/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7097518]

Catholicism. Where to start?

[Anonymous No.7097525]

>>7097518
Going to your local Catholic church and talking with a priest lmao

[Anonymous No.7097590]

>>7097518

By avoiding a Catholic parish, opening a Bible and reading it. Seriously, stay away.

[Anonymous No.7097593]

>>7097518

Aquinas *LITERALLY* proved god.

[Anonymous No.7097666]

Bible
Catechism of the Catholic church
Divine Comedy
City of God
Confessions
Sections of the Summa
Orthodoxy
Heretics
Book of the New Sun

Probably a pretty good reading

[Anonymous No.7097675]

>>7097518
nietzsche

>>7097593
I'm not sure if ur being sarcastic or not but whats the proof you're referring to? Is there an abridged version? I'm fairly certain he's not worth reading but I'd be interested in that

[Anonymous No.7097685]

>>7097675
read the Summa Theologica plep

[Anonymous No.7097689]

>>7097518

With the child abuse scandals, some of their newest work. Pretty insightful.

Others will recommend the classic Inquisition and genocide stuff from their back catalog but nothing quite says "band of degenerate reprobates" like wide-spread pedophilia.

[Anonymous No.7097694]

>>7097525

Only if he's planning on receiving a bleeding anus.

[Anonymous No.7097696]

>>7097685
>page 1 of 4183

just tell me brah

[Anonymous No.7097697]

>>7097689
>implying contemporary Catholic atrocities could even hold a candle to the crusades

[Anonymous No.7097705]

>>7097518
Prometheus Rising
Nietzsche
Gnostic texts

If you want to pragmatically understand their beliefs then read their catechism. Everyone should read The Bible anyway so that should go without saying.

Catholicism is a trap. It feels good to a certain kind of person but it will stunt your growth.

[Anonymous No.7097718]

>>7097518
>not being born into it

[Anonymous No.7097729]

>>7097697
>implying the crusades were actually bad

[Anonymous No.7097732]

>>7097518
Fourth Council of the Lateran
Peace of Augsburg
Council of Trent
Pius IX, 1871
Rerum novarum

[Anonymous No.7097741]

>>7097689
>>7097697
الله أكبر

[Anonymous No.7097745]

>>7097729

>so edgy

[Anonymous No.7097746]

>>7097705
>>7097675
What kind of a person do you have to be to recommend things completely unrelated to the topic at hand? Nietzsche didn't even write about Catholicism and his critiques are incoherent anyway.

[Anonymous No.7097752]

>>7097746
le 'god is ded' mayme

[Anonymous No.7097753]

>>7097745
Being egdy doesn't make me wrong

[Anonymous No.7097761]

>>7097753

No, the fact you made a stunningly stupid statement makes you wrong.

[Anonymous No.7097766]

>>7097761
It's a correct statement though

[Anonymous No.7097777]

>>7097761
it's right though

[Anonymous No.7097789]

>>7097518
King James, Catechism, Dead sea scrolls.

[Anonymous No.7097791]

>>7097752
'God is dead' isn't even about religion specifically.

[Anonymous No.7097795]

>>7097746
I recommended what he'd need to get a basic handle on Catholicism and then what I thought he'd need to actually understand what Catholicism is, so my recs were actually extremely helpful. He didn't ask where to start with reading Catholic authors.

>Nietzsche's critiques are incoherent
Standard illiterate papist. Go back to work to support those fifteen babies, Pablo.

[Anonymous No.7097806]

>>7097789
Dead Sea scrolls aren't Catholic and won't help him with understanding the damned thing, why do you idiots keep recommending it?
>>7097795
It wouldn't even give a basic idea of what it is and not even a good critique or "what it actually is" especially because Nietzsche was from a protestant region and his experience was more closely related to it.

[Anonymous No.7097825]

>>7097806
>the original Biblical texts
>not related to Catholic beliefs
Top kek who would've guessed.

>it wouldn't even give a basic idea of what it is
That's what the catechism and Bible are for. Nietzsche and Wilson BTFO fear/guilt religions and that includes Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.7097830]

>>7097825
>Nietzsche and Wilson BTFO fear/guilt religions and that includes Catholicism.
You mean Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.7097842]

>>7097830
No, Dawkins is trapped in a robotic rationalist mindset and can't properly critique anything including contemporary approaches to evolutionary biology, which is supposedly his field.

[Anonymous No.7097857]

>>7097746
>what kind of person
probably the kind of person who knows about invincible ignorance doctrines within the roman catholic church and its prohibitions on proselytising.... usually that kind of person is a catholic who knows how sticky the religion can be. either that or some anon has actually read nietzsche, but, honestly, what are the chances of that?
>>7097789
>King James
full retard

[Anonymous No.7097875]

>>7097842
>robotic rationalist mindset
It's the only mindset that matters. Nietzsche was an autist who wrote in a stupid airy fairy poetry style instead of just saying what he wanted in prose.

[Anonymous No.7097882]

>>7097825
Biblical texts that aren't in the Bible and are of no importance, yeah sure, everyone interested in Catholic doctrine should read them!
>>7097857
Pretty high, Nietzsche is one of the most read authors. And if I asked you about Platonism would you tell me to read materialist philosophers because you aren't a platinist? No, you'd recommend Plato and Plotin, not Hume because if he wanted your opinion on why it isn't true he'd have ask.

[Anonymous No.7097883]

>>7097875
Wouldn't an autist be more prone to write in robotic prose as dawkins?

[Anonymous No.7097895]

>>7097875
>robbing yourself of the rest of human experience
>being narrow minded
There's more to the mind than strict rationalism if you want to live well. Catholicism claims to satisfy these needs but actually just holds these other needs over your head.

