The fallacy of Pantheism

[Anonymous No.6791911]

First, you sweep away all of the pagan God's by making a theological distinction between the omnipotent, self-moving, self-sufficient Creator who made the world out of nothing, and mere entities of power that were created by Him or merely "emanated" from a pantheistic "All" or "Void". A lot of the pagan gods were simply men of power and influence who came to be worshipped and specified after their deaths.

Then, once you have this theological distinction down, you are left with either the Pantheistic God of the Hindus, Brahmins, Gnostics, Neoplatonists, and so on, from which all things "emanate" by a natural process (God has no say in the matter, he can't help but emanate lesser beings) and the Creator God who created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing) and everything in it ex nihilo, as a free act of benevolence (he had a say in the matter, he didn't need to create other beings).

The pantheists distribute divinity across many beings, for they truly believe that many beings are actually of the same substance as the All, God, Brahman. This is why Hinduism has (literally) millions of named God's, billions of you take into account that they think of humans and animals as being gods. Indeed in this kind of Pantheism, there is no ESSENTIAL difference between you and a bit of fabric or a brick wall, because it all emanated from the same source. The Gnostics have a peculiar version of this where everything emanates from the divine source EXCEPT matter, which was made by some idiot of a divinity called the Demiurge. But they still regard Margery human being as emanating from the All (every human spirit that is, the body they consider evil and a prison for the spirit) and as such as belonging to the divine essence.
In the Creator God, NOTHING is divine except God Himself. None of his creation shares in his divinity, as it shares a separate substance that he created. So the point of worshipping the Creator God is to enter into communion with Him where your spirit is satisfied in every way through love of Him, but you and He retain your own unique identities, you are two separate beings loving one and other. Whereas the point of devoting oneself to the Pantheist God is to be subsumed into it, becoming one with its essence, so that you are indistinguishable from it. In other words, the Creator God cleanses, heals, sanctified, and loves you, clothing your individual personality in grace, whereas the Pantheist God absorbs and dissolves you.

Modern society is pantheistic, btw. It's belief in progress and evolution are pantheistic. I remember having that awful realisation one day that the world had been taken over by pantheists. It doesn't bother me though.The world has always been pantheistic, because men unable to wash away their sin and overcome the evil in the world choose instead to abolish themselves entirely by disappearing into a vague oneness with everything which allows them to forget themselves.

[Anonymous No.6791936]

Also worth mentioning is that (and this is something that really needs to be hammered home in Hinduism/general pantheism threads) a pantheistic god cannot be real as things have potentiality

[Anonymous No.6791939]

>>6791911
Amen.

[Anonymous No.6791950]

>>6791911
lel what a nerd

[Anonymous No.6792025]

Great post

[Anonymous No.6792180]

>>6791911
There are plenty of pantheistic beliefs/strains that still endure within Catholicism, despite it being clear heresy.

It's easy to seep into once you accept that all things exist within God, and nothing can exist outside of or without God. If you accept that sin is the lack of good or the lack of God, then once sin is eliminated, shouldn't all be God?

[Anonymous No.6792189]

>>6792180
>pantheistic beliefs/strains
Such as?
Calling bullshit without proof tbh

[Anonymous No.6792192]

[Anonymous No.6792196]

>Waaah, non-Yahwists are too individualist!
>Waaah, non-Yahwists are too communal!
Make up your mind.

[Anonymous No.6792205]

>>6792192
this tbh

Christfaggotry is the new euphoria and is just as cringeworthy.

[Anonymous No.6792223]

That's just, like, your opinion man.

[Anonymous No.6792235]

>>6792192
>>6792205
>>6792223
Guaranteed samefag

Christ's power is self-evident; posts like the OP's are primers rather than rationalizations

[Anonymous No.6792243]

>>6792235
>Guaranteed samefag
>Christ's power is self-evident
Nope sorry, not samefagging. I guess Christ's powerlessness is self-evident since he couldn't clue you in on that before you posted.

[Anonymous No.6792244]

>>6792235

[Anonymous No.6792257]

>>6791911

So why does that make theism better than pantheism.

[Anonymous No.6792261]

>>6792257
It doesn't. It's literally a overlong spurdo speech but unironic.

[Anonymous No.6792266]

>>6792189
No, I'm not saying there's an organized pantheistic cult or whatever, I'm just saying a lot of the Catholics/priests/theologians I come into contact with express some pretty damn pantheistic sentiments, without it being explicitly that.

My point is that I don't see how some of Catholic theology is that different from Pantheism. I'm sure I'm wrong, and I'd love to be corrected more. I'll do some more research myself later.

If all good in nature and creation is a reflection of God, and sin is the lack of goodness/God, then by eliminating sin and becoming the "fullest" picture of ourselves, participating in the divine mystery, how would we be separated from God? At that point, how do you separate creation from the divine?

I'm thinking especially to the end of the Divine Comedy as well, where when Dante finally experiences God, everything is encompassed within him and only lives within him. But if all is a part of God, then how is this not pantheism? What is the difference that I'm missing?

[Anonymous No.6792271]

>the ultimate reality of things must be logical, it can't be illogical

How cute.

[Anonymous No.6792284]

>>6792196
Xianity is perfect balance.

Yes, the eastern based, vague, pantheistic, oneness with the universe is too communal to preserve the truth of divinity and God's power.

At the same time, the church of satan and it's core law of "might makes right" and "do what you will" is quite a bit too individualistic.


Two extremes, but it illustrates how non-yahwists can be both too individual or too communal.

[Anonymous No.6792299]

>>6792284
I will also say that "too communal" is not the right criticism here. Community and communion is ALWAYS good, but that is not what the "oneness" with the universe is. Communion must have two beings for there to be a community, oneness seeks to destroy this community, in fact.

[Anonymous No.6792300]

>>6792266
It isn't all that different, it just has loads of rationalizations for doing it while standard pantheism just does all those things. You have to remember that Christianity is a meme religion that used to convert idolators by assimilating their holidays and traditions under their label. It's like the 9gag of religions in that it just pretends everything came from it with some flimsy rationalizations.

Though the difference between monotheism in the sense you're talking about and pantheism is basically everything is part of/comes from one god and there are no others vs. everything is a god.

[Anonymous No.6792315]

>>6792300
>You have to remember that Christianity is a meme religion that used to convert idolators by assimilating their holidays and traditions under their label. It's like the 9gag of religions in that it just pretends everything came from it with some flimsy rationalizations.

This has nothing to do with Christian theology.

[Anonymous No.6792329]

>>6792315
>flimsy rationalizations.
>nothing to do with Christian theology.

I think it has everything to do with Christian theology

[Anonymous No.6792331]

>>6791911
I really enjoyed this post. Very well written, and spot on.

[Anonymous No.6792334]

But perfect beauty is multifaceted OP.

Why would Divinity not be?

[Anonymous No.6792337]

>>6792180
Turns out there is far more to being God than not sinning.

[Anonymous No.6792345]

>>6792266
You would be separated from God by not having the Holy Spirit of God residing in you, transforming you into the likeness of Jesus Christ.

