I want to become a Christian again, or at least consider it. I felt like I had a better outlook on life and moral compass when I had God in mind. Not in a fear kind of way, but in a genuine relationship.
Anyway, I figured the Bible and Confessions of St Augustine would be a good start.
I don't even know what "kind" of Christian to be, such as Catholic or anything else. I am technically confirmed in the Catholic faith, but have not been practicing, praying, or even thinking about it for years.
I suppose specifically I would be looking for Christian apologetics as well. I have been a skeptic for a long time, and it's still hard to suspend disbelief. What changed your mind?
The Greeks. Augustine, Confessions and The City of God against the Pagans. Feser, Aquinas (biography). Aquinas, Shorter Summa. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Read them in listing order.
Haha :D Ebin!
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. Wonderful book, and was hugely influential in my own conversion to Christianity.
Orthodoxy by Chesterton
>>7901505
Life Together and Discipleship, both by DIetrich Bonhoeffer, are great.
Someone will likely recommend something by C S Lewis. Mere Christianity and the Screwtape Letters are pretty good places to go.
Pilgrim's Progress is a classic.
The Diary of an Old Soul by George MacDonald is amazing devotional poetry. Also, his Unspoken Sermons are great.
John Donne and George Herbert, for more poetry,
>>7901540
Is Narnia any good?
I liked the Magicians Nephew as a kid but The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe kind of sucked, I never finished The Horse and His Boy though
Are they worth reading as an adult like Tolkien?
>>7901556
No as rewarding as Tolkien, I think, but he's more playful with the ideas of myth. They're short and easy to read, so just give it a go.
I think it's best to read them in publishing order:
Lion Witch Wardrobe
Prince Caspian
Dawn Treader (best of the series)
Silver Chair
Horse Boy
Magician's Nephew
Last Battle
>>7901505
>>7901614
>>7901618
>>7901620
>>7901624
"Anything by me."
>>7901624
Got a couple of MacCulloch's in my pile.
>I want to become a Christian again, or at least consider it. I felt like I had a better outlook on life and moral compass when I had God in mind.
Why Christianity
>Not in a fear kind of way, but in a genuine relationship.
>The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
As for CS Lewis he is a man who is far better at expressing bad concepts rather than good ones. Anyone who converts as a result of reading his works are the dishonest kind who deeply want to be Christian but are too paranoid about being "reasonable" in societies eyes.
If you want to be a lewis type christian then you will pretty much have to never read philosophical or theological works outside of those abject jokes by Dawkins and Hitchens
Read the cloud of unknowing and try to put the practices in it to play.
>>7901505
Start with Lewis, go to Chesterton, then Augustine, then Aquinas
Also important to regularly read scripture during this time.
>>7901505
The Kingdom of God is within you.
Although good luck getting back into organized Christianity with that one, its either quakers or unitarians for you
>>7901516
GK Chesterton "The Ball and The Cross"
CS Lewis "Screwtape Letters"
Sane Anglos
>>7901505
"The Case For Christ" - Lee Strobel
>>7901505
Fellow Catholic apostate here. I have no interest in going back to that musty church, but good choice on Confessions. It has my favorite quote: God, grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.
desu it would be better to start with a modern apologetic like C S Lewis, and read some Dante
>>7902260
Are you Orthodox?
>>7901505
yes senpai just the bible and augustine can last you a lifetime :D
most important is to read whatever you find edifying. follow your gut. if you don't like Lewis, move on to something else. the western canon is mostly christian stuff so you're never far from something good.
get a bible, but don't worry yourself about Augustine right away, unless you want to. follow a trail of writers, like you would with any kind of literature.
don't listen to all these donatists who are sweating for your soul. bad theology can be all kinds of mischief, to be sure; but I think you can find the right path on your own. Just keep reading.
For what it's worth, the two biggest helps to my conversion were Coleridge and Charles Williams.
>>7901540
much as I like Lewis, I thought Mere Christianity was not his best. I liked Reflections on the Psalms, Preface to Paradise Lost and The Discarded Image much more.
>>7901505
Basically, you feel lost in an ocean of infinite but utterly meaningless possibility and need something to cling to as an intellectual pacifier.
Just find a church you like, it's not like it really matters which white lie you embrace.
Hell, join a Gospel church, I sit outside the local one in me car and listen to their services sometimes.
Singing and dancing is more life-affirming than sitting on pews meditating on why you're going to hell.
>>7901505
>Not in a fear kind of way
fear is good though
you want fear
>>7902326
>Dontastists sweating for your soul
This is my first hand experience with Protestant Evangelicals. Can you expand on it more? We're Donatists similar in this regard? Catholics I still find pretty chill, never feel like a personal boundary has been crossed, where evangelicals are often obviously after my soul and they're not aware that I'm aware
>>7902346
I mean in this thread, people worrying over which books he reads and in what order
I'm a Roman Catholic myself
>>7902278
No, irreligious.
>>7902365
How did you go from being a Catholic to being irreligious?
>>7902398
the same way you go from being irreligious to being a Catholicby being unsatisfied with yourself and choosing to have a change of mind about your core beliefs, while at the same time discovering that <opposite belief> is less retarded than you thought it was
>>7902405
What made you view irreligion as less retarded? How are the arguments of people like Aquinas and Feser not enough?
>>7902413
>you
I'm a different poster
>>7901830
Read it, and thought it was pretty bad.
Though I did convert from atheism to Christianity.
>>7901626
I'll have to update the list, been reading lots of good Catholic non fiction. Also needs more Plato and Aristotle.
>>7901505
Well you should be a bit more specific since there's a lot to read in different fields. For example Jesus of Nazareth trilogy by Joseph Ratzinger is very heartwarming theology that isn't hard to read but is also extremely well written. It as the name says explorers who Christ actually was and the author's relationship with him.
John Henry Newman is a protestant converted Catholic and I would recommend his Apologia Vita Sua and Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine for exploring how the Catholic church on an intellectual level developed.
The Republic, Metaphysics, Categories and Nichomacian Ethics are necessary for philosophy if you want to dig deeper into Augustine and Aquinas, but if you want a shortcut, Edward Feser provides a solid writer on the subject.
Gene Wolfe, Flannery O'Connor and Shusaku Endo as well as Dostoevsky are some of my favorite religious authors, all being filled with genius and emotion.
Kierkegaard is good existentialism, but I haven't read him in 3 years so it's more impressions than knowing how good he actually is.
Hilaire Belloc with his The Great Heresies, Europe and Faith, How the Reformation Happened and The Servile State are I would say essential Catholic writings on history and politics.
>>7901505
Some really terrible advice here
>>7901529
Yes
>>7901540
CS Lewis is good but he was for ecumenism and believed in purgatory.
>>7901555
Don't know about the latter but Puritan preachers were great. John Owen, Jonathan Edward, Richard Baxter
>>7901614
Most of it is terrible Romanist/Eastern nonsense.
>>7901618
Bad
>>7901624
Sweet
>>7902260
Go Presbyterian.
>>7902333
Terrible advice. Don't choose a church you like. Study theology and find a biblical church.
SO OP what I recommend you do is that you go Presbyterian. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics are just heretics. Ask me anything senpai
>>7902326
Are there any books that help with living as a Christian in an increasingly atheist world?
