/lit/ - Literature

For the same reason they don’t read much else, most people are not as autistic as us

>>22010754
>>22010760
who do you guys talk to

>>22010754
Why don’t Euro Christians ever read the Bible?

>>22010764
> i understand the word of god directly and you don't, idiot

ok, prot

Just about every big name American apologist uses his 5 Ways or the St. Anselm argument thoughevermorebeitimately

>>22010770

Well America has plenty of options if you prefer trusting some random fat guy who couldn’t even read the original language to explain the Bible to you

>>22010782
>fatshaming
You're no Christian.

>>22010782
> some random fat guy
he was anointed by jesuit decree, retard

>>22010754
I am American and Augustine is my very favorite writer. I am yet to read any Aquinas, but I will.

>>22010782
I call it what it is. I also call trannies, men

>>22010789
Red flag desu

>>22010798
why are you so afraid of the truth anon?

>>22010754
> weird self-help books disguised as works of theology
"moderation is too hard," Augustine

>>22010803
>the truth is an institution which basedjacks over whatever the most powerful ideology but too many decades later so it always seems like a Boomer saying how do you do my fellow kids, I’m what the kids call “hip”

Nah

>>22010754
First, part of it is simply general Americano anti-intellectualism.
Second, Americans place a lot of value on these self help books so it's natural to see them leak over religious matters.
Third, many of them belong to some low church heresies according to which the doctors of the Church are the workers of the antichrist. American pr*ts are really stuck into all those 16th century psyops about the whore-of-Babylon imagery that no one outside anglo-protestantism has taken seriously in a very long while. They openly celebrate the complete lack of philosophical, mystical or merely esthetic value of their theologies as proof of them being more "biblical". In short: Church fathers out, Billy Graham in.

>>22010868
For Euros, it's more like Religion out, Atheism in.

>>22010868
I fail to see the difference; you've both spat, pissed and disregarded hundreds of thousands years of vital lessons from your heritage in favor of idolatry of a foreign cult of slavering genital mutilators who possess no sciences; this is a foolish act in the first place, but through it; as to the evidence of you daily miseries, you have, as consequence, been utterly cursed by your spiritual and genetic lineage to wander bereft of any wisdom in perpetual leprosy of body, soul, intellect and society.

Is the proof of these things not absolutely obvious?

>>22010984
Can't imagine anything more cucked than worshipping a Roman emperor as God. Augustus called himself Salvator Mundi for Pete's sake.

>>22010868
Very good post. Protestants are generally the most anti-intellectual subgroup in Christianity, they are the most likely to fall for Q-tier bullshit and conspicuously false conspiracy theories which is why you see them huckstering the shittiest infographics possible speciously trying to prove their point, but in reality to improve their fee-fees above all else, which is what Protestantism has devolved into over the centuries. There is certainly a theological disagreement over dogma to be had between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but Protestants are like the most irrelevant, jejune sect of Christians. It predominantly boils down to singing, clapping your hands, playing guitar and reading whatever you want into the Bible and regarding yourself as a special snowflake. Any drug-addled nigger or charwoman can become a "pastor" which explains their level of intellectual discourse which is nil most of the time, especially today. If the "pastor" is educated enough to read a book, then they usually turn out to be some kind of psychotherapist because fee-fees above all else, Jesus loves you bro, just believe and give me 50$ dollar fee for consoling you.

>>22011077
The difference between honors derived from actual accomplished deeds, vs. honors made up to make an unaccomplished person seem grander than an accomplished person.

We may compare your cherished Judaism to the Roman Empire to see the envious desire on the part of your lot to ignore, utterly, all real world affairs which you cannot match or exceed; due to your child-minded mentality expressed by your response,
"no u,"

Tell me, christcuck, who do you think the God you imagine would prefer more? Or, which mentality, would that God favor?The one truly open to learning from all creation and intellectually able to learn, or the stubborn foolish mentality no more complicated than a toddler in perpetual denial at being caught being int he wrong whilst possessing no self-control to recognize that it 'ought' admit when it has been caught being in the wrong ... and humility to ask for help and instruction, etc.

>>22011092
>There is certainly a theological disagreement over dogma to be had between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism,
The only disagreement is that once upon a time, during a relative Golden Age under Emperor Alexios, one bishop in the ecumenical council was corrupt and sick-in-the-mind enough to declare himself superior to all other bishops and began to withhold taxes and levies from his liege lord, the Emperor of the Roman Empire.

>Protestants are generally the most anti-intellectual
Six centuries of violent repression occurred due to this ingrained heresy until Men began to recognize, albeit too late to take action to save the Roman Empire, that the Papal claims of authority possessed no legal basis.


but with all that said,
stop worshiping a foreign death cult and get a job.

>>22011132
What makes you think I don't have a job?

>Shun too great a desire for knowledge, for in it there is much fretting and delusion. Intellectuals like to appear learned and to be called wise. Yet there are many things the knowledge of which does little or no good to the soul, and he who concerns himself about other things than those which lead to salvation is very unwise.
The average Christian needs not Aquinas, but to simply live with love of God in his heart.
Books that help guide men towards this are more beneficial than theology is for most.
>Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as willingly as learned and profound ones. We ought not to be swayed by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth. We ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said. Men pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever. God speaks to us in many ways without regard for persons.
I suggest to OP: the Imitation of Christ, for from your writing you project pretentious judgement of your brothers.
>The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy. Do not be proud, therefore, because of your learning or skill. Rather, fear because of the talent given you. If you think you know many things and understand them well enough, realize at the same time that there is much you do not know. Hence, do not affect wisdom, but admit your ignorance. Why prefer yourself to anyone else when many are more learned, more cultured than you?
May these passages incite humility. I pray for you.

