/theo/

File: 501 KB, 544x550, 2010-11-07-02Bouts3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/theo/ Anonymous Sat May 30 17:39:25 2015 No.6614786 [Reply] [Original]

Theology general
Instead of flooding /lit/ with differnt threads to discuss religion,spirituality just come here

>tfw want to become a Catholic priest but dont want to give up any chance i might have of ever getting laid, getting maried and having kids

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 17:45:59 2015 No.6614802 I'm Catholic and my local parish has a priest with kids. Apparently he was some sect that allowed it but then converted to Catholicism. Good luck trying that.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 17:49:29 2015 No.6614815 >>6614802 Yeah i dont think that would fly with the man upstairs

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 17:49:37 2015 No.6614816 >>6614786 What painting is that picture from?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 17:51:34 2015 No.6614819 >>6614816 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_and_the_Virgin_Diptych

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 17:52:11 2015 No.6614823 So are there any good arguments against theism that don't amount to "muh incredulity?" Theists can get trite when they point to the Summa, but the response to that is even more underwhelming.

Anonymous Sat May 30 17:52:51 2015 No.6614826

>>6614816
looks like a mater dolorosa to me
also let's get this thread rolling, I read Bonaventure's De Reductione Artium ad Theologiam a few weeks ago, pretty interesting but I liked Hugh of St. Victor more.
What do you guys on /lit/ like, mystical stuff or more nat theo?
>anyone planning on reading Peter Lombards libri iv sententiarum?????

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 17:53:59 2015 No.6614828 >>6614823 I would only say that I think that the arguments to establish full theism don't do it for me, specifically as regards God's having a Will, Intellect and Knowledge, so I identify as a deist. That said, new atheist garbage is pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 17:55:16 2015 No.6614833 >>6614786 omg op r u me bb also become an anglican priest first, then convert after marriage >hard mode: join an order

Anonymous Sat May 30 17:58:10 2015 No.6614840

>>6614823
>muh god is le fake because there is like bad stuff in the world and if god was real there wouldnt be any bad stuff
>*takes a metaphor literaly* there is no way moses parted a sea therfore god is le fake
There you go every argument against theism condensed into two greentext

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 17:59:17 2015 No.6614844 >>6614833 >what is mortal sin

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:03:08 2015 No.6614855 >>6614844 >what is the sacrament of confession

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:04:04 2015 No.6614858 >>6614840 you forgot >muh falsifiable

Anonymous Sat May 30 18:05:59 2015 No.6614864

>>6614855
"A serious, grave or mortal sin is the {{{{knowing and willful}}}} violation of God's law in a serious matter, for example, idolatry, adultery, murder, slander. These are all things gravely contrary to the love we owe God and, because of Him, our neighbor."

Anonymous Sat May 30 18:06:59 2015 No.6614867

>>6614786
you can become a permanent deacon:
>"§2 A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is not married may be admitted to the diaconate only when he has completed at least his twenty-fifth year; if he is married, not until he has completed at least his thirty-fifth year, and then with the consent of his wife."
(code of canon law can. 1031§2)

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:08:07 2015 No.6614870 >>6614864 no you're totally right sorry catechize me

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:10:14 2015 No.6614877 >>6614867 What does a deacon do?

Anonymous Sat May 30 18:23:10 2015 No.6614910

>>6614802
Married Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism can stay married

>>6614786
You may be in luck, only Latin Catholic priests have to be celibate, Eastern Catholics such as Maronites or Ukranian Catholics have married priests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

Anonymous Sat May 30 18:28:21 2015 No.6614928

>>6614877
Many are on their way to becoming priests, though some stay as deacons permanently. They read the gospel during mass and other things to assist the priest, they don't administer sacraments like confession or holy communion. They generally act as "helpers" for the other clergy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:35:17 2015 No.6614952 >>6614910 But i would like to be a priest in roma

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:36:51 2015 No.6614957 >>6614786 why not just become Eastern Orthodox?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:37:15 2015 No.6614960 >>6614928 That sounds pretty lame tbh

Anonymous Sat May 30 18:38:16 2015 No.6614966

Just came back from Confession and vigil Mass.

>>6614877
Pretty much this >>6614928, you're basically a sidekick priest. You do some readings and lead certain parts of the Mass (at the priest's discretion), and while you don't directly consecrate the Eucharist you can be a server. You don't have as much authority, but you still get to participate as a leader, wear cool robes and smash that sweet pussy.

>>6614952
Rome itself? Very difficult if you're not a native Italian, since manipulations to get into Rome are seen as self-serving instead of serving the Church through your own parish.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:39:05 2015 No.6614969 File: 70 KB, 700x525, 1424582587884.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >You will never be able to read the complete Gnostic scriptures Now I'll never be able to reach gnosis.

Anonymous Sat May 30 18:43:35 2015 No.6614984
File: 543 KB, 2656x3192, 1390751505820.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6614966
Fuck man i just want to be a priest taking confesions, guiding lost lambs, learning latin, ancient greek,and hebrew, in a small town on the cost of italy, and going home to a loving wife and kids
Is that too much to ask for

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:44:30 2015 No.6614987 >>6614957 That would mean you intentionally try to cheat God.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:46:43 2015 No.6614992 >>6614969 Why would you want to? The kind of knowledge you need for salvation is found in the person of Christ, not in the application of your finite powers of abstraction.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:47:56 2015 No.6614994 >>6614984 If you become a priest in a smaller village it's conceivable that you could become a part of the community to the point that you are invited to another person's house for dinner every night.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:48:18 2015 No.6614995 File: 298 KB, 1600x1066, Godisgood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] daily reminder /Godisgood/

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:49:27 2015 No.6614999 >>6614995 Amen.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:50:49 2015 No.6615002 >>6614840 it's the reed sea and not the red sea : )

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:51:40 2015 No.6615009 >>6614984 For the Catholic Church, yes. No one is forcing you to be a priest, if you don't like the requirements then don't do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:51:44 2015 No.6615010 >>6614995 Preach brotha >>6614994 That doesnt solve my problem of not wanting to die lonely and unloved with no family of carrying on my last name

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:53:26 2015 No.6615017 >>6615009 Catholism is so based tho man i just cant imagine joining the christian church

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 18:55:38 2015 No.6615025 >>6615017 you know it's entirely acceptable to just be a rather involved member of the laity, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 19:01:55 2015 No.6615050 >>6615017 I know, that's why I'm Catholic.

Anonymous Sat May 30 19:22:37 2015 No.6615122
File: 81 KB, 665x665, JC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6614786
Which is the way to enter into sophisticated philosophical Christianity, /lit/?

I feel like I've done a lap around the spiritual landscape, and nothing has added to my quality of life, and there's always been a nagging guilt in my mind. I believe now that the guilt is my subjective ethical reality or my connection to god, and I'm ready to listen to it again.

Now I want to cement that ground and build a much greater discipline towards it. I believe faith is the right way.

What literature or activities can help someone obey god?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 19:23:57 2015 No.6615125 >>6615122 You don't. No Christian in 2015 every affects good things through philosophy, they all look really pretentious and fake.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 19:25:45 2015 No.6615134 >>6615122 Bible i b l e Read, reread, rereread forver

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 19:31:28 2015 No.6615153 >>6615125 I might've spoken clumsily, I don't want to do philosophy. I want simply to adopt a sincere Christian faith. Say I felt that the church was fraudulent and hypocritical, how do I build my faith?

Anonymous Sat May 30 19:52:02 2015 No.6615198

>>6615153
>>6615153
The church is fraudulent. There is no way around it
I used to be athiest but in my weakest moment when i was down and had absolutely no one i broke down and prayed and what i asked for happened word for word

Some are born with faith and some have a moment of in which they see the light
I dont really see any other way to 'gain' faith

Anonymous Sat May 30 20:03:31 2015 No.6615243

>>6615153

Best way to build faith is to find a community of believers and let them help you grow. The faith is learned through living it- building a habit of prayer and disciplined deovtion. The best way to study Scripture is with fellow believers, wrestling together with its applications to one's life and its demands upon you. The life of faith is also enriched by learning, of course, since man is a rational animal. The kind of learning which is spiritually valuable varies with the individual, though.

I get a great deal of enjoyment out of studying Christian philosophy, especially the classics. Augustine and Anselm have a particularly devotional quality to their philosophy, though St Thomas is also good grist for the mill, if you reflect on them deeply.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 20:19:46 2015 No.6615290 >>6614840 I have autism and I refuse to believe that a loving God would use nonliteral communication.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 20:21:54 2015 No.6615294 >>6614969 >now

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 20:25:40 2015 No.6615302 >>6615290 Exactly

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 20:36:35 2015 No.6615331 Not sure if right thread. Protestant here, thinking of converting to orthodoxy. Advice?

Anonymous Sat May 30 20:39:39 2015 No.6615340

>>6615331
Catholic here, Orthodox are bro-tier though

I don't know as much about entering Orthodoxy, though my knowledge of its theology is pretty good. I'd say try to find a local church of the denomination(s) you're interested in, and call or email to set an informal meeting with a priest and just talk. They should be happy to meet with you and address their concerns.

Also, read read read.

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:12:57 2015 No.6615426
File: 109 KB, 500x281, John_Milbank.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>thinks Kant is shit
>thinks Spinoza is shit
>thinks Hobbes is shit
>thinks Adam Smith is shit
>thinks Dun Scotus is shit
>thinks Heidegger is shit
>thinks Locke is shit
>detached about Hume
>thinks neoliberalism is AIDS
>mixed feelings about Nietzsche
>mixed feelings about Marx
>mixed feelings about Hegel
>sucks Aquinas dick all day long

What is up with this guy?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:17:41 2015 No.6615441 >>6615426 Sounds like an enlightened Christian gentleman to me (except the Scotus hate- I don't like the Subtle Doctor as much as I like Aquinas, but he's not the catastrophe Milbank thinks he is, I think).

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:20:13 2015 No.6615452 >>6615441 Milbank hates him more for the legacy of his school of thought, than for his own thought. At least that what it seems like since he faults "Scotists" more than Duns Scotus himself.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:28:33 2015 No.6615482 >>6615153 you should read C.S. Lewis's stuff. there's a channel on youtube that doodles his essays if you want a quick look, just google it. Christianity really dawned on me as I read the Screwtape Letters

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:30:09 2015 No.6615488 >>6615452 Yeah, I can see that. I guess the real bugbear is Nominalism, and an unsubtle use of univocity does plausibly lead to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:30:36 2015 No.6615491 >>6615482 >Christianity really dawned on me as I read the Screwtape Letters Seriously? It seemed like cheap polemic when I read it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:33:32 2015 No.6615511 >>6615491 exactly

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:34:04 2015 No.6615513 >>6615491 Yeah, seriously.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:37:31 2015 No.6615530 >>6615491 Nah, Lewis is brilliant. No need to get snobbish.

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:48:02 2015 No.6615566

>>6615513
That doesn't give me a great opinion of your intelligence but I don't know your personal situation or mindset at the time.
I'm not sure any one book can really give anyone a stronger faith. Especially if you keep reading other things afterwards; if you're so easily swayed by one book, you'll be swayed by others. Personally, if I wanted to concrete or create a belief in any particular branch of Christianity, I'd go to a church at about midnight, start reading the relevant gospels or whatever is important then take a heroic dose of LSD timed for the comedown to begin just as the sun starts to rise. An old European church, one with all the paintings of demons and stuff painted on the walls but where the rising sun comes through stained glass windows of images of Christ. You could do something similar with any religion, really.
The literature is an important part of it, though. You need to get the ideas into your head before you start to trip. The ideas go in, the drugs put the fear of God into you in the dark then the aesthetic beauty of the light coming through the windows synchronised with the utter madness of a too-high-dose starting to fade gives you a sense of hope and redemption. For it to have a lasting effect I'd estimate about 400 micrograms minimum - if you've never taken psychedelics (including pot) before, a lot more if you have. This does have the potential to go horribly wrong though.

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:52:11 2015 No.6615582

>>6615530
Lewis is not brilliant, he's a hack. The best ideas he had, he stole from George MacDonald. Did you ever read Lewis's science fiction trilogy? It's utter trash. Everything he ever wrote was smug as fuck "My worldview is correct and I'm going to make fun of everyone else from that perspective, or just preach to them from under a thin veil of entertainment". Orson Fucking Scott Card's pederastic inclinations have more subtly than Lewis's preaching.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:52:49 2015 No.6615584 >>6615122 Read the Tao Te Ching. It's very accurate in its descriptions of the nature of existence, and it will change the way you think about many things (if not everything).

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:59:22 2015 No.6615603 >>6615582 As a Christian, fuck Lewis

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:02:00 2015 No.6615619

>>6615582
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the science fiction trilogy. The point of these works is not to give a detailed rational apologetics (Miracles would be Lewis's best work in that regard). The point is to explore the narrative possibilities of Christianity- how could it fit in with the themes of science fiction? How does it cohere with the demands of the fairy tale? He's not playing a game of "hide the theology," but is precisely trying to make the theology part of the story. If you want to read him playing the latter game with a bit more subtlety, read Till We Have Faces.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:03:42 2015 No.6615629

>>6614786
>>tfw want to become a Catholic priest but dont want to give up any chance i might have of ever getting laid, getting maried and having kids

Become an Anglican priest. They are allowed to marry and have kids. They even allow women into the clergy up to the role of bishop, so you could even get yourself some bishop pussy without pissing Jesus off.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 22:04:58 2015 No.6615638 >>6615629 See>>6615017

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:09:20 2015 No.6615647

>>6615619
Hahah! So you're saying that the science fiction trilogy is the SF equivalent of things like The Bible translated into txt spk? Same goes for The Wardrobe, but into Fantasy? You're not winning me over. Stealing other people's good ideas and using them poorly to try and make them appeal to "the youth" is not something a good writer does. The things he wrote have no soul, no humanity. They're just formulaic theft of ideas plus Christianity.
I'm not trying to hate on Christianity here, I've just seen nothing of Lewis's that's lived up to his hype as an author.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:11:40 2015 No.6615652

>>6615566
>I'd go to a church at about midnight, start reading the relevant gospels or whatever is important then take a heroic dose of LSD timed for the comedown to begin just as the sun starts to rise.

Tim Leary did this experiment and others with students multiple times. He was trying to understand the religious experience from a psychological perspective. Many students would break down in tears and claim to have found God. There are some very interesting articles written by him about the difference in a psychedelic experience when the subjects are presented with religious iconography. Obviously, it lost him his tenure at Harvard.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:16:29 2015 No.6615666

>>6615647

The point is more to plant Chrisitanity in the soil of the genre and see what sprouts. He's taking the implications of the truth of Christianity into the world of the fairy tale or the science-fiction story, rather than simply retelling Bible tales. He's not trying to appeal "to the youth," but to himself- there is a distinct aesthetic pleasure in seeing abstract theological ideas put to work in a narrative, which is perhaps not possible for someone whose taste is too sensitive to theology.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:20:51 2015 No.6615682

>>6615666
That's ridiculous. Christianity is firmly planted in the genres because it's firmly planted in the cultures of the authors working within those genres. They weren't writing in a void. And I see you're trying to dismiss my argument on the grounds that I'm "too sensitive to theology". Nice ad hom, there. George MacDonald, who I have already mentioned, is my favourite author. If you had as much understanding of CS Lewis as you claim to, you'd know who that is and you'd know full well that my discarding of Lewis for MacDonald is not rooted in religious grounds.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:24:18 2015 No.6615691

>>6615584
I have read it, although not as in-depth as I would like. I came out of buddhism into taoism because I came to believe that the 'purpose' of life is not simply peace or enjoyment.