Just when you think you know lit, a thread like this comes along and changes the game
>>7902488
How do you justify a Church founded on a King wanting a divorce?
How do you get past the arguments regading aspoltic succession put forward by the Catholics and Orthodox?
>>7902501
>/lit/ is homogeneous
>>7902502
> How do you justify a Church founded on a King wanting a divorce?
What do you mean? The church of England was founded for theological reasons.
Also the Presbyterian church has little to do with the CoE.
> How do you get past the arguments regarding apostolic succession put forward by the Catholics and Orthodox?
Because they irrelevant arguments. Apostolic succession isn't biblical. Anglicans and Lutherans have AS as well.
Matthew 3:9
And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
The Pharisees made a similar argument using their lineage
>>7902492
Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John M Frame, K Scott Oliphint.
The older Reformed philosohers
>>7902511
None of the protestant churches were founded for theological reasons. They in fact rejected theology and it's mostly trash to this day.
>>7902508
> He's probably just shitposting.
No meaningful response to add? Let me guess Eastern Orthodox.
>>7902520
That's a very board and ignorant statement backed up with no evidence.
>>7902525
CoE was founded on the bollocs of a king.
Luther started the reformation because of his massive ego that obscured how bad his theology was and he wanted that sweet nun pussy, but he couldn't normally get it.
Calvin is contradictory to just about everything with his determinism.
>>7902488
Top kek
Protestants will always and forever be an embarrassment to Jesus
Jesus creates a Church that will last forever, failed German monk with bi-polar wants to destroy it because was being actively corrupted
>sola fide
Inserted by Martin Luther
>sola scriptura
Where in the Bible does it say to only read the Bible?
>>7902511
Protestant really are the worst
The state of the modern western world is entirely based on their pseudo-Christianity
Read Scott Hahn
>>7902537
Paul says that we should adhere to the word of mouth that he has given us so it's clear that it's tradition as well.
Recommend reading on this, John Henry Newman, An Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine, he was a leading Anglican figure and couldn't stay one after years of reading Church history and theology as well and became a Catholic. The Essay is a very good work, proves that the bible alone cannot in itself be the bible alone since as he says, "In The Word Became Flesh we need to interpret what The Word, Became and Flesh mean" and doctrine and tradition are necessary for every church. >>7902546
Isn't he just pleb Catholicism?
>>7902511
>What do you mean? The church of England was founded for theological reasons.
Yes, that reason being on marriage.
>Also the Presbyterian church has little to do with the CoE.
Mixed you guys up with episcopalians
>Because they irrelevant arguments. Apostolic succession isn't biblical. Anglicans and Lutherans have AS as well.
Ignatius of Antioch would disagree with you. It seems a tad prideful to just come along and hold 1500 of Christian tradition and practice to be invalid until you came along.
Can someone tell me how a rational person can fool himself into believing something you known is obviously not true? Genuinely curious.
>>7902558
Read figures like Feser and Aquinas, rejecting God is actually the irrational position to take
>>7902558
Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas with subsequent commentators like Feser.
Also on the side note I yesterday finally met a person who knows a lot about Aquinas and can ask him for modern authors in the tradition worth reading.
>>7902535
Evidence?
>>7902537
> Inserted by Martin Luther
Read Alister McGrath's book on sola fide prior to the Reformation.
Jaroslav Pelikan (church scholar)
"Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone….That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers….Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.” (RRC, 49, 51-52)
Also if you use tradition as a basis than purgatory shouldn't be allowed either.
> Where in the Bible does it say to only read the Bible?
2 Timothy 3:15-17
1 John 5:13
John 5:39
Acts 17:11
>>7902546
> The state of the modern western world is entirely based on their pseudo-Christianity
Evidence?
>>7902554
Newman was an apostate. Left Christianity for Romanism.
The issue with you Romanists is that you aren't regenerate people that's why any debate turns to you guys swearing and throwing insults.
>>7902566
Has that person read any of Averos or the works of the Islamic Aristotelians? It seems odd that both groups could use him to prove their doctrine is correct
>>7902557
> Yes, that reason being on marriage.
One reason why but not the sole reason. The tenets of the Reformation took wind in England.
> Ignatius of Antioch would disagree with you. It seems a tad prideful to just come along and hold 1500 of Christian tradition and practice to be invalid until you came along.
Misinterpreting AS.
Rome has AS. I can't deny that. But so does the Eastern church, Lutheran church (some) and the Anglican church.
Also the church fathers first of all didn't agree with each other on everything. Calvin himself was called an Augustinian since he believed man can't seek after God unless God's grace regenerates his heart.
Plenty of the fathers of the Reformation were well versed in the patristics.
>>7902566
It's good you state Plato and Augustine together. Since Augustine followed his tradition of dialogues. Since Plato's world of forms and Augustine's writings are like a missing puzzle piece.
>>7902571
>you guys just insult
>wow yeah you all are apostates catholicism isn't christianity loool
Go fuck yourself honestly, I have no reason do actually argument anything to a braindead evangelical.
>>7902575
I didn't ask. He's graduating soon and is getting married so I don't see him as often.
I know Aquinas has commented on Averros so it might be worth reading him.
>>7902579
It's hard to call Calvin or any other protestant an augistinian. At least that's how it seems to me considering the protestant faith took off on wings of Occam with denial of reason in faith as well as complete rejection of the platonic tradition, which includes Augustine.
>>7902592
21, law student, lots of friends study philosophy so I ask around and read a lot. Also, my dad studied theology. It adds up.
>>7902492
That in and of itself is more a matter of your own convictions and personality than the ideas of other you read.
>>7902579
You're an obfuscator
You outline the problem with Anglos perfectly - mild autism as a nation character. Strictly speaking the English national character is the psychopath, as the American is the Narcissist. Anglo opinion on Christianity is straight to the trash usually, you're deluded about CoE being formed on anything but power/political motives, Luther was a pawn for same reasons. There's a type of person who will be in the wrong and have many mental traps and tests for you to pass to uncover their bullshit - problem is if you're unskilled in dealing with these people they do mental gymnastics to get themselves out admitting their shit - then they calling debate
>>7902571
>Evidence?
See how Protestants are proto-modernist-fedora-atheist-autists
>>7902626
Well national international policy for USA and England can certainly be described like that.
>>7902635
That's just the visible manifestations of deeper currents. Crimes of the English are longer than any other nation's
>>7902598
> Go fuck yourself honestly, I have no reason do actually argument anything to a braindead evangelical.
Not an argument
> t's hard to call Calvin or any other protestant an augistinian. At least that's how it seems to me considering the protestant faith took off on wings of Occam with denial of reason in faith as well as complete rejection of the platonic tradition, which includes Augustine.
http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/at/v28s10/05.pdf
Wow you heretics now admit you borrow from pagans
>>7902626
> You outline the problem with Anglos perfectly - mild autism as a nation character. Strictly speaking the English national character is the psychopath, as the American is the Narcissist. Anglo opinion on Christianity is straight to the trash usually, you're deluded about CoE being formed on anything but power/political motives, Luther was a pawn for same reasons. There's a type of person who will be in the wrong and have many mental traps and tests for you to pass to uncover their bullshit - problem is if you're unskilled in dealing with these people they do mental gymnastics to get themselves out admitting their shit - then they calling debate
Changing the topic.
