[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1551147982472.jpg (320 KB, 2000x1090)
320 KB
320 KB JPG
I'm an atheist. What books might change my mind about Christianity?
>>
play morrowind and read In Watermelon Sugar by Brautigan
>>
>>12754431
Fuck I love Morrowind so god damn mich. It's the shittiest good game ever
>>
If you were raised atheist then the only way to convert is if you truly want it. You essentially have to brainwash yourself by praying even if you don't think it works, studying the bible, and finding a sense of community at church. If you stay committed and keep at it it'll become routine and you'll see benefits regardless of if you have faith or not which you'll interpret as something significant and start having faith.
>>
You already know who Jesus is. Your problem is spiritual, not a matter of knowledge. You could memorize every book that has ever been written and still not believe in Christ. Instead repent of your sin and pray to God for a gift of faith. The brainwork comes after your heart is set right. You're asking the best way to furnish a vacant lot.
>>
>>12754431
That seems an odd path to god...
>>
The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity by Wilken is great. Reading Christian history and the church fathers, immersing myself in the time period of the gospels, and praying like >>12754494 said is how I came to be a Catholic.
>>
>>12754424
195:9.1.Do not overlook the value of your spiritual heritage, the river of truth running down through the centuries, even to the barren times of a materialistic and secular age. In all your worthy efforts to rid yourselves of the superstitious creeds of past ages, make sure that you hold fast the eternal truth. But be patient! when the present superstition revolt is over, the truths of Jesus' gospel will persist gloriously to illuminate a new and better way.


195:10.18. But Christianity is a mighty religion, seeing that the commonplace disciples of a crucified carpenter set in motion those teachings which conquered the Roman world in three hundred years and then went on to triumph over the barbarians who overthrew Rome. This same Christianity conquered—absorbed and exalted—the whole stream of Hebrew theology and Greek philosophy. And then, when this Christian religion became comatose for more than a thousand years as a result of an overdose of mysteries and paganism, it resurrected itself and virtually reconquered the whole Western world. Christianity contains enough of Jesus' teachings to immortalize it.
>>
>>12754535
>conquered the Roman world
if by "conquer" you mean "destroy", then yes

>exalted and absorbed Greek philosophy
corrupted and copied, is a more honest formulation

>as a result of an overdose on mysteries and paganism
yikes, this book really is trash isn't it. paganism saved europe via the renaissance, christianity kept it under darkness

as usual, Christians can do nothing but praise their own faith, and berate others. not a bone of objectivity in them, not now or ever
>>
>>12754424
Read Kierkegaard, I'm still an atheist but Fear and Trembling made me totally reconsider the value of Christianity, regardless of how 'true' it is or not. I would call myself a christian atheist if zizek hadn't already ruined that title for me
>>
>>12754424
You should read all the Platonists.
You'll find spirituality but you'll dislike Christianity even more.
>>
>>12754494

This. I do not consider it brainwashing, but coming close enough to the truth until you are ready to truly believe in God, at which point faith becomes evident. The importance of prayer cannot be overstated.
>>
>>12754424
The Bible
>>
>>12754424
Read John Henry Newman
>>
>>12755572
really true, but Western spirituality is thoroughly Semitic now, nobody here can even conceive of any other form of spirituality now. just end my life, senpai
>>
ITT my fellow /lit/izens who believe in God. Together we will convert all flirtatious lesbians :3
>>
>>12754424
I'm not a Christian, and I come from atheism myself, but if you want to embark on this journey you absolutely must take St. Anselm's advise: do not seek to understand so that you may believe, believe so that you may understand. There's a lot of Christian philosophy (academic) that shines a light on the short sightedness of materialism and atheism but you first have to allow yourself to see. Empty your cup as they say. This is not blind Faith like science denying fundamentalists might have. But it is necessary or else you will never sufficiently understand your opponents arguments.
Once you have decided to get into the headspace and save your skepticism for later, try reading some proofs of God from Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes. Read some William James for sure. The Bible too, if you're cup is truly empty. Understanding the spectrum of religious perspectives has a lot of subjective qualities that more or less need to be meditated on as opposed to solved. Once you understand, only then can you critique. If more atheists did this, they would realize that, besides laymen household religion, there is a lot of Christian theology that are compatible with the athiest perspective.

