/lit/ - Literature

1. No.
2. No answer allowed because not Christian.
3. Smugness disguised as friendliness.

3. Not joining a group like UU, but stubbornly sticking to tradition.

If Jesus were born today, would he restrict himself to just reforming the religion he was born into?

Then why are you still clinging to yours?

>>4651156
>1.
Yes
>2.what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible?
Still looking for an answer to that, but simply reading and reading across different translations is enough. Like with anything, read with a purpose, so if it's allegorical, try to read into the context and compare. If it's historical, look up references and chronology etc. It's like 3000 pages, with thousands of years of history, there has to be someone who thought any question you will ever have before.
>how does one still apply it to their life while being conscious of this fact?
What does this mean? If you're assuming living by literal interpretation, that's all on the person and the verse itself. The Bible is well known for being open to interpretation, which is why its important to read up on the author and how the book in question fits in with the Bible.
>3. is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
>more than any other religion
No.

I'm inclined to believe this was a lame troll attempt because of choosing to say "religion", as opposed to mindset.

1. Yes.
2. Ask a question, look for answers.
3. *tips fedora* and shitty related memes.

>>4651156
>1.
Culturally, yes, willingly, no. I was raised with protestant values, trapped with the unescapable idea that there might in fact be an evil master of the universe watching our suffering with either cold indifference or outright malice. I am unable to banish this absurdity from my mind because of Christianity's unnerving zeal and longgevity. For me, this concept is synonymous with insanity. I wish I could believe with all my heart and soul that there is no god but the idea will dog me till my dying day.
>2
The King James Bible is the only true bible. The version sounds the way a bible should, dogmatic, aloof, archaic. All other bibles are attempts to sugarcoat the bitterest pill in existence. It is the gibbering of a terrified barbarian sand tribe and a few dirty insane recluses elevated to the way they must have sounded in their own minds.

>3
a) The whole "God is love", ecunemical/humanist/liberal movement. These people are like snakes in the grass, hypocrites, I hate them. They are concealing their beliefs for the purpose of social assimilation in order to press them stealthily. They will claim that the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally when you show them an unfashionable verse (KILL. ALL. FEGGETS. for example.). They are so attached to their delusion and it's comfort they will lie for it. I much prefer the company of radical fundamentalists for entertainment, they will stick up for their beliefs regardless of how unfashionable they may be. Unlike the liberal christians, they are true to their word. If you are going to be insane, be insane with all your heart.

b) Also, Christians are often old, poor, or some weird ethnicity, which comes with a whole other set of annoying characteristics.

c) The new ugly modernist churches.

d) Being opposed to abortion and also their general practice of obstructing women's access to a safe, easy, free abortion. Make no mistake, I am buy no means a feminist, but when ever some asshole tries to get in the way of one of our most important means of population reduction, I go haywire. I would take up armed struggle against them if need be.

>>4651156
1. Was raised an Anglican but upbringing was very secular overall. Usually switching between agnosticism and liberal Christianity these days, depending on how strong my fear of hell is.

2. Haven't read the whole thing, not by a stretch. I'm acquainted with the better knownn NT quotes and stories, but I gave up after the first few pages of Genesis. Bible study isn't something I've really looked into. I'm not sure if the Bible can afford to lend itself to different interpretations and selective application of its teachings or is strictly to be taken on with a 'take it or leave it' approach so I don't know.

3. I find Catholics to be quite arrogant and their storybook worldview irritating, but much better company than Southern Baptist/Protestant 'if you don't believe in Jesus...' types, as well as those who think a lot of the fucked up shit happening in the world is the work of the Devil + other nonsense and make it their duty to be as verbal as possible. Hardly exclusive to Christianity, though.

>1. Do you consider Christian in any shape or form?
I am
>2. If you are, what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible?
Critical study of both historical context and modern interpretation.
>3. Whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
I live in the South. Telling anyone you don't believe in a literal inerrant Bible, 6k year old earth, not the only holy work, and a disbelief in hell, you're taking your life into your own hands.

1) No
2) ...
3) No

Fascinating responses, I know.

>>4651621
10/10 bait or bitter edgy child who had to go to Sunday school and blames Daddy for not dating younger. Guaranteed to be New Yorker or anywhere northeast.

Either way guaranteed replies

1. No
2. Cant answer
3. The only valid answer to this is no, since in this world there exists suicide bombers.

>>4651716
>The only valid answer to this is no, since in this world there exists suicide bombers.

I think you misunderstood the question.

1) No
2) N/A
3) le epick fedora maymay

>>4651720
>3. Whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
>irritates you more than any other religion

bible toting fundamentalist morons do not irritate me more than semi-retarded people who fit themselves with bombs, walk into crowds of other people and then detonate those bombs in the belief that this will grant them some special plane in some special afterlife by their special god. In fact I don't think anything in the whole wide scope of cosmic reality would irritate me more than that

1. I'm not sure. I've been doing some reading into Christian theology and history and it shattered my smug atheist beliefs about every Christian being crazy and weird. I'm planning to study the New Testament more deeply and make up my own mind. I find the central messages of Jesus very appealing (God is love, kindness to the downtrodden is kindness to God etc.) but struggle heavily with the concept of suffering in the after-life because of reasonable skepticism.