As above, there is far more to being God than not breaking the Law. Not breaking the Law is trivial to God, and had nothing to do with His creating this universe.

[Anonymous No.6792352]

>>6792271
It's the only condition upon which one can logically approach reality.

>>6792284
That's not satan's gospel. Satan's gospel is "know good and evil, and use that knowledge to be like God." That's the gospel satan told Eve, that Eve was deceived into believing was true, and that Adam willfully joined in disobedience to God.

By that one lie, satan doomed humanity.

People still follow satan's gospel today. You might, in fact, be following it and not knowing it. If you believe that you can know good, and do good, to the best of your ability, and avoid evil, to the best of your ability, and that will make you a good person, you are following satan right smack into hell.

[Anonymous No.6792354]

>>6792300
You seriously need to learn to differentiate Catholicism from Christianity. Your criticisms here are rightfully against Catholicism, a neo-Babylonian pagan religion started by a sun god worshiper, Emperor Constantine.

[Anonymous No.6792359]

>>6792334
The divine would be infinitely multifaceted, and is. Jesus gave us a four fold look at Himself, just for starters.

[Anonymous No.6792374]

Posts like the OP remind me of that "God is reality" Christfag on here a few days ago. Is it just me or is most theology just "because I said so" ?

[Anonymous No.6792381]

>>6792374
It's because God said so, actually.

[Anonymous No.6792387]

>>6792374
God is reality.

I like that. Because if you cannot deal with God, you cannot deal with reality. You can pretend to, until you die, but that's it.

[Anonymous No.6792393]

>>6792354
It started out as a minor offshoot of Judaism which was then co-opted by Constantine. You're kidding yourself if you think any of today's Christian denominations don't trace their roots back to the brand of Christianity that was established through things like the council of Nicaea and pushed by Constantine.

[Anonymous No.6792417]

>>6792393
It's not separate and distinct from Judaism, at all. In the Old Covenant, God took for Himself a people; and in the New Covenant, God takes for Himself a people.

One day every single living Jew will become a born again Christian. And in fact, the vast majority of the early christians were Jews. The early christians were quite unclear on the idea that you did not have to be a Jew, or become a Jew, to become a Christian.

The requirements for being a Roman Catholic are nowhere near the requirements for being a born again new creation in Christ Jesus. The former relies on a farcical apostolic succession (as does Eastern Orthodox) to give themselves authority over the laity, while the latter is a consent to be saved by Jesus, one-on-one. The former's faith is in their church; the latter's faith is vested directly in Christ Jesus.

Huge difference. Difference between heaven and hell, life and death.

[Anonymous No.6792433]

>>6792417
>It's not separate and distinct from Judaism, at all.
Only if you know absolutely nothing about Jewish law. The most fundamental beliefs of Christianity are entirely incompatible with Judaism.

[Anonymous No.6792435]

>>6792433
As I stated, there are two different covenants; the old and the new.

They are dissimilar.

As there are hundreds of prophecies about the coming Messiah who will set all things straight in Judaism, the only difference is that Christians realize that Jesus is that Messiah, and that Jesus is YHWH, and the Jews do not.

[Anonymous No.6792442]

>>6792329
Please provide proof of how this influenced ACTUAL Christian middle age theology.

Have fun searching forever.

[Anonymous No.6792460]

>>6792352
then what is it that makes a good person?

[Anonymous No.6792464]

>>6792352
I was referring to the actual real life Chruch of Satan that was founded by some New England guy in the 1900s and their beliefs.

But I would agree 100% on your reading of Genesis. Trying to do good by yourself is pride, and only through humility can we approach God. Ironically, we desire to be like God and we do so with pride and taking power. But God showed us how we can truly emulate him through Jesus Christ, who was humble and came to serve, not be served. In order to actually be like God, like Jesus, we have to be humble, accept our inability to bring good into this world by ourselves, and serve others.

[Anonymous No.6792468]

>>6792435
None of those prophecies apply to Christ for a whole host of reasons. There was already more than one covenant in the Old Testament.

Face it, you just believe in a bad 2000 year old fanfic of a book that you never actually read.

[Anonymous No.6792473]

>>6792460
humility

[Anonymous No.6792474]

>>6792460
There are no good people.

Only God is good. He is the standard by which goodness is measured..

[Anonymous No.6792476]

>>6792417
yeah m8, let's see you use the Nicene Creed after rejecting the Church Fathers and the Apostles authority

[Anonymous No.6792481]

>>6792468
The bible only makes sense when reading it in the light of Jesus. It makes all the whacky things that go on actually make sense, as much as they can to Humans.

[Anonymous No.6792482]

>>6792481
>damage control: the post

[Anonymous No.6792483]

>>6792468
All of the messianic prophecies refer to Jesus, because Jesus is the Messiah.

Name one, and I will show you how Jesus fulfilled it, if it is ripe, or how Jesus will fulfill it, if it is ripe in the future.

[Anonymous No.6792488]

>>6792417
lol protestants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1hOQMizdFA

[Anonymous No.6792489]

>>6791936
If Jesus is God in human flesh, doesn't the Christian God take a form with potentiality?

[Anonymous No.6792494]

Spinoza BTFO once again. Quality post, OP.

[Anonymous No.6792499]

>>6792482
Or, you know, evidence of salvation history.

[Anonymous No.6792501]

>>6792476
I don't. I don't pray with meaningless repetitions, like the gentiles do. With their lips they honor God, but their hearts are far from Him.

He does not know them.

[Anonymous No.6792502]

>>6792489
The point is that potentiality = coming into existence, which is indicative of the power of a theistic deity. In a pantheistic universe, things would NOT have potentiality. Do you catch my drift?

[Anonymous No.6792503]

>>6792482
It's true. That you expect to understand the things of God from the outside looking in isn't really a well developed thought. These are spiritual matters, and you are spiritually dead.

[Anonymous No.6792505]

>>6792474
So someone who obeys the laws of men is not good? Someone who doesn't murder or rape or steal, and helps his neighbors is not good? Then what would you call them?

what is goodness to you?

[Anonymous No.6792507]

>>6792489
Everything Jesus did was at the instruction of the Father. He was faithful even including being tortured to death, and for that, has been elevated and sits at the right hand of God.

We, even we, do not know Him as He is right now. His best friend saw Him in a vision, and fell down as though dead.

[Anonymous No.6792509]

>>6792502
God manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ. He did not at that time come into existence. Jesus is eternal; He created the universe.

The Arian heresy is that Jesus began His existence in Mary's womb, and it's been roundly denounced by Christianity.

[Anonymous No.6792513]

>>6792501
then youre on par with Mormons and Muslims

[Anonymous No.6792515]

>>6792501
I guess Jesus really screwed up when he taught us the Our Father then, huh? I mean, it's not like these prayers couldn't teach us something about our relationship with God, or how to pray, and then make our hearts grow closer to him.

Naw, couldn't be.