>>22010770
I really don't see how there is an argument against reading your Bible.

Even if you're an Uber Catholic, why wouldn't you?

Because both are pseudo philosophical trash, debunked by the Atheist Liar's Paradox:

1. Theism is the only truth
2. By definition, any deviation from theism, no matter how slim, is a lie.
3. All atheists deviate from theism.
4. Therefore, all atheists are liars, and always will be (3).
5. Therefore, it is impossible for an atheist to convert, since they are lying (4).
6. Therefore, there is no such thing as theism, since theists are just atheists who are lying to themselves and others.
7. Therefore, proposition 1 is false.
8. Furthermore, proposition 1 is false if proposition 2 is false.
9. Furthermore, proposition 1 is false if proposition 3 is false. (8)
10. Furthermore, proposition 1 is false if proposition 4 is false. (3)
11. Furthermore, proposition 1 is false if proposition 5 is false. (4)
12. Furthermore, proposition 1 is false if proposition 6 is false. (5)
13. Therefore, proposition 7 is false.

>>22011157
I would think the rough-sleeping in graveyards for dream visions, playing shabbas for georgian conversos and trying to rationalize your religion as not being full of holes would occupy the greater part of your time.

>>22011178
Well, you are wrong on all accounts, but do not mind me, your schizo ramblings are kind of fascinating, please do continue.

>>22011103
Ask the faggot that taught you to write like that for a refund

>>22011189
>I would think the rough-sleeping in graveyards for dream visions, playing shabbas for georgian conversos and trying to rationalize your religion as not being full of holes would occupy the greater part of your time.
>>Well, you are wrong on all accounts,
It's called a 'joke', or a 'satyr' if you prefer; represented in art by a little chap with horns and goats legs who is the embodiment of all evil because he mocks your pretenses.

>>22011198
Ask the same of whoever taught you that being a Good Christian meant to engage in verbal abuse. You're supposed to no longer be an "abuser of yourself with men", or a thief or a liar, when you're following Paul of Tarsus - isn't that the point of your religion?

ha ha ha ha ha ha, hypocrisy

>>22011207
Descriptors are not verbal abuse you little sissy.

>>22011202
>ackchyually
>convoluted train of thought in every single post
Are you an ESL speaker? Your writing and articulation are schizo-tier atrocious.

>>22011077
augustus restored peace to the roman empire after a century of civil wars and political struggle
a much more impressive feat than getting sentenced to death
also the romans never cared for gay metaphysical concepts and revered people for their personal virtue and political sucess
both of which agustus had in abundance

>>22011174
who’s arguing against reading the bible? the argument is against the protestant attitude that the individual can comprehend god on his own without communion with The Church

>>22011213
and from hypocrisy comes vice..

As I said,
>You're supposed to no longer be an "abuser of yourself with men", or a thief or a liar, when you're following Paul of Tarsus - isn't that the point of your religion?
no response

Well then you have no right to talk back to me, christcuck. You could at least exercise one virtue, that of: humility, and beg me to help you stop embarrassing your entire cult by your conduct.

>>22011226
..and from guilt comes verbal accusation..

Now, christcuck, you wouldn't be being a pharisee, woudl you? All I'm doing is explaining to you, as Jesus did, why your jewish literalism has turned you into a barbarian, far removed from anything godly or divine or good, and that you ought repent because you are a viceful heathen. And here you persecute me, just like they did to your own prophet-god. Very ironic.

>>22011536
No response because nothing you say has any worth. I hope you beat your chuuni delusions one day and realize the verbal sewage you spilled here on this day.

>>22010770
Europeans invented the protestantism.

>>22010763
Nobody

>>22011590
>No response
I'm glad you have seen the error of your ways. Next, question how it is that someone who, in your mind, "worships a roman emperor" possesses a superior grasp of virtue and logos than your own teachers.

>>22011611
Mate. You were trying to be smugly condescending about misunderstanding your own quote. Lay off the word-a-days and pick up a real dictionary. I'm getting second-hand embarrassment watching you strut like a crippled duck.

>>22011639
Ah, come now friend, we both know you're engaging in deception because I'm telling the truth and you don't like to hear it. You can't be a serious cultist for yababahoodism-for-goys if you're swearing at me and can't defend your beliefs.

I asked, before you had your little foray into lunacy, what's the difference between catholicism and protestantism? The latter is a more original form of the former (since it resembles autonomous patriarchates) and the former is a blatant heresy (and high treason in its day) according to the founders of the religion.

Since you're probably American (or anyway English language) you must be a fashion-converso to Catholicism, but you should study why it was that Catholicism was overthrown in our countries in the first place if citing the law and original creed of christianity doesn't move you to immediately recant.

Shameless self shill because I have a theory that modern people are so detached from religious experiences that we're incapable of doing anything but LARPing as actual Christians.

https://tookys.substack.com/p/i-have-no-life-and-i-must-larp

Christianity is dead. Especially in western countries. It consists of 45 year old "live laugh love" women who support homosexuals and hillary clinton

>>22011177
It does not follow from prop. 3 that an atheist will always be a liar. Atheism is not an immutable characteristic.
Proposition 6 does not follow. Even if an atheist may not convert, there may still be natural theists.
This is seriously embarrassing.

>>22011177
get of shit
>>2. By definition, any deviation from theism, no matter how slim, is a lie.