I still believe taoism to be accurate when it comes to the 'what' of existance, but christianity deals only with the 'how'.

To act immediately with sincerity as the Tao Te Ching teaches corresponds well with Kierkegaards definition of 'faith' as 'immediacy after reflection'.

But to have the strength to do this in practice is the problem I'm getting at.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 22:27:59 2015 No.6615702 >>6615134 >reading the bible >not just talking to the writers in heaven

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 22:29:33 2015 No.6615708 >>6615482 I'll be sure to check that out. Found the channel.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:35:30 2015 No.6615725

My father was tracing our family tree and found out my great-great-great-great-grandmother was raped as a teenager and the bastard child, my great-great-great-grandfather, was given to an orphanage.

"No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD."

So because of some asshole rapist, I'm banned entering the assembly of the LORD.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:36:49 2015 No.6615730

>>6615682

I wasn't trying to dismiss your argument, as much as speculating about the roots of your problem. I got the idea from your praise of "subtlety," which, praise of MacDonald notwithstanding seems to be just the wrong criterion to judge the success of Lewis's project, which is unabashedly theological and literary.

Few modern examples of fantasy and sci-fi proceed on the assumption of the truth of Christianity, so Lewis is attempting quite interesting things in those genres, which in my view, precisely insofar as intentionally and explicitly theological in aim, captures depths to those themes which a less-theological work wouldn't. I don't think he does this with a lack of humanity at all, either, though since you haven't given an argument for that, I can do no more than flatly contradict you.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:41:10 2015 No.6615739

>>6615691
>I still believe taoism to be accurate when it comes to the 'what' of existance, but christianity deals only with the 'how'.
What do you mean by that? You mean that Taoism concerns the state of existence, while Christianity concerns how it originated?

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:41:27 2015 No.6615740

>>6614786
>tfw want to become a Catholic priest but dont want to give up any chance i might have of ever getting laid, getting maried and having kids

You can always become an Oblate or Deacon.

I'm entering the deaconite training program soon. It takes 5 years and you can't become a deacon until 35. I'm old as fuck for 4chan (30)

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:49:05 2015 No.6615751

>>6615730
MacDonald is far from subtle in his approach to the theological side of his writing. What he does have is a human side to it, something that addresses real human feelings, what it's like to be alive, to love, to experience loss. From both a polemic and literary point of view, he is extremely poignant. Lewis, on the other hand, fails at both; there is no humanity to his writing and he bashes his readers about the head with cheap rubbish.

I could quite easily argue that Stapledon "proceeds on the assumption of the truth of Christianity", he certainly doesn't contradict it in any meaningful way. Most authors don't bother to simply restate Christian truths under a veneer of science fiction because that is as I said, pretty much identical to rewriting the bible in text speak; it's just a rewrite in a format that doesn't suit it, and adds nothing. No new theological ideas, nothing special in terms of innovation of literature.

> I don't think he does this with a lack of humanity at all, either, though since you haven't given an argument for that, I can do no more than flatly contradict you.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'm not about to go through his novels and pick quotes to try and evidentiate that his characters are one dimensional because this is self evident and would require me to quote half the fucking books to show that there are no opportunities where he could have fleshed them out. You're requiring me to prove a negative, which is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 23:08:38 2015 No.6615819 >>6615426 B A S E D A S E D

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:11:26 2015 No.6615828

>>6615739
I believe taoism accurately portrays what god is, or what existance is. In other terms, what the tao is.

Now taoism teaches us to become one with the tao or with nature or god whatever name you use. But how do we do this?

Christianity's god is a metaphor pointing to the same thing that the Tao Te Ching points to, and Christianity teaches us how to obey god. In other terms, Christianity teaches us how to become one with the Tao.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 23:15:09 2015 No.6615840 >>6615739 >>6615828 * Really calling god a metaphor is wrong, it's a sort of double negative. The term God is already a reference, as all terms of language are.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:21:33 2015 No.6615868

>>6615828
>Christianity's god is a metaphor pointing to the same thing that the Tao Te Ching points to, and Christianity teaches us how to obey god. In other terms, Christianity teaches us how to become one with the Tao.

It honestly doesn't please me to say this, but I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:27:10 2015 No.6615895

>>6615828
The way I've been interpreting Christianity is that I just need to wait for my physical vessel to eventually die and the universe will be destroyed along with it. It seems true to me so far, but I haven't actually taken the necessary action to discover the validity of it.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:28:20 2015 No.6615900

>>6615751

The goal is not to simply restate the truths, nor to merely "not contradict" the truths (Stapledon's work certainly doesn't proceed on the assumption of the truth of Christianity, btw) but have those truths about man and God interact with the tropes. Lewis is moreover not trying to be a theological innovator, but to make the perennial theological themes of Christianity fresh and new by giving those themes something to say to those genres.

I found what he had to say eminently human- in particular his emphasis on and portrayal of delight and awe, emotions which become flat and pale when they are not understood theologically. The Space Trilogy has all the wonder of good sci-fi, but subverts (not entirely eliminating) the fundamental sense of alienation endemic to the genre. The Chronicles of Narnia have the simple moralism of the children's fable, deepened by Christian insight to have something of the iron and terror of real goodness, something I really haven't seen unironically portrayed outside Lewis.

Lewis is not trying to reproduce the psychology of particular individuals, as if psychology was what made us human (though it's obvious he had an excellent grasp of psychology, too, from his Screwtape Letters). It's his appeal to the spirit, which seems to me to give Lewis's works their humanity. His characters are most human in their nobility, it seems to me, and that's an effect few writers can pull off.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:36:51 2015 No.6616135 Dear lord do you forgive 'people' like me I know i probably don't deserve it And i have turned my back to you I have forsaken myself for pleasure And others for myself But i think im sorry

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:45:09 2015 No.6616165

>>6615725
Ahhh, Deuteronomy, the proverbial bane of my entire fucking existence.

About six months ago, I was courting a stunning young girl with a fanatical Christian father. She was a virgin, as was I, and for the record, I'm a Christian too, though not fanatical. We used to spend a lot of time at her house just hanging out, though we had a strong attraction too each other

Somewhat out of character for me, I started showing her some porn vids from redtube, or one of the other porn websites, on my phone. We both got really horny, and she said let's have sex. I knew it was sinning, but I couldn't resist Satan's temptation.

I can't recall where her mother was, she seemed to be out a lot, but her father was leaving the house to play golf. He pulled out of the driveway in his Porsche with us watching him leave through the living room window. We both undressed. I 'went down' on her -- a very amateur attempt, my only knowledge of this act was from porn, but I tongued away valiantly for a while before finally penetrating her.

There must have only been thirty seconds or so of actual sex before the door opened and her father walked in. He had, as it transpired, forgotten his phone and had returned to collect it.

He stood still, no expression on his face, watching me violate his innocent daughter. Again, with no trace of emotion, he said in a monotone voice the words that have destroyed my life: " Deuteronomy twenty two twenty eight. If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver."

There was nothing I could do. As a good Christian, I had to pay the guy fifty shekels.

I went to the money exchange place next to the airport and asked for fifty shekels. I was quite relieved to find that, given the exchange rate, this came to about $15 including exchange fees.

I took the fifty shekels to her father. He held the notes in his hand and stood, expressionless as always, before repeating the verse again, including the passage number, and adding afterwards that I had given him fifty Israeli New Sheqal's, not fifty shekels of silver.

Given the price of silver, the weight of fifty shekels is around $450. The problem is they don't mint genuine silver shekels anymore. I found a coin merchant who sells genuine antique 1/16th and 1/8 Phoenicia silver shekels for between $25 and $300 a piece, depending on condition, and full Tyre 1 Shekels for between $800 and $60k.

So far I've paid him 2 full shekels and eight 1/16th shekels for a total negotiated cost of $4,120. He has accepted these. Only 47.5 shekels left to pay, then I have to marry her.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:50:34 2015 No.6616178 >>6616165 kek well done m8

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:07:14 2015 No.6616578 Eastern rite Catholics can get married

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:29:20 2015 No.6616627 >>6614786 I once considered becoming a priest but I am not a good public speaker and I am even worse at one-on-one conversations when I am supposed to be in some position of authority. What are my alternatives? I'm Catholic.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:45:55 2015 No.6616655 >>6614910 >Be a heretic in order to achieve the trivial sex you want guys

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:48:48 2015 No.6616662 >>6615491 Its the modern, narritive version of "spiritual combat"

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun May 31 03:50:58 2015 No.6616664 >>6616627 Theologian

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 04:03:18 2015 No.6616696 >>6616627 >I once considered becoming a priest >What are my alternatives? You can molest little boys in south east asia fairly easily. Apply for an NGO or missionary job in Laos or Cambodia.

Anonymous Sun May 31 04:05:16 2015 No.6616701

>>6615122
I know the heartwarming message that the comic is supposed to be getting at, but it conveys 2 other messages.
>God isn't fun at all.
>But that's okay, because you can just forget about god and do your own thing until you're ready for an insincere deathbed conversion.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 04:08:48 2015 No.6616710 >>6615582 >Orson Fucking Scott Card's pederastic inclinations have more subtly than Lewis's preaching. I read the first Ender's Game. What are you talking about?

Anonymous Sun May 31 04:09:25 2015 No.6616713

>>6614910
Maronite here, my great grandpa was a priest

>>6616655
Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome, all eastern churches follow Catholic theology and the Pope, but have their own liturgy.

>>6614952
Maronites still go to Rome, my grandmother's pastor was born in Lebanon, trained in Rome, and was assigned to work in America

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 04:09:33 2015 No.6616714 File: 166 KB, 500x770, 1428974934460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6616701 Better?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 04:16:55 2015 No.6616723 >>6616714 the black is difficult to read -double the size of the original picture -you will have more space for the text -change the color of the text and its size

Anonymous Sun May 31 04:23:01 2015 No.6616732

>>6616696
>You can molest little boys in south east asia fairly easily. Apply for an NGO or missionary job in Laos or Cambodia.

There was a Christian caught doing that in Cambodia a few months ago. He convinced a number of European companies and business owners to provide an annual donation for an 'orphanage'. He built his orphanage, captured 40 orphans, and kept them locked in their rooms/cells, spending virtually all day raping them.

Anonymous Sun May 31 04:27:45 2015 No.6616745

What do you fags think of the biblical book "Timothy" ? I was raised christian and I remember reading that section and being pretty disgusted. Now I hear that it seems like it was an interpolation and that Paul didn't really write it. Why is it still in every bible?

I'm an atheist but I'm just curious. The bible seems to come down on women pretty hard.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 04:31:58 2015 No.6616758 >>6614786 >tfw want to become a franciscan brother but am so /lgbt/ that would never happen I am not even Catholic. Heck, I am an agnostic Xtian of Jewish descent.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 04:32:54 2015 No.6616760 >>6616758 You could go for Anglicanism

Anonymous Sun May 31 04:46:08 2015 No.6616801

>>6616745
>Timothy
>The bible seems to come down on women pretty hard.

Is this the bit you mean?

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

But it's true.

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

Anonymous Sun May 31 04:50:51 2015 No.6616813

>>6616745
Even if you accept the writer as divinely inspired, it's absurd to think he'd conceive of women in contemporary terms back in ancient times.

Taking it out of the Bible would raise a fuss and controversy more than just leaving it in and mostly ignoring it.

Anonymous Sun May 31 04:55:16 2015 No.6616833

>>6616760
Yes I think I will be doing, honestly. Christianity is the only part of my life which brings me inner peace. This and being out to people who accept me.

I got a calling a few weeks ago and have been repeatedly getting dreams of Jesus. This is ever since I admitted to myself what I am. I think I'm on the right path.

Thanks, anon.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 04:58:26 2015 No.6616845 >>6616833 No problem. I'm a practicing Anglican myself.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 04:59:10 2015 No.6616848 >>6616845 Are you CoE or Anglican outside of the UK?

Anonymous Sun May 31 05:00:58 2015 No.6616854

>>6616801

Yeah and some of the stuff in Genesis where god curses their wombs or whatever.

>>6616813

How do professed christians pick and choose "God's Holy Word" ? Maybe Paul's views on women aren't the only thing outdated in the bible. Why should anyone trust these people?

Anonymous Sun May 31 05:04:09 2015 No.6616861

>>6616848
Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian.

>>6616854
>How do professed christians pick and choose "God's Holy Word" ? Maybe Paul's views on women aren't the only thing outdated in the bible. Why should anyone trust these people?

Because Paul said explicitly before with some of his advice that they weren't concrete rules for Christians, just personal preference on his part. Some of his stuff is definitely important for the Christian outlook and doctrine, but it would be stupid for the Church to make it shameful for men to have long hair in the doctrine.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 05:21:11 2015 No.6616894 >>6616861 Then why include it in the Holy Bible? As if plebs would know the fine points of theology.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 05:38:29 2015 No.6616932 >>6616732 Wow what a badass. He had a dream and realized it even if only for a short time.

Anonymous Sun May 31 05:38:58 2015 No.6616935

>>6616894
It's included because there isn't a consensus, and we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, the Apocrypha is considered great as supplemental writing, but not a basis for doctrine among Anglicans who identify as Protestant, whereas among Anglo-Catholics it's considered on par with the rest of Scripture. So it's included, and read in Church, but individuals have different ideas about...as well as individual parishes. This applies to a lot of elements of the Church. Protestant Anglican parishes won't have statues of the Blessed Virgin, but Anglo-Catholic Parishes will. Protestant Anglo-Catholics won't say Hail Mary, but Anglo-Catholics will. We agree one a common requirement for *salvation*, and everyone adheres to that, but beyond that what is wrong and what is right is in dispute--it's not that there is no wrong or right, or that it's all relative, everyone believes there's a right answer, it's just there's no consensus strong enough to force it into a universal doctrine, and even if there were it wouldn't necessarily happen because we prefer to be tolerant of those who are wrong rather than force them to see our way, unless their error is really big.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 05:40:44 2015 No.6616940 >>6616935 >Anglo-Protestants won't say Hail Mary

Anonymous Sun May 31 05:44:16 2015 No.6616956
File: 12 KB, 220x330, 220px-Omar_Khayyam_Profile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6614786
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 06:27:03 2015 No.6617053 >>6616732 when will the betas learn?

Anonymous Sun May 31 06:32:29 2015 No.6617068

>>6614786

This is more about philosophy of religion than theology, but what arguments would you guys say the best at supporting the theistic hypothesis?