Anselm defines God as "that which nothing greater can be thought." And if something that exists is greater than something that doesn't, God exists. So the question isnt if God exists, which even atheists should agree with by this definition, the question is "what is God's nature.'
>>
>>12755633
reading the bible is retarded unless you are a priest, just go to church and pray
>>
>>12756229
Great post
>>
>>12755609
That's exactly what a brainwashed guy would say.
>>
>>12756229
>Anselm defines God as "that which nothing greater can be thought." And if something that exists is greater than something that doesn't, God exists. So the question isnt if God exists, which even atheists should agree with by this definition, the question is "what is God's nature."

The most embarassing Christian argument I have yet read. Here, let's rephrase it:

Anon defines Magical Pony Creature as "that which nothing greater can be thought." And if something that exists is greater than something that doesn't, Magical Pony Creature exists. So the question isnt if Magical Pony Creature exists, which even atheists should agree with by this definition, the question is "what is Magical Pony Creature's nature."

Replace Magical Pony Creature with literally anything you want, the "argument" (I would not call it one) is the same.
>>
>>12754424
>>12756229
Edward Feser's "Five Proofs" is a good and simple way to get acquainted with Gods proofs, but you'd have to be open to believing it first. I don't have recommendations outside of that but maybe to start believing you could first at least realize it's importance by reading something that justifies it, doesn't need to be christian. Something like Nietsche maybe?
Or something not nesessarily philosophical or western but more in line with science fiction that does the same.
>>
>>12756229
>Anselm defines God as "that which nothing greater can be thought." And if something that exists is greater than something that doesn't, God exists. So the question isnt if God exists, which even atheists should agree with by this definition, the question is "what is God's nature.'
This is still bound in the realm of imagination. Nothing in that train of logic, if you can call it that, connects thought with tangible existence. In addition, "If something that exists is greater than something that doesn't" does not follow. Pain is not greater than the absence of pain, for instance.
>>
>>12756482
I can think of many things greater than a pony. I can't however think of anything greater than a god.
>>
>>12754424
What's your opinion about christianity?
>>
>>12756229
Maybe a stupid question, but why arn't you a theist, or agnostic at the very least? I don't mean that in an antagonizing way, I'm just interested.
>>
>>12756541
>>12756507
Existence is not a predicate.
>>
>>12754424
Ortodoxy by Chesterton
>>
>>12756562
Elaborate on this. Do you mean to say God is supposed to be assumed to exist since to say he exists separates him from existence which he is assumed to have? If this is what you mean, then I would say it is disingenuous to say, especially in defense of your beliefs against a genuinely curious questioner.
>>
File: kant2.jpg (18 KB, 212x300)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>12756588
>Elaborate on this.
I don't have to, he already did.
>>
>>12756594
the low worth of your posts is not a predicate
>>
>>12756482
To clarify here, you have defined a magical sky pony as a magical sky pony and then after that added that it is the greatest thing that can be thought. God is much more interpretive, and as it is just a name, does not carry with it any implications on its own besides "what is greatest" (the common thread in monotheism). Whether God is a being, immutable, etc. is still up for debate. When I said there was short sightedness in atheism I was referring exactly to the tendency to reduce complicated conceptions into ridiculous caricatures such as God as a sky fairy. I do not deny that laymen household piety does this too but it shows a lack of effort in understanding the arguments and is itself a fallacy.

>>12756507
I would argue pain certainly is greater than it's privation on the grounds that it contains more reality. Hot is more real than cold for example. Still, thought is used loosely in this definition of God since that which is greatest might have inconceivable qualities.

>>12756560
I try not to bog myself down with identities as identifying with atheism lead me to write off genuine aspects of the human experience. Still, I contest with a lot of theological assumptions or am at least undecided (i.e most proofs are sound until they start using the word 'being' to describe God without arguing for it). So maybe agnostic is what I am but I come from atheism as opposed to theism.
>>
>>12756630
>googling is hard
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/existence-is-not-a-predicate/
>>
>>12756645
If reality is greater because it contains more reality in its experience, then inconceivability is not greater than the realm of human experience. If inconceivable qualities that cannot be contained by reality are greater than what is, then it does not follow that that which exists is greater or more real than that which is not. Either way, the proof is debunked.
>>
>>12754424
Why would you even want to be a christcuck?
>>
>>12756668

