/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6361819]

Are there any theologians who lead you to Christianity?

[Anonymous No.6361836]

>>6361819
Stirner led me to say "fuck you"

[Anonymous No.6361879]

Plenty if you're stupid and don't recognize bullshit semantics

[Anonymous No.6361905]

>>6361819
Maybe two or three. Most theologians, because they know about religion, aren't religious. The God Delusion can only persist if one remains ignorant.

[Anonymous No.6361914]

Aquinas, since I realized Aristotelian metaphysics is the best theory so far, bridging the gap was pretty easy

[Anonymous No.6361927]

Antony, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory

[Anonymous No.6361935]

>>6361914
Here's what I do not understand. Aquinas' explanation that God is the first cause that lead to every following cause and that God is the unmoved mover that lead to movement seems logically sound. But how does Aquinas bridge that God to the Christian God, a being who can interfere with things on earth, is fundamentally good, sacrificed his son, etc. It seems like his initial proof of God is only proof for a sort of deist God, not the Christian one.

[Anonymous No.6361938]

>Jesus worship

this is a joke, right?
or is this board getting worse than I thought?

[Anonymous No.6361954]

>>6361935
I don't see what you have a problem with.
Aquinas would say that human reason can acquire some knowledge of God - and the God of Christianity is compatible with the philosophical idea of God by Aristotle and other thinkers to some extent.

But that knowledge is really basic, it can do little more than say what God is not and that he exists. For more, we need revelation. If God exists and cares about his creation, we can expect that he communicates with us in some way. Then we can examine claims made by various religions and discover that Christianity is the only one that holds up, and has a God-given institution to transmit the will of Christ - the Church.

[Anonymous No.6361961]

>>6361954
>Then we can examine claims made by various religions and discover that Christianity is the only one that holds up, and has a God-given institution to transmit the will of Christ - the Church.
What are the main faults with Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Greek mythology?

[Anonymous No.6361977]

>>6361938
We've just reached meta-meta-memery

[Anonymous No.6362015]

>>6361961
Islam's holy texts are based upon a private revelation that can't be verified, so it is suspect at best. Also it directly contradicts Christianity in those claims that can be historically confirmed such as the death of Jesus by Crucifixion.
Among other things it also wrongly presents the doctrines of Jews and Christians. All in all it is very easy to conclude that the texts were written by someone with incomplete knowledge of these religions and probably a liar, or deceived.

Paganism is silly as its deities are fallible and far from perfect and good. Certainly it doesn't directly contradict the claims of Christianity as the deities could be demonic.

Same pretty much goes for the rest, since they don't even claim to worship the Cause of creation itself, the ultimate being that keeps all other contingent beings possible in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6362034]

>>6361914

>since I realized Aristotelian metaphysics is the best theory so far
>making claims about stuff you either can't know in the first place or stuff we know to be completely wrong is 'the best theory so far'

Good one

[Anonymous No.6362050]

>>6361938
Conservatism is now the counterculture for this Mongolian fishing discussion board

[Anonymous No.6362056]

>>6362034
Since the whole history of western thought rests upon thoroughly Aristotelian categories, I'd be very suspect in saying that they're wrong.
Reject the presuppositions of the scientific method destroys its validity and leads to all sorts of shit, a lot of moderns have done this.

[Anonymous No.6362062]

>>6362050
There can't be a counter culture on a constantly changing Tibetan Islamic Studies board

[Anonymous No.6362065]

>>6362056

Aristotle hasn't been relevant since Descartes you idiot

[Anonymous No.6362249]

>>6362065
Confirmed for not keeping up with current shit
Aristotelianism is making a comeback, first in ethics and then metaphysics
get your butt ready

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6362610]

>>6362249

[Anonymous No.6362707]

>>6362015
What is the best evidence for the historicity of christ?

[Anonymous No.6362719]

>>6361819

[Anonymous No.6362722]

>>6361836

[Anonymous No.6362729]

>>6362707
Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum.

[Anonymous No.6362731]

>>6361819
C.S. Lewis helped me along with some ideas, but really I got there by finally reading the Gospels in a good translation for myself. They're what sold me. I was expecting a different outcome, really.

[Anonymous No.6362736]

>>6362731
Would you please tell us your story?