Lie supposes that you know the proposition is incorrect, atheist could just not know that they're incorrect

>>4. Therefore, all atheists are liars, and always will be (3).

why would they always be a liar? They could theoretically become thiestic and stop being a liar.
>>5. Therefore, it is impossible for an atheist to convert, since they are lying (4).

Why would this be the case? You're always allowed to convert even if you're a sinner. and the second they decide to convert they are no longer lying and also no longer sinning.

>>6. Therefore, there is no such thing as theism, since theists are just atheists who are lying to themselves and others.

????????????

7. Therefore, proposition 1 is false

wasted you're get on shit

>>22010754
Because I’d rather read Calvin, the Puritans, and Cornelius Van Til instead.

>>22010754
Because protestants and evangelicals are not real christians. Zizek covers this in "The monstrosity of Christ."

In a nutshell, they see Jesus as a brother/prophet/leader. They call him the son of God, in the "we are all God´s children" sort of way.

In contrast, these two believe that Jesus Christ was actually Godl. He is the Son of God as in the second person of the Trinity. He was "begotten not made, consubstantial, etc..."

So, no one cares for their philosophical works because they don´t even believe in the fundamental faith that these two have. You might as well ask why American Christians do not read Islamic philosophers.

>>22013051
...as opposed to Catholics, who hold the correct position that Jesus was a regular guy who beat up priests and came to save the hebrews from the evil of hebrew theology...?

nawwww

Does anyone else feel like the United States and the Catholic Church just can't get along?

I feel like there's an unbreachable divide between the ideas that undergird the United States and Catholic Christianity. The United States and the Catholic Church feel like oil and water. They can't mix. They're incapable of mixing.

I think this explains why American Catholics tend to be so weird and schizo, trying to unite these two identities that fundamentally can't be united.

Basically, I think you can be a good American or you can be a good Catholic, but you can't be both.

>>22013251
>you can be a good American or you can be a good Catholic
What year do you think it is? 1830?

>>22013251
I don't think that's true. Most American Catholics are normies and most American Catholic churches are norvus ordo ones that are very similar to the average protestant service with guitar masses and grandmas giving the homily. Tradcaths are a minority outside of places with lots of Federalist Society lawyers.

>>22013251
Catholics have been in the Anglo parts of the US since the 1630s, not even counting the French and Spanish territories that would be included within it after. Some of the signatories of the declaration of independence were Catholics. Most of the elites then were high church types that didn't feel much animosity for the Church (perhaps in part because they were massive Frenchboos and Italianboos). The truly puritan elements was of course parading with their antichrist pope rhetoric but their influence dwindled over time.
US protestantism went completely insane in the 1830s with the "second awakening" which is where many of the retarded specifically American denominations come from. Catholics were already the largest religious group in the us in the 1840s. From there considerable animosity against Catholics became common among plebs. It was often an ethnic issue of Anglo butthurt against mass influx of Italians, Poles, Germans, Central Europeans, (at the time white) Mexicans, French-canadians and Irishmen. Lutheran Germans also received some hatred.
At this point the old anglo dissenter element in the US has been thinned so much it's hard to identify it with the country, and those that still practice are Israel worshipping evangelicals.

>>22010782
Tsk tsk.

>>22013336
>Most American Catholics are normies and most American Catholic churches are norvus ordo ones that are very similar to the average protestant service with guitar masses and grandmas giving the homily.

They're bad Catholics. You're proving my point. They're all frauds. They probably don't even believe in the Real Presence. They're Fake Catholics.

America generates Fake Catholics.

>>22013251
What are those dividing ideas?

>>22012054
If atheism is a mutable characteristic, it follows logically that so is theism. However, this is proven false by proposition 1. Therefore, you're wrong

>>22013051
>Because protestants and evangelicals are not real christians. Zizek covers this in "The monstrosity of Christ."
>In a nutshell, they see Jesus as a brother/prophet/leader. They call him the son of God, in the "we are all God´s children" sort of way.
What kind of Protestants do they have in Europe? Is this some sort of trick to own the strawmen protestants in his head?

All the protestants here in the third world save for certain Unitarian cults merely do not believe in the doctrine of Papal primacy and petitioning the Saints for intercession.

>>22010763
God

>>22012065
>Lie supposes that you know the proposition is incorrect, atheist could just not know that they're incorrect

"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." - Psalm 14:1

Literally debunked by your own Bible

>>22010770
lol wait so you really don't read the bible?

>>22010754
why don't you stfu?

>>22011639
He ran circles around you to be honest.

>>22013692
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, ilberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That is where the trouble starts. God does not necessarily imbue us with this kind of freedom. America has a view of freedom, of liberty, that is not in accord with what the Church teaches.

The Church teaches that our true freedom may often be found in a restriction on liberty, for the sake of our being made free of sin. But this is not what America teaches.

The United States teaches that every man may make of himself whatever he wants. This is deeply anti-Christian. It runs counter to the idea of God's Providence, and the idea that God has a vision for every soul and for the world at large. It is a kind of Faustian idea, of man being allowed to make his own way, to engineer by his own power, his own destiny. This is not Christian. It is not Catholic. It is not what the Church teaches.

>>22013687
America generates fake everything.
Massive mental retardation is the only genuine American cultural export.

>>22013849
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, ilberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
>That is where the trouble starts. God does not necessarily imbue us with this kind of freedom. America has a view of freedom, of liberty, that is not in accord with what the Church teaches.
That is where the trouble starts, having to deal with a group of persons who don't present cases for anything but point at a god book when pushed to explain why they're selling slaves or no longer selling slaves, or why they are a slave.

Providence is no more than trusting in the Parcae to turn the gas off at the stove; nobody lives like that in reality.

