Theology threads/discussions are utterly pointless. There is nothing new to discover, debate, or otherwise entertain yourself with. It's just the same boring arguments that are held over, and over, and over again and anyone who disagrees is either called a nihilist, fedora,or atheist as if that means anything. If you have faith in something fine, but this constant arguing over minute details in poorly translated scripture is just spam.
>thinks Christian theology can reach an end
We're all sinners and nobody has found the perfect system.
We're talking about God here.
We can theorize and speculate, based on the information we have available (scripture), but nobody will 100% know until they're dead, or at the Second Coming of Christ.
Yeah but fedoraschirstcuckstipsfedorashorudofturincatholicchurchpedophilescandalmuslimsisismuhammedwasapedophilethejewsarebehindeverythingtheykilledjesusthegospelsareeyewitnessreportsconstantineisafilthytrannythatspanishfuckerisprobablyschizophrenicandsoisthatjapanesegirlwhokeepsinsistingthatjesuswastheantichristwiththatstupidimage
>>1141053
Said by someone who has no knowledge of theology. You know that theological thought has progressed since the middle ages. We have ideas generated by it that are new that didn't exist before.
>>1141080
But all of these "ideas" operate under an unproveable assumption (God exists, Christianity is the true religion of mankind). What good are these ideas then? You are not finding proof of God, you are finding proof of mankind's ability to delve his mind so deep into cognitive dissonance that he must create these complex, and ludicrous "philosophies" to "prove" what man WANTS to believe.
>>1141133
And as a consequence of this influx of "Christians" to 4chan, and existentialist arguments and ideas are instantly shut down in favor of Christian dogma. You can't even mention Nietzsche without "DUDE NIHILISM LMAO".
>>1141177
any existentialist*
>>1141068
>>We're all sinners
According to christians maybe. The rest of us don't find the concept of sinning to be all that useful for anything.
>>1141133
Well first off that criticism (which I find to be false) has nothing to do with my response to OP. Even if it were true your argument would mean nothing to what I said.
Secondly the vast majority of Christian theology has nothing to do with proving God's existence. It would be like comparing it to ethics in philosophy. Meta ethics is a thing where people attempt to ground morality, but you (analogously) criticise deontology because it assumes moral realism, but they are different areas of inquiry. The latter requires a meta-ethical viewpoint but they are different subjects. The vast majority of Christian theology would be the equivalent of deontology here, with the prooving of God's existence to be meta-ethics.
>>1141133
>unprovable
Nice bait!
>>1141177
You know that existentialism doesn't imply atheism, right?
Nice try at "neutrality", fedora
There is no God but God and Jesus is his son
>>1141213
Kierkegaard can suck a dick.
>>1141202
How can God be proven, or even affirmed without making huge assumptions based on faith. Even if a big booming voice came from the sky and said "THIS IS GOD, REPENT SINNERS" and hellfire came down I still wouldn't have proof of God because that could be another great being of which we have no concept of masquerading as God. Unless I can observe this God with all of my senses, he is nothing to me. I mean I suppose he could exist, but it's like me caring about some dog in Poland. I will never hear, see, touch, or otherwise interact with this Polish dog. Even if this dog exists, it affects me in no way.
>>1141053
you have obviously never heard this man's lectures