3. Assuming that people who doubt religious beliefs reject God, or have some hatred in their heart, and things like that. It sounds incredibly smug and arrogant to hear "I hope you open your heart to Jesus :)" and other catchphrases. Even if I were to become religious, simply being skeptical about miracles and the historical accuracy of these things sounds totally reasonable.

Suicide bombers are just so irritating aren't they?

>>4651735
You are an emotionally stunted man

>>4651735
>>4651743
Lel'd
Nothing ruins my day more than a suicide bomber blowing me up

They don't even let me defend my beliefs

>>4651747
I'm unsure what you mean by "emotionally stunted" in this context. Care to elaborate? English is not my native language.

>>4651508
>3. Smugness disguised as friendliness.
The rest of that, but mostly this and all the proselytization.

>>4651735
>In fact I don't think anything in the whole wide scope of cosmic reality would irritate me more than that

That's not the question, retard.

The question is "is there a habit that seems almost unique to followers of the Christian faith or which Christians do more often than other faiths that gets on your nerves, whatever things that bother you about other faiths notwithstanding" not "why do you hate Christians more than any other religion."

1. Yes.
2. I don't "approach the bible", I have a relationship with God that's more personal than whatever's in all these books.
3. What? I guess....getting eaten by lions, that really annoys me. That last one was silly.

>>4651156

>1
I was raised Lutheran, deviated from it a few years back but I wouldn't consider myself an atheist, maybe more of an agnostic
>2
I guess the Lutheran background kind of influences how I viewed the Bible for so long, as in the Old Testament being a set of rules that humans will inevitably never be able to follow, and therefore requiring Jesus' sacrifice to allow us back into God's graces. I think it's an interesting interpretation, but as someone who doubts an afterlife it doesn't really fly with me anymore. Now days I view the Bible as possibly the most influential piece of literature because of all the archetypes it contains and it's inescapable influence on Western art/thought.
>3
I honestly think that many Christians go to church because it's socially expected of them rather than because they believe the faith. My family is from the Midwest where Protestants are very abundant, yet many of the churches I've been to have been filled with people with no friendliness or enthusiasm. They just do it because they have their whole life, and they've never given it any thought.

1. Not a Christian, though I was heavily exposed to Christian theology and such growing up. I never attended Church or was baptized or any of that, but my mother was pretty insistent about teaching me biblical stories as a little kid, so I grew up reading picture book versions of Noah and the arc, Jonah in the whale, David and Goliath, etc. To me they weren't any different from the stories about dragons and wizards I loved because I never had any religious context for them until much later.

2. Bible is a pretty valuable historical document. I approach it as a scholar, looking at how it was written and keeping in mind translation and editorial decisions made in its assembly. I've never seen it as a moral authority in my life, though its impact on the morals I've acquired via cultural osmosis is undeniable. I should probably read more of it than I have, but truth is I find it pretty tedious.

3. I used to be really bothered by Christians as a teenager, but that was admittedly my militant atheist faze and I was a pretty horrible faggot back then. Christians don't especially bother me these days, I've actually come to appreciate Christians a lot in recent years. I generally dislike hardcore religious people regardless of what faith they belong to, it's just not a mindset I can relate to very well. The more relaxed a person is about their religion, the better I get along with them.

>>4651790
>yet many of the churches I've been to have been filled with people with no friendliness or enthusiasm.
This is an issue that draws me away from any religious community and religion in general. The sense of community is lost or meaningless in the modern world and when it does exist, it's a group of people I don't want to be a part of for one reason or another. Petty waving of status masked by false sincerity.

>>4651777
The part you're commenting on was not my response to the question, it was a response to someone saying I misunderstood the question, which I didn't. My response to the question(which was if there was anything in particular about followers of christianity that irritated meMORE THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION) is that no, there is nothing about followers of the christian faith which irritates me MORE THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION. Cuz suicide bombers etc.

>>4651584
>I'm inclined to believe this was a lame troll attempt because of choosing to say "religion", as opposed to mindset.

You seem easily offended and slightly paranoid. Perhaps you shouldn't be posting on 4chan, hmm?

>>4651793

>I used to be really bothered by Christians as a teenager, but that was admittedly my militant atheist faze and I was a pretty horrible faggot back then. Christians don't especially bother me these days, I've actually come to appreciate Christians a lot in recent years. I generally dislike hardcore religious people regardless of what faith they belong to, it's just not a mindset I can relate to very well. The more relaxed a person is about their religion, the better I get along with them.

It's funny cause I never went through a militant atheist/non-Christian phase, but lately I've been getting more frustrated with Christians and Christianity in general. But I think that has more to do with the politics of the religion in America: no-fun fundamentalists, "liberal Christianity," things like that. Christianity also lacks a real political philosophy because culturally it's so otherworldly focused. If anything, it's been used to keep people from rebelling against otherwise oppressive political establishments. Of course, that's not really true for everyone who considers themselves Christian, but I'm just speaking generally based on American experiences.

>>4651830
Yeah man it really is a bummer, especially with Christianity. I mean if you're going to use Christ's namesake as your religion and not follow his teachings then there's no point. It's just a status quo thing for these people, just one more thing to gossip about.