>>7902629
No you struggle to substantiate your claims
>>7902649
Eastern Orthodox deny original sin, affirm the heresy of semi-Pelegianism, teach justification in a non-forensic manner, celibate bishops, icon worship, baptismal regeneration.
Then Rome has created papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, Mary's co-redemptrix, purgatory, indulgences, celibate priests, transubstantiation, the mass, messed up sacramentology, work based justification.
>>7902644
Germans were also pretty nasty. And the Russians, but they mostly killed themselves.
>>7902650
Yes you fucking moron, it's common fucking knowledge that we borrow from the pagans. Also from Muslims like Averros, he was a useful tool for Aquinas.
You know that something being true doesn't depend on his religion? If Averros says there is a personal God the information is correct even if he is a Muslim or that there are universals from Aristotle... John the Evangelist borrows from Greek philosophy at the very start where he equates God with Logos.... You thick fucking retard.
>>7902657
>if i say things and i dont like them they must be heresy!
>>7902650
>Wow you heretics now admit you borrow from pagans
It's always been the goal of the Catholic (aka Universal) Church. If it's true we'll have it - paraphrasing one of the early Popes
It's not changing the topic when CoE is entirely political, it has little theological value
>>7902657
Indulgences is the biggest spook, you've been had by German princes who used Luther
Celibacy is widely practiced in every religious context around the world. In Japan when Zen/Buddhist monks were getting too powerful with influence over people the ruling class in hand with corrupt higher ups decided to make marriage optional WEAKENING the Buddhists religion enormously. That's all you guys are in the European context. Pawns of the kings who seek the weaken the true Christians.
>>7902663
Oh wow so you've read up on your philosophy and are in your ivory tower. Coolio. You don't seem to be able to handle discussion. You see you are supposed to respond to my points not throw a tantrum. We get, you're intellectual and all. That's super. Protestants don't reject the pagans. We study them too. We just don't base our theology off them. Like Rome has with their doctrine of transubstantiation which is based of Aristotle's duality of substances.
>>7902666
No. They are unbiblical is my point.
>>7902667
The title of Pope, Pontifex Maximus meant bridger of two worlds (underworld with real world) and was used as a slur from Tertullian.
> It's not changing the topic when CoE is entirely political, it has little theological value
Read the 39 articles and check it against Luther's writings.
>>7902675
> Indulgences is the biggest spook, you've been had by German princes who used Luther
Vatican 2 affirms indulgences
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6INDULG.HTM
> Celibacy is widely practiced in every religious context around the world.
Other religions are false and made by Satan. God commands us to be fruitful and multiply.
1 Timothy 1:1-4
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
>>7902626
Anglos are the least autistic. It is the Germans who are autistic.
>>7902657
>work based justification
Weww lad, do you not comprehend a manifestation of something? Because we're saved by faith we manifest it in good works - a good tree bears good fruit. It's also then true and happens that good works can give birth to faith.
>>7902684
The English are a Germanic tribe
>>7902693
Absolutely.
We are justified. In other words in right standing before God because of our faith. Our works don't justify us.
It's like this
Election--God's choice of people to save. This choice occurred before the foundation of the world.
Predestination--The work of God to ordain to salvation those who have been elected to it.
Calling--The preaching of the gospel message.
Regeneration--The change in the person produced by God.
Faith--The trust an individual has in the work of God on the cross.
Repentance--Turning from sin.
Justification--The imputation of righteousness to the individual thus making him righteous according to the law.
Sanctification--God's work in the individual to make him more like Christ.
Perseverance--God's work in the individual results in the person continually believing throughout his life.
Glorification--Resurrection to glory with God.
From Carm.org
Good works are evidence of salvation, they don't save us. I understand it doesn't make sense from a Romanist perspective that denies forensic justification and that is once for all legal verdict (once saved always saved).
>>7902666
Also Orthodoxy doesn't deny the original sin, but has a different concept of it.
And how celibacy is supposed to be heresy I don't know, even from a protestant perspective.
>>7902675
Fun fact. Separation of church and state isn't necessary in constitutional law of Catholic countries because the Church and State were always separate entities while in many protestant countries like England and Netherlands you needed it as head of the Church was head of the state.
>>7902676
You don't seem to be able to handle discussion. You see you are supposed to respond to my points not throw a tantrum.
that's because I genuinely believe you to be a retard. I've been quite clear on that.
>We get, you're intellectual and all.
And you aren't which is the problem. But as protestants are fideists and almost entirely rejected reason, it's to be expected.
>We just don't base our theology off them.
Yes, philosophy has been replaced by ego.
>Like Rome has with their doctrine of transubstantiation which is based of Aristotle's duality of substances.
And you state that why? It's not some secret or big information. Aristotle holds a key place in the Christian philosophical framework.
It was also accepted by Christians until the reformation, but just accepted without rationalization. The Orthodox who have little philosophy accept it with just calling it a mystery.
>No. They are unbiblical is my point.
Things don't need to be biblical. They need to be in accordance to it, but theological developments are inevitable.
>>7902683
1 Cor 7:32
But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
1 Cor 7:1
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1 Cor 7:7
Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
>>7902698
Predestination is contradictory to free will and without free will man are not accountable for their actions making it a concept which fundamentally destroys the logical coherence of Christianity and Christ's death.
Anyway I'm glad I'm not an American because having to deal with shitty theology like this on a more common basis is a cross in itself. Protestantism is autistic af. I wonder when it will die out.
>>7902703
> And how celibacy is supposed to be heresy I don't know, even from a protestant perspective.
Making celibacy a requirement for ministry is a heresy
> that's because I genuinely believe you to be a retard. I've been quite clear on that.
I am not the one having a fit and cussing
> nd you state that why? It's not some secret or big information. Aristotle holds a key place in the Christian philosophical framework.
Because you traded philosophy (Col. 2:8) for the scriptural evidence against transubstantiation.
The Bible denies that Romish idea.
Quote the second verse;
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
> Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
And there you. Go St Paul didn't set it as a requirement.
The James White v. Mitch Pacwa debate is where Fr. Pacwa admits celibacy in the priesthood is based entirely on Roman tradition
>>7902707
> Predestination is contradictory to free will and without free will man are not accountable for their actions making it a concept which fundamentally destroys the logical coherence of Christianity and Christ's death.
Free will is pagan.
Short video about that topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE8HbRYJc5Y
God holds us accountable for our sin yet predetermines everything. Let me expound a bit.
Total depravity teaches that every man is dead in sin (sin we inherit and are guilty because of Adam - EO church denies the guilt). We are wicked its only when God either regenerates man with his grace or restrains evil. So when God predestines evil he merely stops restraining. The heart of the reprobate burns with evil when he commits said sin.
> Anyway I'm glad I'm not an American because having to deal with shitty theology like this on a more common basis is a cross in itself. Protestantism is autistic af. I wonder when it will die out.
Wow. 4chan papists in one sentence. You prefer LARPing over the Bible. Very few if any regenerate people in the Roman church.
>>7902713
I've already stated you are retarded, but yes, celibacy of priests is tradition and isn't a dogma.
It's not something to admit, it's common knowledge. The doctrine doesn't affirm sola scriptura.
It's like trying to explain platonism to a positivist.
>>7902707
Also if you deny biblical determinism, why does God not intervene when bad things happen? Why does he let it happen? Is he incapable?
>>7902724
Because God doesn't exist.