>According to Kant, to say that a thing exists is not to attribute existence to that thing, but to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world.
Ah, autism.
>>
Pray with all your heart and all your soul and faith will come, for this find a Prayer book. Not joking.
>>
>>12754424
Move to Utah and get a qt LDS wife.
>>
>>12756229
It should be obvious that you can't just define things into existence. When I imagine a God, I am imagining an existing God. For example, I imagine him casting down fire from heaven etc., which he could not do if he existed only in someone's mind. I just don't believe this God is actually real. But whether I believe it's real has nothing to do with whether my conception of it is of a maximally great being.
>>
>>12756686
See, this is why I didn't bother at first.
>>
>>12754424
God And The State -Bakunin
>>
>>12756541
>I can think of many things greater than a pony. I can't however think of anything greater than a god.
You just aren't being creative enough.
>>
>>12756704
Kant explains pretty much what I am saying. For him in his autistic mind, God must exist first in order to predicate it with non-existence. However, this here is a purely conceptual God framed in comparison to the human imagination. The concept of God exists. Moreover, for Kant a property which you ascribe to God must be exemplified in the world to say God exists. So the ontological argument again says nothing.
This is a 'everything you think of is true' argument that has been mocked by skeptics and theologians alike for centuries. You don't even seem to understand that Kant agrees with me here.
>>
>>12756670
If I understand correctly, your argument is now bound within the realm of imagination. Inconceivability is relates to what humans can conceive and not reality itself. I don't think Anselm was considering limits to the human mind but others have. Reality likely has many inconceivable qualities that are very real.
This is all beside the point though and worthy of its own discussion.

>>12756703
This is because you are approaching God a preconceived notion with preconceived qualities. The origins or religious thought are surprisingly not stories but experiences. It is experience which lead to the stories and qualities such as fire throwing and prayer answering. This is why God is the name of an existing phenomenon (the greatest phenomenon) and the question is not if he exists but what is his nature.
>>
>>12754424
What I ask to all of you in this thread is simple: are you moral for morality's sake, or for the sake of your God? To people here who converted to a religion, or considering doing so, will your treatment of others change by this? Basically, why is religion appealing to you, if you could still be moral to others without it, and should be moral to others regardless?

I'm asking as someone who doesn't believe in theism, but still lives or tries to live a very moral and upstanding life, and feels high empathy for others. I don't personally understand why "God" matters to people, but I'm trying to. What will it change in your life, that you could not effect on your own?
>>
>>12756898
My question to you is similar: are you moral because of a robust logical framework of universal principals which you developed out of careful study of wants, needs and goals? Or are you moral for morality's sake? And if you are the latter, which I suspect most people are, whence comes morality?
>>
>>12756898
I am not convinced of established form of religion, but I would like to because it grants meaning and order to the universe and cloaks an ethical code in an aura of cosmological authenticity.
Right now I am inclined to believe a synthesis of Pure Land/Zen and Protestantism, that Jesus became the Son of God by emptying himself (Philippians 2:7), wherein he understood God as sunyata, and like Amida returned from non-retrogression to offer an easier path for others in his Name. That, like Swedenborg devised, angels/Bodhisattva appear to men in guises that they understand, and non-abiding wisdom of ultimate reality manifests itself in samsara as The Word and as Nembutsu, and the words of other holy masters.
>>
>>12756966
The latter, and I'm not sure what your question is asking exactly. I consider morality to be a law no different than those which underpin something like our mathematics, and one that is innately understood by its agents. Are you suggesting morality is sourced in the Judeo-Christian God? I would obviously disagree, since a person is moral before discovering the scriptures relating to that worldview, and can be moral without ever encountering them. We have obviously been a moral species long before Judeo-Christianity came to be, and in parts of the world where it never came to, and would live on even if the latter culture someday died out.

If I misunderstood your question, please correct me.

>>12757060
I am not familiar with the terminology you refer to, but I'm glad you have a system that works for you.
>>
>>12755718
Explain what you mean by "Semitic spirituality"
>>
>>12754424

Not totally related to Christianism, but Carl Jung has some great stuff which talks about our collective subconscious and how that affects religion.
>>
>>12757134
You understand my question perfectly but not necessarily my purpose. There is a wide audience of believers who understand the scriptures to have been written by men. And, and I'll stick with judeo-christianity here for the discussion, a lot of them were motivated by politics (Leviticus is basically a legal document and an enumeration of ancient traditions) or this and that, but the philosophies, especially those that concern morality, are argued to be sourced from God. Your answer to the source of morality is a great one and I am inclined to agree with you! But you may find it interesting that the people who claim their morality comes from God do not mean the scriptures inform them of God's word but in fact mean something very similar to where you yourself attribute the source informs them.