>>4651747
>considering suicide bombers a nuisance
>emotionally stunted

>>4651855

But the question wasn't whether there was something that bothered you more about Islam than Christianity. The question was what about Christianity bothers in particular that doesn't bother you about other religions, even if you hate all religions.

1. Yes
2. I do believe the Bible is inerrant, but I'm not sure if you're asking exactly what I think you're asking. In any case, the best way is to read and pray as a believer and under Father's guidance.
3. Not "more than any other religion", but in things that are relevant to Christians and my knowledge that Christianity is the truth - not taking God or their faith seriously, being lukewarm, purposely contradicting the Bible in order to adhere to their own church dogmas rather than absolute truth, becoming so close to one church dogma that you legitimately believe that anybody who isn't your specific denomination isn't saved, (or believing that certain denominations are from Satan), etc.

A lot of the issues that I have with other Christians basically boil down to talking the talk and not walking the walk. I'm not angry at them, but it's something that should change and needs to change.

>>4651871
Not that most have the ability to make any interpretation of it, but at least when they do, they aren't doing it in a vacuum. My neighbor is his own preacher and theologian and the results are pants on head retarded. I like to complain about the subjugation of the Palestinian nation as legitimate state and all the fighting 'divine right' has caused. Nothing is worse than when someones stance comes from their ass.

>>4651739

You don't suffer in the afterlife because of "reasonable skepticism", you suffer because you sin and that separates you from God. Christ's sacrifice overcomes that separation.

>>4651868
Not offended, it just seemed obvious at the time.

Why would anyone ask specifically if Christians do anything more irritating than others, if not already implying that they are?

That's the sort of the thing that discredits surveys, because you're leading the takers to an answer. Now if it was asked if there was any particular mindset that is irritating in religion, that's much more broad and neutral. That opens the door for even orthodox and denominations to pick at each other.

>Perhaps you shouldn't be posting on 4chan, hmm?
That is offensive, perhaps you should contribute or waste your time on some other low brow site with those of your kind, hmm?

1. I am still a Calvinist in the sense that I am mindful of the moral worthlessness of man and his total impotence in the face of death, one and all. I am not still a Calvinist in that I do not have faith in any nonhuman power to save from that moral worthlessness or total impotence. You could say I lack the perseverance of the saints.
2. The Bible is a book. To say that it can be applied to one's life is a category error. You probably mean to ask what about the teachings contained in it - well, what about them? They're not a coherent book of instruction telling you what to do, they are teachings. Learn from them. The Bible is to be studied, evaluated. When it tells you to do something, consider what it is really telling you to do and why. That's all the Bible can do. It is not a book of magic, but a very remarkable book, and mistaking it for the former leads to missing out on the latter.
3. Claiming they are of the religion of Christ and the kingdom of heaven when they are of the religion of capital and the kingdom of America.

>>4651913
>Why would anyone ask specifically if Christians do anything more irritating than others, if not already implying that they are?

OP here, the third question wasn't if Christians annoy you more than any other religion, notice it was directed at both Christians and non-Christians alike, but rather it was if there's a cultural or religious habit Christians seem to have, in your view, which other religions don't seem to do as often but which you find especially irritating. Acknowledging that "yes, Christians do this more often and it's annoying cause at least the other religions don't do it as often," doesn't mean you're trying to say that Christians, because of that habit, are worse than suicide bombers. If my wording didn't convey that, then I apologize, but right now you're starting to sound paranoid.

>>4651739

Christianity (defined solely as the teachings of Jesus) has no mention of hell, nor does Judaism when literally interpreted. All mentions of "hell" in Jesus' teachings were caused by (usually intentional) liberal translations.

>>4651988

Christ specifically sets out a doctrine of eternal punishment in Matthew 25, immediately after establishing that the unrighteous will be eternally separated from God, and that the place of separation will be miserable.

1. My dad's a militant atheist and raised me in the same way. Over time my beliefs have mellowed out a lot - I'm still atheist, but much more accepting of and interested in religion
2. Never read any of it.
3. Most Christians I know never really talk about their religion, so there's no real religious-based things which annoy me.

>>4651156
1. My mother didnt even allow me read the Bible because she fears fanaticism(she grew up in the communist elite) of any kind, but the family did do all the casual church going on big holidays on the Eastern Orthodox calendar. I also wasnt baptized, so that I could easily marry a woman of a non Orthodox faith.
2. I still havent read the bible fully, but know the general stories and quotes. I have never in my younger years been an atheist, but never did think about what is God. Ive gradually came to like christianity and have read teology.
3. The native type of christianity of a country is the least comfy one, so I find slavs in slav countries to be the shitiest christians, but slavs in non-slav countries to have wonderful christian communities. That why I am now a practicing catholic and I consider both dominions part of the same.

>>4651156
1. No
2. n/a
Though I would say that only reading the bits about Jesus would be the best way to go. The rest kind of shits on itself.
3. Euphoric fedora intensifies... -.-

>>4651998
Never does he claim there to be an afterlife consisting of punishment for those who don't live up to Christian criteria. The passage you mentioned only establishes freedom from existential suffering through adhering to his teachings.