>>7902707
Not believing in free will is one the key things about Protestants. That's why they're so obsessed about wealth and materials possessions because they see it as sign of God that they're chosen.
They're 'ministers' doing a 'job'. Not priests that haven been called to a vocation. Literally D-E-G-E-N-E-R-A-T-E.
For the same reason they poo their pants around Truth and God's commands because they might lose their Jobs and standing in the Protestants community. What an awful religion.
>>7902730
Straw man. Joel Osteens aren't Christian. You just choose to ignore the fact that many Evangelicals today have rebuked him and his folk.
>>7902730
>Not believing in free will is one the key things about Protestants. That's why they're so obsessed about wealth and materials possessions because they see it as sign of God that they're chosen.
Well Protestant Work Ethic is not a thing for all of them and it's unfair to generalize like this. Sure, they have wonky theology and deny plenty of essential things, but they are our brothers in Christ.
Sure, there's retards like the one in the thread, but there's plenty good ones who don't reduce their faith to JEEEEZUS and ROMANISTS REEEEEEE
>They're 'ministers' doing a 'job'. Not priests that haven been called to a vocation. Literally D-E-G-E-N-E-R-A-T-E.
Well priests do a job too, only thing is they give up a lot for it and don't keep their earning from donations and instead get a pay.
>For the same reason they poo their pants around Truth and God's commands because they might lose their Jobs and standing in the Protestants community. What an awful religion.
Awful, yes, but it's not as black and white.
>>7902750
>but they are our brothers in Christ
yes this is true, like an annoying little brother you just want to grow up already
>Well priests do a job too,
job is something you do for money, vocation is something you do out love. Jesus himself said go out and carry nothing with you but the clothes on your back. this is vocation.
> not as black and white.
again, very true, Protestants function in this mode though
Protestants should really read Luther's Table Talk
He's a bi-polar apostate, failed monk
>>7902802
"I am but a man prone to let himself be swept off his feet by society, drunkenness, and the movements of the flesh."
"It does not matter what people DO; it only matters what they BELIEVE."
Sola Fide certainly is useful
>>7902802
Do (((they))) make a Table Talk propaganda book for every German they don't like?
>>7902720
>We are wicked its only when God either regenerates man with his grace or restrains evil. So when God predestines evil he merely stops restraining.
Any further reading on this?
>>7902818
>break vows
>plunge Europe into war
>break the Church
>support massacre of peasants
>it is ok I'm already saved
Yeah it actually does.
>>7902771
>yes this is true, like an annoying little brother you just want to grow up already
Very annoying indeed, but our local friend is more annoying than most, but he's probably a Calvinist and that just about as toxic as you can get.
>again, very true, Protestants function in this mode though
It's simpler for them in a way. The inner mechanisms of their faith are equally simple for the barely literate and for the philosopher since you just need your own interpretation of the bible without understanding historical development.
>>7902829
The Bible because it teaches how you aren't instantly regenerated in Abraham, the father of faith. He is asked to do quite a lot to prove it and gain the gifts God promised.
>>7902821
Table Talk was "based on notes taken by various students of Luther between 1531 and 1544"
"Mathesius spoke enthusiastically of the privilege of eating with Luther and hearing him converse. Earlier notetakers had written down only the serious remarks of Luther, but Mathesius also wrote down the facetious or even damaging remarks, a sign of the increasing reverence in which Luther was held."
>>7902841
>you aren't instantly regenerated in Abraham, the father of faith
Sounds like Judaism to me.
>>7902841
Yea Calvinist's are the simplest from what I've seen.
Agree completely, your own interpretation is also useful at never really having a hard look at yourself. It's so stupid it boggles the mind.
>>7902865
It does because God has revealed himself in both old and new testament. Jesus opened our eyes fully, but the old speaks to us as well.
>>7901505
>Anyway, I figured the Bible...
prepare to have your hopes shattered lel
>>7902881
New Testament can as validly be translated as New Covenant. The only time that term is used by Jesus is when he breaks the bread on Holy Thursday, and establishes the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Eucharist is the New Testament, the book "New Testament" is document.
>>7902894
Indeed, but my point was something else. The New Covenant is fulfilling the old, not making it invalid.
Can anybody here explain to me why an omnipotent, all knowing and merciful god would do the following:
Allow satan to turn against him thus beginning the "eternal fight" between good and evil
Allow his son to be crucified, while it was surely in his power (him being almighty and all that) to find some other means to accomplish something he knew beforehand would be necessary
Allow himself to "test" people, knowing beforehand what the outcome would be
Allow that the bible be made available to only a select few people in the middle east while the rest of humanity doesn't even get a chance to look at it (so that they can know of his existence in the first place) until many many generations have passed
etc etc
>>7902915
tbph i'm not here to troll, i genuinely want to know what you guys think about this
>>7902915
>Allow satan to turn against him thus beginning the "eternal fight" between good and evil
I hate to say it but muh free will
>Allow his son to be crucified, while it was surely in his power (him being almighty and all that) to find some other means to accomplish something he knew beforehand would be necessary
The crucifixion was part of his master plan, and he went to it willingly. He even rebukes Peter for suggesting to avoid it. It was the most complete sacrifice possible and a uniting of human and divine natures.
>Allow himself to "test" people, knowing beforehand what the outcome would be
For God I don't think there really is a beforehand. He doesn't predict, he only acts eternally. He is in all moments. The Bible says he doesn't allow people to be tempted beyond their capacity to resist temptation. They aren't ever tested beyond their measures. The way I've heard it told to me is that God doesn't often directly provoke people, but rather he allows the Devil to act within a certain set of limits. The stronger that person becomes, the more God may allow the devil to tempt them to push them further toward holiness. However, we also have to remember that God allows for human autonomy, and humans can tempt themselves and choose sin without any kind of spiritual provocation.
>Allow that the bible be made available to only a select few people in the middle east while the rest of humanity doesn't even get a chance to look at it (so that they can know of his existence in the first place) until many many generations have passed
It seemed to work remarkably well though. It's not like the Old or New Testaments were obscure for very long after either's creation. It's not just about the spread of the Bible, but also the spread of Christians and churches and tradition.
t. atheist
>>7902915
Pretty hard, albeit common questions. I think most of them are answerable by just saying that once the world was created with all it's being they were given free will. So:
>Allow satan to turn against him thus beginning the "eternal fight" between good and evil
He created beings with full autonomy over their actions. In other words even angels have free will.
etc. etc. for the rest of your questions
God gives us free reign to exist. When we get the idea of moving away from him we lose, it's not 'his' fault, we made the choice.
Life's a battle against rot, God's a flourishing life, a big YES.
>>7902947
>>Allow his son to be crucified, while it was surely in his power (him being almighty and all that) to find some other means to accomplish something he knew beforehand would be necessary
>The crucifixion was part of his master plan, and he went to it willingly. He even rebukes Peter for suggesting to avoid it. It was the most complete sacrifice possible and a uniting of human and divine natures.
in >>7902947 context
God sent his son in our own form, both divine and human, to experience our existence, a lot of us rejected that. Show's what mental state most of us are in.
>>7902936
For God I don't think there really is a beforehand. He doesn't predict, he only acts eternally.
How can he be all knowing if he cant predict the future? Which he can, according to the bible
>>7902956
>God sent his son in our own form, both divine and human, to experience our existence, a lot of us rejected that. Show's what mental state most of us are in.