[Anonymous No.6362780]

>>6362736
Nominal Christian as a kid.
Met a lot of atheists in college, most friends were, read lots of lit, took several comp. religion courses and ended up reading the majority of world religious texts.
Graduate and go into full on post graduate poverty. Can't afford to do anything.
Fine, I'll finally read the Bible. Got one with several translations side by side and annotated out the woz.
Dug the Pentateuch. The rest of the OT was uneven.
About on the 3rd Gospels, compared to all the other religious texts, myth, fiction, ancient history, it really struck me these read like someone relating this true event that was just fucking bizarre. Many of the actions of Jesus do not fit well into a clean puzzle either. Became convinced they described events as witnessed. The rest of the NT only helped.
Since it appeared real, accepted it and the pain in the ass life would be amongst self-described intellectuals who'd rejected it.
Believer since. And yes, especially with 'murican fundies, it's been a pain in the ass.
But truth is truth.


Bring it, haters.

[Anonymous No.6362825]

>>6362729
Is that really the best source I mean looking at the articles on it, contains partial forgeries by Christians, written decades after his death and is of dubious authenticity.

Why is there nothing better than this?

[Anonymous No.6362834]

>>6362780
What atheist or non christian works that challenge christianity have you read?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6362835]

>>6361819

I had a brief interest in Gnosticism, really couldn't consider many branches of the church after that. Still very into Gnosticism. Not one person lead me into it, but it's just my interests that lead me to it.

[Anonymous No.6362842]

>>6362825

>Why is there nothing better than this?

Probably because only the baptism by John and the crucifixion happened. The rest was made up afterwards

[Anonymous No.6362849]

>>6361905
>Most theologians, because they know about religion, aren't religious.
That's such an asinine statement. Sure, in theologically liberal circles, it's just some academic bullshit exercise, but to make a blanket statement that most theologians aren't religious is just not tenable.

[Anonymous No.6362853]

>>6362719
You just gonna post this in any related thread?

[Anonymous No.6362864]

>>6362842
Isn't that a massive problem for the issue of historicity then?

[Anonymous No.6362875]

>>6362834
All the recent shite by Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. Love Bill Maher, too.

Unconvincing. Primitive. Nuance is not their strength.

Harris in particular is a dweeb. Love Dawkins Selfish Gene and other honest scientific stuff. Htichens was a brilliant writer but a repugnant thinker in about every aspect (Trotsky, really?).

Even if I were an atheist, I'd be embarrassed by these guys.

[Anonymous No.6362893]

>>6361938
>>6362050

[Anonymous No.6362894]

>>6362875
Could that be the issue there? Isnt that like akin to rejecting Christianity based on reading nothing but books by the televangicals and the JWs?

Also what were your thoughts on Hitchens Atheist Reader?

[Anonymous No.6362948]

>>6362894
No, the issue here is the Gospels, when taken in their full historical context, compared to much of world history, literature, and other religious texts have a quality about them that speaks to the events being real.

Here's how C.S. Lewis states it (much better than I):
I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion - those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them - was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it. And no Person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time, as Plato's Socrates or Boswell's Johnson (ten times more than Eckerson's Goethe or Lockhart's Scott), yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god - we are no longer polytheists - then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not "a religion," nor "a philosophy." It is the summing up and actuality of them all.

[Anonymous No.6362973]

>>6362948
But I hear the same argument being made by Muslims for the divinity of the Koran. Shouldn't historicity and questions of how texts emerged be used as a measuring stick for their divinity?

[Anonymous No.6362987]

Theologies lead me away from Christianity. They all make bold assertions that their entire logic systems depend on and fall apart if you take them away.

I'm mostly talking about Aquinas's claims like "there is no first cause"/ niggas partty bold makign dat claim

[Anonymous No.6363003]

>>6362973
Yes.

Compare the same measuring stick to the Koran. One guy. No witnesses. They honestly believe that because the poetry of the Koran is so good (and in Arabian culture, poetry had a high value), they believe it was from God. However, Mohammad was a great salesman before he created Islam, and that speaks to his ability to be a poet. In essence, they buy it's from God because Mohammad was a Shakespeare in their language.

NT: Many witnesses. Clumsy writing. Several styles. But coalesce into a narrative.

[Anonymous No.6363082]

>>6361914
>teleology
>forms
>hylomorphism
>actuality-potency dichotomy
>substances
>ten categories, no more no less

The Aristotelian has to provide some grounding for these before we can call Aristotelian metaphysics the best theory.

[Anonymous No.6363112]

>>6363003
>NT: Many witnesses. Clumsy writing. Several styles. But coalesce into a narrative.

Not really, the authorship and the production of the documents is extremely questionable not not to mention occasionally contradictory.