>>4651908
>not believing Jesus is the son of God is unreasonable skepticism

>>4652039

He really does, it's the sheep-and-goats bit. A little ways before that is the parable of the servant who behaves badly while the master is away and therefore gets cut into pieces and thrown into the darkness. If you mean that behaving badly isn't the same thing as being a skeptic, I would point you in the direction of the parable of the talents which immediately precedes the story of the judgment of the nations: if you do not trust the master, even if you are right not to trust him, the master does not reward you but punishes you instead. Christ doesn't teach about afterlife in the modern sense, but he does teach about existence after the judgment of God, and he does NOT teach that there will be no punishment for those who end up on the wrong side of the judgment.

>>4652058
I'm guessing the main basis for your argument is Matthew 25:46 (Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. [NIV]). This misinterpretation is due to poor translation. "eternal" was originally "aionios" which is more aptly translated as "age-lasting". "punishment" was "kolasis" which is closer to "correction".

>>4651156
>1. Do you consider Christian in any shape or form?

wut

>>4652089

Matthew 24 and 25, and Luke 16's parable of Lazarus and the rich man, are not reconcilable with a view of Christ which holds that he taught the non-existence of punishment of the unrighteous dead. That you would rather refer to this punishment euphemistically is immaterial; I'm well aware that this particular passage is frequently interpreted to make a doctrine that, on the face of it, appears to be apologia for endless and divinely approved torment more palatable to modern sensibilities. Don't we call our jails "correctional facilities", as well? But it doesn't change the fact that they are places of terrible suffering and misery - as Christ well knew. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth", he says. It is not unreasonable to be skeptical of a god who does such things and claims that it is all for the best - unless you argue from the basis that any skepticism of god is unreasonable, which is a far more defensible point of view but is unlikely to win over the mind of the modern secularist.

>Following anglicanism, protestantism or any other heathen belief

1. No
2. -
3. That stupid euphoric/fedora meme that Christians or, more often, atheists desperately seeking approval from each other use to silence any debate about religion that isn't going their way.

1. Yes
2. The Gospel of Thomas, predominantly. Take The New Testament with a pinch of salt as it has been edited over the centuries-- but there is still good stuff to be found in there, if you ignore Paul.

3. Thinking that social norms can "make the Bible outdated."

>>4652262

>ignore Paul

I'm curious, do you just think that Paul's teachings should not be obeyed? Because to ignore Paul robs you of the single most importance resource in the real purpose of the Bible as I see it - that is, understanding why this book has caused all the things it has caused.

>>4652269
Oh yeah, of course there are loads of valid historical, social and cultural reasons to make a study of Paul. I only meant that I don't take any religious or ethical instruction from them.

>>4651508
>>4651775
you two are retarded, what youre saying can literally be applied to ANY group on planet earth of which you are not a part of

>>4652171
Unless you were one of Jesus' disciples, you're not a true Christian.

>>4652262
>learning how to cook pork properly is a social norm.

1. No.
2. -
3. Yes. The hypocrisy and how fucked up their priorities are. They keep tabs on the good and bad deeds they do, and this shapes their behavior subconsciously. They have this thought at the back of their minds that "Even if I knowingkly exploit all these people and cause them harm, I can still go to Heaven because I'm good to my family and contribute to my church". This is how the rich and powerful Christians of the World have been fucking everyone in the ass for centuries.

>>4652278
Read the OP, it bothers them more than other religions. Nobody's saying it's exclusive to anybody.

>>4652306
>for centuries
with a clear conscience, I mean.

I was raised a Catholic and went to a Catholic school until I graduated, btw.
The strictness, the meanness, the smugness, the hipocrisy of almost every person I knew at that school, the history of Catholism itself, is what killed it for me for life. Among other things (like, this will sound cliche, the reading of The Stranger) of course.

1. Not really. I'm starting a cult that incorporates elements of Christian mythology but it's specifically meant to be a heretical and conflictual interpretation, so I think calling it genuinely Christian would be a stretch. Then again I might go with something more similar to the Zwickau prophets.

2. Approach it as you would literally any other piece of philosophy, history, and mythology.

3. They somehow manage to use their religion to back up liberal-democratic capitalism.

>1. Do you consider Christian in any shape or form?
No.

>2. If you are, what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible? If for example, you accept that the Bible isn't inerrant, how does one still apply it to their life while being conscious of this fact?

Not Christian.

>3. Whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?

Smug behaviour as if they are morally superior to you. In reality they do good things only because of the reward.

As for the Christians on /lit/: It's annoying how a lot of people here on /lit/ seems to think they are philosophical geniuses because they believe in a god and manage to rationalize it, so they act as if anyone with contrary opinions are just edgy teenagers with no real understand of religion, or even worse, they'll say shit like, "you don't understand theology" with the implied "... like I do." This tendency in /lit/ is remarkably annoying and it's probably a result of the fact that there are so many contrarians here who now recognise that atheism is on the rise, so it's time to start tipping bibles instead of fedoras.