If he knew beforehand it would not be effective why would he do it? Why not do something that would persuade everybody, instead of only a select few?
>>7902966
The point is he doesn't need to predict. He knows it and is it. As much as he is the past etc. This is kind of simple eternal present stuff. Git wit it.
>>7902947
>He created beings with full autonomy over their actions. In other words even angels have free will.
This does not make much sense to me, but lets look at it in that context, don't you think he would have spared everybody a great deal of trouble if he persuaded satan not to turn against him? Which was completely in his power to do so?
>>7902983
Totally reasonable, but it's confusing that he would purposefully cause harm to people while supposedly being a merciful god...
>>7902974
Persuading everybody removes free will again. He sent his son, as a man, with all the limitations, to remind us to turn to God.
>>7902998
How are you sure that we're not responsible for our own suffering?
>>7903009
Ok, but was it entirely necessary to kill him in a most brutal fashion? (It must have been in his power to persuade people in some other way, surely?)
>>7903018
Why would he allow our suffering in the first place?
>>7902995
Free will again cuz, satan was one of the chief arch-angels, he's incredibly powerful, in some ways so much that people might confuse him for the real God.
>>7903032
Unless he is "stronger" than god himself, that doesn't make much sense does it?
>>7903020
Christ offered himself. He's the sacrificial lamb. To help us see what's going on, to look around and lift the veil. The most holiest and sacred died on that cross, and we put him there.
>>7903043
I picked up you're going in this direction, there's malice in you. If satan was stronger we wouldn't be.
>>7903047
>If satan was stronger we wouldn't be.
Sorry could you elaborate?
>>7903043
By saying that people might confuse him for the real God I mean to say in how much we fail to understand/know the strength of God.
It's like thinking a Camry is a fast car when you've never seen an F1. Lame analogy but it's something like that.
Satan's real power is only in leading us away from God, where God's power is so constant and present that we ignore it and take it for granted. We're fish swimming in God and we ask where is the ocean. Think this is a DFW bit isn't it?
>>7903044
Still, I think god could have let things happen a bit differently, he could have persuaded him to not crucify himself...
>>7903062
>God persuading Himself not to crucify Himself
uh
>>7903055
If God created us, and is life, then satan is that which wishes to destroy it, by deception mostly. Making us forget. In the extreme if satan was stronger we wouldn't be alive at all, but here we are :) It sure is dark sometimes but we still prevail.
>>7903064
Sorry for the confusion? I meant to persuade his son...
>>7902995
Satan already knew. He was an archangel, he saw the face of God. His fall is all the greater because he knew everything he should have known.
And persuading doesn't entail brainwashing or absolute contol so there was at that point nothing God could have done if he were to remain consistent.
>>7903071
God the Father is God the Son who is God the Holy Ghost.
>it doesn't make sense
It indeed doesn't and falls under a dogma of fatih. It's understood by faith or not at all.
>>7903071
Jesus is the Incarnation of one part of the Holy Trinity, the Son.
God is composed of three unique persons in one nature. In other words, the "what" is God, but the "who" is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Son of God, and thus the person of the Son, has two different natures. He has his human nature, and his divine nature.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same will, so they don't really have any disagreements amongst themselves.
However, you do hear Jesus praying, for instance, "Father, if it is your will, let this cup pass from me." Though I'm not sure if that is referring to his crucifixion or his agony in the garden.
>>7903077
>God the Father is God the Son who is God the Holy Ghost.
That's not quite right in the orthodox understanding and I think falls into a heresy referred to as modalism.
Refer to pic related
>>7903077
>it doesn't make sense
It indeed doesn't and falls under a dogma of fatih. It's understood by faith or not at all.
Indeed. Thank you all for your replies and keeping things civil
>>7903072
Satan chief sin is pride, he wanted God's place. Pride is the most Ego quality you can imagine.
>>7903082
Multiple people replying to you here.. ;)
>>7903077
The other anon here, I thin it can be explained in pretty concret-ish terms.
To cut it short and to be a lil bit heretical Holy Ghost is a bit like Chi, or particularly an influx of it. A flow from God. Tongues of fire, inspiration etc. It comes from God as much as Christ does.
One of Kanye's West tour posters has the perfect visual depiction of the Holy Ghost.
>>7903093
>Thank you ALL for your replies
Didn't leave you out bro ;)
>>7903093
ah it was yeezus
http://www.joerperez.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/yeezus_tour_poster.jpg
it's a visual representation of a state of being kids, it's not actually visually discernible when it's happening.
>>7903093
No, actually there are no logic models for the Trinity that work. I'd like it if it was logical more, but that's how it is. Also Holy Ghost isn't jsut an influx, he is a full person. It's one of the early heresies alongside monism and aryanism. So in the early church you had the view that Father, Son, Holy ghost are an absolute oneness, you had the view that it wasn't a Trinity but a duality and the Trinity view of the Godhead.
An Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman is highly recommended.
>>7903101
aw thanks bud
>>7903104
Thank you, just got a PDF copy.
I thought the trinity was one of the things early Church adopted from the Greeks?
>>7902974
It did work pretty well, though.
Don't be one of them square Christians.
Read Philip K. Dick, and research what he was reading as you go along.
Hans urs von Balthasar, greatest theologian of the 20th century?
>>7901516
http://bethinking.org
from one struggling christbro to another
>>7903190
Bit of a strech, that would be Joseph Ratzinger
>>7903207
Where to start with his theology? Been meaning to get into him. I want his theology, not his apologetic stuff.
>>7903225
Jesus of Nazareth Trilogy, Spirit of Liturgy, Virtues. Need to get more into him after this, will by the end of the year know more. He has an easy but meaningful style and is just a great read.
>>7903225
Also I wasn't aware he wrote apologetics
>>7903271
It's a pretty big thing in the world so it makes sense he wrote about it. He mentions it but it's the central theme.
>>7903281
I was just saying I want his advanced theology, not the stuff written for the plebs who still struggle with losing their secular worldview.
>>7903337
I don't know about his hardcore theology, what I did read was "easy" but also high quality contemplaton. It's like reading Plato again desu
Read into Hinduism before you go too deep into Christdom. I had the same feelings you do, but Hinduism understands that people have doubts and you can even be atheist and hindu at the same time.
>>7903104
Wouldn't the trinity be just that god can shape take those three shapes?
>>7903682
they're all distinct persons, not God taking various forms
Cats cradle, the bible
>>7901700
>As for CS Lewis he is a man who is far better at expressing bad concepts rather than good ones. Anyone who converts as a result of reading his works are the dishonest kind who deeply want to be Christian but are too paranoid about being "reasonable" in societies eyes.
Lewis was, more than most apologetics, alive to the dangers of becoming a prig that come with conversion. If you don't like that, it's probably because you ARE a prig.
Guys, I've been thinking about Christianity but I thought Christians were supposed to be nice and not throw slurs at each other like in this thread. I'm confused
>>7903826
We aren't supposed to be nice. Niceness isn't a category of virtue. Niceness doesn't impact much.
And I'll call that Calvinist a faggot any time, he's obnoxious and doesn't read or is just a troll making his presence in any thread a cancer. We can all have a nice discussion, assuming we don't have a WOW YOU ARE ALL ROMANIST PAGAN ATHEISTS NOT RRAL CHRISTIANS GOING TO HELL PLATO IS EVIL GET RID OF GIM type of discussion. So yeah, nerves don't become infinite when you become a Christian.
