some kind of deiety exists or not, I don't calim to know such a thing. In a perfect world, everybody believes whatver they want to believe, but nobody claims to KNOW.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:12:05 2015 No.6034071 >>6034059 >criticism doesn't still apply it doesn't cos sinners don't suffer for christ's pleasure lol and it's not based around abstinence or adherence, just christ

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:12:51 2015 No.6034074 I don't claim to know if god exists. In my opinion, nobody can. In a perfect world, everybody believes in whatever the want, but nobody claims to KNOW.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:13:08 2015 No.6034075 >>6034069 And how is it not arrogant to claim that knowledge of God is impossible? That's just as much of a knowledge claim as claiming God does or doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:14:46 2015 No.6034082 No one can actually determine whether god exists or if he doesn't. In a perfect world, everybody believes in whatever they want, but nobody claims to KNOW.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:15:48 2015 No.6034088

>>6034071
>t doesn't cos sinners don't suffer for christ's pleasure lol
Yeah, they just suffer for the pleasure of the adherents of Christianity.
>and it's not based around abstinence or adherence, just christ
lol what do you think christ is a manifestation of, mongoloid

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:17:09 2015 No.6034092 >>6034088 >Yeah, they just suffer for the pleasure of the adherents of Christianity. where in the bible does it say this? >lol what do you think christ is a manifestation of god ........................

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:19:20 2015 No.6034109 >>6034092 >where in the bible does it say this? aquinas said it, and since he's part of the catholic canon ........................

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:22:11 2015 No.6034127 >>6034109 >apostasy don't care

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:27:22 2015 No.6034155 >>6034109 The rejoicing of the blessed in the punishment of the wicked is not in their suffering. It is in the perfect justice God does, not some sadistic inclination.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:30:37 2015 No.6034165 >>6034127 >apostasy canonized, m8 the apostasy is meaningless, when his recognition completely overshadows it but keep those ears of yours tightly clenched around your fingers

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:31:51 2015 No.6034169 >>6034155 >The rejoicing of the blessed in the punishment of the wicked is inherently and unjustifiably barbaric, keep trying

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:35:05 2015 No.6034176

>>6034169
Justice is not barbaric, nor is a celebration of a perfect justice. It is not the suffering that brings joy, but the perfection of God. The only way rejoicing in the infliction of punishment would be barbaric is if the application of suffering exceeded the crime.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:35:58 2015 No.6034180 >>6034155 You're a bunch of sick cultists, we know

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:37:09 2015 No.6034183 >>6034176 Nobody cares about your schizophrenic bullshit dude

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:39:24 2015 No.6034195

>>6034176
>Justice is not barbaric
When justice is literally pride and pleasure in the suffering of others, it's sinful in itself.

>It is not the suffering that brings joy
It is though, it has been clearly established that looking down on the suffering of those non-adherents is specifically what brings pleasure.

>The only way rejoicing in the infliction of punishment would be barbaric is if the application of suffering exceeded the crime.
Eternal hellfires vs adultery.
Hmm, doesn't sound excessive to me at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:42:01 2015 No.6034206 >>6034165 >canonized, m8 not by god lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:44:03 2015 No.6034212 >>6034206 >not by god lmao lol do you only adhere to those that have been or something? what a dolt

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:44:36 2015 No.6034216 >>6034195 >Hmm, doesn't sound excessive to me at all. umm u only go to hell if u dont repent, not if u sin. by nature all men (except christ) are sinners could u like, idk, offer a criticism of christianity that is actually relevant to the bible?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:45:01 2015 No.6034217

Address these points without simply stating "you just have to believe man :^)"

>how can you prove that there is a soul, a God, a Holy Spirit, Heaven and Hell
>how can you prove that miracles actually happened and weren't just fabrications
>why believe a religion with no solid foundations on fact, but rather the word of men who lived millennia ago
>why is your religion the right one, while people who believe in other religions go to hell
>why did god create us? Was he bored?
>why does God exist?
>why would he care about human beings and how we behave?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:45:51 2015 No.6034220 >>6034212 >adhere no :) >have been god is a living god

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:47:03 2015 No.6034228 >>6034217 >godhead >sense data -_-;

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:48:33 2015 No.6034239

>>6034216
Yes, adultery without repentance, it's kind of a given if hellfires are involved, captain obvious.

>could u like, idk, offer a criticism of christianity that is actually relevant to the bible?
How do you relevantly apply its very antiquated contents in this modern society, when mosts priests aren't even sure how to?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:48:44 2015 No.6034240

>>6034195
From the Summa Theologica:
>I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

It's not the suffering that brings joy, but the perfection of the justice done.

>Eternal hellfires vs adultery.