>>4652344
>The strictness, the meanness, the smugness, the hipocrisy of almost every person I knew at that school, the history of Catholism itself, is what killed it for me for life. Among other things (like, this will sound cliche, the reading of The Stranger) of course.

kek

What are some other belief systems with a loving monotheistic god? Ideally in a neo-platonic sort of way. I like the conceptions of God in Christianity but dislike the jewishness.

>>4653036

Define loving

Americans have a habit these days of thinking that just because God loves you, he shouldn't whoop the shit out of you if you fuck up.

>>4653036

Christianity isn't Jewish. The Jews were the cradle of the messiah, chosen due to the faithfulness of Abraham to be the race that would speak of God and preserve themselves in Him until Jesus was born. Jesus wouldn't have fared so well in other cultures. That's where the Jew part ends. They were essentially the faithful mules of that period.

>>4653049
Loving in a universal way. Not "you're literally hitler so you'll suffer eternally". Anything we can do as mortals shouldn't have to matter.

>>4653076

Sounds like a god in name only.

>>4653051
What I meant by jewishness is the conception of God that is obsessively concerned with what humans do. Our culture is ruined? God wasn't happy. We were exiled? Well shit, God wasn't happy.

1. Not sure, being raised pretty Catholic means I actually do want to believe, but I do have doubts
2. I approach it like a story based on relatively true events, with morals to be taught.
3. I hate the people who just go to Church for appearances. It really is an important place for many people, and just going to talk to your neighbors afterwords and because you "believe" is kinda shitty.

>>4653088
It's because the Christian God is a loving, personal God. It's like your parents, if you've grown up with good parents. They worry about you and bug you all the time, but only because they love you.

>>4653093
I still can't accept that kind of deity, though. One that actually polices my own thoughts and restrains my happiness. It is so obviously invented as a more effective way of lawmaking. I'd much more prefer a God that isn't concerned with what we do in our life and punishes us for it.

>>4653106
Why?

Don't you want to be loved, even obnoxiously loved? Isn't the Christian God, as explained by Jesus and filtered through Augustine and Aquinas, the sort of God that would be the best to actually exist? Wouldn't it warm your heart, just a little, to know that omniscience and omnipotence had special interest in you, just you?

>>4653720
Not at all.

I would much rather something liken that actually take the time to fix this world's problems. I have childhood friends and family for everything else.

I want knowledge, and I want to see this world mended. Everything else is irrelevant.

>>4653089
>I hate the people who just go to Church for appearances.

So did Jesus.

5"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 7"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.…
--Matthew 6

>>4651156
>1. Do you consider Christian in any shape or form?
No
>2. If you are, what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible? If for example, you accept that the Bible isn't inerrant, how does one still apply it to their life while being conscious of this fact?
N/A
>3. Whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
They have been more influenced by capitalism and privilege than any other religion right now

>>4651156
>1. Do you consider Christian in any shape or form?
In a very heterodox/unorthodox sense, sure.
>2. If you are, what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible?
From the perspective of its writers, naturally with the aid of what scholars and scholarship can tell us about this. From there, take what's useful and leave behind what's not.
>3. is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
Propagating capitalism and imperialism when there's no room for such a heresy.

1. Yes, as a way of stimulating collective consciousness
2. You don't approach the bible
3. Caring about the religion itself

>>4653734
So you want a God that takes away free will? That deprives humanity of the capacity to err?

But of course you don't want that, you just want a God who's active in human society.

To which I say: pay more attention. Try listening to the details of the circumstances of people's lives, both great and small. You'd be surprised the extent to which a seemingly inscrutable order rules so much of daily life.

>>4653841
Free Will is a myth, people are irrevocably bound by their circumstances and their character (which is a product of their circumstances). Every individual is simply acting out their character in accordance with the hand they are dealt, they are no more responsible for their actions than rain is for falling.

>What alone can our teaching be? – That no one gives a man his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself (the latter absurd idea here put aside has been taught as "intelligible freedom" by Kant, perhaps also by Plato). No one is responsible for existing at all, for being formed so and so, for being placed under those circumstances and in this environment. His own destiny cannot be disentangled from the destiny of all else in past and future. He is not the result of a special purpose, a will, or an aim, the attempt is not here made to reach an "ideal of man," an "ideal of happiness," or an "ideal of morality;" – it is absurd to try to shunt off man's nature towards some goal. We have invented the notion of a "goal:" in reality a goal is lacking . . . We are necessary, we are part of destiny, we belong to the whole, we exist in the whole,–there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, and condemn the whole . . . But there is nothing outside the whole! – This only is the grand emancipation: that no one be made responsible any longer, that the mode of being be not traced back to a causa prima, that the world be not regarded as a unity, either as sensorium or as "spirit;" – it is only thereby that the innocence of becoming is again restored . . . The concept of "God" has hitherto been the greatest objection to existence . . . We deny God, we deny responsibility by denying God: it is only thereby that we save the world

-Nietzsche

Furthermore, the religious notion of Free Will is a joke, you think people have any semblance of choice when an omniscient deity knows the outcome of their actions regardless? An illusion at best, and a farce at that.

1. I am a born again Christian.
2. The best way to read the Bible is to read it literally with no outside, fallible human influences. The Bible is a perfect piece of literature if read literal
3. The thing that irritates me the most are "fake Christians". They go to church Sunday mornings, but that's it. No reading the Bible, no praying, no helping others, and continue living sinful lives without feeling one bit bad about it.

