/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9608985]

Old Testament:
>Ooh boy, I created you, and I will act like a dick towards you because I'm divine and shit
New Testament:
>Look, I'm actually a nice guy. Here, use my son as a scapegoat.
Now that's what I call character development!

[Anonymous No.9608990]

>>9608985
How did God become such a nu-male

[Anonymous No.9608997]

>>9608985
jesus is god and jesus is human
god had to take a human form in order to truly suffer, in order to truly save humanity

constructing retard-tier strawman analyses doesn't make you look smart and only robs you of understanding the true depths of one of the oldest literary traditions in the world

[Anonymous No.9609000]

OT God is Satan, Jesus was a crypto-gnostic who only referenced the Jewish scriptures in order to reach a wider audience

[Anonymous No.9609001]

>>9608997
>jesus is god

not really.

[Anonymous No.9609003]

>>9608997
lol found the Christfag

[Anonymous No.9609012]

>>9609003
i have never been to church
i just like books
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuaS2IGDSrw

[Anonymous No.9609021]

Does anyone else think that the old testament is actually set in the future? I mean think about it:
>people have obscenely long lifespans
>towers like babel that scrape the heavens
>everyone speaks the same language(translation software)
>god sends a great flood(rising sea levels) to punish us for turning from his path

So much of the whacky shit can be explained by modern technology and current trends

[Anonymous No.9609036]

>>9609012
>i have never been to church

[Anonymous No.9609045]

>>9609036

[Anonymous No.9609057]

>>9608985
kys

[Anonymous No.9609125]

>>9609036
Mocking him first for being a "christfag" and then for being a "fedora"

[Anonymous No.9609139]

>Strawmanning God as a Being
Clever 13 year old detected

[Anonymous No.9609159]

>>9608985
>people actually trust this guy

[Anonymous No.9609186]

>it's another "let's judge God using limited human intelligence and men-made moral codes" argument

meh this is getting stale, specially since I have to go out of my way to defend the christians

[Anonymous No.9609204]

>>9609186
>God says he's the most high and all benevolent
>we're just supposed to take his word for it when all we can know is that he controls our immediate reality.

[Anonymous No.9609220]

>>9609204
>not worshiping METAGOD
pseud

[Anonymous No.9609222]

>>9609204
you're not taking god's word for it you retard, you're taking the word of someone who claims to speak for him.

[Anonymous No.9609225]

>>9609139
>>9609186
>WOAH! Dude he is so divine and stuff, we mere mortals can't comprehend him

[Anonymous No.9609228]

>>9609225
Well, yes, this is actually one of the great strengths of the Christian God as a concept, and why he manages to avoid the pitfalls that the old pagan gods fell into when logic was applied to them and their tawdry escapades. It's why Judaism was so attractive to so many Roman intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.9609232]

>>9609225
God is an abstracted ideal just like Justice.
Taking something literally like the concept of God is a mistake that shows the most puerile intellect.

[Anonymous No.9609238]

>>9609125
>Not embracing the schizophrenia of our milieu

[Anonymous No.9609240]

>>9609228
> It's why Judaism was so attractive to so many Roman intellectuals

I have another explanation Josephus

[Anonymous No.9609253]

>>9608985
>Old Testament
DO AS I SAY FOR I AM THE LORD. WHAT?!?! YOU HAVE DISOBEYED ME?!? I CAST YOU OUT, AND I SHALL GIVE YOU A BILLION RULES TO LIVE BY AS PENANCE FOR YOUR ORIGINAL SIN. STUFF LIKE NOT BEING GAY, NO EATING SHELLFISH, ETC.
>New Testament
I AM THE LORD, AND I MAY HAVE MADE A MISTAKE. BUT I CANNOT BE WRONG, THEREFORE I WILL SACRIFICE MY ONLY SON AS A ROUNDABOUT MEANS OF FREEING YOU FROM ORIGINAL SIN.

[Anonymous No.9609267]

>>9609228

>Well, yes, this is actually one of the great strengths of the Christian God as a concept, and why he manages to avoid the pitfalls that the old pagan gods fell into

The incomprehensable creator deity is really a Pagan thing that comes from Plato. After the Jews were exposed to Platonism people like Philo of Alexandria tried to make the arguement that his god was his own god. The early form of the Jewish god was very comprehensable. He is described as having physical features, emotions, he even walks around a garden in Genesis. It is only later theologians like Maimonodes that tried to put forth these passages as entirly metaphorical. Likewise the Pagan religions were equally compatable with the Platonic god, there were plenty of theologies that took the literal descriptions of their gods and turned them into metaphors for the incomprehensible Monad.
>It's why Judaism was so attractive to so many Roman intellectuals

I've never heard of Judaism being popualr with Romans. The Greco/Romans were a conquering people and this is reflected in their gods, the Olympian Deities didn't create the world, they killed the origenal creator gods and took it for themself. It wouldn't make sense such people would care about Yawheh, a deity who's people were the conquered ones. Likewise they wouldn't think being the creator god automatically meant he was the right anymore than the Titans were the right gods.

[Anonymous No.9609273]

>>9609253
>the human condition has evolved for the past billion years: we moved from dangerous and unpredictable nature to some kind of civilization
>OMG why would the concept of God shift? checkmate atheist
When you live under constant threat, then move into somekind of Government, the concept of God must represent that too.

[Anonymous No.9609282]

>>9609240
Well if you are a guy in the Roman world the Jewish and Christian Gods aren't nessiarially the same thing. Consider that Paul wanted wanted to remove the Old Testament cannon entirly.

Solidtary between the Jewish God and the character of Jesus is a much later concept and I think it makes sense even now to consider them seperate deities. The Jewish God is only concerned with his chosen people while the Christian God loves all people equally. These are two very different deities and are incompatable value systems.

[Anonymous No.9609283]

>>9609232
God is in fact actually real, you fucking Spinozan shitter.

[Anonymous No.9609300]

>>9609283
Depends what you mean by real. God is real like Justice, not real like your confused ass.

[Anonymous No.9609311]

>>9609232
>God is an abstracted ideal
Wait a sec... You mean god is made up?

[Anonymous No.9609317]

>>9609003
>implying 90% of /lit/ aren't Catholics.
Are you new here?

[Anonymous No.9609324]

>>9609021
Fug me, i neber thod of dad

[Anonymous No.9609325]

>>9609000
Demiurge theory is pretty fun, but really Jesus was a pseud and the gospels are all revisionist propaganda.
OT God isn't even God, he's a myriad collection of mythological interpretations of God's will that were redacted into a hierarchical collection of secular laws and ethno-nationalist thinkpieces by tax collectors. The entire literary and cultural monolith built on them is constructed on a foundation of sand.

[Anonymous No.9609337]

>>9609300
No, I mean that He is actually real and is responsible for the world and everything in it, and even interacts in history to this day.

[Anonymous No.9609341]

>>9609311
>I don't know what abstraction means
An ideal can be more true than reality. Just like a book can depict things that never happened but are more real than your pitiful life.
Think about it like that: take the greatest people over 10000 year, extract their qualities into a fictional character, tell a story about that guy. That's Christ.
It's metatrue, not made-up, you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9609342]

>>9609311
A great many things only exist as abstract concepts. For instance language. The words we type don't refer to real things, they are a system of classifying a big collection of various atoms.