I dont see how that makes it a better source than the Koran or even the book of Mormon.

[Anonymous No.6363134]

>>6362780
Thank you for sharing. You've given us a great blessing.

[Anonymous No.6363137]

>>6363112
Then I wish you good tidings on your journey.
Peace, my friend.

[Anonymous No.6363161]

is it possible that the story of the resurrection was just added?

[Anonymous No.6363167]

>>6363161
The Resurrection was central to Christianity from the very beginning. The whole reason Christianity even started was the propagation of the idea that Jesus rose from the dead.

[Anonymous No.6363168]

>>6363134
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.6363169]

>>6363161
Yes, it is possible to lie.

[Anonymous No.6363171]

>>6363137
Why are you cutting of the conversation so abruptly?

[Anonymous No.6363175]

>>6363168
God bless you!

[Anonymous No.6363195]

>>6363161
everything's been added :^)
If you are a Christian, you're not to question that, the religion is a package deal when you are to look at 1) Moses's Laws 2) The ressurrection. You're by definition not a christian if you deny that. Also, the fact that Paul discusses the resurrection and that it's the cornerstone to Christianity, I do not believe so.

[Anonymous No.6363207]

>>6363195
I got my eye on you pal.

[Anonymous No.6363212]

>>6363207
What seems to be the problem, friend?

[Anonymous No.6363218]

>>6363212
That you're dying.

[Anonymous No.6363225]

>>6363218
I accepted that quite a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.6363232]

>>6363225
It doesn't have to be that way. I don't want you to die.

[Anonymous No.6363237]

>>6363232
Turning that around is only a matter of knowing me well enough, believe me. Also, you wanting me not to die makes no difference. I want you to live a life without fear and without the delusion and sad realisation thereafter, that we, after all, are mortal.

[Anonymous No.6363244]

>>6363237
Then I want to get to know you well enough.

[Anonymous No.6363253]

>>6363244
Thank you, I will consider that. I'm going to sink into deep slumber now, it is 3 in the morning here. Tidings, brother.

[Anonymous No.6363257]

>>6363253
God bless you. You are in my prayers.

[Anonymous No.6363744]

>>6362825
There is some roman account of a man named christus who was crucified, google it breh

[Anonymous No.6363764]

>>6362719
Based Fr. Amorth

[Anonymous No.6363774]

Am I the only one?

[Anonymous No.6363962]

WHY is the jew baiting in this board is endless?

anyway, yes: René Girard.

Especially his book about Shakespeare, and his books about Violence of course.

[Anonymous No.6364616]

Why are all the Christian threads on here suddenly being half filled with people who don't contribute anything whining about Christianity and saying it hasn't been spoken of on here before now?
I've been browsing this board for about two years and these threads have been around since at least then, it's not as if they're something new.

[Anonymous No.6364621]

a few years ago Christianity was laughed out the door on sight

things have changed for the worse

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6364622]

>>6364621

Gnosticism is good.

[Anonymous No.6364627]

>>6361819
G.K. Chesterton.

That is all.

[Anonymous No.6364633]

>>6364622

if you're an autist neckbeard, sure

[Anonymous No.6364636]

>>6363171
Not him, but as a Christian who's had similar conversations, they usually don't lead anywhere. It's especially obvious that this one won't go anywhere based off of him giving his reasoning for believing and you refusing to acknowledge it and completely side stepping what he's said up to this point.
It's fucking annoying and it always happens, and it usually results in the mindset of "I won because they ran" in the other person, making it even worse.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6364645]

>>6364633

Or if you're just educated in the subject and casually dabble into it sometimes, sure

Maybe I should get into Zoroastrianism

[Anonymous No.6364652]

>>6364621
see
>>6364616

[Anonymous No.6365016]

>>6363962
>anyway, yes: René Girard.
I don't suppose you're still hanging around, but is there a good place to start? I've read brief descriptions of his work (mostly rundowns of his mimetic theory/scapegoating) but don't know where to start with his actual work, especially since I don't know French.

[Anonymous No.6365021]

>>6365016
>>6363962
To clarify, which books about violence? Violence and the Sacred?

[Anonymous No.6365025]

Deepak Chopra

[Anonymous No.6365030]

>>6364636
>Well, I believe this because X
>But X is not very reliable
>I refuse to participate in this conversation any longer

[Anonymous No.6365045]

>>6365025

[Anonymous No.6365067]

>>6365030
Do you understand that there are 3 threads with the exact same conversation where you point that Gospels aren't contradictory and that he considers them reliable for X reason and the other side says no and it ends there?