And I mean specific arguments: for example "ontological argumentt" isn't the answer that I'm looking for, while "plantinga's ontological argument" is fine.

Anonymous Sun May 31 06:55:20 2015 No.6617109

>>6617068
That depends on how you conceive of God. In a more classical sense, the argument will be different than in a more modern sense. Univocity of being, for example, is a significant issue. As is the concept of God as the infinate which cannot be described, but only imperfectly signified, vs. negative theology which say we can only say what God is not, vs. the contemporary conception of God as a sky father who can be partially described in human terms.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 07:01:42 2015 No.6617115 >>6617068 The Five Ways are probably the gold standard in my book, suitably interpreted. You can get a pretty good modern defence of them in guys like Feser and Oderberg.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 07:02:18 2015 No.6617118 >>6614786 Does the unmoved mover have to be omibenevolant or is that dogma/ a point of faith?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 07:04:53 2015 No.6617129 >>6616758 Should definitely keep thinking about leading. The Church needs leaders who suffer from deviant sexual urges but can nevertheless model obedience to the Lord.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 07:06:07 2015 No.6617132 >>6617118 Omnibenevolence is provable by reason. In short, precisely as that which sustains each thing in existence as itself, the First Cause wills the being, hence wills the good, of each thing.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 07:09:46 2015 No.6617136 >>6617132 why is existence intrinsically good? Does merely allowing things to exist constitute love?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 07:12:28 2015 No.6617139 File: 140 KB, 800x533, jlm_small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Does anyone here know anything about Jean Luc-Marion? I'm thinking (maybe) about getting into his work by reading his writings on Descartes.

Anonymous Sun May 31 07:14:51 2015 No.6617145

>>6617136
>why is existence intrinsically good?

That which is good for a thing, just is the end that it has in virtue of what it is. Achieving that end is what makes it better or more perfect as what it is. Thus the principle of goodness for each thing, is its principle of existence, which some things fall short of and instantiate only imperfectly.

"allowing" things to exist wouldn't constitute love, since "allowing" implies passivity, with something else taking the active role. This is not what God is. Willing a thing's being, as itself, does constitute love, and it is by that love that anything exists at all.

Anonymous Sun May 31 07:24:56 2015 No.6617162

>>6614823
I don't know if you'd call these 'good' or even 'convincing' arguments against christian theism, but I quite like them:
The concept of original sin and being born in sin and having to accept Jesus as your savior is a disgusting view on man. The whole of Christianity is based on slave's morals.
You're placing all your focus on an afterlife, castrating yourself while you actually are alive, never knowing if your gamble will benefit you and eventually not able to care.
Christian doctrine is unlivable and unwordly.

Another interesting argument - which depends on your definition of God(which you probably cannot or will not offer)- is that omniscience and free will kind of exclude each other. It's also fun to think about what it's like for God, being omniscient and all - what mysteries are there left for Him? What wonders, what joys? None. No wonder He put a large part of us in shackles, sharing in His misery. You don't really think He'll provide us with any kind of heaven?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 07:27:16 2015 No.6617168 >>6615198 Tell us of your weakest moment.

Anonymous Sun May 31 07:28:58 2015 No.6617169

>>6617145
How does this apply to things like rocks? I can understand this virtue teleology when it comes to humans though.

>This is not what God is. Willing a thing's being, as itself, does constitute love, and it is by that love that anything exists at all.

How is making things exist an act of love for an omnipotent being?

Anonymous Sun May 31 07:42:00 2015 No.6617183

>>6617068
I don't think there are good philosophical arguments for God. Nothing requires God's existence, lack of evidence, yaddayadda.

Thus I think the 'best' argument would be some bullshit about feeling your own spirituality and being 'connected' to God. Make up some story of how Christ came into your life and showed you the way and delude yourself into thinking it is actually true. It's also very effective to say things like 'I hope that one day you'll see the light' or 'You just don't get it. It's very deep and personal.'

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 07:46:04 2015 No.6617189 File: 600 KB, 700x6826, 1430355324854.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6617183 Aquinas's Cosmological argument is a fairly good one.

Anonymous Sun May 31 07:57:01 2015 No.6617208

Kierkegaard is actually insane and Protestantism in general is insanity.

I think the worst thing about Protestantism is its attack on the analogia entis (analogy of being) which means that God cannot be found in any existing thing. This makes God infinitely remote, as without the analogy of being you are only left with the analogy of faith, but the analogy of faith without the analogy of being is pure insanity because you have no idea what it is you are having faith in if God is so remote that you can draw any analogy between him and any existing thing. You can't really call him father, or king, or a "consuming fire".

The best thing about Thomism is its defense of anlogia entis. Thomism is completely alien to modern philosophy because it asserts the power of the intellect to grasp being, to see things as they really are. Every since William of Occam, Descartes and onwards, people have been thinking that all we can see is our own thoughts and sensations, and objective being is inaccessible - this idea makes faith practically impossible because you can hardly make your intellect assent to the objective existence of God if you deny the power of the intellect to grasp any objective truth whatsoever.

Anonymous Sun May 31 07:59:00 2015 No.6617216

>>6617162

These seem more due to a failure of imagination either in you or whoever taught you about Christianity, than logical or existential problems with Christianity.

Original sin refers to the estrangement we experience from God. It's pretty much the beginning of the understanding of the human condition. Damnation (i.e., the Second Death) is a revealed intensification of what should already be horrifying: that human nature, limited as it is, cannot provide the goods to fully satisfy itself: it is not invincible and self-sufficient. We are doomed to death and/or continuing incompleteness as the kinds of things we are- indeed, this is pretty much self-evident. Christianity invites us nonetheless to hope for and desire the highest possible happiness, that is, friendship with God and eternal life, and not to be satisfied with false idols of perishable goods. It's a great reconciliation of realism about human nature to the hope of happiness.

But the life Christianity demands of you aids you in the flourishing life on earth anyway. Indeed, it emboldens you to seek the forms of flourishing which the weakness of our nature least equips us to seek, if left to our own devices. Selflessness for the sake of the weak, chastity and marriage, worship of God- these are fulfilments of our nature which we are capable of even now, but which indiscipline and a lack of support make difficult.

Christ and his church ease that burden and bid us aim for what is hard but glorious rather than what is easy but mediocre. It's difficult, but the rewards are pretty much immediate. It's not like we give up an otherwise good life for dregs, with the hope that better will come later. Rather, we are called to live a superior life now, so that we can later inherit an infinitely superior life. Not only do we attain earthly glory through holiness, with God's help, we also attain heavenly beatitude. Difficult to call this life-denying, in my view!

Omniscience and free will are not contradictory, since they have different requirements. Omniscience requires knowing what will come about, while free will requires having the capacity to do otherwise than you will do. Just prima facie there's no contradiction.

God doesn't get bored. Indeed, boredom seems to me to be a matter of the limited, changing human perspective: the joy of knowing some aspect of being passes, due to our changeable nature, and we are left hunger for something more (the answer to this, of course, is something eternal). God, on the other hand, is not changeable, and his being is not finite.

As the infinite good, God is inexhaustibly happy, and incomparably free. He is inexhaustibly happy because he is in himself, unchangingly, that wonder which we only glimpse in temporary moments of happiness. He's free because goodness is the perfection of action, rather than a limit upon action. God cooperates with nothing external to himself in his action and is not limited by imperfect knowledge or power unlike us.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:05:12 2015 No.6617227

>>6617169
A rock can't fall very far short of its own intrinsic standard of goodness, so rocks are just good without trying. Its goodness is obvious if we take the time to appreciate rocks, as any good rock-nerd will tell you.

>How is making things exist an act of love for an omnipotent being?

Since a thing's principle of existence just is its principle of being, to will a thing's particular mode of being, as God does in creating things, just is to love it. I'm not sure what omnipotence has to do with it- if anything, the extreme contingency of the possible worlds omnipotence could bring about makes his love of us in particular (since he sustains us against non-existence from moment to moment) quite special.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 08:09:39 2015 No.6617231 >>6617169 Meant to say, "since a thing's principle of goodness just is its principle of being" in >>6617227

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:09:54 2015 No.6617232

>>6617216
> Damnation (i.e., the Second Death) is a revealed intensification of what should already be horrifying: that human nature, limited as it is, cannot provide the goods to fully satisfy itself: it is not invincible and self-sufficient. We are doomed to death and/or continuing incompleteness as the kinds of things we are- indeed, this is pretty much self-evident.

How do you reconcile this with buddhists and those who can find completeness within the confines of humanity?

>Omniscience requires knowing what will come about, while free will requires having the capacity to do otherwise than you will do. Just prima facie there's no contradiction.

You have it backwards prima facie there is a contradiction. If God knew Germany would loose the World Cup could the German team have used their free will to win?

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:10:03 2015 No.6617233

>>6615584
I think that the Tao De Ching is intellectual poison. It's essentially advocates a pure nominalism, says that we should avoid all intellectual abstraction, and "go with the flow" without reflecting on good or evil, beauty or ugliness. This is in direct contradiction to the Scriptures which say that the righteous man will always reflect on good and evil and God's law, and will study beauty.

"Let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth: but thou shalt meditate on it day and night, that thou mayst observe and do all things that are written in it: then shalt thou direct thy way, and understand it."

"Rich men in virtue, studying beautifulness: living at peace in their houses."

There are good proverbs in the book, but its core message is faulty.
I think that Confucius is closer to Christianity.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:10:29 2015 No.6617235

>>6616732
>There was a Christian caught doing that in Cambodia a few months ago.
>captured 40 orphans, and kept them locked in their rooms/cells, spending virtually all day raping them.
There is a Christian caught doing that every few months in Cambodia. Here's another:

American missionary Daniel Johnson will appear at Phnom Penh Municipal Court today to be charged with raping five underage Cambodian boys at a local orphanage.

The abuse occurred at the Home of Hope orphanage, one of a number of projects in Cambodia run by the suspect’s evangelical Christian organization Hope Transitions.

The initial operation was led by the U.S.’ FBI, but the subsequent revelations by the children living with him at the orphanage broadened the scope and complexity of the investigation, said Pol Pithey, director of the Ministry of Interior’s anti-human trafficking police department.

“[On Wednesday] we were searching the suspect’s property for evidence, but this case is very complicated and involves many people,” he said, adding that interviews with the children on Monday initially revealed three victims but further questioning saw the number of victims rise to five and potentially more.

“He lived at the orphanage with the children with absolutely no guidelines being followed, no child protection, nothing,” he said, adding that APLE is currently investigating a number of other Christian organizations with staff suspected of abusing children in their care.

--https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/missionary-to-be-charged-with-abusing-5-boys-at-orphanage-49147/

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:14:57 2015 No.6617244

>>6617227
> Its goodness is obvious if we take the time to appreciate rocks, as any good rock-nerd will tell you.

It isnt though, which is only why a very very small subsect of society appreciate then it is debatable whether people are seeing their goodness in doing "what a rock is designed to do" or goodness that comes from attaching non rock values to it.

>Since a thing's principle of existence just is its principle of being, to will a thing's particular mode of being, as God does in creating things, just is to love it

It just seems like you are repeating yourself without substantiating with reason. Why is allowing things to complete their purpose love specifically?

Why can it not just be good or simply something without explicit moral value like natural laws?

>I'm not sure what omnipotence has to do with it

It means the action requires no effort, vulnerability or sacrifice.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:16:16 2015 No.6617255

>>6617232
>How do you reconcile this with buddhists and those who can find completeness within the confines of humanity?

The thing about Buddhist philosophy is that you don't fulfil your being or your desires, but let those desires go. The Buddhist thinks that human beings can somehow attain the unconditioned, unlimited happiness on their own by discarding their finite desires and finite fulfilments, but this is incoherent unless you're God to begin with, in which case there wouldn't have been a problem to solve. So basically the Buddhists are wrong.

>You have it backwards prima facie there is a contradiction. If God knew Germany would loose the World Cup could the German team have used their free will to win?

If winning the world cup was a matter of free will, and God know that they would freely lose, then yeah, they could use their free will to win. All that follows is that they won't win, not that they wouldn't be able to do otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 08:17:05 2015 No.6617258 >>6617232 Yes, the German team could have used it. If I knew you were going to read shit tier theology would it have any influence on you?

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:19:44 2015 No.6617263

>>6617162
>The concept of original sin and being born in sin and having to accept Jesus as your savior is a disgusting view on man.

Yeah, the idea that the same race that constantly wars, murders, rapes, steals, lies, insults and that hardly has one among them who is honest, is born with a tendency to evil and needs a saviour sure is disgusting.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:21:22 2015 No.6617264

>>6617258
Then god is not omnipotent because he didnt forsee the outcome. An omnipotent being cant play dice or be surprised.

>>6617258
>If I knew you were going to read shit tier theology would it have any influence on you?

Depends on whether you were omnipotent or not.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:22:58 2015 No.6617269

>>6617235
>There is a Christian caught doing that every few months in Cambodia. Here's another:

Given that this happens regularly all over Africa too, I think it's pretty safe to say that, at any given time, somewhere in the world a young brown boy is being sodomized by a white American Christian missionary in an orphanage.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 08:25:36 2015 No.6617275 >>6614786 Listen to Beethoven. Got mah theology 4 today.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:26:25 2015 No.6617277

>>6617244

Few people are very interested enough in rocks to understand their goodness or to be fascinated by their beauty for very long, and this goes for everything, since a) generally humans are ignorant things, and b) there are lots of other good things vying for our attention.

>It just seems like you are repeating yourself without substantiating with reason. Why is allowing things to complete their purpose love specifically?

To love something is to will its good. Now if the good of something is what perfects it as what it is, the good of a thing must just be its intrinsic standard of being. Now God, as creating each thing, wills its being per se, hence, wills their good, hence, loves it.

>Why can it not just be good or simply something without explicit moral value like natural laws?

Moral value applies to the goodness of voluntary action, and the traits that lead to good voluntary actions. Not all things in the universe are voluntary actions, hence not all things have moral value. But moral goodness is just a subset of goodness in general, which is identical to the being of each thing, for each thing realises an end which perfects it, at least to some degree, insofar as it exists. So I think natural laws are good, just not morally good.

>It means the action requires no effort, vulnerability or sacrifice.

I'm not sure why love requires those things. But in any case on Christianity God did undergo all those things.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 08:28:11 2015 No.6617283 >>6617264 Yes, we've established what omnipotent is. And no, it doesn't exclude free will in any way.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:28:43 2015 No.6617288

>>6617255
>The thing about Buddhist philosophy is that you don't fulfill your being or your desires, but let those desires go.
>The Buddhist thinks that human beings can somehow attain the unconditioned, unlimited happiness

>you don't fulfil your being or your desires, but let those desires go.
>attain the unconditioned, unlimited happiness on their own.

They don't desire unconditioned, unlimited happiness. Neither to they strive to attain unconditioned, unlimited happiness.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:32:30 2015 No.6617292

>>6615900
Bollocks. He was just rewriting Christian tales with SF and fantasy lenses, poorly. It doesn't matter how you want to restate it in high-faluting euphemism.