[Anonymous No.9609350]

>all the dualism in this thread

[Anonymous No.9609351]

>>9609325
Still fucking well-written though

[Anonymous No.9609352]

>>9609325
>Jesus was a pseud
i have never read anything more /lit/ than this

[Anonymous No.9609354]

>>9609337
My man! Find a way to prove that, put in on Youtube and win at Life. I'll be the first subscriber and I'll donate money.

Until then, I won't change my mind.

[Anonymous No.9609362]

>>9609232
>>9609341
>>9609342
>gods live on the other side of the mountain
>no gods here, just some mountain goats
>the gods live atop the clouds
>nope, no gods here either
>wait, did I say gods? I meant god. all the other gods don't exist, only the jewish one
>okay... and where is he again?
>god is beyond this world
>well why would I take your word for it then
>DUDE GOD ISN'T REAL IT WAS AN ! IDEA ! ALL ALONG

i hate this fucking revisionist trash. people thought and still think god actually exists

[Anonymous No.9609369]

If you think that God is acting like a dick in the Old Testament you're not understanding what you're reading. You're reading the bible in a very stupid way.

[Anonymous No.9609378]

>>9609362
>I don't understand how a concept that is beyond human reach is always moved beyond human reach.
Moron. Like the stock market is always changing and cannot be modelled, the concept of God is an ideal of the human condition that is ungraspeable.

Let's say that you find awe at watching in the distance. Then the ideal of awe is the furthest possible, even if we get telescope and shit.

[Anonymous No.9609384]

>>9609317
>implying they are
>not even mentioning the protestants
Are you new here?

[Anonymous No.9609389]

>>9609369
Indeed, God is a bitch like gravity will kill you if you go off a cliff.
Blaming gravity for dying is not sophisticated thinking but that's what atheist like to do.

[Anonymous No.9609390]

>>9609369
Is there a stupider way of reading the Bible than as a thoroughly accurate historical account?

[Anonymous No.9609394]

>>9608997
This

[Anonymous No.9609399]

>>9609390
Yes, a purely literal reading.

[Anonymous No.9609412]

>>9609378
it's so obvious you're parroting jordan peterson, I watch him too you know.. his rhetoric falls apart in text.

look at the retards here all offering their ideas of what god is supposed to be while simultaneously claiming they can't understand god. we're all trying to make sense of this world but theism is just fucking pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9609423]

>>9609412
I would argue that disregarding theism is way more pathetic than studying the Bible seriously. But what do I know?

[Anonymous No.9609436]

>>9609423
Why the Bible? Why not the Koran or any other 'holy' text?

[Anonymous No.9609441]

>>9609436
>he hasn't studied multiple holy texts

[Anonymous No.9609443]

>>9609354
You should just read Augustine.

[Anonymous No.9609448]

>>9609325
nice post desu.

[Anonymous No.9609457]

>>9609441
Nice dodge pham

[Anonymous No.9609458]

>>9609436
>Why the Bible? Why not the Koran or any other 'holy' text?
Good question. I am currently going through the Tao Te Ching and I read some Sufism.
Unfortunately, there is something extremely weird with text that is not aligned with your culture.
To me, Islam for instance seems to be the best way to live for countries that are not those of cold harsh winters. Similarly Taoism is not as useful in an Occidental setting where there is a lot of individualism.

Reading other holy text is a good idea, it just requires extremely carefulness not to read it with an Occidental mindset, which is very hard.

[Anonymous No.9609459]

>>9609021
Revelations has hinted at what would be a model of civilization which would utilize a universal language.
No one is working on a single tower whose focus will lead to people spontaneously start speaking different languages.
People will never supercede 120 years, because God said no one will live beyond that point. Regardless of what ambitious technology men say about the future in technology, I think they will hit that 120 year ceiling.
The sea levels will rise, but never rise enough to cover most of today's mapped surface land.

[Anonymous No.9609464]

>>9609362
It seems that you have trouble grasping abstract concepts. The experience religious people have: visions, hunches, overpowering emotions. All of these actually happened to them but they lack the ability to explain them very well. These are not metaphysical or magical events but psychological events. Yawheh is basically a personifaction of moral guilt.

It's not 'revionism' it;s trying to explain things people couldn't understand. At first they must they could say is that their god is an animal or a man in the clouds. Plato improved it by saying that the animal/man in the clouds is just a metaphor and it's a metapysical realm. Jung improved it again by saying that metaphysical realms are actually just Plato trying to describe the subconscious. So the Gods are real, they are psychological forces. That's not something to despise.

Religious texts make perfect sense if you know how to read them.

[Anonymous No.9609470]

>>9609464
>These are not metaphysical or magical events but psychological events

Prove it. Prove it in some way that doesn't involve you essentially saying, "Well OF COURSE magic and metaphysics aren't real."

[Anonymous No.9609474]

>>9609412
Not him but Peterson's ideas are not unique. The stuff he talks about what was done by Jung, Campbell, Nietzche, Hegel, all sorts of people. Peterson just has his own interpretation and there is nothing wrong with someone expressing the same opinion.

If you think Peterson's ideas are no good you should actually try to rebuke them rather than just shitpost.

[Anonymous No.9609478]

>>9609464
Kill yourself you fucking Neo-Pagan.
Christ is not a "psychological event", he is everything

[Anonymous No.9609485]

>>9609470
the whole of reality is magical and ultimately escapes explanation

[Anonymous No.9609486]

>>9609474
>Nietzche, Hegel

lol that hack does not understand Nietzsche much less Hegel

[Anonymous No.9609491]

>>9609470
>>9609478

The "easiest proof" is the Hero's Journey. Otherwise, I'm worried that you'll have to read a lot of Jung (especially Aion) to make sense of that.

[Anonymous No.9609493]

>>9609486
>[shitposts loudly]
fascinating

[Anonymous No.9609495]

>>9609491
Please keep your cute little RPG slogans out of serious theological threads

[Anonymous No.9609502]

>>9609495
>I am too much of a brainlet to understand Jung
You have to go back

[Anonymous No.9609513]

>>9609502
>Jesus was a level 9 Warlock
>Going on the cross gave him spirit XP that let him reach the next spirit tier

Woah incredible stuff

[Anonymous No.9609519]

>>9609513
>he doesn't carry the desert inside of him

have you not had monasteries
have you even read The Red Book?

[Anonymous No.9609523]

>>9609513
Really funny. Not sophisticated in the least, but really funny. 6/10 for trying.

[Anonymous No.9609529]

>>9609470
Well the reason there is no magic is because magic is essentially things happening through chaos. Everything we know of in the universe is ordered. Magic can only happen in a world where there is no order. Even the smarter theologians started noticing that nature works according to laws of nature and so there cannot be any miracles because miracles violate the laws of nature. That's when the smarter theologians eventually started concluding that the stories about miracles cannot be literally true. Amusingly these smarter theologians are actually the ancestors of Spinoza who destroyed the entire theological cannon of the middle ages.

The reason there are no metaphysical realms is because the idea was made because Plato and his crew thought concepts were 'real things'. If there really is such a thing as circle than it must have an existence in of itself. He reasoned since we only see examples of circles, not circle in of themself, they must exist in another realm. However we know that concepts do not actually exist, they are just ways out brain intepretes the atoms around us. There are no circles there is only a mental concept of circles so there is nothing to inhabite these hypothetical metaphysical realms.

[Anonymous No.9609539]

>>9609523
Its all Jung is, he gives a way of reducing nuanced and contingent texts and figures into easy to understand Autistic "Hero" or "Dragons" that turn them into cute fables that are easy to understand
Its no wonder greasy /v/edditors like yourself love him

[Anonymous No.9609551]

>>9609519
>>9609523
Its all Jung is, he gives a way of reducing nuanced and contingent texts and figures into Autistic class types like "Hero" or "Dragons" that turn them into cute fables that are easy to understand for manchildren
Its no wonder greasy /v/edditors like yourself love him

[Anonymous No.9609558]

>>9609458
>anything other than christianity couldn't possibly be The Truth because I'm not familiar with it

>>9609464
how is it that people in the past didn't understand god but now you do? you've accepted the fact that gods don't actually exist but on one side you're saying "oh it's just an idea, everybody has their own gods" but then you say my conception of god is misunderstood.

>>9609474
he's literally copying his exact sentences verbatim.

[Anonymous No.9609561]

>>9609478
I'm not a Neo-Pagan. And I agree with you that God is "everything" but that "everything" is psychological in nature. It is not even possible to experience sense data without processing it pschologically.

Events like Paul seeing Jesus on the road to Damscus did happen but they happened due to psychological conditions. The same is true for when a Hindu see's his God or when someone dreams about their dead grandfather giving them advice. This is simply the unconscious mind choosing a symbol to represent itself.

I actually had an event very similar to what Paul had on the road to Damscus including the part about losing my balance and being assaulted with 'divine light'. The mind can make you experience powerful things.


>>9609486
I never said Peterson was smart, just that many other people have his ideas. I also think Peterson doesn't understand Jung or Nietzche.

[Anonymous No.9609565]

>>9609539
It's funny how people bounce off Jung. It's almost like they can't go deep enough and have to ressort to the most hysterical opinions.

[Anonymous No.9609577]

>>9609551
that's a ftm tranny.

[Anonymous No.9609578]

>>9609561
>lmao Paul was just schizophrenic and is just as legitimate as some Poo in the Loo meeting Elephantman but for no reason at all I'm going to assume they have meaning

Just stop it, you're a retard

[Anonymous No.9609585]

>>9609558
>anything other than christianity couldn't possibly be The Truth because I'm not familiar with it
Are you retarded? It's like saying I can understand Russian authors better by reading the translation. Of course that Christianity is easier to understand when you leave near Christian churches.

[Anonymous No.9609590]

>>9609585
>leave
live for fuck sake

[Anonymous No.9609596]

>>9609561
that we view everything through the lens of psychology does not mean that everything is psychological in nature
everything is of itself in nature
psychology is of the nature of everything
and our perception of everything is colored by psyhology

this doesn't mean you can explain everything away as psychological quirks
Real Weird Shit can happen

[Anonymous No.9609600]

>>9609458
>the truth of theology is determined by climate
That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

[Anonymous No.9609614]

>>9609600
>reading works in translation is no different from reading the original

[Anonymous No.9609618]

>>9609558
Well the reason we understand "God" better is because we simply know more things.

I remember thinking, when reading Plato's theology.

"No Plato. The reason people can know things without being taught them is because we are born with 'instincts'. These come from genes not the metaphysical realm."

I'm not saying our concept of God is 'perfect' just that it's more advanced than the other concepts. God=psychological sensations is the best we currently have. In fact if you beleive that all the old religious texts make sense. When the Christian says "Yawheh knows I sinned and might send me to hell. I need to pray so he forgives me" it actually makes sense, the psychological reading is "My conscous is telling me to feel guilty and I'm regretting it. I need to resolve to not do that bad thing anymore."

[Anonymous No.9609621]

>>9609600
>evolutionary history of harsh winters is the same as evolutionary history of people living in sands
Try again?

[Anonymous No.9609622]

>>9609614
Anon are you quite sure you're alright.

[Anonymous No.9609627]

>>9609621
>evolutionary history has any effect on the truthiness of truth
try again

[Anonymous No.9609628]

>Anon, why did you tell people I was merely a psychological event akin to Thor?
>Did you not grasp my love for you?

[Anonymous No.9609634]

>>9609585
That's it? Your holy book is just another novel to you? Admit it, you are an atheist.

[Anonymous No.9609648]

>>9609627
>You can civilize sandniggers, niggers, white trash and jewish scums with the same truthiness.
The Logos don't work with Abbos and muslims. Why? I don't know the best explanation we have is evolutionary history, IQ who are linked to climate (for denial of gratification).
You might think that it is stupid, but I don't think you have thought this enough.

[Anonymous No.9609649]

>>9609578
Well schizophria IS a psychological condition. And the voice the schizos have DO have meaning. Part of the treament for the condition is trying to figure it out. Maybe they have childhood trauma and the voices in their head are residual agony.

Paul really beleived in what he say. I don't know if you are aware of his history but the guy destroyed his social life, his reputation, and got himself a death sentence because he genuinally believed in what he was doing.

[Anonymous No.9609653]

>>9609648
>truthiness is the same as civilisation
try again

[Anonymous No.9609655]

>>9609621
>thinks the spread of Christianity can be described as a mere facet of Biological Evolution

Nu-Pagans are disgusting

[Anonymous No.9609661]

>>9609634
I was talking about the language and the translation and the underpinnings of the social grounding.
The Bible is not just a book, but it is a book.

[Anonymous No.9609666]

>>9609649
>I don't know if you are aware of his history

Only a Memerson fuckwit could say this. I'm talking with a child

[Anonymous No.9609667]

>>9609653
>he doesn't know what truthiness means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

[Anonymous No.9609669]

>>9609661
>The Bible is not just a book, but it is a book.

[Anonymous No.9609672]

>>9609666
>Only a Memerson fuckwit could say this. I'm talking with a child
Only a Memerson fuckwit could say this. I'm talking with a child

[Anonymous No.9609675]

>>9609653
Civilization is built on the basis of religion (truthiness if you will)

>>9609655
>I don't know shit about evolutionary biology

>>9609669
Stop posting old fat man, you'll get him killed.

[Anonymous No.9609679]

>>9609596
I'm an orthodox Jungian, so I think dreams and visions are basically the subconscious trying to communicate something using symbols. This includes all religious visions. If someone told me they had a vision where an angel gave them advice I'd beleive they should listen to the angel but understand that the angel is not some guy living in the clouds but a part of their mind.

[Anonymous No.9609686]

>>9609675
>Civilization is built on the basis of religion
Parts of it, none of it theological.

Therefore not concerned with truth. Yes, drinking camel urine might be a decent idea in early medieval Arabia, but that's not the important stuff of any religion.

[Anonymous No.9609687]

>>9609628
Fixed him for you.

[Anonymous No.9609695]

>>9609679
Even if it were some guy living in the clouds it would be a part of his mind.

[Anonymous No.9609698]

>>9609687
Mein Gott

[Anonymous No.9609701]

>>9609686
None of it is theological? How do you explain that we treat people who steal differently in the West and in Islam without referring to holy texts?

[Anonymous No.9609702]

>>9609679
there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy

[Anonymous No.9609707]

>>9609618
>Well the reason we understand "God" better is because we simply know more things.

This is called whig history, no? Just because you think you know more things doesn't mean you are "more right". This isn't science.

>God=psychological sensations is the best we currently have

No, that's just what you claim. There are literally billions of people who would disagree with that but they just aren't as enlightened as you are.

>>9609661
It's just really convenient that the religion you're born into turns out to be the correct one. You're just unusually calm for someone who thinks he's going to be tortured for eternity for believing the wrong thing but I'm sure the peterson faggots will find a pretty dressing for that one too.

[Anonymous No.9609708]

>>9609701
By looking at the actual cause, which derives from whatever custom has been enforced which may, itself, eventually derive from nature (in the same way all things do, unless you believe in something).

But that's not got shit to do with the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.9609712]

>>9609679
>the subconscious trying to communicate something

This is your brain on heresy

[Anonymous No.9609713]

>>9609666
I don't read Peterson, I saw his lectures and didn't get anything out of them. The idea that deities are psychological realities is really fucking old, the guy didn't invent it.

You had people argueing for this in the middle ages with Avveroes, granted most of the people argueing for it were Jews or Muslims. Christian theology doesn't work too well if you throw out miracles. Paul himself said if Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead than he died for nothing.

[Anonymous No.9609715]

>>9609708
>by looking at the actual cause
hmm
>which derives from whatever custom has been enforced
u mean lyk religion??
>which may, itself, eventually
weasel words abound
>derive from nature
you mean lyk religion???

sorry man this was really weak

[Anonymous No.9609716]

>>9609713
>Paul himself said if Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead than he died for nothing.

Absolutely, now you're getting somewhere

[Anonymous No.9609718]

>>9609715
Anon, do you think that in western Europe God is formed of the Trinity, and in the middle East He just...isn't?

[Anonymous No.9609721]

>>9609718
do you think that because a cube viewed from one angle looks like a star that means it's not a cube?

[Anonymous No.9609722]

>>9609721
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9609724]

>>9609707
>It's just really convenient that the religion you're born into turns out to be the correct one.
See it like that: Judaism is rejection of the Logos, Christianity is the Logos, Islam is submission to the Logos

It's not more true because they all have the Logos front and center. However, the Bible is the easiest to understand just like my mother tongue is the easiest way to speak.

[Anonymous No.9609726]

>>9609722
then you are most likely a woman
lrn2spatial reasoning

[Anonymous No.9609727]

>>9609726
No

But a goat is a monkey if I think hard enough

[Anonymous No.9609731]

>>9609727
someone get a vibrator, the lady suffers from hysteria

[Anonymous No.9609733]

>>9609727
>I can force myself into thinking badly
Good job?

[Anonymous No.9609736]

>>9609731
Why yes, I am a handsome genius.
>>9609733
Misreading

[Anonymous No.9609740]

>>9609695
That's actually a good point lol.

There's kind of a system for interpretation in Jungianism. Water means a certain thing, so does the sun, the gender of dream characters tells you what part of the mind they are from.

It's not hard definations where you can just flip through a dream dictionary but a loose rule.

[Anonymous No.9609741]

>>9609736
Sorry I can't think hard enough like you

[Anonymous No.9609743]

>>9609736
*miswriting

[Anonymous No.9609754]

>>9609741
Oh, I think you can.

[Anonymous No.9609763]

>>9609754
blatant shitposting does nothing to help your argument

[Anonymous No.9609765]

>>9609763
Shitposting is a pretty traditional method of arguing, anon.

[Anonymous No.9609767]

>>9609724
Don't just cut up a part of my post and satisfy yourself with a half baked reply.

>Judaism is rejection of the Logos, Christianity is the Logos, Islam is submission to the Logos

What the fuck does this even mean? Forget logos, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE AND BE TORTURED FOREVER AFTERWARDS IF YOU ARE WRONG. You need to come to terms with this.

[Anonymous No.9609771]

>>9609765
>molymeme.jpg

[Anonymous No.9609773]

>>9609716
Not that guy, but are you getting at the fact that you can't have Christianity at all without the supernatural/miraculous? That it's a genuine religion, one that can't be reduced to a mere philosophical system? In other words, that unless Christianity has the Resurrection as a concrete fact, it's not really Christianity?

[Anonymous No.9609791]

>>9609767
Hell is plenty real my dude. Read what happened the last century. Unit 731 for instance. Communism and fascism too. These guys weren't pro-religion, in fact they were hellbent to destroy religion. So yeah, that was Hell on Earth.

The antidote to hell, as far as christian theology was able to articulate, is embodying the Logos. I am going all in with that. That's my existential leap of faith, in the kierkegaardian sense of the term. But don't worry I'll keep studying the other religion too.

Thanks for thinking about my future, but your usage of caps lock seems to indicate that you should take care of yourself first.

[Anonymous No.9609792]

Why do we need God again?

[Anonymous No.9609797]

>>9609773
Not quite, I would say that the moment you begin to speak of it in terms of it being either some type of a metaphor or a materially investigatable event you have rendered it just as meaningless.

To paraphrase from Beckett its not anything, it is the Thing.

[Anonymous No.9609801]

>>9609792
Otherwise you'll get a vaccum which will be filled by something else. That something else usually makes everything worse.

If you think that religion is a tyrant, try Staline for size.

[Anonymous No.9609803]

>>9609792
foundation of civilization

[Anonymous No.9609813]

>>9609791
>more peterson garbage

I'm not even sure who's trolling who anymore... Let's go through this one by one: There is no life after death. Do we agree on this?

I don't care about your future, you respond like an NPC in a video game and I feel like I'm talking to pic related.

[Anonymous No.9609819]

>>9609791
>So yeah, that was Hell on Earth.

Shut the fuck up. Being there is like Paradise compared to Hell by definition.

[Anonymous No.9609824]

>>9609797
So it's not unreal, but it's not real, either?

[Anonymous No.9609826]

>>9609021
A lot of it is a prophesy for times yet to come. The Jews believe in this prophesy, and they believe they're the chosen people to rule over all of earth to fulfill it.

[Anonymous No.9609840]

>>9609824
Neither, the moment you consider the very question as legitimate either way you've already lost.

[Anonymous No.9609843]

>>9609813
Come on stop being condescending.

There is no biological life after death, that's correct.

Questions for you:
What would you say of Shakespeare? Does he still exists?
What would you say of numbers? Do they exist?
What you say of Justice? Anger?

It really depends how you define existence. Evolutionary speaking, you could say weird stuff like Newton is more alive today than when he was alive,

[Anonymous No.9609846]

>>9609773
The horrifying truth is that if you discuss Christianity only in terms of morality and ethics it reads off like a pacifist version of SJW. The basics of Christianity is that everyone is equal before God and must aknolwedge their sins.

With no God it's just everyone is equal, fully stop. Privilege is sin, stripped of all metaphysical properties. The victimhood complex is a spin-off of the martyrdom. Jesus was a victim. Whether it was the Romans or Jews that persecuted him varies from gospel to gospel.

God offers the promise of 'social injustice' being fixed in the afterlife. With no afterlife it is demanded it is fixed in the current life.

This is ultimatly why Peterson shows he doesn't know shit about Nietzche. From a Nietzchean perspective tehre is nothing TO salvage in the New Testament, it's the ressentful rantings and slave morality of losers like Paul. Jung seconds this and uses Gnostism to try to bring some aristacracy back into the religion.

[Anonymous No.9609852]

>>9609701
>before religion every group of anatomically modern humans acted exactly the fucking same!

Fucking chimpanzee behavior and norms vary by grouping (society) m8, this thread is a shithole of pseuds, christfags, and people who have read popscience articles about evolution.

[Anonymous No.9609855]

>>9609819
Taking metaphors literally is bad for you man.

[Anonymous No.9609857]

>>9609813
>There is no life after death
this is one of those questions that ultimately can't be answered logically because humans operate from a position of ignorance. You either have faith or you don't. If you don't have faith you can't absolutely say there is no life after death without being somewhat intellectually dishonest. The strongest statement you can make is that it seems overwhelmingly unlikely
>>9609819
which definition there are loads
in the catholic view some circles of hell seem like a walk in the park

[Anonymous No.9609861]

>>9609813
I feel like Peterson refuses to ever step out of metaphorical speaking because he knows the moment he does he will lose followers from naive Christians that think he is talking about a metaphysical hell.

[Anonymous No.9609862]

>>9609857
>in the catholic view some circles of hell seem like a walk in the park

Dante is fanfiction retard

[Anonymous No.9609864]

>>9609852
Their holy text does too. Simultaneously.
Welcome to the thread btw, you'll fit right in.

[Anonymous No.9609868]

>>9609855
Presenting the divine as metaphors is blasphemy my heathen

[Anonymous No.9609870]

"and saw God that light was good"

Everytime I read this I can grab a hold of God. This happens in Genesis and it is, what I like to call it, divine approval. Light is what the Sun provide us, it can carry colors, warmth and we use it everywhere nowadays in TV and radio signal and such. If you go into the quantum world things you will get your mind blown away.
He designed it in the first try and was already so complex that enjoyed His creation.
In the New Testament Jesus tells us that we are all Gods, that we can do greater things than Him, but for (((reasons))) we don't.
I just felt like posting this.
I miss clicked my way and felt the urge to tell you that if you read the Bible try to understand that you can't explain God in a couple of sentences.

[Anonymous No.9609883]

>>9609868
You're right.
But what about the Logos then? Isn't the spoken word divine too?
(Not that I think that what I am saying is divine, but that it has the potential for being divine)

[Anonymous No.9609890]

>>9609862
still informs the catholic view of hell

[Anonymous No.9609891]

>>9609813
There are plenty of people on /lit/ who believe in life after death.

[Anonymous No.9609899]

>>9609864
I don't understand your response.

[Anonymous No.9609901]

>i have never been to church
>i just like books
this is basically me, I've never been to church or even know someone who knows someone that is a Christian but I do enjoy reading and listenening to Christian apologetics

Kinda funny to play devils advocate to my brother that is a die-hard atheist Richard Dawkins fanboy too though

[Anonymous No.9609909]

>>9609843
I'm not being condescending, I'm trying to break through the cognitive gridlock you've got yourself into.

I will deliberately slow down as much as I can here. Everybody knows there is no biological life after death, what various religions say is that after death your 'soul' persists and goes to either heaven or hell. Do you think this is the case?

[Anonymous No.9609918]

>>9609899
>chimpanzee behavior and norms vary by grouping
>humans behavior too, but at the same time it is transmitted through speech
>some of the best humans transformed these old stories into books
That's why you have different civilization: Egyptian have a myth, with Horus and Seth. Christians have the Bible, with Christ and Satan.

At the bottom of a civilization, what do you have? Something like invisible walls. What are these? How are they informed? Saying that the religious text have no influence whatsoever seems foolish.

That's what I wrote: civilizations grow and disappear and update their holy stories simultaneously. Or maybe incrementally is better.

[Anonymous No.9609931]

>>9609918
>At the bottom of a civilization, what do you have? Something like invisible walls.

What the fuck are you on about

[Anonymous No.9609937]

>>9609909
>i'm not being condescending
>says a bunch of super condescending shit

[Anonymous No.9609945]

>>9609909
Depends how you define soul, death, heaven, hell, existence, etc..
I'm not trying to avoid the question but let me try again.

If you define things in an evolutionary sense, you can argue that
1) your soul can live through time (take Shakespeare, Newton, ...)
2) if you live through time, you can go from better or worse (archetypically hell or heaven). Again Shakespeare made life better, or closer to Heaven.
3) That cycle has been going on for me and you as an unbroken chain of successful reproductions for billions of year.

So from 1) to 3), I don't think you can reject the idea of the soul and the balance between heaven and hell. So yes, I think it is possible to move closer to paradise by doing great things on earth.

[Anonymous No.9609949]

>>9609918
Well I agree with the proposal that religion is a part of the transformative process which human societies have undergone and continue to undergo; I think I was misunderstanding the conversation you were having that I entered into.

I thought you were claiming that religious beliefs were the fundamental reason why norms differ across cultures which I think is a) impossible to prove and b) even so, is extremely unlikely given that other great apes have differing norms dependent upon their culture/grouping. Thus I would say religion is one piece of human 'cultural evolution' but isn't necessarily fundamental or essential (depending on how you define religion - I think that early humans grappling with the idea of the self, etc. turning to spirituality as way to conceptualize both their own and a more abstract 'humanity' is an interesting idea).

But cheers if I misunderstood what you were saying, my bad if so.

[Anonymous No.9609955]

>>9609931
Evopsychology nested inside theology informed by jungian archetypes. It's good stuff man.

[Anonymous No.9609960]

>>9609918
>>9609931
He's basically saying that religion is an unseen (invisible) foundation for civilization, using the word religion in a very loose sense.

There's nothing wrong with that idea. Most people are still thinking of religion in Medieval terms so they don't get it.

If you view religion as a series of steps, working towards being stronger. Than the thing that succeeded medevil Christianity was the religion of Spinoza. Which was itself succeeded by Hegel. Which was succeeded by Nietzche. Which was expanded by Jung and Joseph Campbel..

[Anonymous No.9609966]

OT god makes more sense with how sucky reality is

[Anonymous No.9609972]

>>9609840
lol what the fuck is this bullshit

[Anonymous No.9609985]

>>9609949
I do think that sociology and laws are informed by philosophy, which itself is informed by theology.

Let me give you an example because that's a tough idea: why did the British were the first to reject slavery? I would argue it is because it was informed by religion superstructures (those "invisible walls") who are

"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."

if every human are somehow considered as divine, the law will represent that, and humans will behave differently.

I am currently struggling with this idea too. I don't think it is not without merit but it is such a stretch that I don't know if I can explain it better than that.

[Anonymous No.9610011]

>>9609985
That only works with the Christian God who loves everyone equally. People can all be part of God and slavery is still ok.

The Pagan Gods enslaved each other.

Anti-slavery is not a stance that can really work. We still have slaves, more so than ever, they just wear suites and ties instead of chains.

[Anonymous No.9610014]

>>9609937
I know how it comes across, I'm trying to write in such a way that the new age peterson people can't spin it into something else.

>>9609945
>If you define things in an evolutionary sense

No. We use the words our mamas taught us. Use the words you knew before you were introduced to Peterson. Now, do you think that after you die you are teleported to either hell or heaven and be punished or rewarded depending on how much you obeyed your god?

[Anonymous No.9610025]

>>9610011
You're correct. That's why I am playing with the idea.

I still can't wrap my mind why people on the west accept everyone indiscriminately. Probably because of this warped theology that we have now. This corruption of religious values into some kind of diversity is a strength.

[Anonymous No.9610033]

>>9609985
I think it is an interesting idea (not the patronizing version of interesting), and I would be interested if you have recommendations for things that have inspired you to consider it.

Where I struggle with the idea is imagining the most primitive of modern men, with essentially 100% of our biological mental capacity but zero training with it, and whether or not we could even classify the "invisible walls" that guided their actions and cultures as theological in the way we think of them. I do think that very quickly humans adopted religion and theology (obviously there is evidence for such), but I'm not sure it is 1:1 with the appearance of societal norms or a "common law" or the like. However, imagining the consciousness of these men is obviously impossible, so I doubt we will ever know for sure, but I think it is one of the most interesting things ever to think about.

[Anonymous No.9610051]

>>9610014
If you take Heaven and Hell and the Soul literally, it's not correct. It's not scientific at all. It's wrong in a materialistic sense.

But that's exactly why you require either theology, Jungian analysis or evolutionary psychology to explain those concepts because it is not about what is but about how to be.
Religion is a philosophy about being.
And soul, good/heaven and evil/hell makes sense when you talk about being.

Now you seem completely unwillling to engage without being pissy, so I won't answer to you anymore, you can read the thread. I've posted around 30 times, you should be able to find an answer there.

[Anonymous No.9610058]

>>9610025
Nietzche did a pretty good job of explaining how we got to our present state in the Geneology of Morality. He also discusses Christianity more indepth with the Anti-Christ.

Nietzche essentially lays exactly how we got to our current moral state. To sum it up over the periods of hundreds of years morality as it was originally conceived in the pre-Platonic world was inverted. Origneally owning slaves meant you were good because it means you are strong. Now owning slave is bad because the current moral order actually beleives being weak is better than being strong. The so called SJW are merely the next step in a long history of inversion.

[Anonymous No.9610068]

>>9610033
See humans are weird, but we don't see it.

Why do people dream?
Why do people go to watch movies? Like why is the Lion King such a popular movie?
Why do people like only Hero's Journey variants?
How do psychedelics works?

Those questions are outstandingly difficult to answer and nobody seems to care.


To try to answer those questions I made an intellectual 180°:
instead of saying that we dream from the unconscious, what if consciousness was the dream of the unconscious?
What if consciousness is a dreamlike reconstruction of a deeper reality?
The argument is not that we live in a matrix, but rather that we reconstruct complex and bottom-up feelings and senses into consciousness.

Then what if the story like those in the Bible are the most unfiltered experiences of reality?

I don't know man, this way of thinking is a hole with no bottom.

[Anonymous No.9610082]

>>9610058
Right it makes sense. I already have seen the argument that we are living in inverted times.

Morality is exactly suffering the assault of the weak. Being seen as good means that you are weak, whereas being good requires by definition courage and thus is unpopular.

In Dostoievski's own words:
"Every decent man of our age must be a coward and a slave. That is his normal condition. Of that I am firmly persuaded. He is made and constructed to that very end. And not only at the present time owing to some casual circumstance, but always, at all times, a decent man is bound to be a coward and a slave."

[Koolguynumb er one xd No.9610087]

>>9608997
There is so much depth and wisdom maan. The ancients knew so much about life. Much wisdom
Just like people living with mother nature in tribes man,they are holistic u know?

[Anonymous No.9610088]

>>9610051
Finally. It took us this much to answer one simple question. In the future if I want to argue with a Peterson disciple I'll remind him to speak literally although it probably won't be long before you guys distort the meaning of "literally" too.

[Anonymous No.9610098]

>>9610087
>constructing retard-tier strawman analyses doesn't make you look smart and only robs you of understanding the true depths of one of the oldest literary traditions in the world

[Anonymous No.9610104]

>>9610088
That's absolutely moronic, man.
It's like watching The Lion King and asking: "But you don't really believe that lions can speak, do you?"
Of course I don't! But that does not answer why people overwhelmingly enjoy this stupid movie about speaking animals.

[Anonymous No.9610112]

>>9610082
Correct. It comes mostly from Judaism and Christianity, religions founded by literal slaves. Slaves are weaks so they invented a way to make their weakness noble and the act of being strong 'evil'. There are other branches of slave morality but those two religions are the chief ones.

Overall I would still reccomend reading Nietzche as he manages to cover a lot of ground with each paragraph. He also does a good job of explaining the origenal non-inverted morality so you can try to start thinking that way. For example in the early form of morality there was no concept of 'evil'. Winning and being strong was good and being weak and losing was bad. You wouldn't say 'even though he one he uses evil methods'. This is also why Nietzche thought anti-semites were losers, they are essentially whining that the Jews use whatever means nessiary to win.

There is a nice parable he has about a group of sheep that are being eaten by an eagle. The sheep beg the eagle to clip his wings and dull his beak so they can't be beaten. But Nietzche says the sheep should instead learn to grow their own wings and beaks.

[Anonymous No.9610117]

>>9610068
I actually have a friend who believes much the same but is unable to phrase it very cogently - I will have to share this with him.

From the Hegel I've read (and tried to understand) and from my own personal thoughts I find myself very attracted to the idea of a deeper, more eternal, less defined reality from which consciousness and even perhaps all tangible "things" are just projections, or at least only aspects of a greater whole.

However, as a biologist and biological anthropologist, I always wonder if these ideas of depth are actually just desires for grandeur beyond the individual and are speaking more to what we wish to be than what we are. But, the classic and simple "Why is the nothingness after death so scary but not the one before we were born?" does intellectually and emotionally resonate with me and I find it hard not to 'believe' in it- so I don't know haha. Cheers to the good discussion. Reminds me bits of Last and First Men.

[Anonymous No.9610141]

>>9610112
Nietsche is back on my list, I'll try to read him in German. I already tried him like 5 years ago and couldn't understand him.

>>9610117
Appreciated.

I'm off this thread. Everyone take care.

[Anonymous No.9610153]

>>9610104
You have not one original thought of your own, I'm surprised you're so forward about it. I would be embarrassed to plagiarize the guy this much if I was in your place but for all I know you're a leftist on 8 layers of irony.

The reason we use words literally is because that's how people communicate. If you decide to use your own words you're not going to be able to tell anyone anything because they'll be left wondering what the fuck you're going on about. You'll have to explain your meaning in more clear terms then force them to use the words like how you use them.

You can explain why you like things without resorting to mystic jargon.

[Anonymous No.9610188]

>>9609972
Read Hegel

[Anonymous No.9610260]

>>9610153
And that's why people who don't read Jung can't talk to people who do.
One is interested in the literal and materialistic, the other in the symbolic and its implication for being.
I am sorry we can't understand each other man. We're just bouncing off each other.

[Anonymous No.9610287]

>>9610260
Absolute horseshit and a plain Jungian delusion. There is a world of difference between an innate reading of a text and a literal reading. A difference that renders the Jungian symbolic approach as just as crude and misguided as a material reading

[Anonymous No.9610307]

>implying God is white

[Anonymous No.9610311]

>>9608985
why would a "perfect" being have any kind of development at all?

it makes no sense; was he not perfect to begin with? why would he be changing in any way, wouldn't that deviate from perfection?

[Anonymous No.9610318]

>>9610311
It makes sense when you realize he was just wrathful to Jews and their Semite cousins

[Anonymous No.9610383]

>>9610287
>>9610260
As a Jungian myself I want to butt in and say that when Jung himself speaks in mystical terms he always also explains what he means in plain english. This is something many of his followers fail to do. You see these bozos making hour long talks where they play 'spot the archtype' and in the full hour you havn't told me anything practical. If you read Jung's own analysis of myths they are very easy to understand.

I consider myself an avid follower of Jung but believe that if you can't explain at least the basic stuff in plain english you don't really understand him. Some leeway can be given when talking about concepts that only exist within his system (for instance the Anima).

Some use of mystical language is essential, even encouraged, when discussing myths because part of spirtual is emotional and words like 'god' or 'soul' come preloaded with lots of emotional attachment. However we formost need to know wht you are saying.

[Anonymous No.9610412]

>>9610383
Bullshit in plain English is still bullshit

[Anonymous No.9610420]

>>9610383
I'll also add that my opinion is that later Jungian intentionally adopted the vague approach to religious analysis because they know that outright saying they do not believe in a metaphysical God or the traditional concept of an afterlife makes them lose readers. It's marketing pure and simple. Those that want a traditional view of heaven will read the book and think it's being supported. Those that do not will read the book and see that heaven is a metaphor for a state of mind.

There is a type of 'afterlife' in Jungianism which is not metaphorical but it's very different from the Christian concept. Basically it takes the idea of archetypes to an extreme conclusion. If my thoughts and sensations or themself a variation on the archetypes, that's and sensations that all have, than my thoughts never really stop existing as they are carried in other people. It's not a personal immortality but a collective one. It's an extreme type of thinking where you never really existed as an individual but as an aspect of the whole. The technical term for this is pan-psychicism. It's an idea that was actually very popular with certain middle age/Renaissance thinkers. These people called it "Avvoroism" or "Radical Aristotelianism.

I am not saying this the correct approach to Jung just that it's valid interpretation.

[Anonymous No.9610422]

>>9610383
I'll also add that my opinion is that later Jungian intentionally adopted the vague approach to religious analysis because they know that outright saying they do not believe in a metaphysical God or the traditional concept of an afterlife makes them lose readers. It's marketing pure and simple. Those that want a traditional view of heaven will read the book and think it's being supported. Those that do not will read the book and see that heaven is a metaphor for a state of mind.

[Anonymous No.9610556]

>>9610311
why assume perfection necessitates stasis?
is a constantly shifting perfection impossible?

[Anonymous No.9610851]

>>9610556
Even more so why isn't perfection as much change as possible? Strong things flow.

Complete stasis isn't even possible the universe, everything is always changing it's just a question how noticable the speed is.

[Anonymous No.9610870]

>>9609021
Book of the New Sun confirmed for legitimately falling to Earth out of space.

[Koolguynumb er one xd No.9610920]

>>9610098
Fuck off im not here to be rational m8
This is 4chan. I hate you and myself and your stupid book
Join the natural morality wave. Animals know about injustice

[Anonymous No.9610928]

>>9610920
Grow up

[Anonymous No.9610931]

>>9608985
>Ooh boy, I created you, and I will act like a dick towards you because I'm divine and shit
You know, all those things about divine punishment are being faced now in the West post-religion.

[Anonymous No.9611106]

>>9608985
I understand that God's mercy is revealed in New Testament, but God/Jesus is still very strict/harsh in the New Testament like the Old Testament. I'm starting to think that most people who make this claim that God is evil in the OT and super loving in the NT haven't really read the Bible. They just know a little bit about it and then make complaints about their own characterization of it.

[Anonymous No.9611187]

>>9608990
lmao

[Anonymous No.9611381]

>>9608997
I have always wondered why people fret so much about Jesus suffering for our sins. I mean, he was fully aware that he was going to come back after 3 days so he didn't get near the genuine human agony of death. If someone were to crucify you today, would you think of how uncomfortable those nails feel or would you regret your life coming to such a miserable end, considering what you could have done had you lived longer and how unfair it all is?

[Anonymous No.9611408]

>>9611381
It's basically a story that appeals to people that feel hopeless. The idea is that a strong person (in this case the son of a deity) will take the stress of your powerless away and releive you off all your guilt. The Jesus suffers in place of yourself. Like most mythical stories it's supposed to make sense emotionally, not logically. It's ultimatly a myth for losers since people that are emotionally strong pull themself by their boot straps rather than moap about about how Jesus needs to 'save them'. That's why a major part of Christian theology is that everyone on the planet is guilty and cannot wash away said guilt.

[Anonymous No.9611420]

>>9611408
The emotionally strong people happen to trample on the traditions and roots of their civilization, whilst eating the fruits of the hard labor of generations.

You can only claim strength and power because you haven't been tested.

[Anonymous No.9611425]

>>9610920
Jesus loves you

[Anonymous No.9611428]

DO NOT FALL FOR THE DIMIURGE LIES

[Anonymous No.9611437]

>>9611381
>I mean, he was fully aware that he was going to come back after 3 days
Apparently not, considering he caved and began to doubt God's authority during his last hours on the Cross. If anything, that suffering was necessary so that Jesus could attain a mortal understanding of true pain and the fear of Death. The Theological argument can be made that it is exactly then that God reconciles with mankind and ends the pattern of authoritarian, vindictive behavior experienced by the Israelites in the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.9611446]

>>9611420
The emotionally strong people are the ones that build civilization. Than weak-willed people get crushed under the stress of having to fufill the basic nessaties of life. That's why Christianity was so appealing to slaves and servents who were powerless losers. The petty 'trials' Christians think God gives them do not even invoke stress in strong people.

If you need prayers and rosaries to help you get through the day than you can go ahead and do that. People that don't will probably laugh at you which I suppose is all well in good because most Christian theology says when you are mocked it means God loves you more.

[Anonymous No.9611471]

>>9609458
>Muh Guns Germs and Steel aka Glorified Freakonomics

[Anonymous No.9611478]

>>9611437
But that implies that Jesus isn't God or a part of God, right? Because how can you doubt your own authority? So then you can't say that God suffered for our sins in order to save us.

Besides, Jesus did prophesize about the betrayal and ressurection.

[Anonymous No.9611479]

>>9609486
How do you identify a pseud? He claims to understand Hegel

[Anonymous No.9611481]

>>9609495
>serious
>theological

[Anonymous No.9611484]

>>9611446
>That's why Christianity was so appealing to slaves and servents who were powerless losers.
Like Emperor Constantine? Or the medieval kings?

[Anonymous No.9611489]

>>9611481
>Pascal
If there is a chance to win, you better play. If there is a chance to lose you should play. Everybody who disagrees with Pascal's wager hasn't been hit hard enough.

[Anonymous No.9611495]

>>9609653
>>9609648
>>9609627
>truthiness

You have to go back

[Anonymous No.9611505]

>>9609713
>if Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead than he died for nothing

But its just the opposite. If the punishment for dying in sin is eternal torment then how does resurrecting at all for that matter pay it?

[Anonymous No.9611510]

>>9609767
>YOU'RE GOING TO DIE AND BE TORTURED FOREVER AFTERWARDS IF YOU ARE WRONG

So are all these people and worse yet, most of them wont be given a chance to ever be right. With a God like this, who needs Satan?

[Anonymous No.9611511]

>>9608997
>God is all powerful and all knowing
>still needs a human son to understand his creations
Really stimulates the brain stuffs

[Anonymous No.9611514]

>>9611510
>So are all these people and worse yet, most of them wont be given a chance to ever be right.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.9611516]

>>9609797
>misusing quotes to sound sophisticated

[Anonymous No.9611519]

>>9609868
>hell is divine

So much for "muh eternal separation"

[Anonymous No.9611522]

>>9611519
Frankly, I'd be happier if hell was divine. At the very least it would be just.

[Anonymous No.9611527]

>>9611484
The Christianity of the aristocrates was always vastly different than the one's followed by slaves. They tend to like theological ideas that minimize the whining about the need to be 'saved' or 'redeemed from sin' and favor ones that say that they are divine themself. That's how confident people think, they are confident so they are divine.

The forms of theology popular with the aristorates sometimes even tried getting rid of the concept of sin itself. Skim the wikipedia article on the "Heresey of the Free spirit" to get an idea of what the emotionally strong Christians believed.

It's a mistake to think of Christianity as a big uniform blanket. The Christianity of Saint Francis is worlds apart from the Christianity of the Author Myths.

[Anonymous No.9611529]

>>9611522
>its only just under these circumstances

Who are you to judge god? :^)

[Anonymous No.9611538]

>>9611489
anyone who disagrees with antinatalism hasn't been hit hard enough.

Wow, this is a powerful rhetorical device

[Anonymous No.9611540]

>>9611505
Here's the real reason the ressurection matters. Saint Paul was in a despute with James the Just. James taught that Jesus was an ordinary man who did not rise from the dead. If this is true than per-Jewish tradition, James as his brother is the successor of Jesus's ministry.

James said that everything Paul taught was a lie. So Paul NEEDS a way to explain why he, who never met Jesus, is relevant at all.

So the story is Jesus ressurected and told Paul secret teachings he didn't tell anyone else. Also Jesus wasn't a man, he was an angel/spirit/deity/whatever so Jame is not the legitmate heir.

The idea of atonement comes from Paul having a really stupid grasp on how sin works in Jewish theology. The details are complex but basically sin, and how sin is forgiven, works completly different in Christianity than Judaism.

New Testament disputes a huge fucking mess.

[Anonymous No.9611541]

>>9611514
Not only is it not wrong, its in fact completely right. Its in the bible after all

[Anonymous No.9611546]

Delete this thread.

[Anonymous No.9611947]

>>9611540
I take it you aren't a Christian and haven't read the gospels? It's not Paul who witnesses resurrection. He gets a vision that turns him blind.

[Anonymous No.9612620]

>>9609870
Damn.

[Anonymous No.9612625]

>dude this arab death cult is for real this time
religions are a ponzi scheme

[Anonymous No.9612629]

Everyone who wants a good reason to laugh at the Old Testament should read Peter Wessel-Zapffes essay on The Book of Job. I don't know if it's been translated into English but if it has then you should most definitely read it.

[Anonymous No.9612669]

Every time i think "maybe religion is not that bad" i see the church on the other side of the street and remember why i think it's such a fucking retarded thing. Talk about religion all you want but the truth is that religious people are all schizo.

[Anonymous No.9612688]

>>9612669
you think you have it bad, I have two mosques within a kilometres radius of where I live, and I live in Scandinavia

[Anonymous No.9612693]

>>9612625
>>9612669
ayy, feels like I'm in 2008 /b/ all over again.

[Anonymous No.9612763]

>>9611478
>how can God do x???
>christains btfo!
God is God
He can do anything by definition
try again

[Anonymous No.9612774]

>>9611510
>>9611541
>africans indians asians and muzzies
>people

[Anonymous No.9612879]

>>9609325
>jesus was a pseud
rob him of godhood, render him the greatest performance artist of all time
>revisionist propoganda
well that's helpful, i.e. //your politics
>OT God...not God...interpretations OF God's
interpretations of 'God's' WHAT precisely?
>monolith...foundation of sand
eh, these don't square. 7,000 yrs and still going strong, senpai.
Clipped, economic prose can't save //you from thinking like a babby.

[Anonymous No.9613185]

>new testament: it was just a prank bro lol

[Anonymous No.9613201]

>>9613185
Nice meme reddit

[Anonymous No.9613382]

>>9612774
Its a perfect religion for the unempathetic and retarded

[Anonymous No.9613391]

>>9611527
So it is a whole spectrum of life, yet you imply that the parts for the slaves are more important? Who do you identify as?

[Anonymous No.9613393]

>>9611538
Antinatalists are against winning, though. More than likely if you are an antinatalist, you've been secluded but not hit hard enough.

[Anonymous No.9613400]

>>9613382
I, too, think that Christianity would fix our problem of SJWs.

[Anonymous No.9613418]

>>9613400
>dem people with different color skin are nothing but an abomination unto muh God

Vs.

>Race doesn't exist

I wonder where these ideas belong

[Anonymous No.9613428]

>>9613418
If humans reject the gospel, it is Christian duty to preach it unto the rest of creation.

[Anonymous No.9613431]

>>9608985
Wow another edgy teenager who hates Christianity

Thanks for posting!

[Anonymous No.9613451]

>>9613428
I was only saying that that anon was representing the exemplary mentality to accept an Abrahamic worldview. Even if you aren't racist, the bible is still a book about practically all of humanity being tormented for eternity and the only way you could find this inspiring is if you imagined yourself not to be one of them, .

[Anonymous No.9613457]

>>9613451
Well, foreign hordes are raping the bones of Western civilization, only 50 years into atheism.

[Anonymous No.9613474]

>>9613418
God ordered Judah/Israel to destroy the other people because they were pagans that lived in the land God already had set aside for.
>>9613428 <----------- Ignore this fraud.

[Anonymous No.9613487]

>>9613474
Or maybe ignore the whole book because it was written by primitive sandkikes and its not even especially interesting as a book.

[Anonymous No.9613505]

>>9609459
>People will never supercede 120 years, because God said no one will live beyond that point.
Where did he say that?

[Anonymous No.9613508]

>>9613505
never mind, I found it, Genesis 6:3. Looks like a weird interpretation

[Anonymous No.9613532]

>>9613487
>missing the hyperlinks

[Anonymous No.9613686]

>>9610318
Nothing wrong with shitting on Jews in my book

[Anonymous No.9613743]

>>9611381
>>9611437
>>9611478

Christian teachings about Jesus's knowledge are complicated and vary by denomination.

If you want the Catholic version, google Knowledge of Jesus Christ New Advent

[Anonymous No.9615453]

>>9608997
By 'literary tradition' one also means 'spiritual tradition'. To my way of comprehending the two are the same, at any rate.

[Anonymous No.9615605]

>>9608985
God didnt change as much as you think between the ot and nt.
For example, a merciful OT God:
-doesnt kill adam, eve, or cain after sinning
-allows Moses to let his brother speak because he has a stutter
-gives David a baby immediately after he murders Bathsheba's husband and is punished by losing a child
-promises to persevere with the Israelites even though a large majority are unfaithful (in the writings of the prophets)
-heals Hezekiah

[Anonymous No.9615779]

>>9609459
But anon, the world's oldest woman was 122 years old. Where is ur god naow?

[Anonymous No.9616086]

>>9615779
There is no solid proof of this. There is a reason why all of these so-called "oldest people" were also born in places that are third-world countries (or atleast were, back in their infanthood).

[Anonymous No.9616552]

>>9609687
Is it really that implausible that Jesus looked like the standard Renaissance depiction? I mean, there are literal Middle Easterners who look like that. A lot of Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians, etc. could pass as Italians or Spaniards. Not all Middle Easterners are dark skinned Arabs after all. Some even have blue/green eyes and blonde/hair.

Pic related is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a member of Saddam Hussein's regime.

[Anonymous No.9616571]

Sorry, /lit/, but Jesus was white.

https://medium.com/opacity/no-jesus-was-not-a-nonwhite-refugee-who-would-have-voted-for-43779209eea4

[Anonymous No.9616574]

>It's an atheists are too retarded to understand what covenants are and why they existed episode.

http://www.catholicbible101.com/covenantsinthebible.htm
https://www.thoughtco.com/old-vs-new-covenant-700361