[Anonymous No.6365078]

>>6365067
Are you implying the other side had no arguments?

[Anonymous No.6365080]

>>6365030
The first guy keeps saying that all the messy contradictions in writing styles, descriptions of events etc. lends support to the common narrative found throughout. i.e. messy = good

The second guy keeps saying that when multiple sources have minor contradictions then it's useless. Messy = bad.

Guy 2 is completely closed off to guy A's argument, so further discussion is futile.

[Anonymous No.6365081]

>>6365080
>Misrepresenting someone's arguments
What do we call this fallacy again?

[Anonymous No.6365098]

>>6365081
>the production of the documents is extremely questionable not to mention occasionally contradictory. I dont see how that makes it a better source than the Koran

How can you even begin to address such a flawed understanding of historicity?

[Anonymous No.6365104]

>>6365080
The poster I was conversing with never explained why messy should be considered good or even why it shouldnt not be considered bad.

Look at the earlier posts he/she has made like in >>6362948 to see that they are simply moving the goal posts.

[Anonymous No.6365105]

>following a literal jew conspiracy

[Anonymous No.6365107]

>>6365098
Read the earlier posts in the conversation

[Anonymous No.6365114]

>>6365107
I did.

[Anonymous No.6365125]

>>6365098
So you're saying you were just shitposting and don't have actual rebuttals?

[Anonymous No.6365127]

Oh wait no, if I just give up arguing with the christfags now it will seem like the honorable option because the other party is just "closed minded".

[Anonymous No.6365132]

>>6365114
Do you not see the big and hypocritcal reversal in >>6362948 compared to >>6363003

Firstly posting that chesterson quote then dismissing the koran as

>they buy it's from God because Mohammad was a Shakespeare in their language.

All of which is topped off with a refusal to justify his position which is a farcry from his original post.

[Anonymous No.6365135]

>>6365067
Not really see

>>6362707
>>6362729
>>6362825
>>6362842
>>6363744

[Anonymous No.6365171]

>>6365125
Here's an actual rebuttal. Someone robs a ban, police find a suspect, and want witnesses. Which of these scenarios do you think helps the prosecution more?

SCENARIO A
>Witness 1: At 2:32pm, the suspect limped into the bank wearing a dark grey shirt, and shouted "give me everything in the safe"
>complete specific details but no other witnesses around to verify

SENCARIO B
>Witness 1: At 2:30, the suspect walked in with a limp wearing a dark blue shirt and holding a handgun, and shouted "give me everything in the safe"
>Witness 2: The suspect walked in (didn't notice a limp) shortly after lunch wearing a grey shirt and yelled "give me all the money!"
>Witness 3: A man limped in (could not identify suspect) wearing a grey shirt and yelled "give me all the money in the safe"
>incomplete details and some inconsistencies but the same narrative with no evident collusion

[Anonymous No.6365216]

>>6365171
False equivalency
The authors of the gospels are mostly unknown and appeared upwards of 70 years after the fact.

Im the sure the police would be really helped by witness reports brought by 3rd parties asserting that they were written by now dead witnesses who had not come forward during their life time.

A more accurate comparison would be

>Witness 1: At 2:32pm 2015, the suspect limped into the bank wearing a dark grey shirt, and shouted "give me everything in the safe"

>complete specific details but no other witnesses around to verify

contemporary account of the event

SENCARIO B

> suspect in blue shirt and holding a handgun, and shouted "give me everything in the safe"

>Witness 2: My grandfather on his death bead told me that his friend knew a guy who was a witness who said. The suspect walked in (didn't notice a limp) wearing a grey shirt and yelled "give me all the money!"

an account 30 years from the event

>Witness 3: I found a letter with this persons name on it but with no signature: A man limped in wearing a grey shirt and yelled "give me all the money in the safe and and that the Margret thatcher was the current prime minister

Account collected 8 years after the event.

[Anonymous No.6365217]

>>6365171
Scenario A can be better if you know who is the witness. Scenario B is very good too, because we know that human mind can flay a memory, and there are many things in common.

[Anonymous No.6365266]

>>6365216
>upwards of 70 years after the fact.
>My grandfather on his death bead told me that his friend knew a guy who was a witness who said.
Most of the apostles were likely in their teens or early 20s at the time, so when Mark wrote his Gospel 40 years after the event, he could have been in his 60s or even 50s. That's a perfectly reasonable age for someone to write memoirs (especially at a more relevant time for such events to be documented - why would they need to document them earlier when most people they were talking to were already alive/aware of the event/there?) so that gap doesn't necessitate them being second-hand sources.

