I'm open to it and want to believe, but can't bring myself to accept a literal account of the New Testament, especially when elements were taken from prior religions. The problem with liberally interpreting all of it is it doesn't inspire you to be Christian in a general sense (as in church).
>>79529537
>especially when elements were taken from prior religions
Like?
>>79529537
You have to understand the Bible was created slowly over time hundreds of years after the crucifixion of Christ. I doubt it's perfect, but his apostles and the early christians did an incredible job of keeping the story of the life of Jesus in tact even against incredible persecution. 11 of the 12 apostles accepted torture and execution rather than deny what they knew to be true about Jesus and his life.
This is a broken world, and humans are by nature sinful. Jesus came to not to sugar coat things. He showed that suffering in this life was unavoidable, but tilted our eyes beyond this world. By accepting the imperfection in the world and ourselves, we can better live a miraculous life. People today do everything they can to avoid suffering and self sacrifice. We worship comfort and ease.
Jesus accepted the worst of humanity upon himself as a symbol of his forgiveness, and the forgiveness he knows we are all capable. People unjustly tortured and killed him, and he loved them anyway.
Forgiveness like that could end the wars in the middle East instantly.
Jesus is much larger than any Church. He also isn't only to be found in the Bible. Part of being a Christian is having a personal relationship with him throughout your life. Being Christian isn't about feeling morally superior to others and judging degenerates, its about understanding our limitation and weakness so we can grow humbly.
People arrogantly believe their minds and control systems have the power to transform the world. Christians know humans cannot do that alone, and hand that responsibility to God.
>>79530607
I had to read this twice to realize there is no useful evidence for OP.
>elements were taken from prior religions
listen to this debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XKOlOnRsD4
it's pretty long but you can listen to it while doing other things (that's how i watch them)
the atheist guy (dan barker) brings up arguments along these lines, but the arguments get absolutely unequivocally eviscerated by james white.
or if you feel this post is a cop-out, and you'd like to engage someone on the issue, you can post the zeitgeist infographs with osiris dionysus and mithras and i can laugh at you ITT if you like.
http://pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW
Why don't you first ask God to convince you and hold him to his promise that if you seek you shall find?
>>79529537
Why? Because the mere fact you're trying to rationalize the doubts you have on being baptized (that's how you begin being a Christian) are a proof of God's Providence: in His infinite wisdom he has made each of us to be His creatures and become His sons by believing in His Only Son, Jesus Christ, or the second person of the Holy Trinity, and receiving the baptism in His name.
This is our faith, the faith passed to us by two thousand years of Catholic tradition. That's why you don't need to accept any literal interpretation of man made books (that's what Muslims do with respect to their novel the koran) but use the New Testament mediated by the successors and the tradition that Jesus who is God established in first person... by the Catholic Church.
The only Church is the Catholic Church.
>when elements were taken from prior religions
Aaaahaha you damn fedoras will believe literally any retarded thing you read in "enlightened" forums and blogs.
Every single year, every single one, some retarded atheist tries to say "n-no, Christianity really comes from this other religion!". Every single year, a new retarded theory that crumbles the moment someone with knowledge looks at it.
But you fedoras will swallow anything that allows you to keep a life of pride, hedonism, apathy and nihilism.
>>79532136
Yeah I mean he could watch one debate regarding theism v atheism, or you could give him evidence to support your god and he could agree or disagree with it and give his evidence.
>>79532326
Are you claiming atheists will believe anything without evidence?
>>79529537
Just remember what the cross represents
>>79529537
Ask and you shall receive.
Ask to God for faith in Him and He will give you that.
>>79529537
Well I remember reading a history essay about how Christianity is the best religion that preserves culture.
Every other dogmatic religion, once it conquers a territory changes the culture. (Islam promotes Arab culture, Jews all look the same and must speak Hebrew, etc.)
But if you look at Christians around the world, all of them still indulge in their cultures without forsaking it.
There's a story written by the historian Josephus writing about how the Christians are almost impossible to spot because they blend in to the culture
Not saying Christianity is the true religion, but I do like this aspect of it.
>>79529537
Worship Kek
>>79534384
See: Acts 17:26
Our God has mandated that we never ever attempt to reach Him in one voice and as One Nation
>>79534191
it's not an atheism vs theism debate, it's a debate about whether or not the story of jesus grabbed themes from earlier mythologies.
it sounded like the main obstacle was 'elements were taken from prior religions.'
i'd have to hear what silly things he's talking about specifically first in order to shoot those down.
but i thought it would be more intellectually stimulating to see a top-tier atheist intellectual vs a christian scholar throw the best arguments back and forth each side has to offer on the subject, and watch how they interact with it.
>>79532136
James white is a loser puppet Calvinist.
>>79529537
>literal account
This is a very modern idea. Even in 300AD, Augustine understood most of the Bible to be metaphor. The problem is that most people don't take the time to learn what the Bible is and its context, so religion seems to be something that feels silly.
>>79534754
James White is a loser. He is not a scholar but a Calvinist scum hackpologist
>>79530607
>You have to understand the Bible was created slowly over time hundreds of years after the crucifixion of Christ
This is totally wrong, the NT was finished before the fall of the Temple in 70AD and 24 of the books had been affirmed by Ireneus by 185AD.