Dawkins just gets mad that people have other needs and is dogmatically stuck at the state of the field when he published his PhD dissertation so he comes off as a total fool no matter what he writes about.

Nietzsche at least tries to address some of the mind's other needs.

[Anonymous No.7097901]

>>7097882
>Pretty high, Nietzsche is one of the most read authors.
>implying /lit/ reads

>And if I asked you about Platonism would you tell me to read materialist philosophers because you aren't a platinist? No, you'd recommend Plato and Plotin, not Hume because if he wanted your opinion on why it isn't true he'd have ask.
No, I'd tell you to read Aristophanes and Nietzsche and to stop watching pro-wrestling because it's for beta faggots, like bundling or forms of forms

[Anonymous No.7097912]

>>7097882
>leave Jesus alone!
>stop kicking, he's already dead!

[Anonymous No.7097924]

>>7097901
That wouldn't be too helpful since he wouldn't learn what he set out to do.
And Nietzsche is like Harper Lee or Orwell of philosophy, a lot of people do read him because of all the cultural buzz.

[Anonymous No.7098036]

>>7097924
>the weltanschauung on this young one
i remember being told of a study done which revealed the majority of people who claim to have read 1984 are liars who lie for cultural buzz. despite all the conclusions about nietzsche readers we could draw from that instead of the nietzsche reader, plato's a beta pro-wrestler and unhelpful without comparison even if /lit/ did read. your definition of helpful seems a bit screwed and rigid and as though being spoonfed doesn't admit a deficit and that's so not why you like being "helpful".

[Anonymous No.7098041]

Who /ChurchMilitant/ here?

[Anonymous No.7098059]

>>7098041
DEUS VULT

[Anonymous No.7098072]

>>7097705
>new age bullshit
>interesting but hilariously flawed heresy
>a tragically narcissistic atheist with crippling nihilism, clinging on to his supposed importance and oh so powerful will
forgive them, father

[Anonymous No.7098074]

>all these insecure teenagers that want to rebel against fedora-atheists on Reddit by acting religious again
>they don't really care about religion, they just want to be contrarian

it's so fucking embarrassing bros.

[Anonymous No.7098084]

>>7098074
maybe we just don't let ourselves be spooked by "fedora-atheists" enough to genuinely discuss the cultural importance Christianity has had on Western thought

[Anonymous No.7098085]

>>7097518
Are you looking to become a Catholic? Get the Catechism and a Bible approved by the Church. Read through the Catechism to see if everything is to your liking. If you have no problem accepting any part of Catholic dogma, go to your local church and talk to the priest about RCIA. You'll likely have to take some classes before you can be baptized.

[Anonymous No.7098177]

>>7097694
Are you in middle school?

[Anonymous No.7098179]

>>7097697
>atrocities

[Anonymous No.7098192]

>>7098084
>maybe we just don't let ourselves be spooked by "fedora-atheists" enough to actually live by its principles, actually preach loving your enemies and actually give away all our possessions to the poor

fify

[Anonymous No.7098204]

>>7098074
>there are no and there cannot be any religious people here

[Anonymous No.7098233]

>>7098072
>actual insightful approach to human development
Nuh-uh, my priest told me that New Age stuff was all hooey so this must be too!

>system that makes use of both God and the human mind to achieve a personal relationship with the diving
My priest says us proles should let the men with special hats handle God directly. Wouldn't want to get out of my lane!

>someone reminds you that Paul is a heretic
REEEEEE Saint Paul is a divine man and not a power-hungry incel false shepherd!

[Anonymous No.7098236]

>>7098177

>you offended muh pedo club

[Anonymous No.7098249]

>>7097518
If you're actually even remotely interested start with a few basic courses on historical biblical criticism. These two are good

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies

download the mp3s, play them at 1.5 speed, there you go

[Anonymous No.7098260]

>>7098236
>dodging the question

[Anonymous No.7099071]

>>7097518
mortify the flesh to purify the soul

[Anonymous No.7099093]

>>7097518

start diddling some kids.

Hey if some bishop does it, it has to be approved by god, right?

#ageisjustanumber

[Anonymous No.7099267]

Lolita.

Seriously The Bible is the best place to start. A bunch of Christian, especially Catholic theology is based off of ancient philosophy and later theologians were heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Tomas Aquinas is pretty key. There's a lot of directions from there, you could read a bunch about the history of the church or about the heresies or the fiction based off it like Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost. There's also other religions and stories that influenced biblical writings like the epic of Gilgamesh or you could read about the reformation and there's tons of stuff on Zwingli and Luther to understand the reformation and what makes Catholic theology different than protestant theology.

[Anonymous No.7099310]

Right here.

http://www.catholic.com/documents/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

[Anonymous No.7099349]

>>7097697
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

[Anonymous No.7099441]

Conversion/autobiography:

"The Long Loneliness" by Dorothy Day
"The Seven Storey Mountain" by Thomas Merton

Theology:
"Confessions" by Augustine
"We Drink from our Own Wells" by Gutierrez (easier and more accessible than "A Theology of Liberation")
An annotated or introductory text to/by Aquinas
You also probably want a book with the lives of the saints and a general history of the Church.

Another nice thing would be an anthology text with writings by St. John of the Cross, Ignatius, the Little Flower and other spiritual writers.

[Anonymous No.7099447]

>>7097666

This literally seems to be the only post possibly written by a Catholic in this thread.

This thread is literally as bad as the Buddhism one.

[Anonymous No.7099820]

>>7099447
Cause Catholicism is stupid.
>mfw I'm Protestant scum.

[Anonymous No.7100384]

>>7099447
Yeah, I'm Catholic and have an interest in the thing so I gave my recs for what has for me been the best in showing the mentality, philosophy and mindset behind the religion.

[Anonymous No.7101209]

>>7097666
satanic trips of truth

[Anonymous No.7101591]

>>7097518
The Bible, you ponce.

[Anonymous No.7101595]

>>7097593
He didn't prove shit

[Anonymous No.7102060]

>>7097518
>Catholicism. Where to start?

Required Reading:
>The Bible (Douy-Rheims)
>Catechism of the Catholic Church
>Parts of the Summa Theologica (Specifically Part 1 and Part 3).

Apologetics:
>Handbook of Catholic Apologetics-Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli
>The Everlasting Man-Chesterton
>Orthodoxy-Chesterton

Theology:
>Summa Theologica-St. Thomas Aquinas
>City of God-Augustine
>The Works of St. Anselm
>On the Incarnation-St. Athanasius
>Defense Against the Arians-St. Athanasius
>The Consolation of Philosophy-Boethius
>Pensees-Pascal

Biography/Conversion works:
>The Confessions-St. Augustine
>Apologia Pro Vita Sua-John Henry Newman
>The Seven Storey Mountain-Thomas Merton

Historical/Sociological works:
>The Formation of Christendom-Christopher Dawson
>The Dividing of Christendom-Christopher Dawson
>History of the Catholic Church-James Hitchcock

Literature:
>The Divine Comedy-Dante Alighieri
>The Works of Flannery O'Connor-Flannery O'Connor
>The Power and the Glory-Graham Greene
>Diary of a Country Priest-Georges Bernanos
>The Works of G.K. Chesterton
>The Moviegoer-Walker Percy
>Lancelot-Walker Percy
>The Lord of the Rings-J.R.R. Tolkien
>The Book of the New Sun-Gene Wolfe
>Brideshead Revisited-Evelyn Waugh
>The Canterbury Tales-Chaucer

Mysticism:
>The Dark Night of the Soul-St. John of the Cross
>The Interior Castle-St. Teresa of Avila
>Revelations of Divine Love-Julian of Norwich
>New Seeds of Contemplation-Thomas Merton
>No Man is an Island-Thomas Merton

That should get you started.

[Anonymous No.7102186]

>>7097593
Bait, right?

[Anonymous No.7102729]

This guy here>>7097666

This is a very good list, I'll save it for future reading.
Also glad to see Wolfe maing it on the lists.

[Anonymous No.7102733]

>>7102729
>>7102060
forgot to quote you

[Anonymous No.7103207]

>>7097689

> Being this much of a cuck to the media

Children are safer with Catholic Priests than they are with public school teachers. It just so happens that the media has an anti-Catholic bias because it's ran by Proestants, Jews, and the mentally ill.

The inquisition was also horribly exaggerated, throughout the whole Spanish Inquisition about 2 people per year were killed, they were more lenient, and held real trials unlike many of the secular courts, etc.

I can give you the genocide in the Albigensian Crusade, that was unneeded. On the other hand, on the odd chance that the Cathars actually had the ability to over through the church it was probably for the best that they were eliminated. Gnosticism should always be BTFO.

[Anonymous No.7103224]

>>7098233
lel, Catholics are such children.

[Anonymous No.7103235]

>>7097675
>>7101595
>>7102186
This is a meme, ignore him.

[Anonymous No.7103246]

>>7103207

>Children are safer with Catholic Priests than they are with public school teachers. It just so happens that the media has an anti-Catholic bias because it's ran by Proestants, Jews, and the mentally ill

>muh conspiracy theories

Gave me a laugh any way.

[Anonymous No.7103259]

>>7102060
You should add François Mauriac and Joris-Karl Huysmans to your list. C S. Lewis also wrote apologetics. What do you think of him? I have my own list of readings, wait a minute.

[Anonymous No.7103290]

>>7103246

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/


It's not a conspiracy theory, if SSPX ran the media we would hear about European sex slavery in Israel more( probably to an exaggerated amount). The Abrahamic Religions tend to have bad blood with one another.

[Anonymous No.7103326]

>>7097590
>By avoiding a Catholic parish, opening a Bible and reading it. Seriously, stay away.
That's an introduction to protestantism. Catholics don't read the bible, that's the whole point of why the priest is there.

[Anonymous No.7103655]

>>7101595
No one has successfully refuted aquinas yet.

[Anonymous No.7103683]

>>7103655
and by that you mean you'll never accept a refutation ? fallacy of composition .. bam aquinas is refuted there you go retard

[Anonymous No.7103688]

>>7103655
Didn't Kant? Maybe I'm not remembering that right.

[Anonymous No.7103699]

>>7103655
some aquinas apologists probably haven't been refuted (due to obscurity or whatsoever), but the man himself has. many times over.

[Anonymous No.7103721]

>>7103655
His energy statement doesn't stand because it's an inadequate assumption about the concept of energy. Being that energy is not created nor destroyed, and is rather changed into different forms.

boom, blow me

[Anonymous No.7103728]

>>7103683

That's just wrong though. Aquinas never commits that fallacy. It's true that he doesn't ground that there has to be one unique first non-derivative cause in the 5 ways( the 5 ways does not rule out that there could be several of them, one at t1, another at t2, etc, for example) but he does do it later in the Summa. Every other example of "fallacy of composition" claims I've read are simple misunderstandings of what the argument actually says.

>>7103688
Kant refuted Anselm's Ontological argument, but Aquinas had already done that 500 years earlier.

[Anonymous No.7103913]

>>7103655
Seems like God couldn't be omnipotent at all. By definition he is pure change. He has as much possibility to change as Nothingness does. To say God is omnipotent would be to say Nothingness is omnipotent.
Also pure change turns out to be constant if it has no potential, ie. to not be change. Making it dependent on the system rather than vice versa like Aquinas thinks.

[Anonymous No.7103915]

>>7103721

energy means a lot of things bro

[Anonymous No.7104059]

>>7103913

>By definition he is pure change. He has as much possibility to change as Nothingness does.

By definition God doesn't change because change would imply a potency being actualized, and God is a being of pure actuality. Being subject to change is correspondent to a lack of omnipotence, lacking a property by only having it potentially would limit his power in that moment before he gained the property. ' Act" is not equivalent to change itself, change is a process of a potency being actualized. A being of pure actuality is the cause of all change, but this does not make it change itself.

> Making it dependent on the system rather than vice versa like Aquinas thinks.

Does'nt follow from

>Also pure change turns out to be constant if it has no potential, ie. to not be change.

What "system" are you talking about anyways ?

[Anonymous No.7104207]

>>7104059
Nothingness is pure non-actuality. Yet it also has no potential. Lacking any potential it must also be omnipotent.

Pure actuality only actualizes change and is not change. Then to have actualized, it must also have not actualized. That is, a ball hitting a wall actualizes a bang as it was not hitting the wall before. A wall being a wall actualizes nothing as it is already a wall. So to cause actualization, it must also have not caused actualization then or at any other time or space. Otherwise what has actualized?
That is. There is no universe. God actualizes it. But before he actualized it he wasn't actualizing anything. So he must have potential for actualizing, which he is doing now but could also not do, and so his existence would not be proven by showing he actualized change. You'd need to show he also didn't actualize change to prove his existence.
The only pure actualizing being would have to be actualization itself as it is the only thing that does not have potential by definition, other than God who has potential since he was not actualizing when the universe did not exist and Nothingness which can't actualize anything.

My second point was pure actuality causing change, while following Aquinas argument, without potential could only be possible if actuality was a constant state. That is, actuality is inherent to the universe and was never caused but instead caused itself.

[No True Scottist No.7104320]

>>7104207

>Nothingness is pure non-actuality. Yet it also has no potential. Lacking any potential it must also be omnipotent.

No, you are treating "nothingness" as if it was a being. It is just a concept via-negation of things that exist, it doesn't actually correspond to anything. Also, the quality in question that guarantees omnipotence is being a being of pure actuality, lacking potency is a concomitant and necessary condition of being ominoptent, but it is not sufficient for it.

> That is. There is no universe. God actualizes it. But before he actualized it he wasn't actualizing anything. So he must have potential for actualizing, which he is doing now but could also not do, and so his existence would not be proven by showing he actualized change. You'd need to show he also didn't actualize change to prove his existence.

This is a common mistake, and given that one has to go through parts of the Summa not given in the infograph it's no fault of yours. But creatio ex nihilo is not a case of a potency being actualized- actualizing a potency is about changing or causing in some way on/in a patient that already exists- substantial generation from nothing what so ever is not an example. Potency always inheres in real things.

This proof is also not about a series of temporal causes stretching back to God creating "the universe" at time t1- rather it is about God as the prime sustaining cause in each moment of existence that keeps everything going- Aquinas' proof allows that the universe has existed for an eternal past time ( though he does not actually believe that).

You don't need any temporal moment where God is not fully in act to account for creation. God is not in time, but is in eternity, with each moment of time equally present to him. There is no prior temporal moment to the creation of time and the universe , God is there at the first moment of time simultaneously creating it and the universe- fully in act, with only ontological priority ( as an analogy- it is like how a shadow and a flagpole are simultaneous with one another but the flagpole causes the shadow and not the other way around). The lack of temporal priority means that God does not need to go from potency in one moment, to act in another moment. Rather God only has one act, and this one act spreads out to the whole of time- he is changeless.


> without potential could only be possible if actuality was a constant state. That is, actuality is inherent to the universe and was never caused but instead caused itself.

Insofar as God is pure actuality and is the thing that all actuality is derived from, and is eternal- it certainly is the case that God being in act is a "constant state". God was never caused, certainly, and actuality is inherent in the universe insofar as there is no universe without actuality- but that does'nt stop it being the case that all actuality we find in the universe is derived from God.

[Anonymous No.7104393]

>>7103915
Nah fam

[Anonymous No.7104424]

>>7104320
Ok but why then is it presumed that God must also exist outside the universe. The argument is a pure being of actuality is the thing that caused change and is therefore always causing all changes also it exists outside the universe.
I just don't see how it causing change necessitates that the same being also exists outside the universe. Or that we can conclude that being is related to God.
For example, the universe could be created by God but something else may have caused change to happen. From the starting point of the argument there is no way to determine what caused change to happen. By definition Aquinas is going to call the thing which caused change God. But it may as well be called anything because we can't determine anything else about it.

[Anonymous No.7104446]

kyle donahue

[Anonymous No.7104507]

>>7104424
what do you mean by universe?
universe is just everything that exists

[Anonymous No.7104542]

>>7104507
Well God creating the universe is a thing.

[Anonymous No.7104733]

You should know Catholics expect you to understand and to accept God as your one true God, and his son Jesus, by the time you reach eighth grade.

[No True Scottist No.7105101]

>>7104424

Well " universe" is really a being of reason- in this context we have been referring to everything that has spatio-temporal properties of some sort as a single entity- in reality they are multiple beings though. As >>7104507 mentioned " universe" simply means everything that is CONSIDERED as a whole- it is mind dependent. In this case all that should be meant by "not being part of the universe" is not being bound by time or space, or not being constituted or caused by it, and rather being that thing that constitutes/causes time and space.

So why assume that the first cause is not bound to time and space ? If this wasn't the case then either time and space would have to be prior to it temporally and there would be a moment where God only had potential existence in the time before he came to be- which negates his status as first cause and being of pure actuality, or it would be the case that God is simultaneously caused to exist by time and space from the first moment that they exist- but then he would still not be the first cause. Along with that, to be actually spatial is to have some sort of matter involved in one's being- but matter itself is pure potency, nothing is just matter- everything is according to it's form. By adding matter to God we add potency to him. To be subject to time is also to be subject to temporal change and therefore have potency- even if all other qualities persist- to be bound to time means to gain new temporal properties of existing at t1, t2, etc, and thus a being in time would not be the first cause- being of pure actuality.

>For example, the universe could be created by God but something else may have caused change to happen. From the starting point of the argument there is no way to determine what caused change to happen.

You can't cause change itself to happen- you can cause individual changes to happen- but to cause something to happen is a change itself- hence to cause the existence of change change must already exist- which is impossible, thus one cannot "cause change". Change, causation, creation, etc, are just primary activities that originate with the first cause- they are not things to be created.Technically we should never speak of "change" as if it were an actual noun, any referral to "change" is just an abstraction from real instances of change that makes things intelligible, but is not a literal part of any true ontology.

The Cosmological argument of Aquinas does not just state that God is the cause of"the universe" how ever we define it to be. It is shown that what ever this being is that is the first cause is ontologically/causally prior and constitutive to EVERYTHING else- and must be prior to EVERYTHING else.

The question of why we should believe the first cause of the 5 ways to be the Catholic God is lightly explained in the last few sections of the infograph here >>7103655 .

[Anonymous No.7105146]

>>7097518
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k

Here's a good, short introduction. Please keep an open mind--our faith is complex and can be intimidating to newcomers, but if you receive the teachings into yourself, you will find peace.

[Anonymous No.7106785]

>>7097593
>>7097675
>>7101595
>>7102186
>>7103235
The actual truth is that fedorafags literally cannot step to aquinas' nuanced conception of a transcendental contingent reality, so they revert to academic politics and act like he's been proven wrong but when the actual arguments come forward they are always weak.
And then when somebody explains why they're wrong they just act like you're making shit up because they can't even step, like not even a little.

[Anonymous No.7106840]

>>7106785
>aquinas' nuanced conception of a transcendental contingent reality
i dont even know what that is and i don't care to step to it, sounds kinda gay and really really really really really stupid

[Anonymous No.7106877]

>>7103655
>Nothing can move spontaneously
why not?
>Something cannot change state spontaneously?
Why not?
>Something cannot exist spontaneously
Why not? Why would they have to?
>Things vary in their levels of perfection
kek
>All things act towards an end
kek

These arguments are literal shit, they'd don't deserve refuting, all he's saying is 'I think this is true and i think the only explenation for this is god so i have proved god is real'

the man was a grade A dingleberry

[Anonymous No.7106912]

>>7106877
Nothing can move from potentiality to actuality without something actual making it do so. Only something in act can act.

And you clearly don't understand the Thomistic concept of perfection, or ends. Here's a tip: if you want to criticize someone, try to understand what they're saying first.

[Anonymous No.7106919]

>>7097518
Some advice: don't listen to anyone who tells you you can better understand the Catholic Church by reading non-Catholics. Whether you agree or disagree with the Church, you will always understand Catholicism better if you read things by actual Catholics.

[Anonymous No.7106924]

>>7103259
While C. S. Lewis certainly said some things worth reading, there's a reason he never converted to Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.7106933]

>>7106877
Can.
Not.
Step.

[Anonymous No.7106987]

>>7106912
That faggot literally said an arrows moves towards the target, hence it has an ends and I understand what he's saying about perfection, its just so fucking stupid its unreal.

>Only something in act can act.
Why? You can't just repeat something as an argument in favour of that thing.

He's enormously stupid but I know you have to defend him because he's the best you've got

[Anonymous No.7107020]

>>7106987
Of course an arrow moves towards its end. If you shoot an arrow are you able to predict what's going to happen to it? It doesn't just randomly explode, or go backwards? If you keep filling a tire with air then eventually it blows up, because that's the end of that particular act. Ends are the other side of the coin of efficient causes. If you believe that causes cause specific things, rather than just "whatever" then you believe in ends.

Nihil fit ex nihilo. Nothing doesn't cause something. If you don't believe this then idk man, you're just retarded.

>inb4 retarded misunderstanding of quantum physics.

[No True Scottist No.7107218]

>>7106877

There are arguments in Aristotle's works against the possibility of self motion/ self change. Aquinas would have assumed that anyone who was literate would be familiar with Aristotle given the intellectual climate at the time. It would be like including " gravity exists" in a modern philosophical argument, actually denying that is certainly possible- but it's rare that someone would mark your argument down for not justifying the existence of gravity in your argument.

The Modal Argument against self motion/ self change was standard in Scholasticism, and is quite good.

1. The subject of a change must be in potency to X( Definition of change)
2. Causes must "contain" their effects.( Causal Axiom 1)
3. Hence the cause of change must be in act with respect to X.( from 1 and 2)
4. Proximate causes must be spatio-temporally concurrent with their immediate effects.( Causal Axiom 2)
5. It is impossible for one and the same thing to be at once in potency and act with respect to the same and according to the same. ( Law of Non-Contradiction)

C: Anything that changes must be changed by another.

Now some of these points are axioms, some are based specifically on the act/potency framework, which is based on our empirical experience of causation. If you have a problem with them and still believe in causation then you should give an alternative framework by which causation can be represented with in a superior way.

Causal Axiom 1 seems solid to me. It makes no sense to say that something causes another thing when there is nothing of the effect in the cause. From where does this effect come from if not the cause?, how is it even a cause if this is not the case ? It is more than intuitive, an argument would have to be made against it.

Causal axiom 2 also seems solid. If a cause and effect are not concurrent in at least one spatio-temporal location then we are left with a gap between the cause and effect that would have to be traversed by the cause- but if that was the case then the medium that the cause traversed through would be an intermediary cause itself, being caused by the cause, so to cause the effect. And that medium would be concurrent with the effect. This one again is quite intuitive, it would take a good argument to make it even worth questioning.

" Perfection" is also just a term for any positive quality, nothing wrong with it's usage here.

Acting towards an end doesn't require deliberation towards the end, I don't need to think about digesting my food for my stomach to act towards digesting it. There is nothing wrong with teleological explanations.

>>7106987

>That faggot literally said an arrows moves towards the target

Is not an argument.

As >>7107020 pointed out, efficient causes to ends are just a direction of fit matter. If you have one you have the other. People get confused an think that "ends" denote intelligence and deliberation. Both Aquinas and Avicenna directly denied this.

[Anonymous No.7107880]

>>7097518
In the trash.

[Anonymous No.7108025]

>>7097666
I mean, those are staples, but you would really throw Dante and Wolfe at someone trying to get their feet wet with apostolic tradition? Let alone Aquinas, and parts of the Catechism can read like the General Instruction for the Roman Missal.

I say pick up Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, Feser's The Last Superstition to grasp the Natural Law that underpins everything, and a few others. Hows:

Bible (esp. Job, Ecclesiastes, John, Acts, Romans)

City of God & Confessions

Heretics and Orthodoxy

Introduction to Christianity & Jesus of Nazareth

The Lamb's Supper

Seven Storey Moutain

The Imitation of Christ

(& keep Catechism on hand for reference)

At this point I think anyone who's made it through most of that would've, by their own initiative, found a specific area of doctrine or theology to further look into by their own efforts.

[Anonymous No.7109062]

>>7107218
>"ends" denote intelligence and deliberation
thats the enitre argument though, not only is the claim that the movement of matter is proof that there is some deterministic point to that movement stupid but if you say that that deterministic point isn't necessarily connected to an intelgence then it in know way supports the claim that god exists.

As for the other shit its just the same rubbish over and over 'our conception of physics and logic is 100% perfect, full, no flaws, undeniable'

i pretty sure atheist faggots call that the god in the gaps, y'faggot

[Anonymous No.7109066]

>>7098204
Why would you be on a website that has homosexual porn, a homosexual board, and porn in general? Numerous things on this website are 'sinful'. Or are you one of those American feel-good Christians who believes that Jesus saves you from going to hell if you believe in him even if you jerk off to trannies, but at the same time that you can use your religion as an excuse to judge others for cherrypicked transgressions from your holy text?

[Anonymous No.7109096]

>>7103655

>untestable
>God isn't defined except in some vague, esoteric way that's completely useless
>none of the events in the Bible, the main source from which Aquinas deduces everything, are repeatable
>Aquinas Five Ways are essentially nothing more than an argument from ignorance
>they quite blatantly use question begging
>they also use special pleading

There, how's that?

[Anonymous No.7109157]

>>7097666
This tbh.

Also De Regno if catholic politics interest you.
Encyclicals by Pie X and books by Archbishop Lefebvre are a must if you want traditionalist catholicism.

[Anonymous No.7109222]

This was a pretty good overview.

[Anonymous No.7109229]

>>7099349
>The Arab raid against Rome was an Arab raid in 846 against Rome. Raiders plundered the outskirts of the city, sacking Old St. Peter's and St. Paul's-Outside-the-Walls Basilicas, but were prevented from entering the city itself by the Aurelian Wall.
>forced conversions
another lie.
>enslavement
another lie.
>implying there was such a thing as ''The Christian World''
>implying the biggest enemy of the crusaders were the Muslims, and not different sects of Christians, who were perceived as the enemy from within, rather than the outside enemy
>implying that throughout the crusader era people didn't acquiesce to the situation and live/trade together in a tolerable way
stormfront pls

[Anonymous No.7109601]

>>7109229

>the arab raid against rome was an arab raid against rome

smh

[Anonymous No.7109693]

>>7109096
>untestable
We can observe everything Aquinas described in nature
>God isn't defined exept in some vaque, esoteric way
God is defined as the only completely actual entity. Thats not really vague, now is it?
>that's completely useless
Without some entirely actual entity, there can be now change. Without it, things could never become actual
>none of the events in the Bible, the main source from which Aquinas deduces everything, are repeatable
Not relevant to this argument
>Aquinas Five Ways are essentially nothing more than an argument from ignorance
>they quite blatantly use question begging
>they also use special pleading
Again, not relevant

[Anonymous No.7109700]

Documents of Vatican II

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

[Anonymous No.7110059]

>>7097518
Not only Catholicism but Christianism in general.

[Anonymous No.7110091]

>>7109693
>We can observe everything Aquinas described in nature

Not really, we can only observe time moving forward, this would only make his first premise an observable one, and a highly dubious one considering all the developments we've made in the field of sub-atomic particles. All the other deductions aren't testable in any meaningful way

>God is defined as the only completely actual entity. Thats not really vague, now is it?

It kind of is. What does that even mean, 'completely actual'? Is that quantifiable in any way whatsoever?

>Without some entirely actual entity, there can be now change. Without it, things could never become actual

Yeah, or you can just simply say that we don't know the exact origins of time, like any reasonable person would do. That way, you wouldn't be making a very blatant argument from ignorance

>Not relevant to this argument

It kind of is, since Aquinas uses his argument to pinpoint exactly which god is the unmoved mover, namely Catholic Jesus

>Again, not relevant

Again, fallacies tend to be pretty relevant when you make an argument

[Anonymous No.7110226]

>>7110091
>time
it isnt a temporal beginning you doofus, it literally says at the beginning of the presentation (which isnt the actual argument, btw)

[Anonymous No.7110397]

>>7097590
seems like it's the same for any church/denomination
DEFINITELY the same for Eastern Orthodox

[Anonymous No.7110458]

>>7106785
>>7106840
it's actually incredibly intelligent retard.
get gud at reading

[Anonymous No.7110476]

>>7110226
>it isnt a temporal beginning you doofus

For all we know it isn't any beginning, you doofus. You probably think the Big Bang describes the beginning of universe, don't you?

[No True Scottist No.7110480]

>>7109062

The actual act of moving towards an end doesn't require an intelligence or deliberation on the side of that moving towards an end, but the selection of which of the many logically possible contingent ends to terminate in and the consistency of the ends things terminate in require an intelligence to make happen by determining what the teleological qualities in things will have and maintaining them in the beings in question.

Not only that, but this particular argument being discussed doesn't utilize teoleogy in coming to it's conclusion at all, it only utilizes change through act/potency. The 5th way is the teleological one- so the question of teloology it's not really relevant to the argument we are discussing.

>As for the other shit its just the same rubbish over and over 'our conception of physics and logic is 100% perfect, full, no flaws, undeniable'

If there is something wrong with the concepts and logic used then you should be able to show it to be wrong. Is it possible that a human being is wrong?, yes of course. But if defenders of the argument are wrong you should actually be able to show how. You're being like that guy who responds to every argument with " BUT WE COULD BE IN THE MATRIX BRO". Yes, everything could be wrong- show us why we should actually think this or go away.

>i pretty sure atheist faggots call that the god in the gaps, y'faggot

No, stupid atheists call it that.Smart atheists actually address the argument with coherent points.

>>7109096

That's all wrong though. Just listing off the names of random informal fallacies you've heard of don't make them problems with an argument. How about you highlight why you think

>Aquinas Five Ways are essentially nothing more than an argument from ignorance
>they quite blatantly use question begging
>they also use special pleading

these all hold. If those claims were true it might be a useful rebuttal. Point 1 and 3 are arbitrarily judging a deductive argument based on the method of experimental science, and 2 is your own subjective issue about what you personally find comprehensible.

[Anonymous No.7110531]

>>7110480
>>Aquinas Five Ways are essentially nothing more than an argument from ignorance

Because we simply don't know yet how the universe began and what (to use Aquinas' words) causal power is operating on the universe right now. Putting in 'god' or 'unmoved mover' or 'the ground of all being in-and-out-of-itself' is a complete waste of time, since this doesn't explain anything. It's something we at the moment are simply ignorant about, and shoehorning a god in here solves exactly fuck all

>>they quite blatantly use question begging

Aquinas pinpoints god as the identity of the unmoved mover. I'm going to ignore for a moment that his god not only picked a specific book, a specific moral code and a specific fanclub and point to the fact that this has at least one unexplained assumption within it, namely that the unmoved mover apparently possesses a conscious will. This is an essential part of god that is simply never explained by Aquinas. It isn't explained why the unmoved mover requires a conscious will, it isn't explained how it obtained its conscious will, and it isn't explained how his consciousness (or anyone's consciousness for that matter) works. If you assume that the final cause of the universe is a conscious agent with intelligence, right down to the point of being concerned with the moral codes of an obscure species called human on this obscure planet called earth, then all of this must be justified and explained. Aquinas never does this, his argument can basically be rephrased as the question "How can the universe not have a creator, if we know that it was created?". This assumes a creator, and a conscious intelligence of that creator, which is never explained or justified

>>they also use special pleading

Aquinas uses causality as his justification for god, but then never explains why god is an exception to this very same causality. He simply declares him an exception. God is an exception because he's god because he's an exception because he's god. It's a completely circular argument. If Aquinas wants to use god as an explanation for causality, he doesn't just need to declare god an exception to causality, he also needs to explain how god bypasses causality, something he never does

[No True Scottist No.7110634]

>>7110531

>Because we simply don't know yet how the universe began and what (to use Aquinas' words) causal power is operating on the universe right now.

Aquinas' argument allows that both the Christian cosmology in which the world is created, and the Aristotelian cosmology where the world is infinite in past time and uncreated are both possible. You are also begging the question, you are saying that we don't know what causal power is operating on the universe right now and thus Aquinas' argument that explains what causal power is acting on the universe must be false. The argument answers this question, but you are just assuming that there is no answer what so ever and that this means that Aquinas' answer must be wrong. It is incredibly sloppy.

We are not "shoehorning" God in. it is deductively established that there being a series of beings who gain their actuality derivatively requires that there is one being who does not have it derivatively- but all on it's own so that actuality can exist in the series ( if everything has something derivatively there is nothing that they can derive it from- the logic is solid here). Once we tease out what the concomitant qualities of a being of pure actuality entails we get something that fits the description of God.

There is no argument from ignorance here. We take something that we do know and tease out what the necessary results of it being the case are- that is all.

> namely that the unmoved mover apparently possesses a conscious will. This is an essential part of god that is simply never explained by Aquinas.