What is God? Hopefully I have helped show you that God is not the scriptures nor a fairy or make believe monster, but in fact as difficult a concept to seize as the source of morality. And to believers, they are one and the same.
>>
>>12754424
First you need to shed atheism. To do that, study the problem of universals and particulars. The best place to start for this as a westerner is Plato.
>>
Nothing will convince you logically but Chesterton will help you see why a rational person would be a Christian.
>>
>>12755572
How do Platonist make you dislike Christianity?
>>
>>12755503
love u babe keep up the good work
>>
>>12758052
Not him, but i imagine it has something to do with the fact that Christian philosophy is basically just a poor rendition of Platonic metaphysics that adds a whole lot of unnecessary eschatological and dogmatic stuff on top to boot.
>>
>>12758159
I love Plato and I'm a Christian
>>
>>12754424
You just need to irrationally decide the christian God is real and then everything follows from there.

All reading books could do is convince you that it is worth it to make that "leap" as they call it. At least if you have half a brain and don't fall for creationist nonsense or Pascal's wager type game theory arguments.
>>
>>12754424
>>
>>12757060

Glad i'm not the only one with a "blasphemous" east-west belief system.
>>
>>12754424
>>
>>12757508
-the divine is a skydaddy
-skydaddy is omnipotent and omniscient, also cares about your sexual orientation
-skydaddy designed everything in the universe, except whatever contradicts our scriptures (ex. homosexuality)
-skydaddy is universal in nature, beyond any details of our human cultures, also has a Hebrew name
-this is your first time alive, you've never lived before, and you'll never live beyond this life unless you encounter and read our scriptures and willingly sell over your soul to one of the human personalities within them
-skydaddy created everyone on Earth, expects everyone on Earth to follow Jewish culture
-have to subscribe to a mega-institution named the Church, follow its leaders as slavishly as you can, defend them to your death
-don't question our theology, just believe it because you believe it
-if you want to question it, ensure that your questioning doesn't step outside the bounds of the ideologies, or else you're a heretic (better just not question it, friend)

this is your brain on abrahamism
>>
>>12757524
I am a spiritual person, and could definitely believe in a conception similar to what you're insinuating here. But "God", in that scenario, would be something more pantheistic in nature, like a world-hivemind of which every person is a uniform part. My conception of morality's nature is certainly as something Divine in nature, like you believe, but my conception of the Divine itself is likely a bit different from yours.
>>
>>12758481
Most of those things are Christian inventions, not Jewish. In fact, Judaism actually contradicts several of those points.
>>
>>12758131
who is this, what do u mean by this, why did you send me this
>>
>>12754424
Simone Weil
>>
>>12758602
i could just replace Jewish with Judeo-Christian, then. the points remain
>>
>>12754424
Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling
>>
>>12754424
Read Paradise Lost
>>
E Michael Jones talking about Logos
>>
>>12754424
Depends on your current views of Christianity.
Disagree with philosophical basis? Feser.
Want to understand the Christian view of the world? Chesterton.
Nature of a loving God seems impossible? There and Back, George MacDonald
Historical Jesus? Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth.
>>
The Serbian Orthodox Bible
>>
>>12759187
God is a serb
>>
File: BREADPIL 2.png (3.35 MB, 2560x2739)
3.35 MB
3.35 MB PNG
>>12754424
I'll just give you the "meme" answer
>>
>>12754424
Usually reading books is what helps people grow out of their good goy phase not the other way around...
>>
>>12754424
Christopher Hitchens will change your mind that's sure enough.
>>
>>12760061
hitchens is based
>>
>>12758052
>>12758238
Christians burned and banned Plato into nearly total extinction in the Latin West, into just a fragmentary work of Timaeus. The Orthodox church forced Neoplatonists into leaving Greece and into Persia by banning their religion. They also had many moments of banning works, though preserved it better regardless.