I hope this video may well make you a Christian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXlBCZ_5OYw&ab_channel=CSLewisDoodle
>>79530607
Christ is the bridge to eternal life.
How could that which is mortal become one with God if he is not remade?
We are remade in the image of Christ that we may know the glory of heaven.
>>79535151
Irenaeus of course affirms doctrines that are contradictory to today's Protestants
>>79535151
No. The Pastorals weren't even written until 100AD. Revelation probably around 95AD.
>>79534327
Yes. They don't know what evidence is to begin with. They try to apply the only thing they know: empirism, science. So they fail miserably.
They accept materialism, even though they know nothing about reality, about the world, or even about what they are. Yet they dare to say what is real and what isn't
>>79534754
> debate about whether or not the story of jesus grabbed themes from earlier mythologies
Not everything has to be literally true. That's asking too much of it.
It doesn't matter that it's just stories. They've shown their usefulness for keeping society together for centuries while we get on with more important things.
>>79535339
St. John would have been old as fuck. None of the books were written after 70 otherwise the Temple destruction would have been mentioned somewhere.
>>79529537
If [Christianity] is true, being of [Christian] belief is objectively good.
Something having a vague abstract resemblance to other concepts has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsity of that something.
you are in literally every Christian thread bashing James White and Calvinism.
I don't care for either, but why are you so butthurt by these two things?
>>79535752
meant for
>>79535017
>>79529537
If anyone is serious about learning about the NT and the historical context for the Bible, as well as the authors, etc, Yale has a great free course: https://youtu.be/dtQ2TS1CiDY
>>79535752
>>79535781
Determinism is literally cancer.
>>79535844
doesn't explain the malay who only pops in when James White is mentioned
>>79529537
You shouldn't, it's a load of bull, a bunch of universalist trash. These scum put God and their co-religionists above their own family and people. Who do you think is importing the third world sub-humans?
>>79535723
Here's a great resource, lad: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
>>79535941
Maybe he's just dedicated.
>>79535966
It really takes somebody with an evil intent to persecute Christians.
What are you going to do next, piss off the Buhddists?
>>79535941
Because I had been fooled by his lies and deceit once as a Calvinist. Never again.
>>79535750
That is true, descriptively. But *ought* he become a Christian? (As the thread title suggests he's after)
>>79534754
Fiction is used in other fiction sometimes. Regardless of whether it did or didn't, it means nothing of what hes asking as a whole. If you're going to persuade someone towards a god it means nothing whether something piggy backed off of their ideas.
I understand what you're asking, and I would like to see on the subject of what is taken from other religions, but the overall point is offering evidence for OP to prove of christianity.
>>79530607
>This is a broken world, and humans are by nature sinful
This is another one of the horrible parts of this bullshit. They claim Man is inherently bad and needs some outside force to fix him.
>>79535966
>Who do you think is importing the third world sub-humans?
People who don't believe in the Bible
See >>79534651
>>79536090
Gotchya that makes sense. So what are you now?
>>79536093
If [Christianity] is true, then he ought to become a [Christian], yes.
>>79536237
A kekoid, just for the keks from Lord Kek
>>79536255
Ought one put his faith in Christianity then?
>>79535397
>"They don't know what evidence is to begin with."
Explain?
>they know nothing about reality, about the world, or even about what they are.
.....science hasn't given honest explanations that contradict the bible and given more viable proof towards its position?
Are you claiming God is real? What are you basing that off of, other than JUST the bible?
>>79536243
>>79536437
Assuming Christianity is true - yes.
>>79535844
Do you believe god is all knowing, all powerful and the creator of everything? Then how does anything but determinism make sense?
>>79536545
Same way as if you study analysis (that's a mathematical field) then you can prove that somet things are unprovable ("paradoxes") given your chosen precepts ("axioms")
QED
>>79536495
>>79536544
Then one ought'n't be Christian because there's no reason to assume its true?
>>79536544
I believe one ought to assume it's true as well
For reasons of psycho-social health
Our moral maxims and their axiomatic absoluteness are exclusively conducive to a healthy European society, regardless of their epistemological merit
>>79536495
That's Swedish art if I've ever seen it
>>79530607
inspiring
>>79536545
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/david-lewis/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/
Through some brilliant apologetic metaphysical work utilizing the above.
Gist:
p1) wills exist
p2) wills can make (and do make) all possible choices over all possible worlds
----
c) Even if God knows what choices you can/will make (which is all possible choices), one cannot possibly be more free than a reality in which you can - and do - make any - and all - decisions
That's the very bare bones of it.
>>79536766
I wouldn't expect an american to be able to read
>>79536194
Denial
>>79536711
Of course there [can be] reason to assume it's true. I'm doing it right now for a very real reason - that reason being I desire to assume so.
>>79536749
I think they are, but other people can argue they're not based on your terms "exclusively" and "healthy" there.
>>79536976
>that reason being I desire to assume so.
Ought you not pin your philosophical inclinations to something more absolute than a potentially shifting desire?
>>79535974
It would be if it wasn't total bullshit.
>>79537152
Would if I could senpai.