>>7903917
No. Letting him be in his heresy and stupidity is wrong and being mean isn't.
It isn't some kind of pussy humanism.
>>7903889
I thought that was supposed to be Christianity's thing where everybody is nice and happy toward each other because they have a shepard to protect them, at least that's what it seemed like the last time I attended
>>7903934
elect
pre-destination
>>7903934
It's a type of protestant who denies free will, philosophy and the faith of others who don't think exactly the same and is generally obnoxious about it.
>>7903934
You could read Confessions of a Justified Sinner.
Why are Christians getting their asses kicked by Muslims? Cuck Christians? Churchians? Pope kissing muslims feet? Weak shit.
>>7903952
what's the general idea of heaven like as described by the bible?
>>7903984
It's thought of as a state where you exist in proximity to God.
Whats the best translation of the bibble in english?
>>7901529
Church.
>>7903994
which is approximately as useful as saying "a state of proximity to heaven"
"proximity to God' doesn't tell us what it'll be like.
it really is more useful just to say "heaven is way more awesome than you or I can imagine". that seems to be as much as anybody can guess.
>>7904284
Yes. People who have out of body experience always fail to put it into words.
>>7904284
Do you not read the Saints?
>>7904284
Yeah. The gist of transcendent experience is that they transcend - words in particular.
>>7904718
No, well not all, only a few. Even mystics only carry a poetic message that doesn't tell you specifically anything outside that it is really awesome. Any specific saint in mind?
catholicism is not christianity, friend
>>7904728
Fuck off
>>7903079
This picture doesnt make any sense.
Truly believing in God makes believing in a trinity impossible.
>>7904810
>This picture doesnt make any sense
It makes a lot. Just not on a purely logical basis which isn't implied by it.
>Truly believing in God makes believing in a trinity impossible.
Believing in non Trinitarian God is easy. It doesn't actually require any faith as it's purely reasonable and logical.
>>7903079
What a load of gobbledygook. Christianity gives Hegel a run for the money on the incoherent blathering front.
>>7901516
G. K Chesterton got me back into religion.
Heretics then Orthodoxy
u kno wut god me into christianity, mother fuckin Flaubert's Julian The Hospitaler, I don't know why but I fuckin felt it
>>7904863
>Julian The Hospitaler
that and The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit of Capitalism by Weber....
not exactly the kind of stuff most spiritual ppl would read and get into, but we living in a different time, can't come with that medieval when we post-modern
>>7904903
the lord works in mysterious ways
>>7904929
Very mysterious.
Like I can see Flaubert, but Webber?
>>7904947
Weber laid out why Christianity is correct and paganism is not
>>7904950
That makes no sense considering there wasn't any paganism and his thesis isn't that God exists, it's that Calvinists are so materialistic they think money will get them in good terms with God.
>>7904950
>Christianity is correct and paganism is not
Christianity and paganism amount to the same thing: belief in supernatural entities. Which is a load of bollocks, and you know it.
Time to toss away the fairy stories and get real.
>>7905062
Chesterton is very interesting here, he says that Christianity is a myth and a story that just so happens to be true.
I'm too much of a fedora non-fiction reader to get into religion so my advice may be shit
But a great place to start would be to read the important books of the old testament and then "study" the new testament. The new testament is filled with teachings that can be applied to your life, and it may push you to regain faith.
Some work friends (mostly atheists or agnostics) even gained faith in the Christian god through physics and other shit, they say "the world is so perfect may may, there must be a god". Thinking a lot may push you to atheism or theism
>>7903820
>Lewis was, more than most apologetics, alive to the dangers of becoming a prig that come with conversion If you don't like that, it's probably because you ARE a prig.
Where in my post did I say that he was a bad author/apologist because he was alive to the dangers of becoming a prig?
>>7905040
christians are blessed with wealth because they follow god's path by working hard and avoiding vice, pagans stay envious
>>7901551
>Orthodoxy by Chesterton
This and The Everlasting Man
>>7905435
No, that's exactly what the gospel speaks against.
>>7902501
This isn't Reddit where there is one single world view shared by the entire user base
>>7904727
Theresa De Avila
>>7901505
Read Aquinas, Anselm, and Gabriel Marcel, which will make Christianity not feel like it's not founded in reason and requires you to pretend.
>>7904950
what did he say against paganism?
>>7906716
Money gets you into haven and Catholics are pagan because they don't have money.
>I have been a skeptic for a long time, and it's still hard to suspend disbelief. What changed your mind?
If at one point you come to the conclusion that it's made up (for reasons, e.g. controling people, making people feel good, etc.),
how would it ever be possible to go back to that believe system, if in particular you know you just want back to it because you don't feel as good without.
Figuring out the moral core, okay, but working against yourself by a brainwash - what kind of goal is that anyway?
Could please someone explain me the following. If the book the entire religion is based on makes claims that are at odds with what we observe in the world - how can that possibly be the word of God, if he supposedly doesn't even know his own creation? (non heliocentric solar system etc)
How can you want to take up christianity in specific, if the scripture seems highly suspicious of fraudulence?
>>7905408
>Where in my post did I say that he was a bad author/apologist because he was alive to the dangers of becoming a prig?
You said this:
>Anyone who converts as a result of reading his works are the dishonest kind who deeply want to be Christian but are too paranoid about being "reasonable" in societies eyes
Lewis often warned against being the especially vocal kind of Christian. I assume that's what you meant.
The disdain with which you speak of being anything "in society's eyes" tells me that you probably are a bit of a prig.
>>7907225
>If the book the entire religion is based on makes claims that are at odds with what we observe in the world - how can that possibly be the word of God, if he supposedly doesn't even know his own creation? (non heliocentric solar system etc)
It's rather simple. The meaning isn't literal for certain books and a lot depends on the genre. Some are historical others are not. Also God didn't write it.
>How can you want to take up christianity in specific, if the scripture seems highly suspicious of fraudulence?
It simply doesn't.
>>7907276
>Lewis often warned against being the especially vocal kind of Christian. I assume that's what you meant. The disdain with which you speak of being anything "in society's eyes" tells me that you probably are a bit of a prig.
You miss understand me then. That part of my post was referring to the person who arbitrarily sets their mind on something then seeks the barest proof to justify it to themselves and others and acts as if it was this text/viewpoint that changed rather than it being dug up after the fact.
Notice how I said *too paranoid* rather than just concerned.
>>7907225
The book is no way at odds with what we observe. The book show layers of perception. Scientifc view of the world is just one layer, that doesn't play all the tones most humans are capable. In other words scientific/number of the world is boring and empty for most people and for good reason. Science explanation of love is fundamentally autistic compared to the real thing.
Also there are plenty of high ranking scientists who are Catholic or what have you. That science and religion are incompatible is a myth perpetuated by austists like R. Dawkins and embraced by man-children/teens.
>>7908398
>The book is no way at odds with what we observe.
It kind of is which is why its constantly being reinterpretation. Verses in Ecclesiastes, Chronicles and a few of the Psalms have had to be reinterpreted precisilesy because the heliocentric understanding of them has been proven to be false.
>That science and religion are incompatible is a myth perpetuated by austists like R. Dawkins and embraced by man-children/teens.