[Anonymous No.6792523]

>>6792505
He still sins, and is therefore not good. If he does anything good, it is only through the freely given gift of God's grace.

[Anonymous No.6792524]

>>6792505
Relative to me, I would call them good people. I suppose you are also judging people relative to each other; Hitler bad, Mother Theresa good.

And yet, next to a holy God, Mother Theresa is not good, as God is good. She is just another sinner in need of a savior, and all of her "righteousness" is as filthy rags to a holy God.

No, if the standard is to be perfect, as God in heaven is perfect, and it is, one must find a way to become perfect, spotless, blameless, and righteous.

Which is what happens when one is born again in the Spirit. It's all done by God, to create something new that can live with Him forever. It's a collaborative work that requires your consent. Once your consent is given, the entire process is in God's quite capable hands.

[Anonymous No.6792527]

>>6792513
By no measure. Not even the same creatures!

No, Catholics who place their faith in their church; Muslims who place their faith in Mohammad and/or allah, and Mormons who place their faith in Joe Smith are all going to end up in hell.

[Anonymous No.6792532]

>>6792515
Or it could be that Jesus was teaching the Law to people who thought they were keeping the Law, but were not.

Could be that.

Could be that the Last Will and Testament of Jesus Christ didn't kick in until His death.

Could be that.

[Anonymous No.6792540]

>>6792507
isn't that Arianism?

[Anonymous No.6792541]

To the catholic gentleman or gentlemen in this thread, what is your say in eternal damnation? What ultimate purpose does it serve a human soul and why would God knowingly allow such unthinkable punishment. I have studied this topic for some time and it is the biggest roadblock in my struggling faith. Most protestant, evangelical positions argue that although God is love, he is also infinitely just and holy, and any sin against God warrants an infinent punishment. Also do you believe the visions of the saints in regards to hell? What are your opinions?

[Anonymous No.6792547]

>>6792527
of course you are
>Everything of God's teaching was corrupted! Only we, have restored it to its original form! :D

Ecclesial Deism is fatalism. If God wasnt guiding the Church since the Apostles, then how can you accept any of your Christian teachings? What keeps you from embracing Arianism, Catharism, or any fo the other heresies?

[Anonymous No.6792550]

>>6792540
Arianism is the belief that Jesus did not exist prior to the Immaculate Conception.

Jesus many times said He was doing the will of the Father; most famously in Gethsemane.

[Anonymous No.6792551]

>>6792527
You cannot legitimitely love Jesus without loving his mystical body, the Church. And to say that Catholics place their faith in the Chruch is a strawman, a lie, and moronic. But nice try.

[Anonymous No.6792552]

>>6792532
What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the chapter? Go and read it then come back.

[Anonymous No.6792556]

>stealing my distinction of the three conceptions of divinity, polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic

you scoundrel

[Anonymous No.6792557]

>>6792541
There is a theory popular amongst some Catholic theologians that Hell exists, but is empty as God's mercy is limitless.

[Anonymous No.6792560]

>>6792547
The Holy Spirit was dwelling inside of Christians 300 years before any council was convened.

The Church is not an earthly body.

The Church is a spiritual body.

Jesus specifically told His disciples that He was going to go back to heaven, and send them the Comforter, Who would be with them forever.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the Comforter, nor is Mohammad, though both make that blasphemous claim.

[Anonymous No.6792563]

>>6792556
actually, I just realized that OP was originally my post :O

[Anonymous No.6792566]

>>6792551
I do love the Body of Christ.

I hate the Roman Catholic Church with a passion, as it is the Whore of Babylon.

[Anonymous No.6792567]

>>6792541
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

It's a good watch. Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmsa0sg4Od4

Some Catholics hold to the fact that we accept the possibility of hell, but can still hope that all souls find the mercy of God.

Personally, I hope for this, but I am not sure it is possible. At the end of the day, the choice of hell and rejecting God is just that, a choice. If someone makes that choice, neither I nor God can or will stop them.

[Anonymous No.6792573]

>>6792541
damnation occurs when we dont attain our ultimate Good, which is God. If you willingly choose to stay away of this Ultimate Good, then how can you expect to receive it? This is part of God's Love, which takes the form of the Divine Justice
Damnation is eternal because the will is immutable

[Anonymous No.6792574]

why did Jesus pray to God to spare him before his betrayal?

I don't know how to answer people who post that "hey God, it's me, you." image

[Anonymous No.6792575]

>>6792552
Jesus taught the Law, as He was in the Age of the Law.

The New Covenant did not come into effect until Jesus died. To enter into the New Covenant, one must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.

That cannot happen before Jesus dies.

[Anonymous No.6792576]

>>6791911
Religious people and christians in particular are god damn retarded

[Anonymous No.6792579]

>>6792557
More papist lies.

[Anonymous No.6792580]

>>6792574
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY

[Anonymous No.6792584]

>>6792579
I find that theory very appealing. The idea of a human - any human - ending in Hell sounds like a disproportionate punishment no matter the crime. Even monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Lincoln don't deserve an eternity of punishment. Even if Obama launched the nukes and destroyed the entire planet, killing every single human on Earth, I don't think an eternal punishment like that would be deserved.

[Anonymous No.6792585]

>>6792575
That's ridicuously stupid. Jesus was teaching the new law while he was still alive. "You have heard it said, but I tell you..." etc.

[Anonymous No.6792587]

>>6792574
Because He knew what was coming.

God has always been a triune being; He's always been in relationship, even with Himself, prior to the existence of even the angels. As such, He has detailed many conversations that He has had with Himself.

Most curious is that all three aspects of the trinity have a unique feature. Jesus renamed Himself, and nobody knows His new name, not even the Father. The Father knows when the Rapture will take place, but none other knows. And blasphemy can be forgiven of both Father and Son, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unpardonable.

[Anonymous No.6792592]

>>6792566
Yes, I'm sure you, a shitty human being, know more about the Bible and God than Christ's mystical body which teaches theology through the authority of the holy spirit which protects them from errors.

Get behind me Satan, etc.

[Anonymous No.6792594]

>>6792584
That's why the theory exists, to try to make God a merciful being, and not a holy, just, and righteous being.

It contradicts Jesus' express saying in the gospels, and is therefore false.

Further, people go to hell because they are spiritually dead, and have neglected the only salvation known to mankind to become alive, and be resurrected into eternal life.

Being spiritually dead, there is no place for them in the Kingdom of Heaven, and there are only two eternal destinations.

This choice, to believe Jesus is Who He says He is, or to disbelieve, is critical.

[Anonymous No.6792598]

>>6792541
>>6792541
Hell is a choice. You have to choose to not want to be with God to go there. God's mercy is infinite, but he will not interfere with the good of free will.

[Anonymous No.6792599]

>>6792560
Tertullian
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
The Clementine Homilies

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

[Anonymous No.6792600]

>>6792585
Still the Law. Jesus piled more and more and more upon the Law until the people got the message.

Obeying the Law does not make you like God.

And is impossible.