But being that I would have to assume other things that would *THEMSELVES* impinge on arbitrary preference commitments in order to do that, it wouldn't be any better.
>>79536957
>implying killing is bad
Everything has to eat and has territory to maintain. Death is a part of life, everything dies. Some things must die so others may live. That's good, it's how life is, a constant struggle between and amongst living things to continue living.
>>79537050
On health I'm a lot more confident than on arguing on the term "exclusively", especially in contrast to the current suicidal socialist liberal ideologies - the psychosocial impact of:
relativism/nihilism/ subjectivism
positivism/scientism
naturalism/physicalism/ strict empirism
I'm not going to convince you to believe in The Great Lie peddled by modern Jewish mysticism, along with Islam. Your call though.
Religion is literally a blue pill
>>79537337
In God there is life.
In mortality, there is only death.
Heal the bond.
>>79537362
One can argue things that you don't consider healthy at all are, in fact, healthy, where "healthy" is defined as being conducive toward some value set (which can be any value set).
>>79537421
>>79537440
No worries, mates. We Christians won't start tossing you from the tops of buildings or thinking that you're no better than animals for disagreeing with us.
>>79537421
>>79537291
Unless you completely gave yourself up to assuming the [fundamental] things to your conception
It is says philosophy seeks evidence for what you fundamentally believe in, while science constructs beliefs from what you're currently knowing
And I don't care much for the scientific method to begin with
>>79537584
>it is said*
>>79537584
>Unless you completely gave yourself up to assuming the [fundamental] things to your conception
Which you do out of preference. Which means you're not actually doing something different than I (or anyone else).
>>79537563
a religion of peace and tolerance?!?
>>79537770
p. cray cray if u ask me
>>79537446
>In God there is life.
No, God isn't real.
>In mortality, there is only death.
Nothing can die what wasn't living first. That's life, that's the important thing, living. Things live and then they die. That's all, there's no you continuing after you die.
>>79537451
Healthy is that which is in concordance to both the individual's and society's mental and physical natural functioning
And I consider its societal impact more thoroughly than what a particular isolated individual's concordance with the natural is
>>79529537
>especially when elements were taken from prior religions.
G.K. Chesterton's got you bro
>>79537681
This preference (or its origin as a preference) becomes subsumed easily beneath your conception, as your conception becomes internalised
What may have become as a whim (however intensely that desire) becomes a way of being as time passes
>>79537884
"Natural functioning"? A retard is "naturally" retarded, my friend, and functions as such.
I don't know who "society" is either~
>>79537571
>>79537563
>Yes goy, keep fighting with each other and worshipping our Jewish false god, while we destroy your societies and take everything behind the scenes.
Christian nationalists are the biggest morons, almost as bad as the Islamic Migrants.
>>79538144
>This preference (or its origin as a preference) becomes subsumed easily beneath your conception, as your conception becomes internalized
A person's refusal to accept/ignorance of the fact that one's preference is the ultimate determinate in axiomatic commitments does not negate the fact that it's nevertheless based in preference~
>>79538060
Excellent item, it really goes with Lewis's "parallel morality" case in Abolition of Man.
>>79537884
> That's life, that's the important thing, living.
In spite of others, because life is of no consequence in a universe defined by death.
>>79538254
>we destroy your societies
Whatchu talkin about? You mean when I referenced treating people outside of the tribe like animals?
>>79538177
Well, as men are social in nature, there must be fundamental and essential things that need to be guarded against deviance (degeneracy) in order for that society to exist
Fundamental essential things such as the stability of the family
what if got it wrong
>>79538381
Even weirdass psychedelic practices, such as those documented by Carlos Castaneda, or even just hallucinated for book money purposes if that's what it really was all about, recognize the importance of death.
Death is the ultimate equalizer. We all die. Everybody we've ever known will die, and most of them in our lifetimes if we don't die first. Death gets your ship back on keel. Death teaches you to respect life.
>>79538537
>as men are social in nature
I don't think that's true.
>>79538348
It does not negate that *fact*, but it does utterly negate the perception of that fact
Nay, the very utility of the perception of [and obsession with] that fact
The fruits of Christianity, as seen here in old Europe, torturing Europeans and caused greater harm than anything the migrants have done so far. You guys think you're edgy and badass and someone going against globalism and the system for being a Christian, where you're just perpetuating the exact thing you're fighting against... Jewish mysticism.
>>79538742
We're talking about truth though. Perception is irrelevant. People believe patently false things based on their perception constantly, since either their interpretation of their experiences, the experiences themselves, or their perception can easily betray them.
>>79538691
Have you felt not the natural rewards of being social? Think back to your childhood, at the playground with other kids
Being rewarded by your teacher for listening to her
Et cetera.
>>79538627
>Death teaches you to respect life.
It also teaches you to disdain it.
>>79538936
Not in the slightest. I'm a recluse. That's besides the point though, which is simply that I don't think there's anything even vaguely resembling a uniform quality of human nature more ambitious than "existence" and perhaps some other descriptives and abstracts.
>>79539103
That's true. Respect for life comes with an inherent disdain for death.
>>79539182
Respect for death comes with an inherent disdain for life.
>>79539298
Clue me in. Why would you respect death and disdain life?