>emotions which become flat and pale when they are not understood theologically
So, badly written. I'm glad you agree.

>The Space Trilogy has all the wonder of good sci-fi
Bollocks does it. I don't believe you've read any good sci-fi.

> it's obvious he had an excellent grasp of psychology, too, from his Screwtape Letters
Again, utter bollocks. There's nothing in SL beyond irony and sarcasm for cheap satire's sake.

>His characters are most human in their nobility, it seems to me, and that's an effect few writers can pull off.
By noble, you mean they're unrealistic and over romanticised? Sure.

The main point of your arguments seem to be "Well, I like theology and he's bringing F&SF into a theological setting so I like that and if you don't then obviously it's because you're a heathen" while completely disregarding that there's nothing novel or interesting about doing that. The problem here is that you like F&SF but there isn't enough written that accords with your worldview so the little that does you overestimate its worth purely in terms of those genres or even literature full stop.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:34:17 2015 No.6617299

>>6617277
>To love something is to will its good. Now if the good of something is what perfects it as what it is, the good of a thing must just be its intrinsic standard of being. Now God, as creating each thing, wills its being per se, hence, wills their good, hence, loves it.

That sets a very very low bar for love. To use that reasoning I love the fish in the pond because I feed them everyday.

>Moral value applies to the goodness of voluntary action, and the traits that lead to good voluntary actions. Not all things in the universe are voluntary actions, hence not all things have moral value. But moral goodness is just a subset of goodness in general, which is identical to the being of each thing, for each thing realises an end which perfects it, at least to some degree, insofar as it exists. So I think natural laws are good, just not morally good.

Ah I get you now, just to clarify a non moral good is an involuntary action that allows something to pursue its purpose?

>I'm not sure why love requires those things.

In my understanding they help distinguish love above other positive but lesser feelings and actions.

>But in any case on Christianity God did undergo all those things.

How does an omnipotent being suffer and sacrifice? Wasnt it just the human aspect and not the divine aspect that suffered?

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:39:40 2015 No.6617311

>>6617283
Lets just look are your reasoning again then

Firstly

>Omniscience requires knowing what will come about,

Completely correct

>while free will requires having the capacity to do otherwise than you will do.

One can never do otherwise than what one will do, otherwise there would never be a *will* but only a might/possibly.

One cannot know what *will* come about if others can act as if there is no such concept as binding as the term will.

Your definition is literally self contradicting and you have provided no arguments to demonstrate otherwise beyond stating its prima facie and "no"

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 08:51:04 2015 No.6617329 >>6617129 Hoho wrong part of the LGBT I'm afraid. I'm a transman.

Anonymous Sun May 31 08:58:10 2015 No.6617345

>>6617292

>Bollocks. He was just rewriting Christian tales with SF and fantasy lenses, poorly. It doesn't matter how you want to restate it in high-faluting euphemism.

I'd say you've got that reversed. He's writing SF and fantasy tales within the Christian worldview. They're what he called "supposals," not allegories. What Christianity says has happened, has actually happened in his novels. Lewis explores what that means for worlds beyond ours, and is pretty much the first and the best to do so.

>>emotions which become flat and pale when they are not understood theologically
>So, badly written. I'm glad you agree.

I was referring to those emotions as expressed by other authors, who do not add a theological dimension to delight and awe, and hence always have something missing. Lewis does what he does brilliantly- he writes worlds with proper theological dimensions in which awe and delight are fully at home.

>The Space Trilogy has all the wonder of good sci-fi
>Bollocks does it. I don't believe you've read any good sci-fi.

Sure I have. Lewis is great at that "sense of wonder" thing. To me it's his characteristic trait.

>Again, utter bollocks. There's nothing in SL beyond irony and sarcasm for cheap satire's sake.

Not really. Lewis is privy to all kinds of mental tricks and kinks which impede the spiritual life. It's terrifically incisive. The main point of Screwtape isn't satire (though there's plenty of that), it's advice and edification. When Screwtape and Wormwood talk about their great Enemy, you get some really good descriptions of the divine love.

>By noble, you mean they're unrealistic and over romanticised? Sure.

No, I mean noble. Lewis actually sincerely believes in nobility, and tries to capture what success at nobility actually looks like. He's certainly got no shortage of cynics, either, even in his children's books, but it's true he doesn't take cynicism too seriously, and probably it's not healthy to do so- dwarfs in a stable, and all that. He wants us to take the time to appreciate nobility for what it is, not merely for its contrast with evil. It's his deep literary affirmation of being as goodness that gives Lewis his terrific depth.

What's fresh and interesting (though I wouldn't say novel) about Lewis is his understanding of goodness on its own terms. Lewis doesn't just agree with me- he reveals the depths of what it means for the things I believe to be true. Maybe it's not for everyone- perhaps jadedness more than heathenry poisons your palate against him, who knows?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 08:58:19 2015 No.6617346 >>6617115 >The Five Ways are probably the gold standard in my book Well, thanks I guess but I find them quite flawed, I prefer more modern arguments.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:01:11 2015 No.6617349

>>6617189
I don't think I've seen this yet, at least not explained in such a straightforward way. I agree it seems like one of the better ones but it too makes quite a few assumptions which are just that - assumptions.

-There is no necessity for a causal power. Causality could just be an apparent property of our universe and with the first 'stone set in motion' everything else follows. Not saying there needs to be a first cause at all. I concede that this can be seen as arguing semantics.

-By faith alone do we hold...
and by faith alone do I reject!
'A' world or 'the' world always existing is as mindnumbing as it is coming into existence. Same goes for causes. Although I would hold that the world and the causal chain merely existing infinitely is a better explanation as it soesn't require a first cause. A first cause is an all too human concept, isn't it?
-I'm not sure if I have a problem with potentials. I have a deterministic worldview, so technically there are no potentials if one is able to look at the whole picture(which God should?). So basically there's just actual ice, which at one point was actual water and will be actual water again.
-The chain of dependence seems right, but I'd argue it's more of an intricate and highly complex net of interdepencies and I'd further argue that if you were to take one node out of that net, things would MOSTLY still be the same, just different in infinitely small degrees until you start changing more nodes. Either way I accept that this still constitutes change and while the water would still freeze in my opinion, it would freeze slightly differently.
-Each member is inert without the next member in place. Well, maybe? Maybe not? Again, the net of interdepencies wouldn't necessarily necessitate the same assumption. Either way isn't it funny that the text says 'next' member and the pictures show everything being inert without a 'previous' member? Maybe it's just the way you read the chain of change, but I think this has interesting applications: Time and causality are PERCEIVED by humans, wouldn't it make just as much sense to 'go backwards' to some kind of God, possibly? I don't think there needs to be a literal chain of events, a continuum of sorts sounds more appropriate.
-'This chain cannot be infinitely long.'
Why not? Assumption
-'An infinite number of inert members cannot do anything.'
But an infinite number of active members can.
-'The chain must have one member at the head that drives everything in the present.'
No. It could have one, yes, but it doesn't necessarily need one and seriously, why does every non inert thing need to be caused when the argument presents something without cause?
Let's say there is one member at the head, doesn't necessitate that it is still 'driving' things in the present.(cont)

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:01:36 2015 No.6617350 >tfw love Christian architecture, music and histroy >tfw seriously consider joining as minister >tfw I think it's morally wrong cause I believe in evolution, same sex marriage and euthanasia and am sceptical of God what do /lit/? I wanna believe

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:03:52 2015 No.6617355

>>6617349
-'Since the chain must have a first member at the head of it, that member must be actual.'
It could also be potential, after all if there's actuals without potentials, why not potentials without actuals? Maybe God is just a potential and Aquinas got it all wrong:
For if it were actual, then it wouldn't depend on anything else and it would be the first (impossible) member of the chain.
-The derived attributes are absolute bullshit.
*'To not be able to do something, is to have an unrealized potential.->Not having done something, is to have not realized your potential. This is from a deterministic point of view, since there are no real potentials.
I also don't see how omnipotence follows from that argument. I'd like to be educated though.
*A flaw or imperfection is a potentiality, and something purely actual would not have any imperfections and so would be perfect.->It would be perfect and so can not realize imperfection, one of its potentialities, and thus would not be omnipotent(or a pure actual). :^)
*Together these attributes read more like qualities of existence or the uni(multi?)verse itself(minus the omnipotence, omniscience part).
*Either way, at -best- (which I disagree with) this reasons for the existence of some kind of ethereal force which I'd argue is without agency, personality, wit, humor, goodness, flaws, relatibility, benevolence or anything at all that would make you care about it.
But fair enough, let's call it God. How do we know what this God is like? Which God is it?

I tried to quickly go through it and address most of the points the argument makes. I see that there was quite a bit of rambling going on and I would have much preferred to discuss the argument with you in person, and possibly have the finer points explained and clarified to me.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:05:49 2015 No.6617364

>>6617349

You've hit some of the most important point but basically its problems can be summarized in four words: bad understanding of causation.

-causes are sufficient for their effects
-there are no sustaining efficient causes
-generating efficient causes can constitute an infinite chain
-the chain itself is a set which is logically implied by the existence of the elements

Those 4 main points refute the argument.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:09:37 2015 No.6617371

>>6617311
I am >>6617162
and I wanted to raise the same point.
Funnily enough, there is no free will for the German soccer club but since they're not aware of tha, they're fine.

But God is utterly aware of his own omniscience(how could he not be?) and of his lack of free will. How utterly horrifying. He knows everything he'll do in less than an instant at all time. He is BOUND by his own omniscience.

Funny that anon I'm replying to raised the fact that God can never be surprised by a dice roll. Doesn't this contradict omnipotence?

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:11:31 2015 No.6617376

>>6617299

>hat sets a very very low bar for love. To use that reasoning I love the fish in the pond because I feed them everyday.

Sure, you love them a bit, as long as you will their being/goodness. But God loves those fish as never a man or angel ever loved a fish, since he is the one who loves the piscene essence enough to actualise it and maintain it in being as itself. He is the one who has its essence (which prescribes the conditions of its goodness) constantly before his mind, joining it to its act of existence, hence loves it most purely for its own sake. He is the one with no possible ulterior purpose for its existence, since God himself needs nothing from anything, and so wills the fish for its own sake. So it is for *everything* which exists.

>Ah I get you now, just to clarify a non moral good is an involuntary action that allows something to pursue its purpose?

Sure, if action is defined broadly enough to include acts of existence (which join existence to some essence). Some things instantiate their respective goods just by existing.

>In my understanding they help distinguish love above other positive but lesser feelings and actions.

I think they distinguish it because they show to what degree a person is committed to the object of his love. But this demonstration merely helps us know how much the lover loves. In the case of God, there are other ways of knowing that he loves.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:12:02 2015 No.6617380 >>6617350 Drop your beliefs in the nonexistence of God, same sex marriage, euthanasia, redefine evolution and join it.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:12:07 2015 No.6617381

>>6617345
>I'd say you've got that reversed.
It's not reversed, it's the same thing. You can't reverse a sphere.

>he writes worlds with proper theological dimensions in which awe and delight are fully at home.
They might have theological dimensions but they don't have any other dimensions. This is one-dimensionality.

>Lewis is great at that "sense of wonder" thing. To me it's his characteristic trait.
Then maybe I'm too thick-skinned because he fails to instil any sense of awe at the mystical in me, him being too bogged down in writing about hunting down and killing sinners or painting the world as black and white, good vs evil.

>When Screwtape and Wormwood talk about their great Enemy, you get some really good descriptions of the divine love.
Yeah, written in through their words as satire. In order to find this shit interesting, you have to be religious to begin with. A good writer, MacDonald for example, would leave even an atheist in awe of divine love. You don't have to believe Romeo and Juliet existed to be stirred by their love for one another, I don't have to be a Christian to find religious art inspiring. But Screwtape and Wormwood are just smug, shitty polemic.

>Lewis actually sincerely believes in nobility
>understanding of goodness on its own terms
You don't see how there's nothing deep or human about viewing the world as noble/ignoble good/evil? That's kiddie stuff. There's no humanity to it. Come on, Lewis was writing post-Nietzsche, why can't he think beyond good and evil? The more you argue the more childish and naive your worldview appears to me.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:18:19 2015 No.6617394 >>6617381 Why do you keep arguing? Anyone who can't see Lewis is shit at first sight is probably irredimable.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:24:41 2015 No.6617408 >>6617394 Because I like arguing. Thanks all the same.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:26:41 2015 No.6617412

>>6614786
OP what is wrong with you dude? Do you know what being a priest is all about? You should be in love with God. God should be everything to you. You want to get laid? You should question yourself if you truly love God and are you even a Christian. Also, you get to fuck little children later so don't worry about it.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:28:40 2015 No.6617417

>>6617263
I don't rape or murder and even if I did, I do not need a saviour. Humans doing 'evil' things can be disgusting, but the Christian doctrine is disgusting on a whole other level. It indoctrinates people to internalize being guilty, shameful, sinful, subpar, disgusting and whatnot.

Instead of saying "Yes you are right! I sure do not need a saviour. I am my own man and I can do good DESPITE Christ!" you pitifully succumb to your own indoctrination.
"Yes Lord, I am bad just like all the rest of my fellow men. I am sorry Lord for lusting after my wife."

The funny thing is, for good people to do evil it takes religion. History shows not a huge difference between the atrocities commited under the name of Christ or under the name of anyone else. This races that constantly murders, rapes and steals does so despite Christ and even worse WITH Christ as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:29:07 2015 No.6617418 >>6617412 This is what happens when people convert due to what they read on a polynesian navigation billboard

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:31:45 2015 No.6617423 >>6614786 You can be a deacon as long as you're married before you take your vows.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:32:28 2015 No.6617425

>>6617381
>Come on, Lewis was writing post-Nietzsche, why can't he think beyond good and evil? The more you argue the more childish and naive your worldview appears to me.

Lewis was writing from a more civilized viewpoint than you seem to be comfortable with. He understood that what humanity truly is, is not merely how we happen to find it to be. His aim is to reach towards whatever prelapsarian remnants remain to us, and show how the good fulfils those parts of us- how it can be reconciled to happiness.

There is no "beyond" good and evil, since those are bound up in being and non-being, respectively. To lose sight of the difference aesthetically is just what Lewis is trying to inoculate against, because it is in itself a dehumanizing spiritual sickness (this is clear in his non-fiction Abolition of Man). The True, the Good and the Beautiful are (as they should be) his great themes, because to be able to perceive and believe in them just is what makes us human.

If you want him dealing with the Pagan world on (nearly) Pagan terms, you should read Till We Have Faces.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:33:49 2015 No.6617429 File: 33 KB, 600x340, alvin-plantinga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6617139 Looks like no one knows anything about Jean Luc-Marion, how about Alvin Plantinga? What do you think about him?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:34:25 2015 No.6617431 Wow! Look at all these people fighting over some imaginary friends!

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:39:31 2015 No.6617447 >>6617429 Really smart dude who is wrong about pretty much everything

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:40:21 2015 No.6617453

>>6617425
>a more civilized viewpoint
What on earth is a civilised viewpoint? Do you mean deluded, ivory tower willful ignorance? Because that's what it sounds like.

>He understood that what humanity truly is, is not merely how we happen to find it to be
What's that, then?

>His aim is to reach towards whatever prelapsarian remnants remain to us
So basically, not to appeal on any human level, just theological.

>There is no "beyond" good and evil
>What are shades of grey?

>to be able to perceive and believe in them just is what makes us human.
Again, you're approaching this from a theological bent and not a literary or human one. You're making statements whose truths depend on people already agreeing with your viewpoint, not ones that appeal to anyone's humanity. Bad. Writing.

>If you want him dealing with the Pagan world on (nearly) Pagan terms
No, I want him dealing with the human, on human terms. I'll download a copy of Till We Have Faces to read at some point simply because I can, but I really don't think you have much place defending him on literary terms. I'm sure you could probably enlighten me on many aspects of Christian tenets in a more relevant thread of conversation but as far as writing goes, Lewis is indefensible.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:45:09 2015 No.6617469 >>6617431 shhh the grownups are talking, go back to the genre fiction general.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:49:48 2015 No.6617481

>>6617453

>No, I want him dealing with the human, on human terms.

This idea of the human as separable from the theological is just what is at issue. It's spiritually emaciated, and ultimately boring. Lewis has a different, better vision of humanity than you do.

>What are shades of grey?

1/50th of a bad book. A boring colour. The skin-tone of a corpse. But seriously, you can't understand the human condition without a good/evil orientation as a frame of reference; "muh shades of grey" is just about the most vacuous and cliche statement to the contrary possible.

>you're making statements whose truths depend on people already agreeing with your viewpoint, not ones that appeal to anyone's humanity. Bad. Writing.

Affirming the triad of truth, goodness and beauty, and placing those at the centre of the human condition, is not exclusive to my theological side, thank God. There have been heathens who have been able to enjoy Lewis, too (I think Gaiman is a famous example).

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:54:49 2015 No.6617492

>>6617481
>Lewis has a different, better vision of humanity than you do.
He has a naive and childish vision of humanity, sure.

>you can't understand the human condition without a good/evil orientation as a frame of reference
I disagree, you can't understand the human condition with a good/evil orientation as a frame of reference. Because such binary oppositions are naive an childish.

>There have been heathens who have been able to enjoy Lewis, too (I think Gaiman is a famous example).
Gaiman's a Scientologist, that doesn't entirely give weight to the argument that his opinion has value. The works of Hubbard are about as in depth regarding humanity or the human condition as Lewis's.

Anonymous Sun May 31 09:57:18 2015 No.6617496

>>6614984
I feel ya, I'm a prod but the idea of helping lost souls as my job and living in a tight knit community of the west coast of Ireland, completely cut off by the world sounds cosy to the point of wanting to kill myself cause I'll never be able to do it.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:02:18 2015 No.6617514 >>6617469 Dude... This is fiction.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:02:53 2015 No.6617515 >>6617380 >drop your beliefs man, it isn't that easy. these are ideas that have developed over years and even now I genuinely believe with all my heart that they are morally righteous. I dunno man, maybe I should just be a theologian

Anonymous Sun May 31 10:04:08 2015 No.6617522

>>6617492

>Because such binary oppositions are naive an childish.

That's an adolescent sneer if I ever saw one. The Christians can easily digest shades of grey, because they know the good and the various ways it can be corrupted. I'm not sure you understand good and evil, though, if portrayals of these do not excite the passions and stir the soul.

>Gaiman's a Scientologist, that doesn't entirely give weight to the argument that his opinion has value. The works of Hubbard are about as in depth regarding humanity or the human condition as Lewis's.

Yeah, I realise this is basically shitposting now. Gaiman's not a scientologist, for what that's worth.

Anonymous Sun May 31 10:07:43 2015 No.6617528

>>6617514
I know you want me to post the fedora but I'm not going to do it.

you'll see the light one day anon, in the meantime you should watch the movie God's not Dead. You are probably like the professor played by Kevin Sorbo, you hate God and what his beliefs make you feel so you reject him and adopt this ironically "holier than thou" approach on secular epistemology when really your beliefs are shakier than anyones. You will come to accept God one day, just like the professor in the movie. I only hope you do it before it's too late

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:14:40 2015 No.6617543 >>6617528 I don't believe in anything m9. I just came here to troll and look at reactions. You can't win against scepticism.

Anonymous Sun May 31 10:16:39 2015 No.6617546

>>6617522
>That's an adolescent sneer if I ever saw one. The Christians can easily digest shades of grey
You dismissed shades of grey outright in your previous post. Make up your mind. No, Christians cannot digest shades of grey in their meaning as "nothing is black and white", as in "there is no good and evil", because you interpret the world as black and white, good vs evil, when both are nonsense concepts.

> I'm not sure you understand good and evil, though, if portrayals of these do not excite the passions and stir the soul.
That must be nice for you.

>Yeah, I realise this is basically shitposting now. Gaiman's not a scientologist, for what that's worth.
You don't have a solid argument or rebuttal to make, I see.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:24:00 2015 No.6617566 File: 6 KB, 190x266, Hoffman_Christ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6617543 >You can't win against scepticism. God can.

Anonymous Sun May 31 10:26:48 2015 No.6617570

>>6617528
>The movie God's not Dead.
Not the anon you're conversing with, but that movie was dire.

>adopt this ironically "holier than thou" approach
ironically, that is the stance of you faux-neo-Christians knee-jerking against the so-called new-atheism. Supporting the proverbial underdog in a culture that mass posts 'I-fucking-love-atheism.com' quotes on facebook.

>your beliefs are shakier than anyones
The entire field of theology was put to rest when Korzybski ironed out the kinks in the Wittgensteinian approach to language. The existence or non-existence of your semantically constructed God/s has never left language.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:29:02 2015 No.6617578 >>6616713 Schismatics are heretics. The eastern, Coptic Orthodox, Oriental orthodox, SSPX etc are schisms, so they are heresy.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:31:04 2015 No.6617579 >>6617515 Theology like that is if you are consistent with the revelation is impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:34:44 2015 No.6617592 >>6617528 >God's Not Dead Christian here, that film was an abomination

Anonymous Sun May 31 10:36:12 2015 No.6617593
File: 480 KB, 1101x1468, Huehueteotl_munah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6617566
I see your Christ and raise you one Huehueteotl.

To gain his favor, you need to cut the hearts of human sacrifices and cook them. Huehueteotl is the one true God. Fire and Blood, Anon, Fire and Blood.

Anonymous Sun May 31 10:38:45 2015 No.6617598

>>6617546

I didn't dismiss shades of grey outright, but only as a rebuttal against the idea that there is no good and evil. We can digest gradations of black and white (otherwise known as greys) just fine. Indeed, it is our hobby to weigh things to a nicety in these matters.

But of course if by "shades of grey" you merely mean nihilism, we can digest that too, after a fashion (i.e., as a kind of willful blindness or ignorance). We certainly can't consider it true, but it really isn't a species of positive affirmations about what exists.

>both are nonsense concepts

lol. Great argument there champ.

>You don't have a solid argument or rebuttal to make, I see.

I'd say nice bait, but it's really not hard to provoke me into an argument. If Gaiman's not a scientologist, the argument you offered doesn't succeed. Pretty elementary.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:44:39 2015 No.6617621 >>6617593 >tfw you will never sacrifice a virgin upon a stone alter in the Mesopotamian rainforest to ensure next years harvest is bountiful.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:47:33 2015 No.6617627 File: 175 KB, 1800x1198, Pandemonium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6617593 >Fire and Blood, that is what awaits you blasphemer! Your god harkens your fate, eternal damnation!

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 10:50:53 2015 No.6617639 >>6617350 It's called lying. Jesus did it, you can too.

Anonymous Sun May 31 10:51:40 2015 No.6617642

>>6617598
>We can digest gradations of black and white (otherwise known as greys) just fine.

There is no digestion needed. The analogous black/white dichotomy and the spectrum of potentially infinite greys are fundamentally equal as conceptual, man-made descriptions. The only path available to you is to argue that there is an Aristotelian essence hiding within the object or event, and it was not fabricated by you to describe the object or event.

Anonymous Sun May 31 10:57:33 2015 No.6617665

>>6617350
Similar problem here. I'd kind of like to be a monk because the simple, modest kind of lifestyle really appeals to me. The thing that's keeping me from doing so is the fact that my interpretation of the scriptures contradicts pretty much every Christian church and organization on some level. I also fail to see how the scriptures oppose homosexuality any more than they oppose sexuality in general.

But why would you want to be a minister if you're skeptical of God? That makes no sense at all. You should just enroll in a seminary or something and see where you want to go from there.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 11:00:14 2015 No.6617673 >>6617642 Fine by me, since I'm an Aristotelian.

Anonymous Sun May 31 11:08:57 2015 No.6617705

>>6617673
>Fine by me, since I'm an Aristotelian.

Fair enough, at least we have the exact pinpoint of the disagreement. Does your Aristotelian reality trap snare you with things beyond ethics (and presumably aesthetics) too? I mean, beyond your Aristotelian 'good-ness' essence, would you defend the notion of cup-ness or dog-ness or human-ness too?

Anonymous Sun May 31 11:28:48 2015 No.6617760

>>6617705
Cup-ness no (since a cup, qua cup, is an instrument, hence exists only in a conventional sense, i.e. relative to human purposes), but dog-ness, human-ness, yes, I'd defend that, since I believe that there are such natural things as humans and dogs.

Everything which is anything has a form, by which it is what it is, or else it would not be at all. Beauty and goodness follow from this, since beauty is the perfection of form qua form, and goodness is the perfection according to Form considered as an end. Both of these are ultimately ways of looking at being, which grounds truth.

That's why the classic triad of Truth, Beauty and Goodness go together.

Anonymous Sun May 31 11:35:03 2015 No.6617779

>>6617311

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I am the guy you're quoting.

>One can never do otherwise than what one will do, otherwise there would never be a *will* but only a might/possibly.

But that doesn't follow. From the fact that one *will* do something, it follows that one *will not* do otherwise, but it says nothing about having the *power* to do otherwise. You're helping yourself to a conclusion you haven't paid for.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 11:43:42 2015 No.6617810 >>6617598 This is hilarious. You're unable to see why Lewis's writing is bad because your view of humanity and morality is crippled by your theological lens.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 11:45:16 2015 No.6617814 >>6617810 You're unable to see why Lewis is good because your view of humanity and morality is crippled by your ideological lens.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 11:49:50 2015 No.6617830 >>6617578 The Eastern Catholics are in communion you idiot, they aren't Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox. SSPX aren't even schismatic, they're just not in good standing. They certainly aren't heretics.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 12:00:11 2015 No.6617858 >>6615868 If your objection is that the Tao is different from God i'm fairly sure you'll change your mind. God and Tao are simply words for the ultimate reality. How do you think of god? As a person?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 12:00:18 2015 No.6617860 File: 322 KB, 416x431, 1432947682140.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun May 31 12:09:46 2015 No.6617902

>>6617760
>Cup-ness no (since a cup, qua cup, is an instrument, hence exists only in a conventional sense, i.e. relative to human purposes), but dog-ness, human-ness, yes, I'd defend that, since I believe that there are such natural things as humans and dogs.
Very interesting. We agree -- or at least appear to -- that there is no cup-ness essence. I'm not sure I fully understand the distinction you're trying to make between "an instrument, hence exists only in a conventional sense" and "natural things." I don't wish to place words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the underlying logic here is along the lines of 'god created man and dog; man created cup."?

>Everything which is anything has a form.
Hmm, are you swapping the Aristotelian essence for the platonic form, and forgetting an independent 'cup-ness' form would still fall under "Everything which is anything"?

...But back to the meat of the argument:
>"dog-ness, human-ness, yes, I'd defend that"

From my position, the non-Aristotelian one, dog and human (and the subsequent essence of dog-ness and human-ness) have to be semantic constructs that we have created; and to be clear, I'm not saying a physical object isn't present.

If we return to our black/white dichotomy and spectrum of greys, dog-ness and human-ness are black and white, while evolutionary theory (Homo sapien -- Homo habilis -- Homo erectus -- Homo rudolfensis, etc, right back to the common ancestor we share with Canis familiaris, the common domesticated dog) would be the spectrum of greys.

I presume you are taking the stance that evolution is also to be discarded? If one can get from dog-ness to human-ness though a continuous line of minor genetic mutations, your human-ness essence would lay in tattered pieces. Just the sequential change from Homo erectus to Homo sapien should reveal that the notion of dog-ness, human-ness, homo erectus-ness, are merely linguistic categories we have created to describe reality and not an inherent part of the reality we describe.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 12:19:44 2015 No.6617935 Any of you Jesus nerds got any good recommendations on what to read about the christian(Catholic) view on the problem of free will and determinism?

Anonymous Sun May 31 12:19:50 2015 No.6617938

>>6617168
My mother had kicked me out of the house at 17
I didnt think much of it at the moment it happened but as i walked further and further i grew more weary and ran out of money. In the middle of summer i ran out of food and water. I slept on the side of the road and was eaten alive by bugs. I was nearly attacked by a homeless man and it was about to rain
Defeated i fell on my knees in realization that my lifestyle was what caused my situation and i begged the lord for forgiveness. I dont think i had ever cried that much. I also asked that my mother take me back amd forgive me, or for somone to please atleast for one night to take me in
I was taken in by a mexican familty for more than a month. They were incedibly kind to me. They also knew someone from my hometown and eventually got in contact with my mother who was sorry abiut kicking me out
She offered me a car for coming back home when i would have gone for free
There was alot more to it but thats pretty much the abridged version

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 12:24:09 2015 No.6617954 >>6617935 calvin

Anonymous Sun May 31 12:25:00 2015 No.6617958

>>6617935
>christian(Catholic) view on the problem of free will and determinism?

It's called compatibilism.

They restructure the issue to say that the problem isn't 'Free Will vs. Determinism', but 'Indeterminism vs Determinism'. Thus you can have indeterminism + free will, or Determinism + free will.

Anonymous Sun May 31 12:32:47 2015 No.6617981

>>6617902

Aristotle makes a distinction between that which exists only for human purposes- and I take "cup" to be unintelligible as a "cup" apart from human purposes- and natural objects, which have their own essences. There's no theology involved here, just an understanding of what it is to be a cup, which is to be a kind of instrument, and what it is to be a dog or a human, which is to be an organism.

>Hmm, are you swapping the Aristotelian essence for the platonic form?

I don't think a "cup" is anything, except again in a human sense, hence a cup is not really a thing-in-itself (i.e., it's not a substance), but a derivative of a property of a thing, namely, a human intent. Also am not being Platonic; Aristotle talked about Forms too.

>If we return to our black/white dichotomy and spectrum of greys, dog-ness and human-ness are black and white, while evolutionary theory would be the spectrum of greys.