[Anonymous No.6365326]

>>6365266
>Most of the apostles were likely in their teens or early 20s at the time

What is this claim based on?

>That's a perfectly reasonable age for someone to write memoirs (especially at a more relevant time for such events to be documented - why would they need to document them earlier when most people they were talking to were already alive/aware of the event/there?)

The same cant be said for luke and Mathew. likewise the interesting thing is that most people were not mentioning or talking about the magnificent and very important events being described in the Gospels in fact outside of the 4 who wrote gospels almost none of the events described are mentioned by other sources who were not only present but would have had reason to write about it.

The most interesting case is Senneca the younger who was actually writing about religions in the area and natural events and whose brother was even purportedly at the trial of Paul.

>that gap doesn't necessitate them being second-hand sources.

Thats why in my example I never stated or implied that *all the gospels* were second hand accounts. However the huge problems regarding authorship and mixed content (some of which was even revised) would suggest that there is a reasonable argument to be made for the majority of gospels not being first hand accounts.

[Anonymous No.6365365]

Hey /christ/
I decided I want to read De Civitate Dei, and if I survive and come back sane, also the Summa Theologica.
Is there anything I should know or read before I start with Augustine?

[Anonymous No.6365369]

>Extraordinary Latin rite
>Byzantine rite

You have to pick one. Which is it?

[Anonymous No.6365432]

>>6361914
I never got their theory. I mean, the idea of God as an unmoved mover, wich has always existed is better than the idea of an universe in an eternal cycle isn't?

[Anonymous No.6365504]

>>6365432
Even if the universe is eternal it is contingent and thus requires something to keep it into being.
Aquinas holds that the world being eternal doesn't contradict everything being from God.
Read his "De Aeternitate Mundi".

[Anonymous No.6365507]

>>6365365
Basic Platonism and Roman religion.

[Anonymous No.6365513]

>>6365507
Thank you.
Any work in particular? I mean I've read through the most of the Dialogues, Cratylus, Symposium and such, but I don't think I've ever read anything on Roman polytheism (apart from what is mentioned in passing by various authors from Ancient Rome, I mean)

[Anonymous No.6365520]

>>6361819

This book almost did.

Anything by Thomas Merton on Eastern thought starts tugging me in that direction, too.

[Anonymous No.6365522]

>>6365513
You just need to know the basics, like not be a general plebian. With your Plato you should do fine you've read more Plato than I have

[Anonymous No.6365529]

>>6365522
Oh, alright, thank you Anon.
It just seems like such a huge, complex work - City of God I mean - that I'm afraid I won't get it or miss something really important.
I'm reading a supposedly great German translation with footnotes and annotations though, so we'll see.

[Anonymous No.6365543]

>>6365529
I'm either missing something or it isn't that complicated. He speaks of many things, is very coherent, but his work is so integrated in Christianity it is very familiar.

[Anonymous No.6365557]

>>6365543
Okay, thank you.
I'm not a devout Christian (just went to a Catholic school) so all the more am I afraid of missing something, excuse the pun, crucial.

[Anonymous No.6365561]

>>6361905
What the fuck are you talking about.

[Anonymous No.6365583]

>>6365266

Right, and as we all know, people have perfect memory and never get anything wrong.

Also, works are never changed over centuries, especially not when they're at best written down and at worst orally transmitted

[Anonymous No.6365589]

>>6365504
>Even if the universe is eternal it is contingent and thus requires something to keep it into being.

And why should we assume that this something is a god? Also, how would you check all of this?

[Anonymous No.6365594]

>>6361819
cs lewis

[Anonymous No.6365601]

>>6365557
It's possible that I take things for granted, you may find it more insightful. Do keep in mind that all Christian philosophy rests upon belief in Christ as an axiom and is easy to accept after that point, but not before.

[Anonymous No.6365609]

>>6365589
Read the Summa

[Anonymous No.6365617]

>>6365601
>Do keep in mind that all Christian philosophy rests upon belief in Christ as an axiom
Yes, obviously, but I don't think I need to believe in Christ myself to find Christian theology interesting, or insightful even, at least I've found so far it's never been a hindrance.
We'll see, maybe I give it up after a hundred pages. I hope not.
Thank you for all the answers, anyhow.