>>22013051
I don’t think this is true. Also, the earliest Christians didn’t actually call Jesus God, but emphasized that the Son obeys the Father who dwells in Him. That’s why we have lines like “you have one God, and one intermediary”. Jesus is the union — the cross — between God and Man. You become like Jesus when you pray like Jesus, accepting Sonship and obeying the Father.

>>22011103
Christianity is separate from Judaism. It was literally taught as an argument against Judaism. The fact that the Christian New Testament is sold with the Jewish torah in front of it is a statement itself.

>>22010918
If you define religion as practicing for the afterlife this chart becomes hilarious.

>>22013251
America is a Protestant Freemasonic argument against Christian Kings. Fundamentally, now that Catholics enshrine freedom of religion by Vatican II, the relative value of America's radical innovation of free speech (blasphemy and heresy) and religion (heresy and otherwise) is set at zero.

>>22011132
>The only difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the Pope
Lol

Isn't it hilarious how the prots like to pretend they left corrupt materialism behind, only to become the most materialistic and vile countries in history?

>>22013734
He never said that.

>>22014254
>the earliest Christians didn’t actually call Jesus God
Ha yes, like the apostle Thomas, one week after the resurrection.
>inb4 the gospel was written in the third century without any tradition, and only things agreeing with my views are in the first Christians

>>22013687
By that standard, the only real Catholics left are older Poles and Maltese, rural people in LatAm, some Pinoys and Vietnamese, and some sub-saharan Africans. I doubt Italians, Germans, French, etc. normie Catholics have stronger faith than the burger ones. They just have a better sense of aesthetics because VII didn't give them the message to adopt low church protestant ones.

>>22014263
>Christianity is separate from Judaism. It was literally taught as an argument against Judaism
Then it's not separate from Judaism, is it; it's a reformation 'within' Judaism (at least as Jesus and Paul acted, to whom they spoke, etc.).

e.g.
If you aren't brainwashed into certain evil beliefs >>22014362 the you don't need to dedicate your life to the correction of those evil beliefs within yourself, as they do not exist.

i.e. Christianity is 'for' Jews and not for (Yous).

>>22014398
>Isn't it hilarious
Well, those six centuries of schism caused by the first 'Pope' created all of those problems in the first place; if the Roman Empire hadn't been stabbed in the back by the Heresiarch and had the West European levies and taxes denied to it, do you think Islam or Mongols (or poverty or plague) would have posed any sort of great threat if a united front with a central command had existed to be able to deal with those challenges?

I'm obviously not a Christian but I recognize the history of the Protestants as an entirely just one. You need to ask seriously, 'if' you claim to be into Christianity (although with the Romans I have no idea why anyone would be), 'which' of the various branches 'most' resemble the original form of the Church. It's always going to be the one which respects national autonomy and does not pretend to be above the ecumenical council and which follows the wishes of its lawful lieges; both the local sovereignty (either monarch or republic) and, if and when it ever returns, the Emperor.

Quite literally this is inarguably true as the form of the church itself is that of the Curate subordinate to the rule of the Emperor and the advise of the elected Senate; the Curate being the economic management division of the Roman Imperium, as separated from the Praetorate; the military branch.

>but I recognize the history of the Protestants as an entirely just one.
and, also, I might add: the stronger proof of the total train wreck of Catholicism during those subsequent five or six centuries. Showing that they were not able to act soberly or rationally on their own (i.e. divorced from the ecumenical council and the Imperium).

>>22013696
You fail to differentiate between the existence of God and the belief in God.

>>22013696
>If atheism is a mutable characteristic, it follows logically that so is theism.
First of all this implication doesn't follow. Second, theism is indeed "mutable". I use it to mean that people can change their mind on the matter, which is the meaning of the word, not playing weirdo semantics. People can change their minds between truth and error (rather than "lie"), and many times over.
The possibility of true apostasy is recognized by Christians, aside form some "once saved always saved" protestoids.

>>22014621
Your argument is so single-mindedly devoted to political history that it becomes essentially blind to the subject at hand.
Equating the Catholic religion to the actions of the Pope is also the most tell-tale sign of someone being raised in a Protestant country, who has basically never questioned the history they've been fed in school. That, or you've poisoned yourself on Anglo-Saxon authors, in which case I feel sorry for you.

Your reasoning fails because it ignores all doctrinal, cultural, and sociological aspects of religion. If it didn't, you'd have long realized that Protestantism was created to be a religion that makes holiness accessible to the merchants and the wealthy. The disaster of a world we live in today, in terms of degeneracy and inhumane exploitation, is a direct result of that.

>>22014721
And you fail to differentiate between faith and knowledge. This isn't a question of agnostic/certain, this is theism/atheism.
So no

>>22014749
>Second, theism is indeed "mutable".
>the absolute only possible truth is mutable

>>22014864
Ah, bona dea fortuna, an actual response to the topic!

Alright,
>Your reasoning fails because
> Protestantism was created to be a religion that makes holiness accessible to the merchants and the wealthy.
Except that is 'not' how "protestantism" came about. I gave a page of the reasoning inTudor England as to the English stance upon this, there was Willam Tyndale burned by Dutch Catholics for the crime of producing an English langauge bible: this is the most important foundation to understand the problem of the Catholic ideology; if it proves baseless legally and spiritually upon a clear reading then it is 'forced' into a position of tyranny and censorship or it falls apart when Men can read the bible. If Men read the bible and find Jesus assaulting priests, conducting meetings in town halls and not churches, in fact even possessing no wish or desire to 'be' priests - then where does first the spiritual (and then second the legal) basis of the papal (and indeed any church) authority come from? What legal basis there was came from the Roman Empire, and as the Papacy severed itself from that on day one of its proclamation then there is no legal basis either.