Once Pletho, a pagan, brought Plato back into the West in the Renaissance, the Vatican tried banning it again, though unsuccessfully. Then you have the Christian thinkers who are touted for attempting to bastardize Plato into Christian theology, which is fundamentally flawed since the concept of the Form of the Good and the Christian Jewish Yahweh are fundamental opposites.
>>
>>12754424
At least be original, blow all of our minds and try Hindu or Buddhism. Hinduism far predates Christianity and it's pantheistic teachings are much more beautiful (really) and less violence/sex based. Check out Alan Watts on YouTube he'll get you up and running at least.
>>
>>12760069
You are so based, anon. I've seen you before, I think. Can you tell me where I can read more about the treatment of Plato's works and his followers, by the Christianized West? One never finds Christians to speak about this history, so I've hardly heard about it.
>>
>>12760069
Christians are incapable of thinking of a form of higher power that isn't explicitly Jewish. This is because they are brainwashed slaves.
>>
>>12760086
This, but please stay clear of New-Age or other shallow, exotified reformulations of them, and actually practice them authentically if you are going to practise them at all.
>>
>>12760088
"Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have
ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by
name. Yet Plato was, they say, the invited companion of kings, had
many friends, and sailed to Sicily. And Pythagoras occupied Magna
Graecia, and practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery. For to
converse with oxen, (which they say he did,) was nothing else but a
piece of sorcery. As is most clear from this. He that so conversed
with brutes did not in anything benefit the race of men, but even did
them the greatest wrong. " Chrysostom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemistus_Pletho
He re-introduced Plato's ideas to Western Europe
>Marsilio Ficino would proceed to translate into Latin all Plato's works, the Enneads of Plotinus, and various other Neoplatonist works.

Radical Platonism in Byzantium
https://mega.nz/#!k8tlkILC!fFSx7JCSyeNkkljNCpVwqRBiphB929oU1UGgdF7sybc

Works banned by Vatican
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/517/article/secrets-behind-forbidden-books'
>Classical writers including Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, [...] and others were put on the expurgatio list because they reflected pagan beliefs.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condemnations_of_1210%E2%80%931277
>some of Aristotle's newly translated views discounted the notions of a personal God, immortal soul, or creation, various leaders of the Catholic Church were inclined to censor those views
Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, Society
https://mega.nz/#!Y4lFECJZ!GOHRTftUDa1Z8dpRFQk-aC6chnw8lr3SbYzblKrSaLs
>At various times in the first half of the thirteenth century, the teaching of Aristotles scientific works was forbid-den at the University of Paris. However, because the ban did not apply throughout Christendom and was not consistently enforced in Paris, Aristotle’s philosophy continued to be studied

And on Platonic Academies
>The last Scholarch of the Neoplatonic Academy was Damascius. According to Agathias, its remaining members looked for protection under the rule of Sassanid king Khosrau I in his capital at Ctesiphon, carrying with them precious scrolls of literature and philosophy, and to a lesser degree of science. After a peace treaty between the Persian and the Byzantine empire in 532, their personal security (an early document in the history of freedom of religion) was guaranteed.
>It has been speculated that the Neoplatonic Academy did not altogether disappear.After his exile, Simplicius (and perhaps some others) may have travelled to Harran, near Edessa. From there, the students of an Academy-in-exile could have survived into the 9th century, long enough to facilitate an Arabic revival of the Neoplatonist commentary tradition in Baghdad. Beginning with the foundation of the House of Wisdom in 832; one of the major centers of learning in the intervening period (6th to 8th centuries) was the Academy of Gundishapur in Sassanid Persia.
>>
File: 9780451531216.jpg (1.73 MB, 1257x2063)
1.73 MB
1.73 MB JPG
>>12754424
The Confessions
>>
>>12754424
What DO you think about christianity?
>>
>>12760189
Literally why couldn't the West have just remained Greco-Roman and Neoplatonists....why did we have to get Semitic*cked, bro...what did we ever do to deserve this cruel twist of fate?

Will we ever return to our original foundation, in your opinion? Or have our roots been pulled out and permanently replaced by this point? Will we always be Christians now?

also thanks for the links
>>
Jonathan Edwards BTFO self-help/Christ-/lit/ 270 years before 4chan was even invented, don’t listen to these people
>and then it may be they set themselves upon a new course of fruitless endeavours in their own Strength to make themselves better, and still meet with new Disappointments: They are earnest to enquire what they shall do? They don’t know but there is something else to be done, in order to their obtaining converting Grace, that they have never done yet. It may be they hope that they are something better than they were, but then the pleasing Dream all vanishes again. If they are told that they trust too much in their own strength and righteousness, they go about to strive to bring themselves off from it, and it may be think they have done it, when they only do the same thing under a new disguise... thus they wander about from Mountain to Hill, seeking rest, and finding none.
From “A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God...”
>>
>>12760189
> For to
>converse with oxen, (which they say he did,) was nothing else but a
>piece of sorcery
lol, if it was done by some Jew in the Bible, he'd call it a miracle.
>>
>>12761658
Elect and gracepilled
>>
>>12760189
I think I'm a brainlet. Can you please explain the first quotation, and what it means? What does Plato's acquaintance with kings, or Pythagoras speaking to oxen, have anything to do with anything? What is being conveyed by these statements?

This whole post also really infuriated me, so thanks for that.
>>
>>12761768
The point is they were really popular in their time but now people had barely heard of them.
>>
>>12754424

>>12755522
Start with Fear and Trembling and then when some of that begins to land read, Philosophical Fragments and Concluding Unscientific Postscript, to realize this >>12754500

And don't neglect the Gospels while reading Kierkegaard.
>>
File: 1002017.jpg (864 KB, 2000x2000)
864 KB
864 KB JPG
The Edmondson translation is especially cute.
>>
>>12761878
Oh okay, I think I got that basic part. I also find it really cool that Plato had many friends and accompanied kings. I wish we could know more about him as a person. I wonder what he was like.
>>
>>12754424

Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, Poe
>>
>>12754424
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa17w2ympF8

>tfw no qtpie freethinking ex-Christian gf to de-indoctrinate you from organized religion and help you crawl out from Plato's Cave into a new world of independent thinking and humanistic beauty
>>
>>12756898
For me the abstract idea of goodness is fundamentally the same thing as God, God is just a word people use to grasp at the subliminal, incomprehensible nature of goodness.

I am not a christian though, I don't know what exactly I am. Some kind of deist maybe. I came from fedora-tier atheism for what it's worth. I started questioning that after realizing that my theological "views" were built entirely on strawmen and memes.
>>
>>12758604
>can't recognise THE Genghis Khan
embarassing desu
>>
"The Great Good Thing" by Andrew Klavan
>>
>>12754424
The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart

The poor in spirit, the man who has this poverty has everything he was when he lived not in any wise, neither in himself, nor in truth, nor in God.
He is so quit and empty of all knowing that no knowledge of God is alive in him; for while he stood in the eternal nature of God, there lived in him not another: what lived there was himself.
And so we say this man is as empty of his own knowledge as he was when he was not anything; he lets God work what he will, and he stands empty as when he came from God.
Therefore he should love God in the following way: a not-God, a not-spirit, a not-person, a not-image; as a sheer, pure, clear One, which he is, sundered from all secondness; and in this One let us sink eternally, from nothing to nothing.
So help us God. Amen
>>
>>12762357
So you decided to base it on a vague feeling instead?
>>
>>12762135
She sounds like a bitch
>>
>>12754424
You should probably listen to Peterson's lectures on Genesis.

They might change your mind about the Bible being fundamentally nonsensical, although of course they won't convince you that there's an actual invisible man ruling the Universe and listening to people's prayers.
>>
>>12754424
Don't bother. If you're feeling spiritually inclined then read Joseph Campbell. Myths to Live By is a good place to start.
>>
>>12756235
what
>>
>>12761910
This is basically how i decided to convert, best answer right here
>>
Is there a sensible christian explanation for evolution?
>>
>>12764301
Accept the science and try to interpret Genesis as metaphor for evolution.
>>
>>12764453
Not a metaphor for evolution, metaphor for the human role in Creation.
>>
>>12764482
Sure, okay. Whatever stops you from insisting that the world is 6,000 years old and the serpent in Eden was actually a stegosaurus.
>>
>>12758433
I'm not Christian but I see why these things are "blasphemous".
If Christianity is the truth (and there's only one objective truth to the universe). Then that's it, bottom line. There's no pussyfooting around the fucking truth.
By bending the truth with your own ideology you're not making it true, you're just stemming away from the truth. Which would be wrong.
It's either all right, or all wrong.
Since Christianity is said to be preaching "the truth" any and all thoughts that misinterpret the truth should be avoided.
If you're choices are white, black, and grey; and white is the correct choice. Then black and grey are both wrong. It doesn't matter if grey is sorta like white, and closer than black is, they're both still fucking wrong.
>>
>>12764601
fucking this, all you fucks that conflate platonic or Easton metaphysical ideas with Christianity are heretics and would burn in hell.
>>
>>12763350
this lol
>>
>>12764601
This is so presumptuous, anon. Why does it have to be "all true, or none true". Why can't some of Christianity be true, and some false? Would you dare to tell us which denomination is the correct one, the sole owner of this singular and blemishless truth? The fact Christianity claims to be the sole truth doesn't make it such, since that is it's own claim about itself. If I wrote a philosophical work, claiming that so, does that claim now having any bearing on it's being true? No, it's just a self-claim I made. You've entered really shaky waters here, which, if you were Christian, you would not know how to navigate, and would find yourself in an epistimological crisis by nature, believing there to be an exact and perfect truth to your religion while simultaneously failing to identify what exactly it is. Not knowing which sect is correct, etc.

Eastern philosophy has many great opines on the nature of consciousness and individual identity/ego. If Christianity were true, in the sense that Jesus was Divine and there's a Theistic God, etc, this does not negate the insights on consciousness/ego from the East as being incorrect. It would mean, of course, that Buddhism's lack of theistic beliefs would be wrong, but not that Anatta is a false doctrine too. Just giving examples of how one could believe in many religions at once without contradiction, since it's the specific claims in question that dictate the existence (or not) of a contradiction.
>>
File: 1460228415288.png (72 KB, 726x590)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
>>12764713
>Would you dare to tell us which denomination is the correct one, the sole owner of this singular and blemishless truth?
Read my post faggot. I'm not a Christian. I'm explaining the rhetoric behind "blasphemy".
>The fact Christianity claims to be the sole truth doesn't make it such, since that is it's own claim about itself
I agree.

>If Christianity were true, in the sense that Jesus was Divine and there's a Theistic God, etc, this does not negate the insights on consciousness/ego from the East as being incorrect.
Yes it does.
"Eastern thought" which is a wide range of various beliefs all have beliefs that contradict Christianity. They absolutely cannot both be correct.
If Christianity is to be believed. Then you're one life is due to God, an absolute God, which expects worship and praise. Specifically to God. As well as an understand of God's man-made self, Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice towards humanity and forgiveness of "sin".
If Christianity is to be believed. Then you're one existence should be spent repenting for your sins against your creator, appeasement of that creator, and following his will: outlined by the son, Jesus Christ
Eastern concepts such as: ego, reincarnation, meditation is useless and baseless, unless of course they lead you closer to, the one true, God.
Meditation? Not as good as praying or repentance.
Reincarnation? Not real, false doctrine.
Taoism / the way? Not real, false doctrine.
Ego death? False, the ultimate truth is God not your own, limited mortal consciousness.
Wise ancient teachers such as Buddha, Laozi, fucking ect? Again, false doctrine.

The doctrine is not inherently false. Since everything in this life is about the one true Christian God. Fulton Sheen explained it pretty well. These other ideas are not completely without truth, because God is all things. So they have, parts of the Truth. Almost like having a sliver of the pie (the whole pie being, the truth).
However, in the Christian belief, the only truth is the truth of Jesus Christ and the one true God. No pussyfooting around it. Repent or be condemned.
Learn to read, and go fuck yourself.
>>
>>12764713
>Why does it have to be "all true, or none true".
Are you familiar with the idea of "objective truth" which is what, real, sects of Christianity believe.
What part of "the one true God" do you not understand?
>>
>>12754424
Read The God Delusion. Afterwards you'll be too embarrassed to be associated with atheists.
>>
>>12754424
Do not throw yourself into exoteric religion. Absolute Infinity is the only truth. The master shall come when the student is ready.
>>
>>12764761
>>12764767
Nope, that's not how reality works. Reality is whatever reality is, and those scriptures are only valid to the extent they correspond to reality. Ego-death, for example, has come under the scope of scientific study now, with scientific literature currently being published on the subject. And just as the Bible doesn't include instructions on the proper functioning of the heart, the nature of long-term memory storage, or the circulatory system, yet all of these being true realities, similarly are phenomenological and psychological realities true regardless of what any Biblical scripture does or does not say about them. The Bible, rather, is what gains validity only through it's correspondence to observable reality, and if found not to, loses it. Ego-death, again, is presently seeing itself amassing a body of medical literature on itself, of which some can be seen here:

https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2017/1/nix016/3916730
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4906025/