>>4653876
I disagree. I think there are moments where we can act utterly, totally contrary to everything that makes us up, and it is upon those moments that our whole life turns.

Also, Nietzsche has no proof that his views are any more right than Christianity's. And Christianity has no proof that its views are any more right than Nietzsche's. So in the end neither of them is right in an objective sense. But Christianity doesn't ask for its truths to be taken on proof.

1. Do you consider Christian in any shape or form?
Yes; he's a fine fellow, madam. One of our finest cadets.

2. If you are, what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible? If for example, you accept that the Bible isn't inerrant, how does one still apply it to their life while being conscious of this fact?
With their feet on the ground and employing their coordination so as to walk in the proper direction. They can use it for any number of purposes, consciously applied within their lives, including but not limited to:
- a leaflet of paper suitable for wiping one's own extremities, or to build a thin wall to keep the nosy out
- kindling enough to start a fire, and thin enough to roll a smoke with, many knows
- excellent papier-mache constructions, just a nose ahead of the competition's efforts
- materials to fold a paper rose, albeit lacking in the perfume which might encourage the object of one's affection to press their nose to it
- folding paper hats
And of course, the list goes on.

3. Whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
I find them oftentimes with a crippling lack of panache. Most seem content to imagine themselves the corpse on the cruciform, when the truly gallant are the silence before Pilate. Yes; they lack panache.

>>4651156
>get banned for making atheist thread
>Christian threads go unbanned
>yfw Christians report and shitpost every atheist thread and atheists don't do the opposite

Biased mods plz. Why don't Christians pray for the atheists to leave?

>>4653934

You think Nietzsche considers his philosophy to be "proven"? lol

>>4653956
Then why do YOU quote it as if it holds authority?

>>4653934
> I think there are moments where we can act utterly, totally contrary to everything that makes us up, and it is upon those moments that our whole life turns.

And can you explain the machinations of any such actions? Can you explain how any one individual can transcend his character, without resorting to some nonsensical divine nature?

The moments you describe are so absurdly rare that its not unreasonable to conclude that whatever action taken was in line with some repressed part of that individuals character, brought about by the extraordinary circumstances that would be required to cause such a sudden change of heart.

You can disagree, whatever, I think Schopenhauer makes a far better case for the non-existence of Free Will than any Theologian ever has for it.

>>4653934
Christianity is logically inconsistent

>>4653959

Because I prefer it to dumb bullshit spouted by those who deny the obvious and expect me to have faith in their words.

>>4653959
You can't prove Nietzschean philosophy because it deals in morality and linguistics.

On the other hand, you could prove the remarks about leprosy in Numbers is false with modern scientific advances.

Christianity = dogma

>>4653960
The machinations? I can't, I can't divine the depths of the human soul. And that's really what this is all about. We're talking past each other, and we're doomed to do so. I assume there is an element to the human experience that you do not assume.

So these threads are pointless. Useful to both of us, in different ways, but ultimately pointless.

>>4653964
Example?

>>4653985
All of genesis, the concept of hell VS omnipotence. Inb4/"The parts I don't like are mataphors but Jesus definitely realz" and "Well maybe god's a fucking douchebag but he's a righteous fucking douchebag cause muh preacher-man, he say"

>>4654000
No one in Hell doesn't want to be there.

>>4654000
Don't see what's illogical about Genesis. There's so much evidence out there for a 6,000 year old earth. Everything supporting an earth billions of years old is extremely fallible and inconsistent.

>hell vs omnipotence
Are you asking why a perfect, loving God would allow us to go to hell? God creates us so that we could experience His gift of love. But love is a choice so we have to make one. If we choose to love Him we go to heaven. If we don't, we go to hell. Because God will not allow anyone with sin in their heart into heaven.

>God is a doucebag
Once again, example?

I feel as if the same arguments are had on here for Christianity every day

>>4654048

Every repost is a repost of a repost.

>>4654048
Most arguments for Christianity depend on faith and revelation to reinforce them. Which, admittedly, is the whole point.

>>4654062
Faith and revelation. The point of which is to have faith and revelation.

Where's the part where I help other people? Do I need Christianity for that?

>>4654105
Do you NEED it?

Yes and no. Anyone who loves his/her neighbor as him/herself has a bit of the Christian in him. So you don't need to go to Church every Sunday to help other people.

But, in a sense, other people are a Church. They are both priest and congregation. You are served by them as they bear witness to your behavior, and you serve them as you interact with them.

This is going to sound like a sneaky attempt to turn the No True Scotsman fallacy on its head, but all I can tell you is what I believe. Jesus Christ is God, and his word is divine. And Jesus Christ said, "The greatest commandment is this: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul. The second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and all the prophets are dependent on these."

And everyone's different. So everyone has different ways and means by which they love. But IF you love, perhaps you are a Christian, whether you know it or not. And perhaps some of those who go to Church are not Christians, no matter how much they profess themselves to be.