For instance, you are a murderer by one of those teachings; you have hated someone, been prejudiced, called someone a fool, wished someone were dead or gone, etc.

Jesus taught that violated the Thou Shalt Not Murder law, that most people think they have not violated.

[Anonymous No.6792603]

>>6792592
As a part of Christ's mystical body, I am well aware of it, yes.

And I know the Roman Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon, not involved with Jesus at all, and awaiting destruction in one hour by fire from heaven.

(Jesus said that to Peter, right after the verse your church claims gives it authority over men. Which of course is Nicolaitan. Which of course Jesus hates.)

[Anonymous No.6792604]

>>6792594
Have fun blaspheming and restraining God's infinite mercy.

See >>6792598
for the actual answer

[Anonymous No.6792606]

>>6792599
Cyprian of Carthage
"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).
Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).

[Anonymous No.6792608]

here OP, I'm editing it because I remember that there a lot of mistakes due to my typing it up on an auto-correct device

First, you sweep away all of the pagan gods by making a theological distinction between the omnipotent, self-moving, self-sufficient Creator who made the world out of nothing, and mere entities of power that were created by Him or merely "emanated" from a pantheistic "All" or "Void". A lot of the pagan gods were simply men of power and influence who came to be worshipped after their deaths.

Then, once you have this theological distinction down, you are left with either the Pantheistic God of the Hindus, Brahmins, Gnostics, Neoplatonists, and so on, from which all things "emanate" by necessity (God has no say in the matter, he can't help but emanate lesser beings) and the Creator God who created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing) and everything in it ex nihilo, as a free act of benevolence (he had a say in the matter, he didn't need to create other beings).

The pantheists distribute divinity across many beings, for they truly believe that many beings are actually of the same substance as the All, God, Brahman. This is why Hinduism has (literally) millions of named God's, billions of you take into account that they think of humans and animals as being gods. Indeed in this kind of Pantheism, there is no ESSENTIAL difference between you and a bit of fabric or a brick wall, because it all emanated from the same source. The Gnostics have a peculiar version of this where everything emanates from the divine source EXCEPT matter, which was made by some idiot of a divinity called the Demiurge. But they still regard every human spirit as emanating from the All, and therefore belonging to the divine essence and needing to return to it.

[Anonymous No.6792612]

>>6792541
noncatholic here who has been reading more and more about catholicism as of late,

Think of your relationship with God like marriage. When you die, you are able to go to heaven with the one you love.

now let's say you aren't christian, and you die. you didn't know God, so why would you want Heaven, being forced into an eternal marriage you never agreed to?

Hell is eternal separation from God. It is oblivion, as nothing can exist without God sustaining contingency. If you don't want God, I see no better alternative than the end.

The fires of he'll are allegorical from the perspective of one who loves God, and fears eternal separation from Him.


I'd love some critique on this outlook.

[Anonymous No.6792613]

>>6792599
Simple. The petra that is the foundation of the church is "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God", uttered by Petra a few seconds prior to this verse.

Moreover, the bible is clear that the foundation is all of the prophets and all of the apostles, with Christ as the head of the cornerstone.

You worship in the Church of Peter.

The papist claims are lies; the keys to heaven were never inherited by anyone; Peter was never a pope or bishop in Rome; etc.

But you believe papist lies, because your faith is in your church to get you into heaven.

Won't happen.

[Anonymous No.6792618]

>>6792608
In the Creator God, NOTHING is divine except God Himself. Nothing of His creation shares substantially in His divinity. So the point of worshipping the Creator God is to enter into communion with Him so that your spirit may be wholly satisfied in love of Him; yet, both you and He retain your own unique identities - you are two separate beings loving one and other. Whereas the point of devoting oneself to the Pantheist God is to be subsumed into it, becoming one with its essence, so that you are indistinguishable from it. In other words, the Creator God cleanses, heals, sanctified, and loves you, clothing your individual personality in grace, whereas the Pantheist God absorbs and dissolves you.

Modern thought is pantheistic. It's belief in progress and evolution are pantheistic. It is not surprising that Pantheism has been so popular even up to the present day. It is the easiest path to divinity, which allows one to forget oneself and any guilt one might have by being dissolved in the ocean of the divinity.

[Anonymous No.6792619]

>>6792604
Have fun mocking God's infinite justice, holiness and righteousness, and believing the lies of men over the Word of God.

[Anonymous No.6792624]

>>6792613
Please give an example of when Catholics have worshipped the Church.

I mean, you can't, but why not go ahead and try?

[Anonymous No.6792625]

>>6792618

William James:
"The theological machinery that spoke so livingly to our ancestors, with its finite age of the world, its creation out of nothing, its juridical morality and eschatology, its relish for rewards and punishments, its treatment of God as an external contriver, an 'intelligent and moral governor,' sounds as odd to most of us as if it were some outlandish religion. The vaster vistas which scientific evolutionism has opened, and the rising tide of social democratic ideals, have changed the type of our imagination, and the older monarchical theism is obsolete or obsolescent. The place of the divine in the world must be more organic and intimate. An external creator and his institutions may still be verbally confessed at church and in formulas that linger by their mere inertia, but the life is out of them, we avoid dwelling on them, the sincere heart of us is elsewhere. . . . The only opinions quite worthy of arresting our attention will fall within the general scope of what may roughly be called the pantheistic field of vision, the vision of God as the indwelling divine."

[Anonymous No.6792627]

>>6792612
It is not oblivion, at all. It is described as an outer darkness full of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, where the fire never goes out, and you never die.

You are correct in saying it has nothing of God in it. No light, no love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, long-suffering; none of that.

Only pain, only darkness, only fire, forever and ever.

[Anonymous No.6792629]

>>6792619
So, you're still saying that God's mercy isn't infinite? I didn't mock God's justice at all. I said people go to hell if they choose to, which God justly upholds. You are the only one here mocking God.

[Anonymous No.6792630]

>>6792624
Its catechism states that only members of the Roman Catholic Church go to heaven.

Any other insanely easy questions?

[Anonymous No.6792638]

>>6792613
then the holy spirit hasnt been with Christians for the first 300 years

Go away Magist, and take your heresies out of here

also
>the keys to heaven were never inherited by anyone
>I will give you the keys of Heaven
>you
>the keys of Heaven

[Anonymous No.6792640]

OP here. I made this thread as a troll, the text in the OP isn't actually my work (someone else has already stepped forward and claimed it). I wanted to use it as an indicator of how badly the christposting on /lit/ has become. In the thread it was first posted in, the text was dismissed as Christfag ramblings (which it is) but now people are lauding it (shit, it's even provoked a sectarian debate). You're all faggots and are ruining what was once a decent board, and sincerely wish you would all fuck off back to /pol/ or /x/.

[Anonymous No.6792642]

>>6792630
No it doesn't. Also, that has nothing to do with worshipping the church. Next.

[Anonymous No.6792643]

>>6792629
His Justice is infinite.
His Holiness is infinite.
His Righteousness is infinite.