Hopefully, in the future, you won't ever utter such embarrassing assertions like those you've mentioned here, which amount to saying "Human realities aren't real, UNLESS my 2000-year-old manmade and handwritten papyri speaks of them and agrees with them!" Unfortunately, this isn't true. Not now, or ever. Now, I could similarly show you some fledgling parapsychology studies on reincarnation, but I hope you can read into that subject on your own. The "Christian God", in fact, is no more than a character-on-paper, only deserving of being claimed real once there is evidential basis to deem it so. Until then, the realities for which there is evidence are "actually" real, and the realities spoken of by the Bible merely fables, with no reason to believe in them anymore than one believes in fantasy literature as describing true events. I tried to bring you to realize this above, but it seems I failed: the fact that Eastern "religions" speak on a certain subject does not mean that subject is now "religious", and therefore is in competition with all the other religions and their own assertions. If it is true, it is true, and truth has no relation to "religion". Eastern doctrines, by nature of their founders and followers and the practises they undertook, chose to write of subjects like the nature of consciousness, ego, and reincarnation; and the beauty is that not a single Christian doctrine can invalidate these realities from being real by a single word of its own, if they are indeed true.

Thankfully, science has ramped up on exploring the subject of consciousness now, including areas like psychedelics, whose findings will be made into narratives that are then popularized in culture. Meaning that, in the future, I'll have less likelihood of hearing such baseless drivel from people on the internet again, whose assertion that "dah book don't say it, it nat true!" will be better recognized by them as juvenile nonsense, that should be refrained from uttering.
>>
>>12754424
C.S. lewis' mere christianity was what got me seriously considering Christ.
>>
>>12765161
If a young CS Lewis found that book and read it, he would have thought it to be extremely unconvincing propoganda.

It strikes me as an extremely disengenuous book. I almost loathe it.
>>
File: 1493784807418.png (2.34 MB, 1273x962)
2.34 MB
2.34 MB PNG
>>12756541
Oh I know, two gods!
>>
>>12765257
(Not him)

He appears to be referencing Anselm(?) who defined God as that which no greater can be imagined.

Thus, there is no sense in which two gods meeting this definition may surpass the one.
>>
File: 7666789876.jpg (8 KB, 250x188)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>12765292
>as that which no greater can be imagined
Nonsense!
>>
>>12765257
>>12765312
anon, the others haven't grasped your brilliance here, but i have. thank you, dear friend
>>
The Christchurch Manifesto.
>>
It seems impossible to be a Christian and to find true romantic love because the vow of celibacy interferes with the natural progression of a relationship. You’d have to seek out a relationship with a woman who’s dedicated to Christianity and would only experience a forced relationship with her
>>
How do Christians reconcile their faith with the Enlightenment
>>
File: ChristchurchManifesto.png (486 KB, 1079x1534)
486 KB
486 KB PNG
>>12765353
>>
>>12765478
Thats a complicated and good question.

The Gifford Lectures (delivered since the 19th century) are a good place to examine the relationship between religion, science, history, natural theology and Christianity.

NT Wright, former Bishop of Durham and a New Testament scholar delivered the most recent one, available for free on soundcloud.

Its a complicated lecture but it happens to touch on a lot of people and ideas that might interest you.

----

I think Christianity has, from the very beginning, always been a question of faith in Jesus and the resurrection.

It has a kind of fideistic structure built into it. Even some of its earliest advocates suggest this posture: Tertullian in the second century famously declared he "believed because it is absurd", an idea one finds perhaps as readily in Kierkegaard 17 centuries later.

Just as the Enlightenment had antecedents in the classical world, so we find the friction between faith and reason can be observed from the outset in Christianity.

Surely there is much more to it than that, but this is my brief attempt to your brief question.
>>
>>12765507
I'll look up these lectures. But I have to point out that "Believed because it is absurd" is the opposite of reconciliation.
>>
>>12765513
Apparently its also a very bad translation of Tertullians Latin.

The question as you have asked it is hard to approach. But at the same time it gets at something-- how does this Christian thing still manage to carry on now that its... well... now?

I think as you begin to break down what exactly this "now" thing is(which some call modernity, or secularism, or post-Enlightenment and so on), you discover there is much more to this story than it seems.

I find it helpful to recall that we inhabit the same world the Apostles inhabited, and that many people were doubtful about Jesus immediately in the first century as they are now.

Pliny and other early Roman observers call Christianity "superstition." Paul (who knew Peter, who knew Jesus) talks with Epicureans and Stoics in first century Athens and makes little impression on them.
>>
>>12765497
What would Pope Urban II do /lit/?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.