The sins are not what merits the suffering, but the rejection of God's grace. The gift is on offer, it's up to the individual sinners to accept or reject it. The level that they suffer will be determined by what they have done, but they're offered the escape.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:51:42 2015 No.6034249 >>6034239 >adultery without repentance the issue is that denying christ, rather than committing adultery, will condemn u to the lake of fire > mosts priests >clergy-laity distinction more apostasy >very antiquated contents like..?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:51:56 2015 No.6034250 File: 338 KB, 628x804, AN00235436_001_l cropped.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw spiritual, aware of the historical importance of Christianity, and just glad it's fading away now that it's irrelevant

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:54:05 2015 No.6034254 >>6034249 >>clergy-laity distinction that's not apostasy tho might want to learn what words mean bfr u use them :,(

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:57:35 2015 No.6034264 >>6034249 >like..? Like its contents. They're antiquated, written and intended for a different context, not this one. How would you apply them? How would apply them regardless of their obsoleteness today?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:58:00 2015 No.6034266 >>6034254 it is apostasy. how do u not renounce christianity when u start adding extra rules on it that have nothing to do w the word? its a fallen state

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:58:02 2015 No.6034267

>>6034239
>How do you relevantly apply its very antiquated contents in this modern society, when mosts priests aren't even sure how to?

It's very relevant because its ethics are about virtue and the message is one of grace. The narratives all have ethical implications especially the parables of Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:00:28 2015 No.6034276 >>6034264 what part of the bible doesn't apply to today? not including the old testament cos we all know christ fulfilled the law and the prophets. is the second coming no longer going to occur or something?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:01:41 2015 No.6034281 >>6034267 >It's very relevant because its ethics are about virtue Christian, warped 'virtue'* not real virtue ;)

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:03:41 2015 No.6034294
File: 16 KB, 300x200, 6a00e54ef5e50288330167657bf050970b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6034276
please divulge how they DO apply today
im confused, can't really see how they function in modern society, when they were written for so long ago

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:04:21 2015 No.6034298 >>6034281 And what, pray tell, is real virtue? How is it not the fruits of the spirit, listed in Galatians?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:11:03 2015 No.6034321 Are you Unitarian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism If not, how do you explain the extreme similarities between religions? Why would God only love people of a specific religion?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:11:05 2015 No.6034322 >>6034298 >And what, pray tell, is real virtue? something that existed before Christianity

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:15:27 2015 No.6034340 >>6034294 i dont think u have read the bible

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:18:32 2015 No.6034350 >>6034322 That doesn't answer the question. No where is virtue more lucidly analyzed than in the pages of the Bible, and no one has personified it as perfectly as Christ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:26:00 2015 No.6034377 >>6034350 > and no one has personified it as perfectly as Christ. Christ is Christianity's ideal, sorry bruz but he's not universally ideal sooner you realize that the better for every1

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:27:43 2015 No.6034381 >>6034340 you think wrong I personally appreciate many of the texts within it, but fail to see how I can properly apply them without an even more antiquated mentality

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:27:59 2015 No.6034384 >>6034377 >he's not universally ideal blasphemy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:32:18 2015 No.6034405 >>6034377 Moral relativism. Just because you don't believe in an objective morality doesn't mean that there isn't one, and it is evident in Christ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:36:37 2015 No.6034426 >>6034405 prove it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:40:24 2015 No.6034438 >>6034426 You'll see it in time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:41:44 2015 No.6034443 Why can't believers agree to disagree with other believers' perspectives--is it due to the innate childish nature of believing such things in the first place?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:49:19 2015 No.6034485 >>6034443 >is it due to the innate childish nature of believing such things in the first place? tips good day, madam

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:54:11 2015 No.6034505 >>6034443 sins of the flesh

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:56:51 2015 No.6034526 >>6029069 But what if God got tired of being great ALL the time? Could he take a break? Can God stop being great if he wants?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:58:20 2015 No.6034534 >>6034485 Nice post, friend.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:06:18 2015 No.6034560 In all honesty how the hell do Christians reconcile the theory of evolution with Christianity?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:08:18 2015 No.6034569

>>6034526
Weird question, it's hard to answer without human fallibility getting in the way. But I would say no. God will always be great because existence is inherently good, that's why creation is so important, creation is just adding 'more' existence. Also, why would God choose to not be great?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:08:37 2015 No.6034570 File: 2.50 MB, 2142x2856, Cathedra_Petri.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Are there any more divinely beautiful places than the interiors of baroque churches?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:16:00 2015 No.6034603 >>6034570 It's like gays went crazy.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:17:17 2015 No.6034614

>>6034560
I can't answer for everyone, but personally the way I view the Bible is that prior to Jesus it was not literal stories but a guide to point to Jesus' coming and to lay the foundation of Christian ethics. The OTs narratives are important and each has its own place in the larger foundation. I don't worry about problems like how death entered the world without a literal transgression, but have found that in the things that effect my life the Bible has proven extremely erudite. Francis Collins reconciles them by saying that science answers the "how" of things and the Bible answers the "why."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:17:45 2015 No.6034616 >>6034570 Very nice. Isn't there usually a Crucifix behind the altar?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:19:11 2015 No.6034620 >>6034560 Denial

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:20:27 2015 No.6034625 File: 5 KB, 176x115, ttw53.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6034603 yeah when you were born

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:22:57 2015 No.6034637 File: 1.38 MB, 2048x1536, Hochaltar_Seligenthal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6034616 It seems to vary. Some baroque altarpieces don't have one, others have a very small Crucifix, and others of normal size.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:25:12 2015 No.6034646