Evolutionary theory has precious little to do with genuine Aristotelian essences. Since the modern concept of biological species is defined with respect to reproductive capacity rather than to the intrinsic essence (the former being easier to discern than the latter), I'm quite open to quite a lot of our current classifications being nominalistic fictions. I'm quite happy with evolution as a theory of biological origins in time.

That said, I think there's something fundamentally metaphysically unique about humans- namely, that we have rational, partially-immaterial essences- but I'm noncommittal as to how these arose. The parts aren't metaphysically novel- both Forms and Matter are ubiquitous.

Anyway, the Ship of Theseus is really not a new problem, and evolution is just the Ship problem applied to biology. To the degree that it is a problem, it's an epistemic one, since change itself (which evolution presupposes) is unintelligible apart from an essential distinction between the start and end of the change- i.e., what-it-is-to-be the initial state, and what-it-is-to-be the end state of each, must differ. So there must be essences for that which changes, and since the living things are doing the changing across generations, living things must have essences, however tricky it may be to delineate their limits (for practical purposes, existing species-boundaries are perfectly fine, so I'm not advocating biologists become metaphysicians).

It's worth bearing in mind that biology is only one case in a very general problem which essentialism deals with- the problem of the one and the many. The very constructs you use to explain away essences- e.g. language- must have essences if they are to be anything at all, and hence to have any sort of explanatory power at all.

>to be clear, I'm not saying a physical object isn't present.

Ah, but you see, now you believe in physical objects which are neither humans nor dogs, but are kind of abstract, protean blobs of "physicality" we just invent names for. That seems pretty unreal to me.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 12:45:45 2015 No.6618028 >>6616165 Good shit

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 12:53:51 2015 No.6618054 >>6617938 What makes you think God had a hand in this?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 12:58:08 2015 No.6618073 >>6616710 Not that anon, but one of his newer series' had the child protagonist be molested by a slut. He didn't undergo any character building from it, it just happened.

Anonymous Sun May 31 13:11:15 2015 No.6618131

>>6617981
>I'm quite happy with evolution as a theory of biological origins in time.
Post-Amino and RNA, I presume? I'm not sure where you'd draw the line at what constitutes a living organism, and subsequently where your biologically linked essences would begin.

>the Ship of Theseus is really not a new problem, and evolution is just the Ship problem applied to biology.
Exactly. But I have done it as you are unwilling to permit a cup (or a ship) an essence, but will allow a biological organism or an 'ethical act' one.

>To the degree that it is a problem, it's an epistemic one, since change itself (which evolution presupposes) is unintelligible apart from an essential distinction between the start and end of the change- i.e., what-it-is-to-be the initial state, and what-it-is-to-be the end state of each, must differ.
The change itself is perfectly intelligible. We appear to have access to something we have called reality and have created a semantic framework with which to describe it. human and ship are both linguistic concepts inside this semantic framework, as is the concept of an essence itself.

So, in regard to biology, the ti ên einai, the what-it-is-to-be, which you loyally cling to, has a potentially infinite amount of essences because they 'differ' (ie, each achieving a new essence as apposed to essences evolving)?

>The very constructs you use to explain away essences- e.g. language- must have essences if they are to be anything at all
The cart before the horse, I'm afraid.
>now you believe in physical objects which are neither humans nor dogs, but are kind of abstract, protean blobs of "physicality" we just invent names for.
That's closer, but not quite. All we can do is describe what we think we are perceiving, and we can never have full access to that which we believe we perceive.

Anonymous Sun May 31 13:51:10 2015 No.6618229

>>6618131
>Post-Amino and RNA, I presume?
I'm not tied to chemistry. The existence of nutrition, growth, responsiveness, reproduction, etc. are enough for me, and as far as I know you need something like a cell to get real life.

>The change itself is perfectly intelligible. We appear to have access to something we have called reality and have created a semantic framework with which to describe it. human and ship are both linguistic concepts inside this semantic framework, as is the concept of an essence itself.

If both "human" and (say) "homo erectus" and, indeed, every evolutionary stage in between are both "concepts" without metaphysical foundation, then it's hard to see in what sense a change in species has in fact occurred, hence in what sense evolution has in fact occurred.

Perhaps you think that evolution explains not changes in kinds of organism, but changes in the traits given to organisms (in which case, perhaps, you might think all animal and vegetable-kind as one single substance with variable accidents- makes no difference to me). But again, you've merely gone from affirming changes in substantial form to affirming accidental form. If there aren't changes of either kind (substantial or accidental) in reality, distinguished according to form, then again it is difficult to see in what sense change has occurred at all.

If everything is mere linguistic framework without metaphysical payoff, you're stuck in scepticism (not that that would help you get rid of forms, since abstract ideas and objects of imagination would still require the metaphysics of form and matter to account for them). Metaphysical bedrock has to be some way or another, and linguistics is no substitute for it. If fundamentally reality is all one thing (per Parmenides), then we've got pantheism. If it's many (as seems to be the case with our many percepts), we've got essentialism.

>So, in regard to biology, the ti ên einai, the what-it-is-to-be, which you loyally cling to, has a potentially infinite amount of essences because they 'differ' (ie, each achieving a new essence as apposed to essences evolving)?

As in all things, substantial forms are not the only forms. There can be variances in accidental forms which leave the substantial form unchanged. I'm of the opinion that by and large things reproduce after their kind, though perhaps when certain traits become more prevalent a mother produces an organism which is in fact of a different kind, despite biological compatibility. Perhaps (per Scotus) an apparent physical unity may have two different substantial forms, commixed. I keep an open mind about these things, since a detailed Aristotelian metaphysics of the biological hasn't really been attempted in modern times (not that I blame anyone- it's a very abstract sort of question).

>All we can do is describe what we think we are perceiving, and we can never have full access to that which we believe we perceive.

Sounds like pure dogma to me, depending.

Anonymous Sun May 31 14:53:32 2015 No.6618463
File: 25 KB, 318x475, 109774.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6618229
>If both "human" and (say) "homo erectus" and, indeed, every evolutionary stage in between are both "concepts" without metaphysical foundation, then it's hard to see in what sense a change in species has in fact occurred, hence in what sense evolution has in fact occurred.
You said it yourself earlier, we classify by reproductive ability. If less than 50% of the 'species' can reproduce with it's ancestors, then it's classified as a different species. Off course this leads to various linguistic classification problems, and cries about 'missing links' but it's the best semantic model we have created thus far. And 'change' is continuous through each act of reproduction and each genome variation.

Back to our spectrum, and forgive the SF: We take chimpanzee DNA and human DNA, and create a hundred thousand intermediary organisms. We line them up sequentially, chimp on the right, man on the left. The organism to right of the man will look virtually the same as the man, and the organism to the left of the chimp will look like a chimp. Those in the middle will look like hybrids. My issue is your application of a of human-ness or chimpanzee-ness essence to one or more of the organisms. I maintain that all we can do is observe what we think we are perceiving and apply linguistic tags - which can range from species classification names, and descriptions of the hair follicles all the way down complex tachyon equations.

>If everything is mere linguistic framework without metaphysical payoff, you're stuck in scepticism
skepticism with internal verifiability. All we have is a highly complex and detailed descriptions of reality, which is continuously refining and undergoing its own reformation against aspects of itself and other isolated areas within the same framework.

>not that that would help you get rid of forms
Again, the concept of forms, as with all other linguistic concepts, is also *inside* our semantic framework.

>I keep an open mind about these things, since a detailed Aristotelian metaphysics of the biological hasn't really been attempted in modern times
Try pic related: Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. It's highly detailed.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 14:55:29 2015 No.6618470 >>6617216 I hope to one day be able to articulate and defend the faith as well as you can. Any good lit recommendations on the life affirming nature of Christianity?

Anonymous Sun May 31 15:13:52 2015 No.6618519

G-guys I just wanted to talk about theological texts and philosophy with my religious bros...

What have you all been reading recently? Mostly the KJV and Catholic Study Bible for me (read entire KJV before, study bible is relatively new). Not sure if I'm going to go more /theo/ in a bit or fiction or something

Anonymous Sun May 31 15:36:21 2015 No.6618593

>>6615122
The two authors that led me to greatly mature in my faith were Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky.
Funnily enough, Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre also helped me get there. It's more that I saw all the shit that was wrong with their philosophies and it pushed me further toward Christianity.
When I was reading Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky for the first time I also got really into art and music. For the first time in my life I'd actually tear up while listening to music or admiring visual art. Even lower art forms like anime and video games became means of applying Christian thought to different situations, which eventually led to my entire way of thinking to change.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 15:40:47 2015 No.6618602 >>6614840 You do have to believe that Jesus literally came back from the dead though. If you don't believe that then you're not a Christian.

Anonymous Sun May 31 15:46:56 2015 No.6618622

>>6618602
>You do have to believe that Jesus literally came back from the dead though
No, you have to believe in a full-blown zombie apocalypse.

"And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52 All the tombs were opened, and all the bodies of those who had died were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54 Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquakes and all the things that were happening, became very frightened."

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 15:47:45 2015 No.6618626 >>6618593 >I saw all the shit that was wrong with their philosophies Which were?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 15:59:54 2015 No.6618651 >>6614802 You aren't in Rottingdean by any chance are you? (I understand that married Catholic priests aren't incredibly uncommon, just worth asking)

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 16:06:18 2015 No.6618677 >>6618651 Rottingdean. What a beastly name for a place.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 16:10:09 2015 No.6618693 >>6618677 It means the people of a dark age chap named "Rota" apparently

Anonymous Sun May 31 17:06:14 2015 No.6618961

>>6618626
The lack of a foundation and contradiction of their claims.
Nietzsche's entire critique of Christianity is really just a subjective dislike of what he calls a slave morality, while asserting that his arbitrary view of aristocratic morality is somehow superior, without ever giving a reason. His statements about the development of man as related to the concepts of resentment and punishment are also baseless and unfounded. I suppose I can't blame him for not understanding evolution thoroughly, he wasn't a scientist, but that doesn't mean he can make claims about the development of human thought and claim objectivity.
Camus' biggest problem is his contradictions as well. He claims everything is meaningless and absurd, but at the same time says we should go against that absurdity just for the sake of it, without giving any reason to do so. The idea of the noble and bold Sisyphus going against the Gods just because he can is a nice image, but if Camus is correct in his philosophy, any damnation is just psychologically enforced on yourself, and the meaning derived from defiance is as absurd and worthless as any other meaning.
Similar contradictions can be found in Sartre's philosophy. He'll spend time spouting off about absolute freedom, the ability to be whatever we wish, and the absurdity of existence and then flip around and say things that require objective truth and support a universal, objective morality.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 17:10:52 2015 No.6618984 >>6618961 Lesson 1: Paragraph: Topic sentence, sentence, sentence... Paragraph: Topic sentence, sentence, sentence... Paragraph: Topic sentence, sentence, sentence...

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 17:19:33 2015 No.6619017 >>6618984 I'll keep that in mind next time I turn in a term paper

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 17:23:27 2015 No.6619030 >>6615290 Yet consider whyJesus whom according to Christianity is God would speak parables to answer questions. Hell further consider the story in Genesis of Jacob wrestling with God.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 17:25:00 2015 No.6619036 >>6617269 Thankfully, the system is doing something about it and the Christian world despises them instead of defending them or sympathising with them.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 17:34:01 2015 No.6619070 Any literature about reincarnation?

Anonymous Sun May 31 17:46:44 2015 No.6619127
File: 142 KB, 960x540, matthew-lane-durham-edmond-oklahoma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6619036
>Thankfully, the system is doing something about it
>The system?

Really? what is 'the system' doing? it seems to be getting worse now; it's not just fat old Christian pedo's anymore.

Pic related.

"An Oklahoma teenager has confessed to raping Kenyan orphans while visiting the country on a Christian missionary trip.

Matthew Lane Durham, 19, volunteered at Upendo Children's Home in June 2012, June and December 2013, and earlier this year from April 30 to June 17. According to FBI claims, during his most recent trip, Durham stayed on site at the children's home in an "overflow bunk," per his own request, and not with a sponsor family as he had in previous trips.

There, "Durham raped multiple children ranging in ages from four to ten," According to court records, Durham also confessed to forcing the other children to watch the acts."

Anonymous Sun May 31 17:58:06 2015 No.6619174

>>6617417

You had a good discussion going before you fell into that new atheist rhetoric

> good people need religion to-do bad things

Just think about this for a second and reevaluate if it is anyway a substantial statement with consideration to human nature.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 18:02:01 2015 No.6619193 >>6616701 >I know the heartwarming message that the comic is supposed to be getting at Good then the poorly made comic has fulfilled it's purpose, direct your cutting analytic eye elsewhere.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 18:47:20 2015 No.6619378 >>6618054 What do you think god is?

Anonymous Sun May 31 20:42:13 2015 No.6619895

>>6619174
To be fair, the last part was a bit of an after thought, in response to the posters implication that needing and having a saiviour leads to the betterment of people.

I thought about putting 'good' and 'bad' in inverted commas. Of course 'goodness' should be judged by one's actions in which case the 'good' who do 'bad' wouldn't be 'good' at all, but here's the thing: If you start from a position in which you are righteous and 'good', everything you do will be evaluated and seen under that aspect. No, 'good' people don't need -religion- to do 'bad' things. Any kind of dogma or ideology will do for someone who otherwise might have been a perfectly reasonable and 'good' fellow to do something absolutely horrible AND believe it to be in his own and other's best interest, believe it to be 'good'.
>>6619378
I wanted to say 'nothing' and just leave it at that, but god is so much more. An idea, an ideal, an eternal father figure, a protector, a crutch, a demon, a shackle and countless other things.
Whatever he is and however beneficial it is to believe in god, I think that 'god' is within you and whatever power you derive from this concept is coming from your own mind.
You could free yourself from this burden and derive strength from yourself without any mental gymnastics and delusions, despite and in spite of the harsh reality of death.

Anonymous Sun May 31 21:20:17 2015 No.6620061
File: 14 KB, 214x300, Meow_the_fat_cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>go to school with qt 3.14
>we never date but always have the hots for each other
>she winds up going to the most liberal college I've ever heard of
>go visit her one time
>the greatest cesspool of degenerates and castoffs I have ever seen; everyone smokes, everyone gets blackout drunk on a daily basis, everyone is on birth control and everyone has some form of psychological disorder
>she graduates with a degree in whatever
>last time I saw her she said she had applied to Divinity school at Yale

I guess she saw some shit

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 21:22:02 2015 No.6620069 >>6614802 Eastern rite catholic priests can marry

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 22:01:07 2015 No.6620235 >>6614840 Because theism=your personal interpretation of christianity. Also, you really should get rid of all the strawmen, they make movement difficult.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 00:57:31 2015 No.6620821 >>6614786 Is there a solid rational argument for the existence of God beyond those discussed by Aquinas?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 02:11:12 2015 No.6621047 >>6620061 Nice story

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 03:11:56 2015 No.6621220 >>6620821 Leibniz's is pretty nice. I also enjoy the ontological argument and the argument from desire (I think the two last ones are related).

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 03:34:06 2015 No.6621266

>>6620821

Godel and Plantinga both have famous Modal Logic arguments that are roughly based on Anselm's Ontological argument. I have a hard time with them because I don't know modal logic that well, but apparently they've ran Godel's through computers that can do perfect modal logic and the computers judged it to be correct.

I find Scotus' quite convincing, though in the De Primo Principio we are looking at 75 pages of a mixture between a cosmological argument like Aquinas' with his own special additions, and some stuff which is reminiscent or directly references Anselm as well, it also includes proofs for all of God's qualities on top of that. I'm not sure if it is perfect, as it's hard to keep track of every single sub-argument that is made( I'm not 100% sure that he nailed divine infinity), but it is definitely worth checking out, perhaps the version in the Ordinatio is a better place to start since it seems like Scotus' prose was better there.

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 03:55:31 2015 No.6621313

>>6621266
The modal argument can be just as easily be swapped over to reverse ontological argument. There's a difference between an argument's validity only (conclusion follows from axioms) and soundness (the axioms are correct and by necessity the conclusion as well).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 04:13:53 2015 No.6621340 >>6617981 Aristotle believed animal's forms to fit too well to arise out of any process, which is why he argued they must be modeled off a form. Completely incompatible with evolution.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 05:04:04 2015 No.6621459 >>6621340 Yeah, lol, you really don't understand Aristotle. It's not a matter of how complex you are- everything, insofar as it is susceptible of metaphysical definition, has something like form.

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 05:12:35 2015 No.6621486

>>6621340

The composition of form and matter so to create a substance is a process though. And nothing is modeled off of a form in Aristotle, the form inheres in the matter so to create the substance. Platonic forms are the ones that physical items resemble.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 05:14:33 2015 No.6621493 >>6614969 I know that feel mate, but since gnosis is a very personal experience, you might still be able to find it even without the scriptures

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 07:08:48 2015 No.6621803 >>6617417 >For good people to do evil takes religion Into the trash it goes.

potato Mon Jun 1 17:53:37 2015 No.6624088

>>6614786
>05
Omfg I've been waiting for you.

tl;dr

look dude marriage is overrated, in heaven you do not keep your spouse as your spouse and if that doesn't persuade you to get over 'marriage' then think of it like this, after enough generations the child you had will have kids that don't even resemble you or your spouse. Humans can swap dna so much that one child won't make a huge difference in the long run. No man you shouldn't become your parents, you should become yourself and if you think you're being called to become a priest then look more into it. Don't shrug it away like I did, I got all of these inner knots in me just because I'm an electrical engineer major, have no clue what the hell I'm really doing, but I enjoy it. But at the same time every now and then metaphysics creeps back in, nietszche's ideas flood my mind and aristotle comes to mind as well. And then read next post

potato Mon Jun 1 18:04:04 2015 No.6624156

ok dude let me finish this rant and read other people's stuff because for the past 3 weeks i've been writing a book and it discusses metaphysics.

More specifically its a book on philosophy of the mind and it begins with proving that time is a constant and then I begin to get into aristotle and his three laws of logic you know identity, excluded middle etc and in that same chapter I disprove the higs boson particle as being the thing that gives everything mass by using einstein's e=mc' squared.

But those are just teh first few chapters, man the whole book is designed as an attempt to explain the nature of the soul, the extent of human reason and all of these other things. Its like I've been having this pent up energy that really can only stay still for so long.

Anyway let us get back to debating metaphysics like men and not talking about shoe shopping.

potato analysis of everyone's (...) Mon Jun 1 18:49:03 2015 No.6624327

>>6614786
So OP, everyone in this thread would be way better off if they just married a whore, skip the whole

Pros behind whores
1. Knows she's a bitch and thus knows her place unlike most people's spouses here
2. Doesn't come up with stupid shit like the secular epistomology, assuming (epistemology has anything to do with theology) and call it reason
3. Cooks, cleans, looks attractive and you can put a muzzle on her.

Cons behind anglicans,daoist,smaoists,orthodoxy, catholic priests harboring an inferioty complex and everyone else here including the neckbeard el3te h@x0R who is 40, lives at home with his mom and dreams of getting that sweet pussy we know he can never get because no one dates fat ugly men even if they claim they can write in C.

1. They have no basis for their reasoning other than emotions.
2. They are incapable of coming up with an argument without talking about a person or a theory without explaining where it comes from or how it pertains to anything.

3. And because of that they're a woman. THerefore their argument is invalid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 18:58:23 2015 No.6624369 How does rejecting God mean a rejection of objective morality? Aquinas says that morality can be determined by reason. With reason and genetic determinism, what are we missing not talking about God or taking him out of the picture? It seems arbitrary.

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 18:59:36 2015 No.6624371
File: 609 KB, 1280x1152, 128943523445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So to what extent is belief necessary? Ignore innocently being ignorant.
If you believe in God and his teachings, do you have to believe the resurrection?
If you believe in his teachings do you have to believe the proper attributes given to God like the trinity?
If you believe in God do you need to believe in Jesus even as a person?
If you believe in his teachings do you need to even believe in God's existence and/or heaven and hell? You're liking the essence of what God is then.
Further, why? It seems strangely unnecessary to say you need to listen to him AND like him a bunch and believe these historical claims.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:04:27 2015 No.6624395 >>6624369 The bible defines morality as adherence to god's laws, if you found morality through reason it would be different then the bible's definition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:06:49 2015 No.6624405 >>6624369 "teachings of man" "man's wisdom" Things like that are taught not to be given credence according to the bible You either accept the bible is from god or reject it as far as I understand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:07:14 2015 No.6624407 >>6624395 Arent people like Aquians Aristotelian though when it comes to ethics? I thought they merely belived that the bible contained the best description of these objective ethics

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:07:21 2015 No.6624409 >>6624369 Without an absolute basis for morality it is all subjective. Call that absolute basis God or whatever you want, but it must exist for morality to be objective.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:07:35 2015 No.6624411 >>6624395 Oh. Well then God's definition is not the normal definition and is, thus, irrelevant. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:08:22 2015 No.6624416 >>6624411 Are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:09:04 2015 No.6624419 >>6624416 ? You answered my question. I'm thankful.

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:10:22 2015 No.6624422

>>6624411
I could say man's definition of righteousness is absurd without the word of god. Since righteousness is obedience to god's word. You can be moral in whatever satanic logic you've contrived, but if it's not from god, it is not righteous, and therefore, evil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:10:38 2015 No.6624423 Ichthys

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:10:46 2015 No.6624424 >>6624419 It wasn't me that answered your question, but looking back I completely misread this >>6624411 post. Never mind, sorry about the calling you a retard thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:11:36 2015 No.6624430 >>6624409 >Without an absolute basis for morality it is all subjective Definitely, but can that not be nature? Say, psychology ends up saying there is a set morality to man. This extends from our biology. God is explicitly not nature.

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:15:21 2015 No.6624452

>>6624430
>Say, psychology ends up saying there is a set morality to man
>This extends from our biology.
Psychology actually demonstrates the exact opposite. What one person considers moral and how they react to a certain behavior can vary greatly from someone else. There's also the issue of psychopaths, who are immune to the moral impulses normal people feel. Should they be exempt from this supposed objective biological law despite having no biological push to obey it, and so no falling under its umbrella?
>God is explicitly not nature.
What definition of God are you working from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 19:16:49 2015 No.6624458 BEST /lit/ thread in a long time

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 21:10:01 2015 No.6625012

>>6624407

Thomists are Aristotelians, yes. We think that at least some virtues are accessible to natural reason, but that Scripture of course perfects these and adds supernatural, theological virtues, e.g. faith, hope and love.

That said, on the question of the ontology of the good, we think that since nature can be none other than an expression of the will of God, its dictates don't ultimately make sense apart from him. It is precisely as the author of nature that God possesses his authority. Nihilists have to deny both God and nature, which is why we don't think much of their philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 21:17:37 2015 No.6625074 >>6625012 Did aquinas have anything to say on the long wait for the second comming?

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 21:41:37 2015 No.6625216

>>6624371

>So to what extent is belief necessary?
It's absolutely necessary- immortality is found precisely in the love of God, and that presupposes belief. Of course the kind of belief one pursues is important. The kind that treats God as a mere "fact" is not spiritually valuable. Belief should be cultivated in conjunction with existential commitment, emotional investment, and lived experience. Where belief in God is pursued in abstraction from all else that is necessary, in most cases the weakness of human reason makes even that impossible.

>If you believe in God and his teachings, do you have to believe the resurrection?

The Resurrection is the very hope of Christians, made possible because Christ rose first. If one does not hope for the same, and live for the same, then one is not oriented toward the true eternal life, but some vain imagining of men. If one is to be saved, therefore, the Resurrection must be believed.

>If you believe in his teachings do you have to believe the proper attributes given to God like the trinity?

Yes. First, because they are true (even demonstrably, if one is to believe Anselm). Second, because these doctrines protect you from asserting falsehoods about God, and direct the mind to the God who has saved you, the true God, rather than the mere images of the true God that lesser faiths must make idols of. Third, because these attributes are beneficial to believe for the sake of the spiritual life.

>If you believe in God do you need to believe in Jesus even as a person?

Yes. Because Jesus, God Incarnate, is the only way men may know and love the true God in himself, and as incarnate, he is a person (though of course more than a mere person). Thus, believing in him as a person is the very least of the things necessary for salvation.

>If you believe in his teachings do you need to even believe in God's existence and/or heaven and hell? You're liking the essence of what God is then.

He taught the love of God, the promise of paradise, and the threat of Hell. You have no idea who the concrete person of Christ was and is, if you deny everything he taught and lived for, yet claim to know the essence of his God.

>Further, why? It seems strangely unnecessary to say you need to listen to him AND like him a bunch and believe these historical claims.

One has to bear in mind the problem Christianity solves. It aims at ultimate happiness- that is, the fulfilment of human nature such that no greater fulfilment is possible. The finite and changeable must therefore be reconciled to the infinite and eternal, and this must happen in the incarnate Christ. But the incarnate Christ, precisely as incarnate, is also historical and particular. Since it is through our humanity being related to his that salvation comes, the particular person, together with the historical details of what he did which pertains to our salvation, must be believed (among other things) for salvation.

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 21:44:56 2015 No.6625230

>>6625216
>The finite and changeable must therefore be reconciled to the infinite and eternal, and this must happen in the incarnate Christ.
Still reading you but I never understood wat people meant when people mentioned this. It seems like it's talking about the two natures of Christ but there seems to be a relevance that is assumed that I don't quite understand.

thanks for the post by the way! Still reading

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 22:04:14 2015 No.6625322

>>6625230

Maybe this will help. I wrote this higher up in the thread:

>Original sin refers to the estrangement we experience from God. It's pretty much the beginning of the understanding of the human condition. Damnation (i.e., the Second Death) is a revealed intensification of what should already be horrifying: that human nature, limited as it is, cannot provide the goods to fully satisfy itself: it is not invincible and self-sufficient. We are doomed to death and/or continuing incompleteness as the kinds of things we are- indeed, this is pretty much self-evident.

Since the problem is the finitude of human nature, and the death and dissatisfaction it entails, the ultimate good- that which is unqualified and infinite goodness and being- must be beyond our reach, considered in ourselves. The Christian hope then is not that we do something that makes happiness possible, but that God takes the initiative. And the kind of thing that reconciliation must be, for natures like ours, makes demands that only incarnation can fulfil.

For no human, in himself, can know God well enough to love him and delight in him, even though every man desires God- no sooner do we carve out our understandings of God, than we carve out idols, since God is indivisible and one and metaphysically ultimate. The problem of human nature thus suggests that man would have to be God, to attain ultimate happiness, and that's what happened in the Incarnation. For the rest of us, being able to know God incarnate as another human- as a King- is just the kind of aid we need to love God himself, and so inherit eternal life ourselves.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 22:35:27 2015 No.6625521 File: 162 KB, 1400x932, st pats.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Post your churches!

SYK FUK RUKUS Mon Jun 1 22:45:56 2015 No.6625571

>>6617447

That's the case with quite a few philosophers, even the brilliant ones. You read them for methodology of thinking, even if they in the end tend to reach wrong conclusions.

Plantinga's take-on on complex ontology is a quality intellectual exercise and worth reading, even if in the end as you said his conclusions are wrong (i'd rather say incomplete).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 22:48:49 2015 No.6625596 >>6625216 You're telling me that I'm not going to want to be with God because no matter how good I am or no matter how much I love God I just don't believe that 2000 years ago God came down on Earth as man?

>>	SYK FUK RUKUS Mon Jun 1 22:49:23 2015 No.6625602 File: 132 KB, 800x600, High-baroque interior.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6625521 I don't think it gets much better than my church. Here's interior.

>>	SYK FUK RUKUS Mon Jun 1 22:50:50 2015 No.6625611 File: 2.93 MB, 4000x3000, Neoclassical exterior.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6625602 >>6625521 And here's exterior with our beloved papa.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 23:12:51 2015 No.6625744 >>6625602 Why is it so decadent?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 23:13:41 2015 No.6625750 File: 36 KB, 550x366, basilica-of-the-national.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6625521 h- hey guys c- c- can I join?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 23:15:16 2015 No.6625761 File: 69 KB, 763x381, 000par7497917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6625602 >>6625750 Here is mine

SYK FUK RUKUS Mon Jun 1 23:30:19 2015 No.6625828

>>6625761

Damn, that's a runner up.

>>6625744

That's a roccoco, high baroque style. I can't see why would you deem it to be decadent. It's also my academic church nearby University of Warsaw with 2 centuries old pipe organs accompanying every service.

Anonymous Mon Jun 1 23:38:11 2015 No.6625863

>>6625828
> I can't see why would you deem it to be decadent.

How can you not? all that gilding and intricate stonework and art. Almost all of which is superfluous to the preforming of sacraments and worship. The fact that there is a more decadent church nearby doesnt make this any better.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 1 23:52:22 2015 No.6625930 >>6625828 >>6625761 >>6625750 Catholics? They always have the most beautiful churches, it is the sole reason I feel to be envious of Catholicism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:00:45 2015 No.6625974 File: 2.31 MB, 1600x1206, 1428791388546.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6625521 just a random pic showing the beauty of the place of worship

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:04:51 2015 No.6626011

>>6625596

No matter how good you are in yourself, you will neither know nor love God- it's just something that is in principle beyond your power to achieve. But of course it is friendship with the true God which enables the higher reaches of human goodness, which, if you are not a follower of Christ, you cannot have, so the point is moot.

>I just don't believe that 2000 years ago God came down on Earth as man?

It's the finitude of your nature as a creature which prevents you from knowing and loving God, in a manner conducive to eternal life. Unbelief is incompatible with the cure- namely, the love of God in Christ, so yeah, that's unfortunate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:11:28 2015 No.6626050 >>6626011 >No matter how good you are in yourself, you will neither know nor love God- it's just something that is in principle beyond your power to achieve Unless you are a gnostic of course.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:14:04 2015 No.6626071 >>6625863 It's BEAUTIFUL. It is beautiful, as God is beautiful. It is a pale, pathetic echo of the Beauty of the Divine- but it is an echo regardless, and that is an important thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:15:45 2015 No.6626078 >>6626050 You mean unless gnosticism was true, which it isn't.