He will do as He says, and He says more people find the broad road that leads to destruction than the narrow path that leads to life.

More people will be in hell than in heaven, in other words. Forever, in eternal torment, as Jesus said.

So no, His mercy was extended to the entire world, and was sufficient to save all who asked Him to show mercy.

Neglecting that, the dead have no choice but to be cast into hell, standing condemned already for their unbelief in Christ Jesus, the work on the cross to eradicate sin, and the resurrection of the Holy Spirit unto eternal life.

[Anonymous No.6792645]

>>6792598
I struggle with this concept because it implies that our will conquers His will, which I find preposterous. If God's will is for all to come back to Him, then who are we to interfere with His perfect will for all to be saved?

[Anonymous No.6792651]

>>6792638
The Holy Spirit descended upon the 12 apostles on the Day of Pentecost.

You're as lost as Simon Magus yourself.

Peter used those keys at Pentecost to open heaven to the Jews, and at Cornelius' house to open heaven to the Gentiles.

That's it. The keys are used. Heaven is open to all who believe.

[Anonymous No.6792656]

>>6792642
More papist lies. Surely you know that Satan is the Father of Lies, yes? And by lying, you do satan's work?

Catholic Catechism, par. 870 "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter [i.e., the pope] and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines'(LG 8).

Catholic Catechism, par. 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. [LG 14; cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5.]

[Anonymous No.6792659]

>>6792642
1) "The holy universal Church proclaims that God cannot truly be worshipped save within herself, and asserts that all they who are without her pale shall never be saved."
Pope Gregory the Great 540-604 A.D.

2) "The Church is like the Ark of Noah, outside of which nobody can be saved."
St. Thomas Aquinas 1224-1274 A.D.

3) "That there is one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church we are compelled to believe and to hold, prompted by divine faith, and we do believe this firmly and confess it simply, outside of which there can be no salvation, or remission of sins…."
Pope Boniface VIII 1235-1303 A.D., became Pope in 1294

4) "It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Pope Pius IX 1792-1878 A.D., became Pope in 1846, convened the first Vatican Council in 1869, which enunciated the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

5) "We believe the Church is necessary for salvation because Christ, who is the sole mediator and exclusive way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. We must always remember the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation, is open to no one outside the Catholic Church."
Pope Paul VI 1897-1978 A.D. became Pope in 1963

6) "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."
Vatican II 1965

So, you were either lying, or completely ignorant of the wiles of the Whore of Babylon.

I suggest you listen to Jesus, and get out of her, while you yet can.

[Anonymous No.6792664]

>>6792645
Our will doesn't "trump" God's will, God simply respects it, because God himself wills that free will exists, because free will is of such a holy goodness. God will use all of the weapons at his disposal to guide us back to him, and grace is constantly offered to us, but ultimately the choice is ours. This is such a supernatural good because love cannot exist without freedom, and love is God, perfect goodness. However, free will means some will choose not to love God, and God wills himself to accept these choices to preserve love in the universe.

[Anonymous No.6792669]

>>6792645
Unless God made you a sovereign free will moral agent with the power to reject Him.

Which He did.

[Anonymous No.6792674]

>>6792664
You're right, and that is such a horrifying thought, that God will give people what they ask for.

Because the basis for forgiveness at the cross was that we know not what we do.

[Anonymous No.6792678]

>>6792651
>The Holy Spirit descended upon the 12 apostles on the Day of Pentecost.
well Mr. Johnson says that it descended on Joseph Smith and Abdul says it was Mohammed, and they both restored Jesus' teachings

How do i know who's right?! D:
I wish Jesus had given a succesive authority to a certain individual so i could know which one is his Church!

Oh well, better convert and become a Mormon or a Muslim, since I cant prove them wrong, right guyz? :DD

[Anonymous No.6792689]

>>6792678
Judge the men by their fruits. Both men claim to have received a different gospel about a different Jesus from an angel.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

By the bible, both Joe Smith and Mo are accursed.

You don't have to know everything that's right. You just have to know that God knows everything that's right, and trust Him to make good decisions on your behalf.

If you choose to be saved, the Holy Spirit will enter into you, and provide you guidance. He is a built in truth detector, and mentor, and friend, and help in times of trouble.

[Anonymous No.6792693]

>>6791911
This post is ridiculous.

The hinge of your argument is essentially "dissolving into the Absolute is icky". You find the personal God of Christianity more spiritually fulfilling, fine, but don't caricaturize pantheists as brainwashed hippies trying to dissolve back into spiritual soup.

Second, there's no difference between entering back into the One vs. the Kingdom of God. Both are transcendental states of supreme bliss and fulfillment. You could argue that you retain your individuality in Heaven, but I could just as easily say your individuality is a paltry thing compared to the Ultimate.

Entering into the pantheistic God is proceeding up gradations of Being to the Center. Are you angry at time and biology for maturing you and changing who you were as a little kid? It is the same process, a process of spiritual evolution and maturation. You do not lose your individuality as much as truly gain it, and in gaining it understand that kernel of spirit you carry with you is one of many, derived from the same Source.

Plotinus likened the Absolute to a sun that radiates light. It cannot help it. It is also not diminished by this giving off of light and life. Being proceeds down the ladder from the Perfect Being all the way down to Nonbeing - matter and in some connotations, evil and spiritual death. If there must be an Is, a Truth (and all that it implies, such as love and beauty) it must also encapsulate an Anti-Truth.

I find this infinitely more elegant an explanation for the nature of reality than a God that wired the brainsof sadists to go into orgiastic frenzies at the sight of other beings in pain, a God that created a universe where every being down to the last microbe is locked in a struggle for resources. I concede that Christ is the ultimate expression of Divine in the material sphere, but your personal God is a small God.

[Anonymous No.6792703]

>>6792630
>Roman Catholic Church
'one holy catholic apostolic Church' != Roman Catholic Church.

RCC is the subset of the Christian Church. Even the RCC itself acknowledges this.

[Anonymous No.6792705]

>>6792693
Your post is ridiculous, point for point false.

[Anonymous No.6792709]

>>6792705
Good argument bruv, sure showed me.

[Anonymous No.6792711]

>>6792703
Did you really avoid both posts that showed you to be a liar?

1) "The holy universal Church proclaims that God cannot truly be worshipped save within herself, and asserts that all they who are without her pale shall never be saved."
Pope Gregory the Great 540-604 A.D.

2) "The Church is like the Ark of Noah, outside of which nobody can be saved."
St. Thomas Aquinas 1224-1274 A.D.

3) "That there is one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church we are compelled to believe and to hold, prompted by divine faith, and we do believe this firmly and confess it simply, outside of which there can be no salvation, or remission of sins…."
Pope Boniface VIII 1235-1303 A.D., became Pope in 1294

4) "It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Pope Pius IX 1792-1878 A.D., became Pope in 1846, convened the first Vatican Council in 1869, which enunciated the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

5) "We believe the Church is necessary for salvation because Christ, who is the sole mediator and exclusive way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. We must always remember the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation, is open to no one outside the Catholic Church."
Pope Paul VI 1897-1978 A.D. became Pope in 1963

6) "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."
Vatican II 1965

You're in a cult.

[Anonymous No.6792714]

>>6792689
Oh but Smith says his Gospel COMPLEMENTS the Bible, and Mohammed says the Bible was corrupted by Big, Bad, Saul.

Refute that, Magist

[Anonymous No.6792716]

>>6792709
I'm debating whether or not it is worth my time to go through it point by point.

It's not.

You started your post by rejecting the truth. So be it. Wallow in lies.

[Anonymous No.6792728]

>>6792656
Did you even read your own quote?
>Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines'

>
The holy universal Church proclaims that God cannot truly be worshipped save within herself, and asserts that all they who are without her pale shall never be saved."

Refers to the invisible Church, the supernatural society seperate from the earthly Roman Church.

> "It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church"

So did you just copy and paste this from some website? Because you obviously didn't read the whole thing.

Pope Benedict here to straighten you out:
"'Out of the Church there is no salvation,' and there stop, as does the Church Herself, as does our holy Father, Pius IX, in his encyclical letter: but all of them, whenever they have occasion to introduce this dogma, are careful to accompany it with an explanation, which, in our age and country, eviscerates it of all its catholic significance for the people at large, whether within or without. Thus, in the second work on our list, we read: 'We know that out of the Church there is no salvation; but many are they who, by want of opportunity of learning the truth, innocently adhere to error, and thus are in spirit members of the Church.'"

There is the invisible Church of those who are saved, and the earthly manifestation of this in the Roman Church, which is as murcky and earthly as humans are. But this is not a bad thing, for Christ himself became man, and to deny the human aspect of Jesus and salvation is silly.

Not only that, but you're talking only of salvation, and not of anyone worshipping the Church. Obviously it is you who lied about us "worshipping the church" which is simply not true.

Now please, stop making stuff up and trying to explain why others are going to hell. Do not judge lest you be judged. Your posts steam of hatred. I suggest you listen to Jesus's words on love and honesty.

[Anonymous No.6792741]

>>6792640
> was once a decent board

The post was from March this year, I doubt there has been a sudden influx of christposters since then. It is clear from the thread info that most of these posts are from samefags anyway.

[Anonymous No.6792748]

>I remember having that awful realisation one day that the world had been taken over by pantheists.

And I'm having the awful realization that this board is slowly being infested by retarded moron cretins who willingly believe in magic. Like you.

[Anonymous No.6792756]

>>6792714
>>6792714
Both accursed men make claims that are false.

Tell me, when you are standing before God to answer for your life, is this the drivel you will hide behind?

[Anonymous No.6792757]

>>6792640
link to the original post and i will believe you

[Anonymous No.6792762]

>>6792716
Oh, I thought you meant false as in "gravely misinterpreted conceptions of the Absolute" not "nuh uh y-you're wrong ok!"

stay pleb

[Anonymous No.6792766]

>>6792757
>>/lit/thread/S6314300#p6314932

[Anonymous No.6792767]

>>6792716

[Anonymous No.6792772]

>>6792756
how can you know they are false? youve pulled the rug from your feet and have no floor to stand on, Magist

[Anonymous No.6792783]

>>6792728
Holy crap. The quotes could not be more obvious.

Catholic Catechism, par. 870 "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . .

SUBSISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER [I.E. THE POPE]

and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines'(LG 8).
>This last clause is meaningless, and does not refute the former CATECHISM.

all they who are without her pale shall never be saved."

The Church is like the Ark of Noah, outside of which nobody can be saved."

That there is one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church we are compelled to believe and to hold, prompted by divine faith, and we do believe this firmly and confess it simply, outside of which there can be no salvation, or remission of sins…."

"It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church."

without which there can be no salvation, is open to no one outside the Catholic Church."

For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."

[Anonymous No.6792788]

>>6792772
They contradict the bible, obviously. Mormonism says that Jesus is Satan's brother, is not God, is not eternal, and that you need Joe Smith's signature to enter into one of seven or so heavens, and Islam denies the divinity of Christ, says He was not God, was not crucified, did not die, and did not rise from the dead.

How do you know when something is true?

[Anonymous No.6792794]

>>6792783

>bickering over clauses in a book

Can't you two make a Cathautist General for this or something?

[Anonymous No.6792800]

>>6792640
Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out, faggot.

[Anonymous No.6792802]

>>6792794
Apparently not, as apparently words no longer mean things.

In times past, people like him murdered people like me, and by the millions. Also murdered Jews, again by the millions.

They are anathema.

[Anonymous No.6792803]

>>6792766
>at last i truly see.jpg
I think this proves what >>6792741 doubted or the christfags has stepped up on their christposting. Either way that sucks for /lit/

[Anonymous No.6792809]

>2015
>believing Jesus is the Mashiach unironically
>mfw

[Anonymous No.6792811]

>>6792693
I'm the man who wrote it.

>The hinge of your argument is essentially "dissolving into the Absolute is icky".

The post wasn't really to refute pantheism, it was to make distinctions. What I'm really attacking is the snide and rude New Atheist thought that "there are thousands of gods, and you only believe in one of them; we atheists have just gone one god further". You know. Have you heard of this line of thought? My post was to show that there are only three main genera (families) of theological thought, and that while there is are profound variations within these genera, they can be grouped in this way nonetheless. That being the case, once you get rid of the polytheistic genera, you are left with the Pantheistic and the Monotheistic.

> but don't caricaturize pantheists as brainwashed hippies trying to dissolve back into spiritual soup.

I didn't. Or, at least, I hope I didn't. There is something profound and enticing about the idea of having one's substance dissolved into the All, the One. Many very intelligent men have thought this way.

[Anonymous No.6792813]

>>6792788
>They contradict the bible, obviously
why does the bible have authority?
Muslims deny it does, and Mormons have their Second Bible
You claim it does but on what ground?
>How do you know when something is true?
You tell me

[Anonymous No.6792821]

>>6792813
The bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

It is the only holy book on the planet. Men and angels cannot make something holy; only God can.

"I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me."

--Jesus of Nazareth

To know Jesus is to know the truth.

[Anonymous No.6792825]

>>6792693
>>6792811
cont.

>Second, there's no difference between entering back into the One vs. the Kingdom of God. Both are transcendental states of supreme bliss and fulfillment. You could argue that you retain your individuality in Heaven, but I could just as easily say your individuality is a paltry thing compared to the Ultimate.

On the contrary, the distinction is very, very important. There is a great difference in being resurrected in your body, with all the memories of your past life, with your personality, etc., and being entirely taken up into the One. Chesterton said:

"It is just here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence. And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces, because they are living pieces. It is her instinct to say "little children love one another" rather than to tell one large person to love himself. This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. "

>Plotinus likened the Absolute to a sun that radiates light. It cannot help it.