This is established in the 5th way. And in the many pages after that which establishes all of God's qualities. Hell it's even established on the infograph near the end. >>7103655

>"How can the universe not have a creator, if we know that it was created?".

This claim has nothing to do with the argument since Aquinas allows that the universe may be eternal and uncreated in his argument.( I think we can use his argument to show that either way the same relation between God and the world holds personally) That first line of argumentation is never used what so ever. You seem to be going off the first year Philosophy textbook version of Aquinas, as opposed to his actual arguments.

>Aquinas uses causality as his justification for god, but then never explains why god is an exception to this very same causality

It is explained that if everything in a series has it's causality, actuality, etc derivatively then there would be nothing for the members of the series to derive it from- and hence you need at least one being that has it primarily, as opposed to derivatively. This grounds the first cause. You are again thinking of the first year philosophy textbook version made by people who have read a whole 4 pages of Aquinas. Nowhere does Aquinas claim as a principle that "everything needs a cause"- and then just declare God as an exception.

[No True Scottist No.7110646]

>>7110634

Looking a the infograph again. I suppose it only establishes God's omniscience, not his will. Still, the fifth way takes care of that.

[Anonymous No.7110699]

>>7110634

>You are also begging the question, you are saying that we don't know what causal power is operating on the universe right now and thus Aquinas' argument that explains what causal power is acting on the universe must be false

No, I was very clear that he used an argument from ignorance. He basically goes "We don't know what causal power is operating on the universe, therefore god must be". I simply said you can't draw conclusions from a lack of knowledge. At no point have I ever said that the whole unmoved mover is 100% false, I just think it isn't likely enough and most of the aspects about it aren't explained enough to justify it as a valid line of reasoning. Don't put words into my mouth

>This is established in the 5th way.

No, it's assumed, and never explained. How he gained this consciousness and how it works is also never explained, it's simply asserted without any good justification whatsoever

>This claim has nothing to do with the argument since Aquinas allows that the universe may be eternal and uncreated in his argument.

And how do you establish the difference between an eternal, uncreated universe, and a universe with a beginning and created? What method do you use to reliably distinguish between the two?

Also, you do know that the Big Bang doesn't actually the describes the actual t=0 beginning of the universe, right? That's still a mystery for the most part, even to the most advance minds working on it today.

>It is explained that if everything in a series has it's causality, actuality, etc derivatively then there would be nothing for the members of the series to derive it from- and hence you need at least one being that has it primarily, as opposed to derivatively.

Yes, if you know the whole series, which we don't.

[Anonymous No.7110839]

Love is Our Mission: The Family Fully Alive (A Preparatory Catechesis for the World Meeting of Families)

http://www.worldmeeting2015.org/about-the-event/catechesis/

[No True Scottist No.7110863]

>>7110699

>"We don't know what causal power is operating on the universe, therefore god must be".

He never says this though. Not even remotely. There is no necessary connection between that line of argument and his argument. The argument is that we know that there is a causal series, it is impossible for all the causes in the series to have their causal power derivatively- therefore there is a being that has it primarily. It is established from the logical necessity of there being such a being that this being- if it fits that description- also fits the description of God. There is no ad hoc implementation of God where there doesn't need to be. It is deductively grounded all the way through.

>No, it's assumed, and never explained. How he gained this consciousness and how it works is also never explained, it's simply asserted without any good justification whatsoever

Well no, it's argued for in the fith way and the parts after it, go read it- all of Aquinas' works are online. God doesn't need to "gain consciousness"- as a being of pure actuality he is eternal ( as explained in the infograph)- he has no potencies and has never had any potencies to be actualized, that is established by the argument. Hence asking how he "gained consciousness" is incoherent- God has it primarily. "How it works" is not a question directly relevant to grounding the argument, and is incredibly vague.

It is established in the infograph that God is omnipotent. To lack the power for something would be to have an unactualized potency- which God does not have. If God has infinite power then he has the power to have a will- but God has no unactualized potencies- meaning any quality he can have he does have- thus God having the power to have a will entails that God actually has a will.

>And how do you establish the difference between an eternal, uncreated universe, and a universe with a beginning and created? What method do you use to reliably distinguish between the two?

This is exactly why Aquinas did not comment either way in the argument. It's a moot point though because God's conservation of the world is established, and conservation and creation are only mentally distinct. In the case of conservation we consider the ontological grounding of the thing in relation to it having existed before the moment, in creation we consider the ontological grounding of something in relation to it not existing before. Even if the world is infinite in past time as opposed to finite in past time- God is still upholding the universe at each moment all the same. The only difference is if this moment has infinite past time behind it or finite past time, it changes nothing in God being the efficient cause of the universe. Your point about the Big Bang becomes irrelevant due to this as well- we don't even need a temporal beginning of the universe to give God his due. His relation to the world is the same either way.

1/2

[No True Scottist No.7110868]

>>7110863

>Yes, if you know the whole series, which we don't.

This is true regardless of any particular series. Knowing each member of the series only means we can't count back by hand to the point where there is God- it doesn't change the logical necessity of the condition of needing something with underived causality- and the fact that God turns out to be this being with underived causality.

2/2

[Anonymous No.7110902]

>>7108025
I think that you need to understand the mindset of a believer first and understand the actual doctrine second because you can't do the first without the second. That is why I think Dante and Wolfe are great. No other author, unless we count the Bible carry over the sense of greatness and beauty of God, in a way that leaves people speechless and sense the holy spirit.
Anyway those were also the ones that I've read and liked most, I'll hop on the ratzinger train soon enough.
>>7110059
How exactly is Stars are my destination a Christian work and why is it there and Wolfe isn't? Still, a solid list afaik