SYK FUK RUKUS Tue Jun 2 00:17:31 2015 No.6626087

>>6625863
>superfluous to the performing of sacraments and worship

While it is superflous to performing sacraments, it's not superflous to the practice of worship. Aesthetic experiance upon entering such church influences people greatly in their prayer, feeling of being drawn to the spiritual realm and convicion of worship's significance. It serves didactic purposes, ad maiorem Dei gloriam. Not only that, but aesthetic quality is desirable by its own essence of aesthetic virtue (on ethical dimension).

Remember the washing of Jesus' feet with jar of alabaster perfume? Judas also had doubts if that was a moral conduct on woman's part, suggesting it would be better to sell the perfume and give money to the charity.

>>6625930

>Poland

Not being a Catholic here is a criminal offence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:22:19 2015 No.6626114 >>6626087 Polish Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church? Both equally acceptable?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:28:43 2015 No.6626160

>>6626071
Beauty that comes at the expense of faith and good works which is more beautiful to God than anything you will find in the Vatican city.

>While it is superflous to performing sacraments, it's not superflous to the practice of worship. Aesthetic experiance upon entering such church influences people greatly in their prayer, feeling of being drawn to the spiritual realm and convicion of worship's significance.

Its hypocritical far from being drawn to the spiritual realm they are chaining themselves to the worldly one. Its dynamic preaching that draws people into that great feeling.

Not only that, but aesthetic quality is desirable by its own essence of aesthetic virtue (on ethical dimension).

>It serves didactic purposes, ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

>Posting the motto of the most Machiavellian christian order

See my comment above the glory of god is in faith and works not gold and marble.

>Remember the washing of Jesus' feet with jar of alabaster perfume? Judas also had doubts if that was a moral conduct on woman's part, suggesting it would be better to sell the perfume and give money to the charity.

Do you remember what Jesus said to the rich man?

Ill remind you:

>21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:31:00 2015 No.6626173 >>6626078 Not entirely, infact catholic orders inspired by gnostic principles have come to know god in ways similar to what you talk of. Look into the Carthusians .

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:36:40 2015 No.6626200 >>6626173 From what Wiki says, I can only tell that Carthusians are honourable Christians. Why slur them as gnostics?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:47:41 2015 No.6626269 >>6626200 Because their practices (at least in medieval times) was one of transcendence fully know gods love combined which they carried out in isolated contemplation. Which is pretty darn gnostic

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:51:28 2015 No.6626303

>>6626269

They're a communal, monastic order. It's perfectly fine to do mysticism within a Christian framework, since one meditates precisely on the historical person of Christ, with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Moreover as Catholics (who are big fans of spiritual division of labour) they see their work as one part in a larger endeavour that does include the worldly. It's basically what's good in Gnosticism (and nothing is wholly evil), minus the incredible hubris and metaphysical absurdity.

SYK FUK RUKUS Tue Jun 2 00:52:20 2015 No.6626311

>>6626114

Only Roman Catholic Church. Polish Catholic Church is almost non-existent here and its origins are close to Anglican schism, simply utilitarian purposes.

>>6626160

First of I'd appreciate if you marked that you reply to both our comments because I almost overlooked yours.

>Beauty that comes at the expense of faith and good works

False premise, often used by protestants who simply cannot comprehend that it's not a zero sum game. Worldly beauty serves the didactic purpose in trying to emulate and reflect the beauty of faith and the very spiritual realm. It's not chaining yourself to this world. Christianity is not a Manichean, flesh-denying cult. Much of the Old Testament is a "testament" to the value of aesthetic experiance in life of a believer even if it's also a reminder that faith and grace are superior to it. The point is that we don't need to sacrifice one for the other.

Matthew 26:7

>"Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, "Why this waste?… For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor." But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. "For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me."

This passage much better reflects the attitude the Scripture has towards money spent on giving glory to God by creation of something aesthetically pleasing to senses. Passage quoted by you refers to a private life of a rich man and his private property. These two are different conducts in different contexts.

PS Taking into account my Polish time zone I may not be able to reply forth as I have to go to college soon, but /lit/ is a slow board so if you'll write anything else I'll try to adress it later during any boring lectures.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:54:33 2015 No.6626319 just be a priest and fuck on the side pussy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:55:07 2015 No.6626322 File: 49 KB, 440x600, ignatius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6614786 >CTRL+F >geometry >0 of 0 results Tut tut.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 00:57:17 2015 No.6626336 >>6626319 did you know the plural of pussy is pussae

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:20:56 2015 No.6626451 >>6626303 Is transcendental mysticism what you would see as a metaphysical absurdity?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:32:01 2015 No.6626493

>>6626311
>False premise, often used by protestants who simply cannot comprehend that it's not a zero sum game.

Opportunity cost is a real concept. When one uses time and resources in one way you cannot use them in other.

>Worldly beauty serves the didactic purpose in trying to emulate and reflect the beauty of faith and the very spiritual realm.

It mocks the simple beauty of faith and the spiritual realm by contorting into an oppulent and wasteful image that is the literal oppoiste of the spiritual realm. God is literally defined by his simplicity as was the life of Jesus.

>Christianity is not a Manichean, flesh-denying cult. Much of the Old Testament is a "testament" to the value of aesthetic experiance in life of a believer even if it's also a reminder that faith and grace are superior to it. The point is that we don't need to sacrifice one for the other.

Now its you who are creating the false premises. You can still create beauty without being decedent and wasteful. We have to productive technology and means to do so. We could achieve all of this and have plenty left over.

>This passage much better reflects the attitude the Scripture has towards money spent on giving glory to God by creation of something aesthetically pleasing to senses.

Jesus was literally about to cruxified at that point. in no way is it meant to be an argument for glorifying god through decadent "sacrifices".

>Passage quoted by you refers to a private life of a rich man and his private property. These two are different conducts in different contexts.

Rubbish look at the following passages

>23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25

Taking a vow of poverty means nothing when you are adorned with gold and fine linen and control the access to so called "public wealth"

Equally your distinction between private and public property means very little when you consider the current function of the Church and the nature of their ownership.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:32:19 2015 No.6626495

>>6626451
It's not mysticism itself which I object to- there are perfectly orthodox examples of mysticism. But any mysticism which purports to know God without the mediation of Christ posits a metaphysical absurdity- a fake reconciliation of the finite with the infinite.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:39:13 2015 No.6626528 >>6626495 Cannot the wholly spirit do the same?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:40:10 2015 No.6626531 >>6626528 He can't do shit m8. Try to guess why

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:44:12 2015 No.6626547 >>6626531 I could understand whilst christ was living but dont they interact with us in the modern day via the same means?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:47:23 2015 No.6626559 >>6617830 Do you even vatican.va? SSPX is the heretical version of FSSP, literally.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:48:59 2015 No.6626567 >>6618593 Goto mass, jesse

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 01:51:47 2015 No.6626578

>>6626528
Not in isolation. The Holy Spirit enables us to love God precisely in Christ himself. As Christ said, the Spirit is our Comforter, our abiding link to our Lord. To abstract the Spirit's work from that of Christ, and to treat it as sufficient in itself to know God, is to completely misunderstand what role the Spirit plays in the economy of salvation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:07:15 2015 No.6626642 >>6626578 >As Christ said, the Spirit is our Comforter, our abiding link to our Lord. Doesnt that contradict what this anon said here>>6626495

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:10:22 2015 No.6626655 >>6626642 No, since that anon was also me. Christ bridges the metaphysical gap between men and God. The Holy Spirit helps us know and grow towards God in Christ, while we await his return.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:19:03 2015 No.6626687 Are yall against spanking the monkey? I went in leddits christainity board and a lot of them were against it, especially since it "causes addiction" and is lustful and so on. What you lot think?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:26:44 2015 No.6626709 >>6626655 > Christ bridges the metaphysical gap between men and God Can you expand upon this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:28:23 2015 No.6626713 >>6626687 Yep, it's a pretty disordered habit. A large part of the sexual degeneracy of any age comes from applying a masturbatory logic to sex.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:31:03 2015 No.6626722

>>6626709

Man, in himself, cannot know God, since to know something is to share in its being through the intelligible parts of it. God, being indivisible, cannot be known in this way. To know God, man has to be God, which is of course humanly impossible. But it's not impossible for God, who can and has incarnated.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:37:01 2015 No.6626741

>>6626722
>since to know something is to share in its being through the intelligible parts of it

Why is this the case and how does this work with abstract things say numbers and fabricated things like goblins? We can know of them without dividing or sharing in it.

>God, being indivisible, cannot be known in this way.

By stating Gods traits and function how are we not knowing God?

>But it's not impossible for God, who can and has incarnated.

But with Jesus no longer in human form how can we know God then?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:44:00 2015 No.6626761

>>6626741

Numerical abstractions just are some of the intelligible parts of the world which we can share in via our intellects. That's why we can be said to know the world when we understand its mathematical structure- that structure is a real aspect of the world, and really present in our minds. God, on the other hand, has no such part to share in common with us, being indivisible.

>By stating Gods traits and function how are we not knowing God?

No, we're orienting our language toward him, in a weak or analogical way. We don't know those traits as they are in him, but only by analogy to things we know. It's not so much knowing him as talking vaguely about him, which are not the same thing.

>But with Jesus no longer in human form how can we know God then?

Orthodox Christian doctrine is that he has not ceased being human, but continues being human, as he has become the paradigm of everlasting man.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:48:39 2015 No.6626777

>>6626761
What of the goblins and imaginary beings though?

>No, we're orienting our language toward him, in a weak or analogical way. We don't know those traits as they are in him, but only by analogy to things we know. It's not so much knowing him as talking vaguely about him, which are not the same thing.

How is that different from a persons inability to fully understand another person?

>Orthodox Christian doctrine is that he has not ceased being human, but continues being human, as he has become the paradigm of everlasting man.

How can he be a human if he doesn't have a material presence like a human?

As a side question what is the difference between something that is immaterial and something that does not exist?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 02:57:16 2015 No.6626805

>>6626777

>goblins

If they're imaginary, then you don't know them at all (in the sense of having warranted true beliefs about them). What you know is a mental image of some sort.

>How is that different from a persons inability to fully understand another person?

You can partially know people- you can know what a person is, and even many of their accidental characteristics, and all those are knowable insofar as there is that intelligible, shareable principle. God is undiscoverable in himself and apart from the work of Christ, because we can possess neither his essence nor his accidents as objects of our intellect- they are indistinct from his existence.

We can get better and better analogies for God, but never even the slightest knowledge of him in himself.

>As a side question what is the difference between something that is immaterial and something that does not exist?

Matter is a principle of individuation, and a substrate underlying change in form. The immaterial is the universal which is individuated, and the form which appears and disappears in change. The immaterial, in other words, is the universal, intrinsically intelligible principle in things, hence nothing is purely material. Some things are purely immaterial, however, and they have pure, intrinsically intelligible existence, as opposed to partially-derivatively intelligible existence or non-existence.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 03:09:17 2015 No.6626839

>>6626805
>If they're imaginary, then you don't know them at all (in the sense of having warranted true beliefs about them). What you know is a mental image of some sort.

How do we know that things like daemons and other such beings are not in the same category

>because we can possess neither his essence nor his accidents as objects of our intellect-

If we can perceive other immaterial things with our minds why cannot we do the same with god? Those factors you speak of being unintelligble seem to only be applicable to materiel things.

>Matter is a principle of individuation, and a substrate underlying change in form. The immaterial is the universal which is individuated, and the form which appears and disappears in change. The immaterial, in other words, is the universal, intrinsically intelligible principle in things, hence nothing is purely material. Some things are purely immaterial, however, and they have pure, intrinsically intelligible existence, as opposed to partially-derivatively intelligible existence or non-existence.

Im sorry none of that made any sense to me. Is there an easier way to break this down / a source that explains it clearer?

Is there a dictionary for these technical terms of yours?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 03:27:15 2015 No.6626898

>>6626839

>How do we know that things like daemons and other such beings are not in the same category

The existence of demons and such is not something something deduced a priori. Most of us only know them by testimony from trustworthy sources.

>If we can perceive other immaterial things with our minds why cannot we do the same with god? Those factors you speak of being unintelligble seem to only be applicable to materiel things.

because God is indivisible, hence has no essence which we can grasp apart from his principle of existence, unlike even angels, who, though immaterial, have a principle of existence which is distinct from their essence.

>Im sorry none of that made any sense to me. Is there an easier way to break this down / a source that explains it clearer?

Sorry, the easier way is longer to type (best get a book on Aristotelian metaphysics, really, if you want a firm understanding of what matter is, qua matter). Let me try and make it clearer.

The immaterial is the "what-it-is-to-be" of a thing, so the "horseness" of a horse, the "humanity' of a man, are their immaterial principles. The material is what underlies changes in form- so if something is divisible into smaller things, or can make up larger things, i.e., can acquire new "what-it-is-to-be" principles, it's material. To be immaterial is to have a "what-it-is-to-be" principle, but have no matter- no principle of change or divisibility into smaller or larger things.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 03:36:15 2015 No.6626924

>>6626898
>(best get a book on Aristotelian metaphysics, really,

Do you have any suggestios?

>The immaterial is the "what-it-is-to-be" of a thing, so the "horseness" of a horse, the "humanity' of a man, are their immaterial principles.

Arent those things just generalized concepts/ideas we form after perceiving multiple horses and men?

>To be immaterial is to have a "what-it-is-to-be" principle, but have no matter- no principle of change or divisibility into smaller or larger things.

So does that mean if they find something say like a quark or something smaller than that would it become immaterial due to the fact it cannot be divided?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 04:04:16 2015 No.6627002

>>6626924
>So does that mean if they find something say like a quark or something smaller than that would it become immaterial due to the fact it cannot be divided?

Quarks can also make up larger things, so they're material under the second part of the definition I gave.

>Arent those things just generalized concepts/ideas we form after perceiving multiple horses and men?

Yep, exactly. The "concept" of the thing, being in the thing, is how we know things through concepts. Of course "concept" usually refers to something had by an intelligence, while the "immaterial" is a bit broader than that, since even things like water, which is not at all intelligent, has its own kind of "what it is to be" principle.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 04:17:00 2015 No.6627026 >>6627002 >since even things like water, which is not at all intelligent, has its own kind of "what it is to be" principle. how can water form concepts?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 12:23:02 2015 No.6628248

>>6614823
Why would you WANT to subject yourself to ANY deity? Let's assume a god exists.
Why praise him?
Why obey him?
Why worship him?

Granted, I would do all that if the alternative meant divine punishment, but I couldn't ever brigng myself to -really- worship a deity of any kind, let alone love it.

I don't praise or worship my mother. I am grateful to her for being born to a degree, but for her to receive my respect, she'll need to respect me and continue to do so. And that's the best she or I can ever hope for - mutual love and respect. Even if she 'created' me, I own myself and I don't owe her anything.

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