>>79538874
That very perception (or rather lack thereof) can have healthy and unhealthy effects if it is constantly focused [in doubt] to axiomatic beliefs that are essential both to the person and to society's natural functioning and stability
>>79529537
HEY, did you know you probably don't have any idea what Christianity even is?
Here! Let me tell you some things that have been corruptions over the years.
>You are NOT tortured for eternity if you fail. You just die! You are thrown in the lake of fire to be burned up like a log of wood, and then you exist no more. It's like sleep!
>Death is like sleep! There is no one in Heaven right now. We are all waiting for Christ's second coming, including the dead, who are asleep.
>If you pass the test, accepting that Christ paid your debt, repenting and choosing to follow his example, you gain GODLIKE power and understanding! God will fuse his spirit with yours and you become LIKE GOD.
>Heaven is not a place where you do nothing all day. Those who gain GODhood will train the billions of people who never heard of Jesus during their life, while Christ reigns on Earth for 1000 years. This is the Kingdom of God, and you will be part of the Government.
>After the 1000 years, the humans who became GODlike will inherit the universe and will beautify it for God!
>The Earth isn't actually 6000 years old! The Bible suggests it's billions of years old, and that angels had it for all that time. It's only the age of man that is 6000 years, which is about how old The Bible is. (wink wink)
Christianity is the only religion that would logically lead to a Utopia, if everyone followed its laws. It is not a religion of conquest and deception is forbidden. It is about loving others over loving the self. There are no derogatory classes. There are no human or child sacrifices. Christians practice abstinence and chastity so that they don't hurt others in the name of pleasing their own flesh.
>>79539567
You're back to asserting your definitions of "healthy" and "natural" though, which I've talked about above. What you think of as "healthy" or "natural" aren't necessarily desirable just because you desire them instantiated.
>>79539177
There are essential traits to human nature, without which humans cannot continue to exist (both as sane individuals) and as stable societies
One of which, for example, is one's appreciation of the significance of their forebearers (primarily their parents)
PRAY THE ROSARY
>>79539454
Serial killers understand this.
Human beings know but choose not aknowledge it. It is a painful realisation.
>>79539788
See >>79539795
I don't consider it purely desirable. But traits that are *essential* for our very existence: without which our very existence would be completely impossible
>>79539795
>There are essential traits to human nature, without which humans cannot continue to exist (both as sane individuals) and as stable societies
I think that's false.
You can have a population of only "crazy" people who happen to end up functioning just fine - you can be crazy and not do "unstable" things like murder or steal from others.
One can have no regard for their parents or other family at all and still function - it's entirely possible. So that can't be an essential quality for what you described.
>>79539928
The true demons are the ones who can chose to feel nothing.
>>79529537
Eastern Orthodox here. For every scripture there is a literal, allegorical, and spiritual meaning. To ignore the spirit and only focus only on the letter is to behave like a Jew and is unChristian, see pic related.
>>79539928
Serial killers are edgy faggots who want to be on the news and feared by normies, not philosophers.
They don't understand shit, they're not enlightened philosophers, they're just subhumans without the self control and social bonds that define the human condition.
Because the book of enoch was written before judaism and judaism was founded by people that then subverted and destroyed christianity from the inside out.
>>79535752
AND Battlefield threads
but I don't mind, like that Afghanistan soldier, I kinda like the concept of these new pseudo tripfags where people recognize them just from the flag
>>79539886
This may look like a shitpost but it's actually good advice. The whole thing is essentially a bible study.
>>79529537
You can join and leave any time you want. Just try it out for yourself.
>>79540100
>You can have a population of only "crazy" people who happen to end up functioning just fine
Not as a society
>you can be crazy and not do "unstable" things like murder or steal from others.
I'd argue that that no sane and stable man murders and steals from others
>One can have no regard for their parents or other family at all and still function - it's entirely possible. So that can't be an essential quality for what you described
One may do, as an individual. Although I'd still say that man would not have formed (or have the ability to form) healthy healthy and sane emotional attachments
But a society predominated by such would be unstable and unnatural
Our parents are our axiomatic guide to an attachment
>>79529537
>when elements were taken from prior religions
>>79540530
>tfw Catholic and never learnt to use that thing
Always looked so bloody complicated. I feel like I should though.
>>79540530
>suffered under Pontius Pilate
That's a nice way of saying "the governor put it up to the jewish extremist's vote, and they sdecided to have jesus crucified instead of a rapist"
But it's okay, there's the book of enoch which said they would do this. You do know the book of enoch was around atleast 700 years before other organized abrahamic styled religions, correct?
The biggest redpill is that christianity in its current form is a twisted form that is presented to us to hide the truth of it.
>>79540530
>eating my post unironically
fucking jews did this
>>79540716
You can get around it for the most part if you can recite by rote the Lord's prayer and Hail Mary. Each bead tells you which one to say next.
Probably better to just go to Church on Sunday, really. You guys have some pretty noice churches over there and you can bask in the music and generally have less than an hour feeling good about life.
>>79540656
>Not as a society
I've been taking "society" to mean "arbitrary number of people (>1) who live in arbitrary proximity to one another". In which case yes - they certainly can "function just fine as a society".