They are not incompatible but the qualities it fosters certainly does not help it dogmatic thinking whether secular or religious will always be hostile to the use of science. To adapt mill here: religious people are not stupid but the most stupid people will always be religious.
How many of you actually believe the stuff you are saying, or only study it out of academic interest.
Reading this conversation has been like reading some history, nonsense, and theology in which I haven't s clue who actually believes what.
When you discuss things like the trinity, all I can think is, to what purpose do you debate myth?
And what is wrong with Protestants? Capitalist bullshit aside, at least they have the mind to know that good deeds are essential to make a good person.
Why no mention of actual god-tier Christians like the quakers who risk life and limb to protect gays? And Jesuit who actually pursue science and knowledge.
>>7908999
>And what is wrong with Protestants? Capitalist bullshit aside, at least they have the mind to know that good deeds are essential to make a good person.
Its kind of funny, because that is literally the opposite of Protestantism which preaches that it is faith alone that is essential for a person being good
>Why no mention of actual god-tier Christians like the quakers who risk life and limb to protect gays?
Firstly just because a group aligns with your view point doesnt make them good or god tier and secondly because the quakers are a very very small and dying sect who probably wont make it past the next 80 years. To put this into perspective there are roughly as many Quakers world wide as there are Mormons in Japan.
>and Jesuit who actually pursue science and knowledge.
Because thats more of a his topic.
>>7909237
I guess I was in error on Protestants, I guess they would respond with "then what did Jesus die for?". They say good deeds are a consequence of, rather than cause of their religion.
I disagree of course.
So what if there are few quakers? And what do you mean to say about Jesuits?
>>7908999
>god-tier Christians like the quakers who risk life and limb to protect gays?
pure ideology
Read the Philokalia and start reciting the Jesus Prayer.
>>7908999
>Why no mention of actual god-tier Christians like the quakers who risk life and limb to protect gays?
Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Enough said.
>>7909237
>To put this into perspective there are roughly as many Quakers world wide as there are Mormons in Japan.
I remembered there being a Quaker school where I live, and after just looking it up it happens to be the biggest Quaker school in the world, which is fucked considering I don't really live in a big or notable place. I never knew how small their sect was.
>>7909286
>So what if there are few quakers?
They are relatively insular by Christian Standards and have almost no presence in the Second and Third World.Combine that with such a weak theology that they might as well not be Christians but just spiritual people and it becomes kinda clear.
>And what do you mean to say about Jesuits?
That their siginifigance is more historical than contempoary
>>7908999
It's not a myth. It's quite real.
I just read this, its pretty on point OP
>>7908999
>How many of you actually believe the stuff you are saying, or only study it out of academic interest.
It's both
>Reading this conversation has been like reading some history, nonsense, and theology in which I haven't s clue who actually believes what.
It's quite clear really. You've seen a few Catholics, one Calvinist or baiter, hard to tell them apart, one orthodox and reasonable protestant.
>When you discuss things like the trinity, all I can think is, to what purpose do you debate myth?
Because it's not a myth?
>And what is wrong with Protestants? Capitalist bullshit aside, at least they have the mind to know that good deeds are essential to make a good person.
Awful theology mostly, focus on JEEEEZUS, lack of aesthetics, heresy and stuff.
>Why no mention of actual god-tier Christians like the quakers who risk life and limb to protect gays?
Gays are literally the most protected group in the western world, it's like saying that they risk life and limb for Bernie Sanders, there's no risk involved.
>And Jesuit who actually pursue science and knowledge.
Jesuits aren't a sect, they are a religious order
Is Anselm good?
>>7909966
Only for interest after reading other more relevant theologians.
>>7909804
>Gays are literally the most protected group in the western world,
For a second there I thought you might actually be half smart....
>>7910057
They have more legal protection than any other group. Both American federal and European equivalent push it on all levels. Any opinion that considers them endangered is sincerely diluted.
>>7910068
Firstly the point you raised was entirely irrelevant to what I was saying. Secondly legal protection hardly makes them the most protected group. That would be Christian white males. Gay people are routinely harrased and assualted, often by Christian white males (some of whom are closeted gays themselves).
>>7910121
This isn't even good bait, straight fucking aussie tier shit
>>7910130
I particularly like how he claims that legal protection doesn't make someone a protected group.
Guys I'll just namedrop Hilaire Belloc here as the best Christian political thinker of the 20th century.
>>7910337
not the other anon, but consider the amount of political power gays wield in contemporary Western world.
You can't even put forward any position that might displease them without being hounded and maligned by people. We've swapped one tyranny for another.
>>7910121
considering how Christians, white people and males are all acceptable targets of sincere hatred and loathing, I would have to believe that a) you are unaware of this indisputable fact, b) you are aware and are being facetious or c) you are quite aware and you actively endorse that kind of attitudes
>>7908398
Thank you for your reply. I still feel like I lack clarity in understanding your point of view.
>The book is no way at odds with what we observe. The book show layers of perception.
There are certainly unique ways of perceiving things, our senses can play us, or we can have a supernatural experience. But what do you mean when you say this? That it is right to imagine sun revolving around the earth, and it's down to how we perceive it?
I think its closer to truth that we live in a heliocentric solar system. Do you disagree? In case you don't, how can you take scripture to be divinely inspired, the word of God?
>>7910357
And who actually gets assualted on the street? The Christian for being Christian, or a gay couple for holding hands.
You are asleep, do some research.
>>7910351
Hardly any if you actually want to do an analysis. Almost no people in Congress or Hugh political positions, very few CEOS and business leaders as well.
Peoppe assualt and harass them in public and on the Web all the time. And these attacks usually come from Christians.
Whereas white male Christians literally make up the majority of Congress, high government levels, business leaders, CEOS, etc.
If you think otherwise you have been deluded by mainstream ideology.
Gay people just recently started to get the right to marry.
>>7910686
since you're so confident, give ME crime statistics that indisputably say gays are massively targeted for crime
political power of public opinion? ever heard of it?
>Peoppe assualt and harass them in public and on the Web all the time. And these attacks usually come from Christians.
[citation needed]
>Gay people just recently started to get the right to marry.
I love this when it comes up as a point because it highlights how gay agenda pushers think
you assume the government, backed by those evil christian whitey is depriving gays of something that they were entitled to when that is exactly the point in contention
>>7910712
It's also strange how they claim that gays only recently got the right to marry, when they've had it just like everyone else since forever basically. The state or church don't ask who you romantically love and do you want to take it up your ass.
>>7910686
A Christian that hasn't been relentlessly attacked by the left to change his views to make them more palatable to the left will inevitably, invariably be shut out of public life, shunned from society and be effectively driven out.
>>7910737
just as a side note, gays had civil partnership rights
it's not like gays were always entitled to marry and the government just up and took it away, marriage has always been both a religious and cultural institution designed to limit hypergamy and promiscuity, for the raising of children and betterment of society.
If you were never entitled to eat half of my ice cream at any point in history to begin with, but now you demand half my ice cream as you believe you are entitled to my ice cream and I am apparently depriving you of the right to my ice cream, we now have a mandate for a debate about a trivial non issue that affects a small fraction of the population.
>>7910712
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/ncavp_2012_hvreport_final.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjV06Pm8obMAhUKk4MKHYYuD5AQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGnPfcg4INU5BQYf99hVYx8NhkjUQ&sig2=ZWWVKu20tjUBL3Tw_0nnew
Can't copy actual url of pdf report on phone. But 5 minutes of legit reseaech will show you.
Of course, that's just America, in other countries you can be legally killed for being gay. And in certain instances it was Quakers who took them in to protect them against violence.
Irrelevant, it proves the point of inequality towards gays, you are unable to think beyond your bias.
>>7910737
That's just a lie, stop lying, it's immoral.
>>7910738
You're delusional. GOP is full of religious fanatics and Americans love them.
>>7910742
This is what actual Christians do, they defend the weak.
http://www.newsweek.com/american-quakers-are-running-underground-railroad-help-lgbt-ugandans-flee-258363
Fake Christians like yourself endlessly debate about your own privilege, whether gays need help or not, while people suffer. You arent followers of Christ, you're simple minded sheep.
To follow Christ entails very specific and serious actions
>sacrifice the self for others
>help the poor
>love other people as you love yourself
If you don't do all that, you aren't a follower of Christ nor a Christian.
Simple as that, everything else is ideology and semantics.
>>7910742
Civil partnership is also recent.
But gay rights and trivial things that go alongside it is just a symptom of a larger problem. The destruction of institution of marriage and the sexual revolution itself are the core.
Also your metaphor doesn't work. It's more similar to asking the state to allow you to touch the sky than it is to asking for something that doesn't belong to you.
>>7910750
How? Which Christian values are upheld by this massively Christian government? Right to live? No. Sanctity of marriage? Nah. Liberty in the classical way? Only for the monopolists and a general movement towards socialism akin to what Belloc and Hayek talk about.
Also are you telling me that males who felt attracted to other males couldn't marry a woman and have a family?
But anyway this is a pointless debate between Christians and retards, I'll stop arguing now.
To the other anon, I recommend Belloc and Hayek as interesting authors who talk about the change in the idea of liberty. They wrote before the sexual revolution and my thesis is that sexual freedom replaced economic freedom as well as freedom of thought and belief, or is moving in that direction. Any recommendations on the subject will be appreciated.
>>7910746
what part of that laughably terrible report is "legit research"?
I hope you're not implying I think gays should be killed, by the way.
>>7910750
victim complex and phony outrage.
>>7910770
>this guy meeting my a priori conditions of actual christian is the actual christian
>>7910783
wrong and wrong. You haven't studied Christianity and you're not a Christian so why are you saying all these kinds of untruths?
>>7910746
their research methodology is so biased, not to mention the data is completely unreliable
then again the actual objective basis of a hate crime is pretty narrow, so I understand why agenda pushers would have to manipulate data
>>7910770
though I will agree that helping gays flee death is a good thing, as helping anyone flee death is
the difference is, america as a whole is so willing, so pro gay that there's no need for me to run underground railroads. gays have parades where they can display all kinds of filth in plain view of the civil public.
>being a christcuck
>>7905067
Ehhhh..It's oversimplifying Chesterton's actual position. While it's technically true, you're not doing Chesterton any services by leaving out the concept of 'myth made real' or, as Tolkien called it, the Sanctified Myth--the idea that in the case of Christ it was the one instance of actual supernatural divine intervention, and what separates it from the pagan world-view was that God Himself came down to man's level to walk among His own creation and ultimately sacrifice his own self to save the world. This is in sharp contrast with the rest of the pagan world, who's gods were capricious, selfish, and ultimately reflections of flawed humans.
>>7910838
>>7910810
>>7910803
>>7910784
Wew lads, you've gone too deep.
There are other studies and statitics which say the same thing. Why do you think gay teenagers have the highest suicide rate?
You've got an anachronistic and outdated worldview fellas, and I'm afraid I can't logic you out, you're gonna have to take a Leap To Faith, and have faith that youve been mad cucked by Christ.
Also, I am a Christian, just a real one.
>>7911112
>Ehhhh..It's oversimplifying Chesterton's actual position.
short 4chan posts tend to oversimply the author's position
but that's fine because nobody takes it for a full and satisfying account of Chesterton's view
>>7908999
>How many of you actually believe the stuff you are saying, or only study it out of academic interest. Reading this conversation has been like reading some history, nonsense, and theology in which I haven't s clue who actually believes what.
I can't answer for other people's posts, but I believe everything I've said.
>When you discuss things like the trinity, all I can think is, to what purpose do you debate myth?
To the same purpose that people have always debated myth. It's particularly telling that you chose to ask about the Trinity—there are few pieces of doctrine more pregnant with meaning than the trinity. Belief in the trinity makes a massive difference to how you see the world and every relationship in it. If you wanted to pick something dry and insignificant, you picked wrong.
>And what is wrong with Protestants? Capitalist bullshit aside, at least they have the mind to know that good deeds are essential to make a good person.
I don't suppose there's any Christian who doesn't believe in doing good deeds. The difference is that the Protestant places particular emphasis on it at the expense of man's other duties.
The problem with Protestants is that they believe in a large number of small heresies which, taken together, make a warped picture of Christianity. Many of them are nice people and, I believe, good Christians. Many of them are even very clever theologians. But their churches spread heresies, which necessarily cuts them (the churches) off from the main body of Christendom.
Also, "capitalist bullshit" probably shouldn't be put to one side when we talk about the mischief resulting from the reformation.
>Why no mention of actual god-tier Christians like the quakers who risk life and limb to protect gays? And Jesuit who actually pursue science and knowledge.
Nobody in their right mind criticizes Quakers for the good things they do. Some Quakers are really wonderful people. But we must criticize what they believe. Nobody who believes in the importance of apostolic succession can fail to see the dangers of Quaker theology.
One of the things that makes Quakers, like Mormons, very agreeable people is that they are a minority. Can you imagine what a society would be like where every person believes he can have a direct experience of Christ without the aid of a clergy? Can you imagine what might happen if you brought enthusiasm into large-scale politics?
>>7911138
This also I didn't say that I personally even understood him, just found him interesting. Not even actually very convincing since I prefer systematic thought in general. He's like a Catholic Nietzsche.
>>7911121
Nah you are just a retard crossposter who obviously doesn't read anything that isn't fed by the lobby.
>>7910810
Hate speech is an interesting legal entity. It used to regulate speech that openly called for violence against a certain group and is now a blanket for fighting ideological enemies since it's so wide it can be applied to calling someone names.
>>7909237
>Its kind of funny, because that is literally the opposite of Protestantism which preaches that it is faith alone that is essential for a person being good
you assume that Protestantism is a coherent and definite theology
there are many Protestants who do emphasize good works, just as there are many that emphasize faith alone.
>>7901540
If this book convinced you then you either really, really wanted to believe or you're retarded. Lewis is a hack.
>>7911228
Lewis isn't read for a coherent theology and superior philosophy, he is read as an introduction. It's a jumping point to other authors if you are interested in intellectual christianity. There's nothing wrong with being converted by him and it's also a spiritually nice book, like most of his. And I'm not even his fan, Chesterton, Belloc, Greene, Newman... He's like the most average brittish christian author.
https://www.reddit.com/r/freephilosphy/
>>7911266
>https://www.reddit.com/r/freephilosphy/
wtf is this shit? Fuckin reddit. Only once (just now to look at this stupid bullshit.
>>7911436
Just look.