>>4654120
lol bigot

1. No
2. A library of several books written by different writers over thousands of years.
3. It's a nihilistic death cult that can't wait for life to be over

>>4654146
If Christianity could truly cure people's fear of dying, that alone would make it worthwhile. The modern world is too afraid of death.

>>4654120
>Anyone who loves his/her neighbor as him/herself has a bit of the Christian in him
Correction: anyone who loves his/her neighbor because they have to has a bit of the Christian in him.

>>4654165
Being unsure of whether you're going to heaven or not just makes it worse. I don't understand why people put up with it. That's why I left.

>>4654172
>because they have to

I don't think it's possible to truly love your neighbor if you HAVE to. I don't think you can force love like that, not the self-sacrificing love, the caritas, that is asked of Christians.

Granted, if your natural inclination is to be a dick to people and you're held in check by your Christianity, I suppose that's not so bad either. The world needs less dickish behavior.

>>4653966
Epicurus, problem of evil, etc

>>4651156
>1
I highly respect Christian values as of New Testament. I think the Bible is a brilliant work of art, with some incredible stories. That being said, no.
>2
People need to treat it less as of a textbook and moreso as literature. Taking it literally is a bad idea, and people should stop pretending that religion is inherently bad. It's not. It's beautiful. faith in something beyond what we know is something that separates us from other animals.

The story of Jesus is meant to say God has to have (and does) as much faith in us as we do in him.
>3
I'm just going to make the political statement that churches should pay taxes. Athiests should stop having a bug up their ass.

>>4654185
Rape is beautiful, too. So is gardening.

>>4654146
>>4654165
>>4654174

The problem as I see it is that Christianity attempts to give people too easy a guarantee that they're gonna go to heaven. Other religions tend to have the idea that whether you're going to go to hell and for how long depends on your karma or something like that, emphasizing that man doesn't know if he'll make it for certain or not. Christians have a habit of simplifying to "Oh, as long as you have faith in the blood and resurrection of Jesus that's all that matters." In other religions, doing good deeds is incumbent on someone and are often a matter of law. Christianity I think has a habit of reducing them to mere suggestion. Thanks Paul...

>>4651156
>1. Do you consider Christian in any shape or form?
No. Although I'm coming around to it again, I simply don't possess the spiritual belief.
>2. If you are, what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible? If for example, you accept that the Bible isn't inerrant, how does one still apply it to their life while being conscious of this fact?
I care little for the mythology in terms of its theological value. The Gospels and select books are the only ones you should really apply to your life, everything else is merely a library of history.
>3. Whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
More than any other religion? No, because while there are plenty of things I'm not fond of, there are religions that I find Christianity wholly preferable to in every facet.

>>4654197
There's loads of problems with Christianity and Catholicism

1. Virgins giving relationship advice

2. Getting advice from a book that reflects an entirely different society with a different structure

3. Baiting the gullible into believing patent falsehoods

4. Salvation without works

5.claiming objective morality but leaving this morality subjective and assuming moral pretenses (conceptions of property rights, etc)

6. Believing it is literal truth against other forms of wisdom by its tautology

7. Thought crimes

8. Warning against philosophy

9. Proposing faith as a virtue

10. It's literally contradictory in its core ideas

>>4654210
>1. Virgins giving relationship advice

This is probably more a Catholic issue than an Orthodox one since lower ranking priests of Eastern Orthodoxy can marry.

>4. Salvation without works

Epistle of James > anything by Mr. "I hate sex" Paul

>Warning against philosophy

Again, probably more Paul than anyone else since he differentiated between the "wisdom of the world," implying philosophers and the secret wisdom newly made manifest in Jesus Christ which was all one ever needed.

>5.claiming objective morality but leaving this morality subjective and assuming moral pretenses (conceptions of property rights, etc)
>6. Believing it is literal truth against other forms of wisdom by its tautology

Could you explain these to me just so I'm sure I understand what you mean?

>9. Proposing faith as a virtue

Well, it can be a virtue if it helps motivate one to do good works. Like it says in the New Testament, faith without works is dead. Again, if you take Paul out of the equation, I think it makes the New Testament feel a lot more consistent.

>>4651156
1. Yes I am a Christian.
2-1.Prayerfully. I take the literal text as literal, the parables as parables, and pray for guidance as to the meanings.
2-2.I accept the Bible as inerrant. I try to follow the teachings as best I can, but I realize that I am not perfect. I pray for forgiveness.
3. A lot of Christians preach about hell, when they should be preaching the Gospel. They also fail to get the beam out of their own eye, before they try to help others. i.e. Hypocrites

>>4654062
I would have to disagree.
I find the evidence to be overwhelming.
Science has quite recently discovered that The Big Bang has happened.
That is our entire universe just popped into existence from nothing. I see this as very strong evidence for God.
Stephen Hawking has said. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
It would appear he believes the cause of the universe is.
1. Physical law. i.e. Gravity has caused this to be. (Law does not create)
2.The universe has created its self. (Something cannot be the cause of its self)
3.Nothing has caused the universe.(Everything has come from nothing)
Never before have I seen a triple self contradictory sentence. Bravo. This goes to show just how far some will go to deny God.
If you would like to see some of the evidence for God, I would suggest you start looking for it. A good place to find some is.
http://www.godandscience.org/
You could also read the book (I don't have enough faith to be an atheist) or watch the following.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyHWtQN4yLM

>>4654174
You do not have to be unsure. Perhaps you have not heard the Gospel message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfXybggH4Qo

>>4654183
The problem of evil.
God told man don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Man disobeyed God's command, and ate of the tree.
We are now learning first hand about good and evil.
Do not blame God for man's choice.

The problem is sin can arise with free will, and the knowledge of.
As seen with Lucifer.
Ezekiel 28:15 (This verse is talking about Lucifer)
"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

In my opinion God wanted us to have both, and also overcome sin. Since we are incapable of overcoming sin on our own.
God has conceived a plan so that we might be saved. He has done it for us, and offered salvation as a gift.
He has suffered in our place, so that we might have the knowledge, and have a way to overcome sin.(By having faith in Jesus)
If God had not wanted us to have the knowledge, he would not have put the tree in the garden.
However he could not force suffering on us, hence the command do not eat of this tree.
The fact that he knew we would disobey, is not the same as forcing it on us. He has allowed us the choice.

This is why man is above angels. God has provided a way for us to be sinners, and also be saved.
To my knowledge there is no such plan for the angels who choose to sin.

>>4654242
>The problem of evil.
>God told man don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
>Man disobeyed God's command, and ate of the tree.
>We are now learning first hand about good and evil.
>Do not blame God for man's choice.

Worst, least convincing argument ever.

>The problem is sin can arise with free will, and the knowledge of.

Free will doesn't exist.

>This is why man is above angels. God has provided a way for us to be sinners, and also be saved.
>To my knowledge there is no such plan for the angels who choose to sin.

None of this works, bud.

>Christian
well I believe in Jesus, so yes
>Bible
for the Old Testament, only a purely historical or literary approach is really viable. The New Testament can be taken closer to prima facia
>Christian community
pretty much everything, but a lot of them are at least trying to be good people

>>4651156
1. No
2. N/A
3. They're extremely judgmental, but their morality and worldview is very shallow.

>>4654256
The problem of evil isn't really a problem in Christianity, but it's not because of what that guy said. In a Platonic framework it's irrelevant because God is the "Good-in-itself" of Plato, and Aquinas gives a solution from the Catholic/Aristotelian framework.

>Free will doesn't exist.
Why are you even talking to anyone about Christianity then?

>>4651621
ivan karamazov go to bed

1. No
2. However you want I guess.
3. I have a fair few friends and acquaintances of different religions, but I hate how you can be having a nice conversation with a Christian and then out of nowhere they can turn a complete 180 and start talking about God and the bible and ask about whether I am ready to accept it all.

EVERY
FUCKING
TIME!

>>4653935
well

>>4654146
>nihilistic death cult
I think you need to google what nihilism and a death cult are because you have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>4656494
Alyosha go fuck a cripple

>1. Do you consider Christian in any shape or form?
It's in my background in a significant way.
>2. If you are, what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible? If for example, you accept that the Bible isn't inerrant, how does one still apply it to their life while being conscious of this fact?
Hm. Well, even if one doesn't accept the inerrancy of the Bible, it still has value. Even a strident atheist would find much to like in Ecclesiastes or Proverbs, if they keep an open mind.
>3. Whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
Plenty. Applying Bible passages to situations where they aren't intended. Cherry-picking passages out of context. Being ignorant of other faith traditions. Being ignorant of their own. Hypocrisy, in innumerable forms. Overreliance on either the Law or the Gospel. Megachurches. Prosperity theology. Not recognizing O$teen as a charlatan. That's more than enough I'm sure. Some of the best people I've ever known have been Christians.

>>4657900
>you have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about
at this point this phrase requires an acronym

For me, the essence of Christianity is:
- The love of God of characters like Abraham and Joseph
- The simple kindness of the characters in Ruth
- The melancholy and yet simple, direct recommendations of Ecclesiastes
- The four discourses of Jesus in Matthew

Everything else that I can think of is sort of there for meme purposes, IMHO.

>>4651156
>1.
What? I'm not a Christian if that's what you're asking.

>2. If you are, what do you believe is the best way to approach the Bible? If for example, you accept that the Bible isn't inerrant, how does one still apply it to their life while being conscious of this fact?
Not applicable I guess.

>3. Whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, is there anything Christians in particular have a habit of doing that irritates you more than any other religion?
Not particularly.

Seriously, what does this have to do with /lit/? I like discussing religion, but this has nothing to do with books. Only one of those questions out of the three is even vaguely on-topic. This is mostly just "Are you a Christian? What do you dislike about Christians?" which is not really /lit/.

To make an actual contribution:
I admire the Catholic and Traditional Christian branches and enjoy their theology a lot, and I'd like to get around to reading St. John of the Cross's work since apparently his theology takes the form of commentaries on poems, and that sounds pretty cool. Has anyone else read it? I think it's upsetting that so many other non-Christians dismiss Christianity entirely when it's contributed so much to culture and philosophy, and I dislike a lot of the smug and arrogant attitudes some people take towards it without having even attempted to read or understand any of it. I used to be the same way until I actually started reading and looking into it though.