>Your argument is so single-mindedly devoted to political history that it becomes essentially blind to the subject at hand.
That is called "The Vital Context of Any Matter," knowing it and knowing what the truth of the thing is in reality.

Look, I despise the English conversos the Catholicism but I understand how, looking around, one would go that position to find the strength of Imperium. Only understand the context, first of all, of the usurpation 'of' that claim to Imperium (that is: the heirs and authority of the roman empire) in the first place, and the fatal consequences of what happened after that lie had taken hold in Western Europe.


You are bound to disagree, perhaps, but I thank you for replying to the points that I made.

>>22014864
> a religion that makes holiness accessible to the merchants and the wealthy.
I might also add that the "purchasing of sins" undermines this claim in a massive way; no protestant condoned the sale of indulgences.

>>22015173
>That is called "The Vital Context of Any Matter," knowing it and knowing what the truth of the thing is in reality.
My issue is not that you use political history for context. My issue is your over-reliance on it.
It is a very common bias, sometimes called "Great Men History", where rulers and what has been written about them is taken as the sole source on historical tendencies.

>Except that is 'not' how "protestantism" came about.
Not how, maybe. But most definitely why.
Max Weber in Protestant Ethics touches upon the subject: translations of the Bible under Luther and Melanchthon specifically changed the meaning of some chapters to fit the moral of the emergent class of "bourgeois" (in the sense of people from the Burg, the city).

>>22015241
Indulgences were indeed a corruption of Christian teachings, but they are not a core Catholic doctrine and have been considered a shameful thing by catholics even when they still existed (not even counting how today, they're seen as a very reprehensible thing of the distant past)
Under protestant doctrine, the wealthy do not have to buy indulgences, because they have nothing to atone for. Their wealth is the proof of holiness. Prosperity Gospel has its roots in early protestantism that made work from a punishment of God, to a value to strive for (and wealth in the capitalist sense is the proof of your work)

>>22014905
>And you fail to differentiate between faith and knowledge
Why exactly is this relevant?

>>22010754
To be a Christian basically means to be an ascetic. The fat american consumers wouldn't understand.

>>22015354
Because Christianity is a religious faith, dummy, not a scientific theory

>>22015834
Could you explain why you think it affects the argument?

>>22015265
>translations of the Bible under Luther and Melanchthon specifically changed the meaning of some chapters to fit the moral of the emergent class of "bourgeois"
Ah I see where the narrative is coming from; when, e.g. Tyndale or Luther were censored and witch-hunted for translating the bible accurately by writing Ecclessia rather than Church, the apologism by the Catholics was that this was an ulterior deception to aid the immoral middle class who wanted to be free from moral laws. Of course Catholics would have been told this, it doesn't make it at all true however.

>It is a very common bias, sometimes called "Great Men History",
Well nothing I wrote resembled that at all.

In the same instance I could mention the bias that I'm noticing from your position, where "everything was fine" until "protestantism (which was a clever deception by the merchant class)," which, by the foundation of that position is demonstrably false (everything was not fine); and its attribution to a conspiracy theory by "the bourgeois".

>Under protestant doctrine, the wealthy do not have to buy indulgences, because they have nothing to atone for.
... that absolutely was not the position of protestants lol ... rather, as I said, the recognized that the papacy was a corrupt entity and in no means fit for the role it proclaimed for itself. Case in point: the Catholic French in the same Era marched on Rome to depose the Pope, prior to all of this, when the Pope had encouraged Henry to invade France. The Papal Authority was in ruins prior to protestantism even existing.

Additionally,
We can fast-forward past the Golden Age of the Tudors a little to the English Civil War under Charles II and III to prove that the protestant puritans took an even harder line on atonement than the Catholics had done; as to show that the Catholic claim of "they just want to be immoral" was entirely baseless.

>tfw having one of my bi-annual "i love Jesus and through Jesus i love all fellow Christians and all human beings and all creation" moments even though i'm a terrible christian
alcohol-assisted still counts, God bless everybody today. remember to resist the tendency to be arrogant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSif77IVQdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRvMx8uWaX4

>>22015265
>political history for context. My issue is your over-reliance on it.
To be honest there is no way to get at the truth of a thing. The way I see the church (both western schismatics and the eastern imperial) 'in context' is that it's a civil service branch (curate of the roman empire) which adopted a religion to rationalize why it should go on retaining its monopoly on the civil service whilst, over time, it neglected its vital civil service business and became a religion instead.

It's very much worth pointing out, also, that the curate and military division lingers to this very day: the foederati barbarians (the nobles) became the military and the curate kept hold of 'most' of the land. In England, in the Tudor times, the land held by the church which sent taxes to the Pope (not to support an Imperial military which did not exist) accounted for near 60% to 80% (it is late and i have a headache and cannot remember) the revenues of the entire land.

My point is that the original division of the Roman Empire had kept going all of that time and was long overdue to be shaken off since its purpose had not really existed since five centuries prior during the schism. During that time, also, the papacy which had been taking all of that tax money had not been undertaking imperial construction projects to repair sewers, maintain hospitals, keep a standing fleet and trained professional soldiers to keep the peace, etc., it had done nothing whatsoever with that money - yet it would threaten holy war and excommunication if any one nation refused to pay.

>My issue is not that you use political history for context. My issue is your over-reliance on it.
well that is all there is to construct the reality of a situation, removed from us b time, from the facts we have discovered.