You read that second line of greentext wrong, I think, given I didn't imply otherwise.
All people are individuals. All groups of people are just arbitrary sets of individuals, who can all have or not have any number of qualities within the realm of possibility (which is a large realm).
>But a society predominated by such would be unstable and unnatural
These terms don't necessarily mean anything important outside your preferences. And nobody really has to share them.
>Our parents are our axiomatic guide to an attachment
Or they're not.
>>79532326
>every year
People are born every day, friend, should not be surprising
Nothing wrong with people going through their own paths and learning things, yes I know the arrogance is annoying but that is trait shared by all of us
>>79540716
>>79540902
Here, let's be helpful. My wording could be off since the """"official"""" wording does change once in a while, but let's see if the spirit of it moves or not.
Our Father, who art in heaven; hallowed be Thy name.
Our kingdome come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, and we forgive those who trespass against us
And let us not give in to temptation, but deliver us from evil
Amen.
>>79540716
It's actually not as bad as it looks. Especially if you use a site like comepraytherosary.org because they have a sort of scripted video thing that holds your hand through it.
>>79534544
Seconded
>>79541530
oh fuck me that was horrible
maybe a little too much 4th of july weekend
>>79540994
>I've been taking "society" to mean "arbitrary number of people (>1) who live in arbitrary proximity to one another". In which case yes - they certainly can "function just fine as a society".
I'm taking the mainstream definition of society tbphwym8
An essentially ordered bunch of people. And there cannot be but an unstable and ephemeral order if there are not some socials healths and sanity
>All groups of people are just arbitrary sets of individuals
(cf. pic)
>who can all have or not have any number of qualities within the realm of possibility (which is a large realm).
Not really. It needs a number of [specific] essential common traits for it to function long-lastingly and with stability
>>But a society predominated by such would be unstable and unnatural
>These terms don't necessarily mean anything important outside your preferences. And nobody really has to share them.
Have you ever seen societies falling apart my friend?
>>Our parents are our axiomatic guide to an attachment
>Or they're not.
I'd argue that without them, we are not fully (healthy) persons/ humans, so they by definition are :^)
>>79541946
>And there cannot be but an unstable and ephemeral
What's necessarily "unstable and ephemeral" about it? It could very possibly be true that a "society" of only absolutely insane people exists and sustains "stability" for longer than any "society" with more sane people you've ever heard of.
All groups of people are just arbitrary sets of individuals - that's a truth senpai.
>It needs a number of [specific] essential common traits for it to function long-lastingly and with stability
"It" literally doesn't. See above.
My perceived experiences have nothing whatsoever to do with logical possibility ;)
>I'd argue that without them, we are not fully (healthy) persons/ humans
Maybe by your arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a human, in which case we're back to >>79537291 ;)
>>79542512
>Maybe by your arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a human, in which case we're back to >>79537291 ;)
>>But being that I would have to assume other things that would *THEMSELVES* impinge on arbitrary preference commitments in order to do that, it wouldn't be any better.
Why are less assumptions better?
>>79542798
Why are more? You can construct any framework you like - it's still nothing more than a preference function that may or may not correspond with Truth.
Watch this red pill animated movie on christian theology
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/15184091/The_Tragedy_of_Man_(2011)
I am seeding it right now the tracker hasn't updated
>>79543038
>Why are more?
Is there a difference?
> it's still nothing more than a preference function that may or may not correspond with Truth.
Is this true?
>>79543166
Who knows. Most people like less assumptions - I don't really care.
Unless your mind (if your mind) works in a different way than mine and somehow has less epistemological constraints for knowledge, yes.
>>79543074
Based on the wiki article that movie actually sounds really good.
>>79529537
>liberal interpretation
>>79543367
>Unless your mind (if your mind) works in a different way than mine and somehow has less epistemological constraints for knowledge, yes.
The way I argue for something [par example, how many assumptions I make] doesn't make that something more or less true
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
>>79543668
It's not the way you're arguing that's the issue - it's the actual argument. Assuming your mind is bound by the same constraints as mine in terms of epistemological constraints and that you haven't figured out how to overcome (not simply ignore or be ignorant of) those kinds of doubt, you would be, as a fact, operating on axioms that were determined by your preference if you were operating on any at all.
>>79543997
>Assuming your mind is bound by the same constraints as mine in terms of epistemological constraints and that you haven't figured out how to overcome (not simply ignore or be ignorant of) those kinds of doubt,
Why are you assuming axioms are something to be overcome, and why are you looking at them as a constraint?
Might not there be the correct axioms? *And the correct number of axioms* one need to have adopted for knowledge?
>you would be, as a fact, operating on axioms that were determined by your preference if you were operating on any at all.
First. how is it a fact? Second, might not I have preferred *the right axioms*? Or even just the more epistemologically revealing ones?
>>79536483
You don't sem to know what science is. Science is a bunch or arbitrary thresholds and a description of what fallible measures are considered to be "enough". Science will give you no real knowledge about teh world. You don't really know what anything is, and every "answer" given by science is based on a million other questions.