This is a defect in Pantheism. The All of the Pantheists is like a sun that cannot but help shed its light. But the Creator God creates willingly, by a free act. And this is what makes it an act of supreme love. God did not have to make the universe, he created it from nothing and poured himself onto it purely for our sake, and then when a catastrophe happened he incarnated into the world and became the lowest of the low to suffer and die to heal the world.

[Anonymous No.6792828]

>>6792821

HOLY SHIT FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU RETARDED IMBECILES

[Anonymous No.6792841]

>>6792825
cont.

The separation of God from the world is what makes Christ possible. If God and the world were One then God could not come and die for the sake of the world to save it. There would be no sacrifice, no sacrifice of love. There would only be an eternal cosmic wheel of return, a never-ending cycle that goes on for the sake of going on.

[Anonymous No.6792845]

>>6792821
Muslims say the Bible was corrupted by evil Pau and Muhammad has the Word of Godl, and Mormons say their second Bible is inspired too

How do you know you know Jesus?

[Anonymous No.6792846]

>>6792828
Jimmie status: Rustled

[Anonymous No.6792848]

>>6792846

NO SHIT

[Anonymous No.6792851]

>>6792845
Muslims say that, but they never back it up with any evidence.

They just kind of say it.

Joe Smith met Moroni, an angel, and wrote the Book of Mormon. A man, and an angel cannot make a thing holy.

I do not think you understand the word "holy".

[Anonymous No.6792855]

>2015.5
>not subscribing to the gospel of Tao Lin.

[Anonymous No.6792862]

>>6792851
>but they never back it up with any evidence.
Neither do you

This is the result of the vicious circularity that arises when one abandons the One True Church, it's religious suicide

So go away, Magist

[Anonymous No.6792870]

>>6791911
ITT: people forget that Jesus actually called Peter "Cephas" which doesn't have gender, ie, people ITT think that Jesus spoke greek

[Anonymous No.6792885]

>>6792855
what is this? would you happen to have a link to where one might buy this my good sir?

[Anonymous No.6792888]

>>6792862
I do, actually. We have over 24,000 manuscripts dating back to 115 AD, about 20 years after the Revelation was finished, to compare and contrast the New Testament in many different languages.

It has passed down through almost 2000 years of transmission at 99.5% intact, the differences being copyist errors, spelling variants, and idioms, none of which touch doctrine at any point.

Being the inspired Word of God, it tells the story of the earth from beginning to end, which is something only God knows.

Everything forward looking in the qu'ran was cribbed from the bible; it contains no prophecy in and of itself, much less any that has been in any way reliable.

The bible, containing about 30% prophecy, is spot on. One of Daniel's prophecies about the coming Messiah was fulfilled 483 years to the day; that day was Palm Sunday, 32 AD.

[Anonymous No.6792894]

So how exactly is pantheism a fallacy? If anything you seem to have pointed out why it makes more sense than a creator god.

[Anonymous No.6792897]

>>6792870
The men writing the bible were inspired by God. That Petros is used for Peter, and petra, a feminine word meaning literally rock, is used for the foundation, excludes Petros from being the petra.

The church is not based on Peter.

It is based on Jesus.

[Anonymous No.6792908]

>>6792888
Stop memeing this shit, basic reading shows how Jesus could never have been the Messiah.

[Anonymous No.6792923]

>>6792841
Finally, I want to say this.

I think that Pantheism and Monotheism are the only two really fully developed and consistent systems of thought. Others, like Materialism, are just incoherent. Pantheism is really the only truly worthy contender against Monotheism, I think, for its coherence.

My objection to Pantheism, then, is more based on desire than on thought. Pantheism is ultimately horrible in my eyes, and for this reason: it completely fails to take the problem of evil seriously. In Pantheism the problem of evil is solved in a kind of mechanistic way: its a law of Karma, a constant cycle of rebirth/reincarnation until you finally realize your purpose and achieve transcendence, etc. Pantheists had to invent reincarnation as a way to escape the evil in the world, it essentially says: yes, there's evil, but there are infinite respawns until everything is set right - those that were wronged get to live again until they become perfect, those that did wrong get to live again until they figure out how they went wrong. A lot of Pantheism practically denies the distinction between good and evil altogether. There's no essential difference between my hugging a person and pouring boiling water down their back, because we're all the same substance after all.
Contrast this with Monotheism where the problem of evil is taken extremely seriously. People's sin are not palliated with the opportunity for infinite respawns. When you commit evil, you truly do commit evil. Our actions have eternal ramifications, so that our good acts will echo in eternity as will our evil. The evil man does not get to forget his evil (unless he obtains forgiveness); neither does the good man have to forget the good he has done. All this is grandly summarized in the crucifixion where the Good God Himself shows mankind the path against evil through ultimate self-sacrifice.

I will quote Chesterton again:

[Anonymous No.6792928]

>>6792897
Ephesians 2: Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

That's the foundation, not Peter. Peter denied Jesus three times; Peter wanted to build tabernacles to Elijah and Moses; Peter cut off Malchius' ear; Peter pretended to be kosher when Jesus' brother visited them in Acts.

Love Peter, but anything built solely on Peter is not built to last.

[Anonymous No.6792929]

>>6792923
Chesterton: ‘You’ll never be a practical man till you do,’ said Father Brown. ‘Look here, doctor; you know me pretty well; I think you know I’m not a bigot. You know I know there are all sorts in all religions; good men in bad ones and bad men in good ones. But there’s just one little fact I’ve learned simply as a practical man, an entirely practical point, that I’ve picked up by experience, like the tricks of an animal or the trade-mark of a good wine. I’ve scarcely ever met a criminal who philosophized at all, who didn’t philosophize along those lines of orientalism and recurrence and reincarnation, and the wheel of destiny and the serpent biting its own tail. I have found merely in practice that there is a curse on the servants of that serpent; on their belly shall they go and the dust shall they eat; and there was never a blackguard or a profligate born who could not talk that sort of spirituality. It may not be like that in its real religious origins; but here in our working world it is the religion of rascals; and I knew it was a rascal who was speaking.’

[Anonymous No.6792936]

>>6792888
>I do, actually. We have over 24,000 manuscripts dating back to 115 AD
no you dont, those are corrupted too, didnt you heard what Ahmed said?

The Muslim claim is that Jesus' teaching was corrupted by Le Paul, and Muhammad brought the Word back
And the Mormons claim that their Scripture was complemented with their book
And you claim that the Bible is the holy book but was interpreted wrongly by the evil Catholics since the beginning, If this is so, then every teaching they proclaimed has been false, such as the necessity of only one Baptism, Jesus being equal with the Father, etc

[Anonymous No.6792937]

>>6792908
Jesus is the Messiah. Further, He is alive, still the Messiah, and still doing the things the Messiah is to do. He fulfilled hundreds of messianic prophecies already, when they were ripe, and will fulfill all of them before He is done.

He is quite meticulous.

[Anonymous No.6792941]

>>6792811

>The post wasn't really to refute pantheism, it was to make distinctions.

Fair enough, but you can't tell me the connotation wasn't "Personal God better than Impersonal God".

>On the contrary, the distinction is very, very important. There is a great difference in being resurrected in your body, with all the memories of your past life, with your personality, etc., and being entirely taken up into the One.

I conceive of the One not as a kind of uniform, Divine sameness but the ultimate expression of multiplicity in the Divine. You exist as your souls, but also all souls at the same time. Does this make sense? Perhaps not. We are speculating about transcendental realities after all. I would say my point is, entering the Absolute is the ecstatic realization that the individual is Divine. We don't forget the individual, we just see the light behind the veil of matter.

In a more practical sense, it's just living mindfully and centered in your own moment-to-moment awareness. We see God not only as something above but as something (and someone) here and now.

>This is a defect in Pantheism. The All of the Pantheists is like a sun that cannot but help shed its light.

Keep in mind the Kabbalists believe the Ayn Sof, the Infinite, STILL chose to contract itself and create our reality.

I'd argue though that although Plotinus' God did not choose to create reality, it does not change the fact that Love is the Principle regardless. We just happen to be farthest away from that Love, and the beautiful thing is there is still abundant joy and beauty in most places we look.

>The separation of God from the world is what makes Christ possible. If God and the world were One then God could not come and die for the sake of the world to save it. There would be no sacrifice, no sacrifice of love. There would only be an eternal cosmic wheel of return, a never-ending cycle that goes on for the sake of going on.

Even this seperate Creation is still inundated with God's presence. With beauty, with light, with laughter and joy. How can it be so separate? Maybe it's not the case in the depths of space but where there is life there is a self-organization into stable, harmonious living. This tells me God is in the code. To you it is not enough evidence that we are emanated from something. For me it is. We can agree to disagree. We're both trying to serve God as we conceive Him after all.

[Anonymous No.6792943]

>>6792923
My objection to pantheism is knowing that people worship demons as gods.

[Anonymous No.6792947]

>>6792885
In fact I do, good sir. Free of charge.
http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Lin-On-A-Tricycle-ebook/dp/B010UT6G9Y
or alternatively:
http://pastebin.com/GkNz6gqw

[Anonymous No.6792955]

>>6792929
Yup. The children of satan lie, as their father taught them to lie.

>>6792936
All 24,000 were corrupted in exactly the same ways, over thousands of years?

You obviously have no evidence of that, or you would have posted it. You merely regurgitate the lies of the muslim as thought they were true.

The muslims claim that an arab living 600 years after Jesus rose from the dead knows more about Jesus than His disciples, who lived with Jesus, and saw Him rise from the dead.

[Anonymous No.6792958]

>>6792937
>fulfill no prophecies
>directly contradict at least 10 of those
>"j-just wait"

[Anonymous No.6792967]

>>6792923
Don't you have that backwards? Monotheism requires a god that allows evil.

[Anonymous No.6792970]

>>6792955
>All 24,000 were corrupted in exactly the same ways, over thousands of years?
no, the Apostles corrupted them, thats what Ahmed says

[Anonymous No.6792979]

>>6792955
Yes, I do think that Pantheism has its origin with Satan. It is the promise of the Serpent to Eve, that she would be as a god if she ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It's the desire to ascend to godhood and have one's own understanding of good and evil. Pantheism appeals to people with a guilty conscience because it completely does away with repentance and forgiveness by telling you that your mistakes were just an illusion, and that they don't really matter in the long run because you are destined to return to the All anyway, etc. Imagine an adultress going to yoga classes and closing her eyes and humming away until her personality is forgotten and she suppresses her guilt. Then she returns to her love with her guilt suppressed, etc. This is much easier on sinful man than to be told that your evil is real and that it will be remembered for all eternity unless you humble yourself and ask forgiveness.

[Anonymous No.6793000]

>>6792979
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Proper reverence for the divine nature of reality completely disqualifies soccer mom spiritualists like the one you're talking about. If you see God in everything, evil is absolutely abhorrent. You do not tolerate it in yourself nor in others.

Don't judge a belief by its followers.

[Anonymous No.6793191]

>>6792618
How would you explain to someone that evolution and progress are pantheistic?

[Anonymous No.6793238]

lit, the liter uh cheh board

[Anonymous No.6793378]

>>6793191
Well, before I an attempt an explanation, I will say that the Hindus already had an account of evolution, with something very close to the Big Bang, and a gradual process across many eons from lower matter, to lower creatures, to man, and then to the spiritual man or brahmin. They saw this process as being guided by Brahma.

Another source, more pertinent, is Hegel. Hegel is the real philosopher of the modern age, the greatest synthesiser, the mastermind. When people talk about "progress" in a naive way in which they don't really know what they are talking about, it's Hegel that develops the real assumptions of their thought. The idea that civilization is "progressing", that there is this inevitable upward procession from lower primitive societies to more and more advanced societies until we inevitably become god-like transhumans through technology and rule the galaxies with our spaceships, and eventually our minds all dissolve into one Supercomputer that rules the universe (see: Isaac Asimov, The Last Question) - the ASSUMPTION is really that civilization is a Geist, a cosmic Mind, which is gradually developing itself. We have base matter, and then matter gains spirit through man, and then that spirit realizes its freedom in modern philosophy beginning with Descartes, and then the free spirit starts to realize its omnipotence beginning with German Idealist philosophy, until eventually, at the End of History, it will truly have become the all-powerful God, the Spirit, the Mind, der Geist, that rules according to perfect Reason. Teilhard de Chardin, the Frenchman, had something similar.

[Anonymous No.6793385]

>>6793378
Now, how I would explain the Pantheism of evolution and progress is this:

(1) they both presuppose an ascent from lower to higher (unless you stick to a purely mechanistic Darwinism which shouldn't really be called evolution as that is misleading)
(2) in the fullness of time this evolution or progress will realize the Absolute (whether it's called the End of History, or the Singularity, or whatever)
(3) in order for this to be so, the PARTS that are evolving, must already themselves be of the substance of the Absolute, and these parts are coming together to form the One substance. So, they are already divine, it's just that they have not achieved their fullness.

this is basic to all Pantheism.
It should be noted that right after Darwin many thinkers were unsatisfied with the purely mechanistic account of evolution and posited more spiritualized versions. They thought that the mechanistic account failed to explain the existence of minds, so they thought that every atom in the universe must in some sense be endowed with mind. This is a pantheistic notion.

When people talk about "progress" - ask yourself, what do they think, exactly, is "progressing", and what do they think that it is "progressing" into? Their thought will be crude because they have not examined it, but if they thought about it they would come to very similar conclusions as did Hegel and Teilhard de Chardin and all the rest of the pantheists of the last couple of centuries.

[Anonymous No.6793538]

>>6791911
>First, you sweep away all of the pagan God's
Stopped reading there, holy fuck.

Easy mode: If Christianity wants to claim itself as monotheistic, and it does, then it has to be pantheistic. Stated another way: if Christianity wants to claim itself as monotheistic, then it can not allow a cosmology where God exists alongside something that isn't in fact God (the universe, the world, material reality). That is called dualism.