>>22015265
>political history for context. My issue is your over-reliance on it.
To be honest there is no other way to get at the truth of a thing:

The way I see the church (both western schismatics and the eastern imperial) 'in context' is that it's a civil service branch (curate of the roman empire) which adopted a religion to rationalize why it should go on retaining its monopoly on the civil service whilst, over time, it neglected its vital civil service business and became a religion instead.


It's very much worth pointing out, also, that the curate and military division lingers to this very day: the foederati barbarians (the nobles) became the military and the curate kept hold of 'most' of the land. In England, in the Tudor times, the land held by the church which sent taxes to the Pope (not to support an Imperial military which did not exist) accounted for near 60% to 80% (it is late and i have a headache and cannot remember) the revenues of the entire land.

My point is that the original division of the Roman Empire had kept going all of that time and was long overdue to be shaken off since its purpose had not really existed since five centuries prior during the schism. During that time, also, the papacy which had been taking all of that tax money had not been undertaking imperial construction projects to repair sewers, maintain hospitals, keep a standing fleet and trained professional soldiers to keep the peace, etc., it had done nothing whatsoever with that money - yet it would threaten holy war and excommunication if any one nation refused to pay.

>My issue is not that you use political history for context. My issue is your over-reliance on it.
well that is all there is to construct the reality of a situation, removed from us by time, from the facts we have discovered.

Anyway, this was the political and economic reality of the thing, the spiritual, I believe, mattered as much to popes as does the hollow moralisms of megachurch pastors today. It is just a business for them, evidently.

>>22015265
3/3 see: >>22016164 >>22016254
>civil service
I forget to mention to incongruity of a civil service branch tasked with economic management which adopts a non-materialistic religion and yet persists in holding stewardship over land and infrastructure.

>>22010754
Most of those that are "intellectual" enough to read Aquinas are often too afraid of Christianity to touch his work with a 10-foot pole.

>>22010754
I don't read the works of papists.

>>22010754
personally i blame:
1. American Education System. not necessarily for not talking about these guys, but because it doesn't instill in people a desire to search for knowledge for it's own sake or any critical thinking skills.
2. The beginning of the Religious Right. This basically guaranteed that Christianity would be roped into whatever political autism that would happen in the decades to come, which leads to them being concerned less with theology and church history, and more about political/culture war scandal of the week. They like everyone else in this country are living off a mental diet that has the same value to their minds as fast-food has to their bodies.

>>22016164
>Of course Catholics would have been told this, it doesn't make it at all true however.
Catholics aren't told this. Catholics superbly ignore protestants.

>In the same instance I could mention the bias that I'm noticing from your position, where "everything was fine" until "protestantism
I never implied that.

>and its attribution to a conspiracy theory by "the bourgeois".
It is not a conspiracy theory. Ideological and religious tendencies are born from material conditions. The rise of a city-based middle class gave birth to protestantism. There is zero conspiracy involved.

>... that absolutely was not the position of protestants lol
It wasn't, but it became so as early as Calvinism.

>>22010754
I'm an American and a Christian. I have read a significant amount of Augustine. I have read some of Aquinas' more famous pieces, but more secondary sources. I can tell you why most people haven't read these:

1. They aren't assigned in schools and many people don't read much outside of school aside from recent/genre fiction and news/hobby/comedy articles/blogs, maybe some popular science sprinkled in. There is more interest in mysticism than the kind of structured work these guys do.

2. These aren't taught in most schools anymore. More liberal districts stripped out Confessions from the cannon because it is Christian, while more conservative places stripped it out for being "Catholic." At Barnes and Noble here in Kentucky, City of God is in the "Catholic," section, not the Christianity section, and suprisingly to me, having grown up in Massachusetts, people refer to Catholics who becomes Protestant as "becoming Christian," as if Catholics (or Orthodox, who many people don't know exist) weren't the vast majority of Christians historically and even today. Confessions might still show up in world literature anthologies, but it's slowly been recatogorized from "classics," to "early medieval," which gets less attention. This is a hard move to justify, since Augustine writes in a very Roman context.

3. Ancient writing is fairly long winded and stylistically not what people are used to and hard to parse. Also, it's generally available free, meaning people can check them out for free, but then the translations are old and in old English, making it hard for people to make headway. The Summa is huge while we have more of Augustine than any other writer from antiquity, so it is imposing to start. City of God is normally 1,200-1,400 pages.

4. Many Christians only get their Christianity in doses on Sundays. There is a huge trend of people leaving the church in high school or college and only coming back when they start families. I have been to a lot of churches and 16-26 is very hollowed out, while 60+ is the biggest demographic by far. I know Christians who have read very little of even the Bible, with lots of misconceptions, e.g. heaven is a platonic spirit realm where we live on clouds, not the new Earth (Earth made new) where people are resurrected into new bodies. If people aren't reading Genesis and the Gospels, which are very engaging, they are not going to read Aquinas' dry logic chopping or any theology really.

5. Liberal Christians and secular schools have problems teaching old literature because it offends modern morality. This is sad, because Augustine was an incredibly understanding preacher and the back and forth with his partitioners over some moral issues you see in his preaching is filled with compassion and his own admissions of faliure.

Also, you shouldn't look down on people for reading stuff designed for their times, their level of education, and their lives. Augustine himself aims to appeal to all classes of people.

>>22011092
Anon, this does not seem like a pious or loving post. I agree that the modern evangelical church needs changes, so to do most churches, as they fail to become true spiritual communities, but this is q hateful screed.

I am hoping to have more luck with home church.