Of course God is real. I base it on the fact that otherwise you have no answer to any question. Morals, consciousness, movement... everything must have God as the basis. The Bible is not the basis of Christianity. For some reason, people believe that Christianity starts with the Bible and is based on the Bible. That is absolutely retarded.
Also, when you say "what are you basing that off on?" You are asking me to show how it is a consequence of something that is considered as true. But why are those things considered as true? What are those things based on? The Truth of God doesn't depend on anything else. It is the end of the chain. There is no higher truth it is subject to. So even if I give you a million arguments from Aquinas, or show you a million historical facts, in the end, you just must observe the Truth and realise it is the Truth.
>>79544928
>Truth of God doesn't depend on anything else. It is the end of the chain. There is no higher truth it is subject to. So even if I give you a million arguments from Aquinas, or show you a million historical facts, in the end, you just must observe the Truth and realise it is the Truth.
God is Truth. Without God truth would not be possible.
>>79544490
>Why are you assuming axioms are something to be overcome
I'm not. Doubts are. Try reading the post again.
>Might not there be the correct axioms?
We've been over this - >>79543038
> it's still nothing more than a preference function that may or may not correspond with Truth
>how is it a fact
Because, assuming you're in the same position as me, you can't overcome the possibility that your experiences aren't illusory in nature, and thus that your musings in regard to anything other than "thoughts exist" can be very possibly completely false. Given you can't know the truth of the matter but adapt axioms anyway, it can't be because you *KNOW* your axioms are right that you pick them, so what's left after knowledge is ruled out? Nothing but preference (unless you'd like to enlighten me with a super-special alternative).
>Second, might not I have preferred *the right axioms*?
Again - we've been over this >>79543038
>>79545331
> Nothing but preference (unless you'd like to enlighten me with a super-special alternative).
Giving up reason
>>79545632
No - it's a function of reason that you reach that conclusion. That conclusion is entirely compatible with rationalism.
>>79545632
Oh wait. Yeah. I misread you. I'll die long before I give up reason ;)
>>79530607
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY2KzjVNoKY
Proud Roman Catholic here.
>>79545721
>No - it's a function of reason that you reach that conclusion
Might not it have been my intuition?
>>79545885
Maybe in a world in which "intuition" is separable from reason when "intuition" utilizes premise/conclusion reasoning. But say you only just take the conclusion by itself and don't even think about the premises involved. Congratulations - you've explicitly accepted that your conclusion is a result of preference rather than knowledge ;)
>>79545779
Reason is but a mockery to God's way of knowledge and knowing. You are just spinning around your tail trying to catch God this way
There is a more fulfilling life in just fully giving yourself up to Him
By Mind AND by Heart
>>79546207
Reason is what God bound His world by senpai~
Kant-eroni pepperoni
>>79546291
I wouldn't even call it "Reason". I would say it looks nothing like what we think of as reason
Do not attempt to perceive the unperceivable. Purely give yourself up to Him
>>79546564
>abandon reason when reason is how one understand the Word of God coherently in the first place
Since that would leave me in a position in which I couldn't even think about God, nope~
>>79546769
Do not try to *think* God. Receive God *within* your thinking
And feel God, and *be* with God
>>79546984
There's no meaning to language outside the bounds of logic. You can't "feel" Matthew 5:44.
>>79546769
Why would that leave you in a position in which you couldn't think or change your mind, broham?
You don't even need to give yourself over to God all the way to feel His presence. But He's there if you want it.
>>79547141
>You can't "feel" Matthew 5:44.
Believe me that you can. See our martyrs (google Communist prison martyrs)
>>79547141
>There's no meaning to language outside the bounds of logic
There is meaning to God solely. And He is the progenitor of Truth and Knowledge
>Close knit family
>Church tends to your spiritual needs and allows you to confess your sins
>Prophet preaches forgiveness and understanding instead of "WE UR DA BEST THER EVER WUS"
>Fun holidays
>Welcome at all countries
Why would a Goy not want to be Christian?!
>>79547219
Premises can't convey meaning without a logic. This sentence you're reading right now is incoherent without a logic by which to understand it and attach meanings to tokens.
>>79547309
>Believe me that you can
I highly doubt you actually - I'll do the opposite.
>>79547400
And God gives meaning to the rest by His Will~
"For God so loved the world..." meaning conferred senpai~
>>79547446
>Premises can't convey meaning without a logic. This sentence you're reading right now is incoherent without a logic by which to understand it and attach meanings to tokens.
Would you like to restate that in terms of a premise and a proof?
>>79547446
>>Believe me that you can (google Communist prison martyrs)
>I highly doubt you actually - I'll do the opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqdPkDPMCwk
See the above video
>>79547562
No, not really. I'm modifying spells on a character right now.
>>79547696
You can summarize it if you'd like, or else not. If it's some "oooh spooky" occurrence I'll be highly disinterested.
>>79547518
We could not mentally understand more than what He has already blessed us with (John 16:12)
Because through Jesus we have eternal life. Believe in him being the true son of God so that you maybe saved.
>>79547832
Please see it
>>79547916
And what He's given us by which we might understand *ANYTHING* is reason~~~
>>79547716
At least you've already marked yourself.
But if you ever want to turn back then we will accept you without prejudice. Do as you like in the meanwhile.