[Anonymous No.6365620]

Why is it bad to worship Jesus?

[Anonymous No.6365642]

>>6365617
You will be bored for the first 300 pages where he argues now dead worldviews. I'm about 800 pages in atm, it gets more interesting when he starts arguing platonists. And I know you may find it interesting, but people here often have a problem assuming Christ as a basic axiom and looking at a philosophy from that point.

[Anonymous No.6365661]

>>6365642
Well from what I've read, De Civitate Dei was written as a sort of reaction to the sacking of Rome, so I figured he'd argue quite a lot about things that are, today, obsolete or at least odd to us. I don't think it'd distract me from enjoying the work as a whole, though.
>but people here often have a problem assuming Christ as a basic axiom
I've noticed a recent surge in Christian threads, though. Not sure if it's because of Quadragesima or just hipsterish-counterculture (or maybe /lit/ is actually full of Christians, who knows)
Either way, it's interesting to go through those threads and I've been learning a lot about Christianity lately.

[Anonymous No.6365672]

>>6361961

Best religion after Catholicism/Orthodoxy is Hinduism. But it's fucked up for all the caste system thinking it's got going for it.

[Anonymous No.6365679]

>>6365661
Literature and philosophy in general are pretty Christian so it's easy to assume Christians will be interested in it. I don't think it's people being hipsters, even if we do have lots of atheists pretending to be Christian pretending to be atheists pretending to be scientologists not pretending to bait people.

[Anonymous No.6365700]

>>6365679
>Literature and philosophy in general are pretty Christian
I'm afraid you just opened the floodgates, my friend.

[Anonymous No.6365729]

>>6365700
Dante, Milton, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Tolkien and Lewis, Wolfe and I assume many more who I haven't read.>>6365700

[Anonymous No.6365738]

>>6365729
No, I agree with you.
I'm just saying that you'll get a lot of counterexamples thrown at you for such a grand statement, in the spirit of the earlier mentioned eternal counter-culture /lit/ loves so.

[Anonymous No.6365742]

>>6365609

You can't explain it to me here and now?

[Anonymous No.6365748]

>>6361819
Based Aquinas and Chesterton

[Anonymous No.6365762]

>>6365742
No.

[Anonymous No.6365813]

>>6363764
Why is he on the bread pill list? Demonic possession isn't exclusive to Christianity, not at all

[Anonymous No.6365815]

>>6363175
please don't post any more shit art

[Anonymous No.6365849]

>>6363003
Holy shit dude i feel like slapping the stupid out of you. And I'm not even Muslim. Read into the Islamic narrative beyond what Wikipedia will tell you before you opine on something you dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.6365906]

>>6365849
Not him, but could you extrapolate on that a little bit, please? I know next to nothing about Islam, but the revelation of the Qu'ran to Mohammad alone is correct, isn't it?
If you could point me to any good books or introductions into Islamic thought, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.6365983]

>>6365104
But they aren't moving anything.
The problem is you think they are and your argument is just "no, you're wrong"

[Anonymous No.6366019]

>>6364621
>still wanting to act like when you were a teen

[Anonymous No.6366026]

>>6363175
looks like the geart is being grilled on the stake. tasty tasty heart

[Anonymous No.6367330]

>>6365983
See
>>6365132

[Anonymous No.6367345]

>>6362722
lol

[Anonymous No.6367352]

>>6363195
the pope said gays are alright

its wat pope says.

[Anonymous No.6367411]

>>6361819

Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton (not a proper theologian but he presents some pretty unique and compelling cases for the truth of Orthodoxy), Merton, Boethius, Flannery O'Connor, Bonhoeffer, Barth.

Lewis is very helpful for basic introduction to orthodoxy and the core Christian doctrines as he presents arguments and ideas in very simple and compelling ways.

[Anonymous No.6367437]

>>6367411
>he presents some pretty unique and compelling cases for the truth of Orthodoxy)

can you give some examples?

[Anonymous No.6367555]

>>6367437
not him, but read them yourself you lazy bastard

[Anonymous No.6367615]

>>6361819
A close reading of the Gospels with an emphasis on intent.

[Anonymous No.6367652]

>>6367411

Can you recommend some specific writings of O'Connor's?

[Anonymous No.6368008]

Only Christ. The rest are driving me away from it.

[Anonymous No.6368121]

>>6368008
Sola Fide?

[Anonymous No.6368710]

>>6367330
>>6365132
but be didn't even do that