>>22011177
This is simply bad logic. You could use this same line to justify that knowledge is impossible and all people are liars.

A liar is someone who knowingly states an untruth and further being a liar doesn't entail that one can never say the truth or that one can never stop being a liar.

>>22018170
>we have more of Augustine than any other writer from antiquity
extremely unfortunate... thanks a lot monks

>>22011092
>most likely to fall for Q-tier bullshit and conspicuously false conspiracy theories
I mean... you all think a dead guy is going to come back to life and lead you to paradise... Or rather that he already did and now you just have to agree and amplify his message

>>22018170
>heaven is a platonic spirit realm where we live on clouds, not the new Earth (Earth made new) where people are resurrected into new bodies.
I think you are getting heaven confused with the new heaven/new earth.

>>22018097
>The rise of a city-based middle class gave birth to protestantism.
Except that was just not the sequence of events.

>>22018205
>paradise
There was a film made of this: Guest House Paradisos which explores these very themes.

>>22010868
>Jeff at the community baptist church in Oklahoma is antichrist
Lmao cathocucks are dumb as dogshit

You braindead Pharisees have your heads so scrambled from getting diddled in your bedazzled Babylonian whorehouses called “Catholic Churches” you don’t even know where you are anymore

>aesthetic value!!
Pornographic fetishism

>>22011232
Without gay metaphysical concepts personal virtue and political success are irrelevant. The Romans did believe in transcendence and were a lot LOT more religious than people on here seem to think. Also the highest tier of pagan theologians have always being monotheists in all but name.

>>22018502
It happened in that order.
Look at Protestant countries. They are the most materialistic merchant states in the entire world and have been for centuries. Their values are reflected in their religion.

>>22010918

Is it even atheism? It’s a weird Orphic karmic system that has a veneer of anti Christianity and ‘intellectualism’ but they really believe in virtue and karma and sacrifice and a bunch of confused shit.

It’s all just corporate consumer religion.

>>22018645
Again, this is the Catholics conspiracy theory; the claim that non-catholics just wanted to be immoral, which is entirely disproven by (all the points I made yesterday).

> the most materialistic merchant states in the entire world and have been for centuries
Again, for context, the Italians were entirely in charge of banking in that era; also entirely in charge of naval trade (the Genoese, Venetians, and the Catholics in Portugal - who held the longest merchantile "empire" - lawlessly trading firearms to outside powers, long before the British, also Catholic Spain in the Americas, etc. etc.),
> Their values are reflected in their religion.

It wasn't until 'after' the English and the Dutch got rid of Catholicism that they embarked on the same course, although that wasn't a 'good' thing exactly but they followed the example given them.

See points yesterday which went unaddressed, there's so much proof against this that is self-evident,
re: the condition of the church itself (the absent spiritual and legal basis for it to collect taxes and claim authority)
>>22014621

re: the causes of how "protestantism" occurred in England and Holland : papal authority had been trashed already, massive repression occuring, pope trying to get henry viii to invade france, france wants to depose pope
>>22015173
> I gave a page of the reasoning inTudor England
(see: >>22011132 )
> Willam Tyndale burned by Dutch Catholics for the crime of producing an English langauge bible: this is the most important foundation to understand the problem of the Catholic ideology; if it proves baseless legally and spiritually upon a clear reading then it is 'forced' into a position of tyranny and censorship or it falls apart when Men can read the bible.
>>22016164
> the papacy was a corrupt entity and in no means fit for the role it proclaimed for itself. Case in point: the Catholic French in the same Era marched on Rome to depose the Pope, prior to all of this, when the Pope had encouraged Henry to invade France. The Papal Authority was in ruins
> the protestant puritans took an even harder line on atonement than the Catholics had done (see puritans)
>>22016254
>the original division of the Roman Empire had kept going all of that time and was long overdue to be shaken off
>the papacy which had been taking all of that tax money (for five centuries since the schism) had done nothing whatsoever with that money
>near 60% to 80% (it is late and i have a headache and cannot remember) the revenues of the entire land.
>>22016267


>Their values are reflected in their religion.
I agree with this, and it applies to both protestants and catholics and othodox, 'but' the protestants had at least come to their senses about the machinations of the popes and made their attempt to do better (although how can one do better when the holy book itself is a foreign nonsense written by slavering heathens, i ask).

>>22018697
Anon, I'm not going to continue this discussion because I don't think we can understand each other.
Please note that while you have arguments, you have not actually disproven anything I've said, only proposed another interpretation on the meaning of History.

Your arguments are narrow both in the fields they cover, and in their time frame : you have mentioned very little of what happened after the century in which the Reformation took place.
The fact that Catholics were the merchants of Europe when all of Europe was Catholic, only to be replaced in that role by the Protestant countries when Protestantism started existing is an argument that supports my point, not yours.
You also misrepresent my argument about the birth of protestantism : nothing I've said implies a conspiracy of any kind. I recommend you try to exercise stricter intellectual honesty, because discarding someone's reasoning as "X's conspiracy theory" is not an argument.

You treat Catholicism as a monolithic entity centered on the Pope and papal authority: this is obviously wrong and lacking in subtlety, since Catholicism encompassed many countries of Europe that had varying interpretations. You also act as if Catholicism did not change after the Reformation, seemingly ignoring that the Counter-Reformation took place.

>>22018809
>Please note that while you have arguments, you have not actually disproven anything I've said,
Well, if you're just going to start blatantly lying... (although technically you have made nor refutation nor real case to address) I provided to you the context of the origins of what you call "protestantism" as being lawfully and morally correct against a legally baseless corporation which had fallen into profligacy and deplorable repression for centuries.

You proclaimed that when I took the time to explain this that I was engaging in a "great man bias" which resembled in no way shape or form anything I had said. So you provided no refutation to anything in the first round; proclaiming a non-sequitur, which is just factually wrong.

>You also misrepresent my argument about the birth of protestantism
Yes oyu did, and now you accuse me of what you've done. I've cometo expect this from people with positions this indefnibl,you're forced to resort to lies.

see: earlier point about why the baseless catholic entiy was 'forced' to resort to witch-hunts (against tyndale, luther, all others) because they could not intellectually defend their position as they were in the wrong.

> : nothing I've said implies a conspiracy of any kind.
Yes it does, it's the classical "neo nazi turned neo nazi catholic after watching an e michael jones video," about how the protestants are the jews.

>ou treat Catholicism as a monolithic entity centered on the Pope and papal authority
> since Catholicism encompassed many countries of Europe that had varying interpretations.
Ha, ... seriously..? that is what the schism 'desired', that is what "catholicism" was from that moment on; no longer a part of the imperial church and the pentarchate council, and so a schismatic breakaway state that had departed from "Christendom".

No longer able to lawfully or spiritually claim any connection to the affiars of Christendom prior to that point - of course it claimed all the glory which was not its to claim - and embarked upon near six centuries of violent lunacy, spreading chaos, disease and poverty wherever it went - as to the record of Catholic Western Europe from the years 1054 to 1530.

> subtlety
If a person is so badly in the wrong then the pain it will cause them to be dragged back to the proper position, across a hundred miles of jagged stones, is entirely on them from having wandered off so far from the original founding document in the first place.

> the Reformation
You'll have to be more precise about which 'reformation' you're talking about.

Did it involve the Pope surrendering to Emperor John, handing him five centuries of tax money, and begging forgiveness just prior to 1453? If not, then it doesn't really matter here.

> exercise stricter intellectual honesty,
I agree. The initially mentioned lack of legal basis of the church as the roman curate - when no longer being under authority of the lawful roman emperor (i.e. post schism) already bulldozes Catholicism.

> indefnibl
*indefensible

mea culpa

> about how the protestants are the jews.
orr... rather...

"how only mother church can save us from the jews"
or whatever.

>>22010754
Most are intellectually unable...I'm sure the ones that can, do eventually.

>>22018188
But is theism the truth, yes or no? And what does that mean when you're an atheist?

>>22019000
It means.. sometimes.. that the psychological damage of theism has persisted into the second stage; where the indoctrinated person now believes that "nothing is real" if their religion has been demonstrated to be false. But notice that the behavior of modern atheists is the same as the religious zealot; having been brainwashed into a set of underlying principles which they don't shake off simply by proclaiming "disbelief" in the deity.

>>22018954
Give us a few good points from Aquinas, I'm sure he's got to be better than Augustines maxim "moderation in all things is too difficult for us to manage (for some reason we on't possess the intellectual ability to accomplish this, unlike our ancestors), we must be totally abstinent from all things instead (for some reason i think this is easier),"

>>22010754
Why would I read a bunch of new age theologians when I have the writings of the first second and third century Christians?

>>22010763
Our Lord and twitter oomfies

>>22010763
The Gods Buddhas in by backyard stone shrine by the river and occasionally the anima forces inside objects like my car. Also regular people like my family, coworkers, and professors. They don’t I am secretly training to be a prophet to save humanity and lead it into a new age.

>>22018649
What Orphic? What sacrifice? I think Scientism is a more popular than all this stuff but even more popular is simply hedonism.

>>22010754
Because those two are Catholic and American Evangelicals aren't that. They also don't like reading anything that isn't the KJV because of Sola Scriptura.

>>22010754
Because we're not Catholic. We read Kierkegaard, Barth, and Tillich.

>>22020550
Lmao most American Evangelicals have never even heard of those names. Gtfo

Most of you American Protestants have more common with Anton LaVey's Church of Satan than anything else

>>22011174
Nothing wrong with reading it, but you just have to understand that you aren't a theologian so any controversial opinions you might come up with while reading the Bible probably aren't correct.

>>22010754
>Why don't American Christians read Aquinas or Augustine?
Because they're fucking boring

>>22010754
Augustine was an ex-gnostic who co-founded a semi gnostic institution called the Catholic church that then Aquinas was part of on the future. Why would I care what they thought?

>>22020569
>Anton LaVey's Church of Satan
In a way I agree; LaVey started the church of satan to make a point about people taking things more from their names than from their deeds, being an atheist he was making a joke but people take the name literally. The same thing kind of applies in that protestants are mostly over the jewish fables (see: book of titus) that catholicism was all about, but still nominally being all about jesus they don't realize they shouldn't use the name at all.

>>22013697
Protestants in Europe have gone extinct desu.

I am not saying that they don´t believe in God, they just have a different theology. The writings of Aquinas wouldn´t register with their beliefs.

>>22014254
Unironically, source?

Paul and Peter teach Christs divinity. Perhaps, a different view of the Trinity existed, hence the difference between Orthodox and Catholic interpretations. But the apostles taught that Jesus is God.

>>22014254
>Before Abraham was, I AM

>>22021084
interestingly enough, the things anon describes fit alongside Christ's divinity.
Christ is God incarnate, so that we may follow His example and become sons of God.
we're supposed to become Christ-like.

reiterating, everything in there makes sense, but Jesus Christ is God.
several passages go about prophesizing about it, or saying just that, along with basically the entirety of the Gospel of John.