>>79548004
"Marked yourself"? You mean the trip? I've probably had that longer than you've been visiting this board senpai~
>>79547985
It's "ooh spooky" m8. Deception/self-deception isn't very convincing.
>believing in any religion whatsoever
>needing someone else to tell you your morality rather than just following the golden rule
>given promises that operate on faith rather than anything concrete or real
>"J-Just trust me, there's an afterlife!"
Religion will and always be the ultimate blue pill. Live life to the fullest under your own terms and not under the yoke of a God or gods (whose word is conveniently given by those in charge of the congregation) who demands your fealty.
>>79547991
No. What He has given us by way of which we can understand EVERYTHING is the Holy Ghost (John 16:13)
He does not speak through purely your mind, nor through reason
But purely through your faith and through your soul
>>79548231
>your morality
>your
Aaaahahahaha There is nothing more concrete and real than the retardation of people like you
>>79548243
We don't understand everything though. We just have belief. Pistis. Not gnosis. It's all over the Bible that such is the case when God Himself is the actual narrator.
>>79548095
That's an interesting story. I've been here well since before this board, and whether it's a tripfag or a namefag, it's always a self-made sign.
I was a namefag once myself. But what turned me was spending my time walking among the sick and the poor, and getting to know more than I wanted to what troubles my fellow man.
I'm not a Christian. I worship the one true symbol of power and order in the universe, the phallus. Cock literally rules the world.
>>79548163
Then read his book "Tortured for Christ"
>>79548315
Beautiful retort, brah, how am I ever going to recover from this?
Oh wait, you never gave a proper critique to begin with. Into the dumpster with you and the rest of your ilk.
>>79548480
Anybody who doesn't like dick, male or female, has some serious problems.
>>79548406
Neat bruh - clippity-clap
>>79536957
Maybe I'm just an uber edgelord but that is awesome
>>79548507
I don't know. You might start by saying something to criticise, triggered fedora.
>>79548502
He could be a liar. Why?
>>79548586
You were the one to respond first. Why so defensive, breh?
>>79548361
>We don't understand everything though. We just have belief
We may know all. Even if we would not understand it
Have faith that the Holy Ghost may reveal all knowledge to you
Not to your mind, but to your heart and soul
>>79548599
That's why I've sent you the video. So that you may know from his reactions if he actually believes it
>>79548682
>Have faith that the Holy Ghost may reveal all knowledge to you
I don't see why I would, given God never makes that claim anywhere in Scripture. Perhaps you're reading a different Bible?
>>79548670
So? I just respond saying the things you spit are senseless trash. Being senseless trash includes the fact that there is no argument, nothing to refute.
>>79534650
this is the only true answer
>>79530517
>worshipping a woman
cuckolics literally cannot stop flaunting their idolatry with a badge if honor
>>79548773
?
Since when have people's mannerisms been an absolutely certain indicator of the truth of their statements? I'm under the impression that the answer to that is "never".
>>79548781
John 16:13
>>79548942
It's an indication that he is not lying. He may be in error, but he definitely is not lying
>>79530446
What did you mean by this?
>>79540719
Agreed. Pontius Pilate is one of the most interesting characters in the whole Crucifixion story. I feel he did his part as a neutral judge presiding over a volatile conquered territory. He didn't want to punish Jesus severely, but handed the decision over to the people, (a symbol of the world) who collectively condemned him.
>Pilate did nothing wrong.
>>79548942
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_1j5FXC2Aw
Here's another one
>>79548095
Being a faggot for 10 years doesn't change the fact that nobody likes you.
>>79529537
There is no other religion in the sight of Allah except total submission to his oneness (islam).
>>79549081
>definitely
We have very different meanings of this word, given I've seen actors perform seemingly more sincere scenes say (in character) lies and which they and everyone else knew weren't "true".
>>79548949
Alētheia doesn't mean knowledge.
>>79549254
I don't take anyone's anecdotal testimony seriously m8. I'm not an emotive person - appearances don't sway me in any way.
>>79549336
Don't you have a year to current leaf?
Respond again.
>>79549477
>Alētheia doesn't mean knowledge.
Truth then
>>79549523
Are you ok..?
>>79549197
Pilate always makes me feel hard. I can never really tell whether or not his hands are clean.
>>79549636
It doesn't necessarily mean "truth" either - it has other meanings, like "(the state of) not being hidden". So we can say the Holy Spirit makes things unhidden, but not that we *KNOW* those things are actually unhidden. Gnosis doesn't appear.
Huh?
>>79549808
>Huh?
Why don't you want to feel stuff anymore? That's like the most human part of any of us.
>>79550034
When did I say that? I said I don't care about people's appearances.
The "most human" part of us is the soul - it's the only essential part, and it's a raw existence that has nothing inherently to do with feelings. You can reference the other thread where this was talked about - my positions haven't changed my young pepperoni.
>>79548231
Nietzsche never planned for a world with people so drunk on their materialism and vanity that they would call their Stockholm Syndrome of a life "Übermensch"
The PUA of philosophy.
>>79550361
But you've also mentioned in other threads that you've been through some traumatic experiences that have rendered you asocial; and perhaps also emotionless..
>>79550638
>that have rendered you
I haven't at all. You can read the archives - you're mis-remembering alot here m8.
>>79550747
But you purposefully suppress your emotions doe..
you polfags claim how redpilled you are but believe in imaginary beings
>>79550966
Better than believing in nothing
>>79550919
No I don't. I'm literally just not an emotive person.
This totally legit personality test would never lie m8 ;)
This is a really irrelevant tangent though.
>>79551125
If today you hear his voice, harden not your heart.
Don't worry, dude. We don't hate you.
>>79551125
I used to think I'm schizoid too mate. My cure to it (totally made me feel shit again btw) is just giving up trying to be a fucking thinking and computing machine
I seriously recommend incorporating some sentimentalism in your philosophy my m9
>>79551060
no really, it isn't
>>79551265
I'm a Christian m8. Clippity-clap~
>>79551355
I hate sentimentalism senpai. I really think it's toxic to people.
>>79535264
C.S. Lewis has to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time.
>>79551542
A society literally can't function with a belief in nothing m7
>>79551551
I'm moreso talking about living out sentimentalism, not simply thinking it. For to simply think it would mean you sticking dogmatically exclusively to rationalism
>>79551815
Ew. I think you should maybe stop projecting your state of mind on others senpai. People may very well be different than you and have different preferences and aesthetic values that lead them to like and dislike different things.
>>79552125
I know it seems hard at first, but try it out whenever you have some time my friend
>>79552256
Don't assume I haven't fameram~
>>79552324
>>79552125
>People may very well be different than you and have different preferences and aesthetic values that lead them to like and dislike different things.
Didn't you imply that all preferences and valuations are fundamentally equal anyway
Just keep trying
>>79551815
society or you?
>>79552457
That wasn't the implication at all. If I thought that I couldn't be a Christian.
I don't think you quite understand the gravity of differences that can occur between people's individual qualities m8. I don't think you appreci8 the w8 in which people differenti8.
>>79552678
There is no "me" without society
>>79552682
Are there any meaningful differences between us?
>>79552808
You'd have to qualify "meaningful". There seem to be descriptive differences, presumably en physicus and seemingly psychologically given our expression of preferences that are anathema to my own.
I don't think either of us is existentially more or less important than the other, assuming us both, since God cares for every soul.
>>79553147
Descriptively; not justifiably mandatory differences
>that are anathema to my own.
By what absolute measure?
>>79553398
I never said differences were mandatory. I only said differences can very possibly occur.
By no absolute measure, but I see
>abandon reason for feels
as incredibly toxic.
>>79553613
>>abandon reason for feels
>as incredibly toxic.
Just [purposefully allow yourself to] have them both ffs
>>79553802
You disagree with yourself?
>>79545632
>>79553872
You can't have them both all of the time ;^)
Just most of the time
>>79553943
And where you don't get both - which was the original point - I choose reason and you choose feels.
That's a pretty fundamental difference bruh.
>>79552808
so you believe because otherwise society would collapse? what a sacrifice you make...but whatever makes you justify your delusions
>>79554081
>And where you don't get both - which was the original point - I choose reason and you choose feels.
Only where our fundamental conceptions lie
Further than that I use them both in conjunction (which is what I'm recommending)
>>79553943
>>79554081
And the funny part is that you choose feels in order to *reject* that your feels are the basis of your entire system, where I accept that reason forces me into the conclusion that my feels *ARE* the basis for my (and everyone else's) axiomatic decisions. That's pretty funny.
>>79554133
>so you believe because otherwise society would collapse? what a sacrifice you make..
It's pretty isolating to only think of yourself 2bh
This thread was pretty good before it became all about arguing with this namefag.
>>79529537
Be Zoroastrian
>>79554219
I still know that feels are at the basis of my system m9. I just don't mind it so that I don't endlessly obsess over it
>>79554537
>I just don't mind it
Hmm. I didn't really get that vibe from >>79537152
>>79554311
>not thinking my lack of beliefs will destroy society = thinking only of myself
other anon tells truth when he says you choose feels instead of reason, even your argumentation is based on feels and fear
>>79554731
I've internalised it :P >>79538144
>>79554793
>other anon tells truth when he says you choose feels instead of reason, even your argumentation is based on feels and fear
Hey at least I'm ok with being human
>>not thinking my lack of beliefs will destroy society = thinking only of myself
In a weird way yes. But I have to give you examples of this as well. See pic (lack of belief in absolute truth)
>>79554832
Pretty self-deceptive tbqh my young fampai.
>>79555040
It's easy to [allow oneself to] be self-deceptive in a world where they may not be truth
>>79555234
I don't think God wants people to lie to themselves senpai~
>>79555318
There is no truth except from what God knows as Truth, and we may never know [and could not ever know] more than its essentials (John 16:12)
>>79529537
>especially when elements were taken from prior religions
Your lack of faith is your own problem and not one any of us Christians can fix. It is not because it's untrue that you don't want to believe, it's because you don't want to believe that you don't believe. If you listen to devils over the Living God, then how can I possibly convince you?
>>79555551
That doesn't stop you from taking my stance and *NOT* lying to yourself Sir Bingitty-Bong, since not lying to oneself seems like a more Christian thing than self-delusion.