>>6034614
the biggest problem with evolution IMO is not that its not that it literally contradicts the OT, but the whole concept of the fall of man, sins, and salvation become pointless. How can Jesus save us from our 'sinful' nature when our sinful nature doesn't come from a "rebellion" against God, but millions of years of natural selection witch God must have been in control off. We are violent, lustful, envious, xenophobic, and worship idols not because we are turning away from God but because thats what natural selection has made us into.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:31:19 2015 No.6034668

>>6034646
I understand that. However, the Bible says God's ways our not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God, being omniscient, wouldn't need to literally see the fall of man to know it would happen. For all we know, the garden of Eden was some place outside Earth altogether and what we see in the natural world was a creation that was tainted from the very beginning by the sins of men. Frankly, while these things do trouble me I've found the Bible speaks to my life in ways that are beyond coincidence(this is coming from someone who at the age of 12 declared the Bible to be nothing but lies and throwing it away).

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:35:15 2015 No.6034681 File: 1019 KB, 2032x1524, possum trot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6034570 Pretty nice looking but I prefer this >Needing fancy props to worship

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:42:12 2015 No.6034704 >>6034570 It looks like the inside of an asshole.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:44:32 2015 No.6034713

>>6034668
I can respect you for considering it more than most Christians, but at the end of the day I just can't see how its fair in any sense. It like a doctor infecting a fetus with an a illness(natural selection preferring traits that would later be considered sinful and problematic for human civilization) and then after its born as some struggles give it the vaccine(Jesus's death) and expects to be praised as benevolent. I hate to quote some one as fedoraic as Hitchnes but our problem isn't that our hearts are evil or we refuse to follow God, but that prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:54:31 2015 No.6034738 File: 1.79 MB, 3264x4928, St_Peters_Holy_Spirit_window_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6034704 I would accept this as God's asshole.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:56:44 2015 No.6034741

>>6034713
I can see how you would feel that way. The thing that strikes me is that meditating on a God of love has been shown to increase positive traits(though, this speaks to meditation on positive things in general I don't believe there can be a definitive proof of our need for Christ though I believe it to be true.) I think you may have a poor idea of what sin is, though. It's not having sex or behaving violently, it's failing to live up to the ideal of Godliness. There's also the possibility that Genesis is accurate, but that all of Creation is tainted by man's sin and so investigation of things like the fossil record are bound to be dubious. Some of the Creation scientist's analysis of how the great flood would have effected the fossil record is pretty intricate and almost convincing even though the basis for Creation science is so obviously biased.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 22:02:17 2015 No.6034756 >>6032151 The problem with Eastern religion is that the books are always by baka westerners. It's hard enough to get a good account of Christianity from yuropoors let alone something on a foreign religion by a reasonably credible western expert

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 22:06:39 2015 No.6034765 File: 151 KB, 283x263, 1082.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6034756 >It's hard enough to get a good account of Christianity from yuropoors

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 23:06:19 2015 No.6035003 >>6034526 You're ascribing human characteristics to God. He doesn't get tired or change His mind. Humans be, God is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 23:11:17 2015 No.6035025 >>6035003 "Is" is a form of "to be"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 23:20:04 2015 No.6035066 >>6035025 Yes, but it's an active form. Humans change and live in a world of change, God exists and never changes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 23:44:47 2015 No.6035180 >>6035003 Don't you mean God am?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 23:48:20 2015 No.6035200 bump

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 22 07:08:05 2015 No.6036362 Who else prayed for the Japanese hostages?

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 07:32:58 2015 No.6036404

>>6029069
>God is great, all the time.
God is shit, all the time. This is assuming He created this shitty universe filled with misery and boredom.

The notion of any God, specifically the Abrahamistic God, is completely absurd and easy to disprove. Just look open the Bible and you'll have it easy finding contradictory claims about this All-powerful being. A scholar will also note that Christianity is just a rehashed version of mesopotamian religion.

A Deistic/Pantheistic God (Spinoza's God) is, however, not disprovable, but if that were to exist, He/She/It would still have been a massive cunt for starting up this shitty world.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 22 07:34:11 2015 No.6036405 >>6035003 >Humans be, God is. >how to spot a pseudointellectual/idiot.jpg

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 08:10:42 2015 No.6036453

>>6036404
>He/She/It would still have been a massive cunt for starting up this shitty world
We love God so much that we suffer for him. In order to grow spiritually and become closer to God we chose to come to Earth. Each individual chose to forget all the divine knowledge and assurance that we are from heaven. You are very brave to go through so much pain for God, and he's very proud of you.

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 08:15:37 2015 No.6036468

>>6036453
>In order to grow spiritually and become closer to God we chose to come to Earth
Nobody "chose" to be born.

>Each individual chose to forget all the divine knowledge and assurance that we are from heaven.
Sure, and I'm a flying unicorn.
>You are very brave to go through so much pain for God
In other words: God is a sadist?
>and he's very proud of you.
I don't need the acceptance of an imaginary friend.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 22 10:47:44 2015 No.6036924 hello, i would lite to know whether the term theologies refers nowadays only to the christianity

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature