/lit/ - Literature

>>>/x/

>>6038950
What is the correct religion?

>>6038965
A relationship with God.

>>6038965
Christianity.

>>6038990
>>6038987
How do you know that

>>6038996
because it's only christ who takes a positive, authority-based system and forms a system of morality whereby divine law is synthesized with desire

>>6038965
Religion is a human phenomenon where the divine knowledge is recreated for humans by humans. It is undeniable that human fallibility has created religious inaccuracy. With that said, we should take the broadest possible approach in understanding which religion is the most accurate/correct. When we look at the collective religious beliefs of humanity we can see that all humans follow slightly different religions, but there are some similarities which are shared by almost all of them. If you are looking for the most correct religion you should look to Unitarianism, which recognizes that all humans share a desire for spiritual growth and everyone does it differently.

The correct religion is either one that recognizes that all religions are simply different interpretations of the same reality OR whichever religion is able to guide the individual to the greatest spiritual growth.

>>6039017
haha shut up nerd

>>6039017
the yardstick of religion is morality. get this wishy-washy correlationist survey bullshit out of here

>>6039011
thats just word salad and doesn't prove Christianity or even that morality or divine laws are "real"

>>6039032
>word salad
that formulation is heavily recumbent on kantian ideas of ethics and law. it isn't even my idea

>morality or divine laws are "real"
define "real"

From last thread, for predestination anon:

>Why wouldn't you believe it are there christians who do?

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Romans 9:11-14

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jeremiah 1:5

It wouldn't be against scripture to believe in pre-existence. But it would be against the ecumenical councils. Which is why I as an Orthodox don't believe it. But you could certainly be a Christian and believe that souls existed before birth.

I guess it all depends on your idea of free will, though. We haven't really covered that in any great length. Calvinists and Christians like that on one side believe we are so compromised by sin that we no longer have free will (to my understanding). Then you have those that believe that we have free will when it comes to our acts, but not when it comes to our salvation. Which, depending on your definition of free will, could qualify. It means, at least in a human sense, that we have free will on this earth, even if our salvation and eternal life was preordained by God.

In Orthodoxy, free will is important. For a number of reasons. Firstly, we don't believe that Adam was necessarily perfect before the fall, or at least we don't hold it up to the extent that other branches do. In Orthodoxy, Adam was living in a simplistic, undeveloped state. So we don't believe sin has compromised us in the same way, only to the extent that in our free choice, we choose to imitate Adam.

Secondly, we of course accept God's grace, like any Christian, but it never precedes our free choice. So, in a way, it's like Luther's view, except where Luther has God predetermining our salvation, in Orthodoxy, while we require God's hand for there to be salvation, we must first choose God. The choice must always come first.

1/2

>>6039105

Some people use these illustrations to point out the differences. You have a man drowning in the sea. The Calvinist God would swim out and rescue him. Thereby eliminating his free choice in the matter of being saved. The Orthodox God would throw a rope down (the rope representing his grace) and if he should choose to hold onto that rope, he will be saved.

This is evident, I think, in the Romans passage. It would appear based on that passage that God predestined Jacob to be loved and to be saved. This would imply that it was God's will. God does have a will, yes, it is his grace. But I don't believe that passage to imply God's will overriding Jacob and Esau's free will. God loved Jacob because Jacob had a heart for God. He knew that. And he's also saying that Jacob was not saved not because of his heritage or because of works, but because he chose to grab that rope.

“Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works” - vss. 30-32

The Jeremiah passage illustrates the plan that God has for his prophet, but it's still our choice whether or not we accept that plan. If we choose salvation, then God has, by his grace, a plan for us. Of course, he is able to plan because he knows what we will choose before our birth.

2/2

>>6038996
No amount of argumentation will convince someone who has not experienced God's presence to believe in Him. I know that having a relationship with the Creator is the only true religion because I have direct experience that transcends human reason and feelings.

>>6039121
you were tripping bruh

Christianity is simply an interpretation of God. It's probably the most intelligent and ethical of all the interpretations of God. If you can believe in Jesus and trust that he his the son of God and live as he wanted us to, then you will find divine joy.

thank you for containing your shitposting, /theo/, it's made my /lit/ experience better

Has anyone here experienced spiritual dryness?

Is it to blame for the wave of New atheism? or is that just angsty kids getting back at mommy and daddy for dragging them to church?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_dryness

>>6038954
*tips fedora*
Well memed my good gentlesir

>>6038996
you don't. faith is a choice

>>6039177
>>6039177
I think every Christian at some point experiences spiritual dryness(though maybe not to the extent that the Catholic church is talking about.) No, ultimately the wave of new atheism comes from an educational culture that values secularism as a good in itself and people who were otherwise simply culturally Christian falling away from the flock because it's the path of least resistance.

>>6039203
No it's not, it's a gift.

>>6039177
You act as though it is totally normal to believe implausible and even outright silly stories.

The general consensus is that a good chunk of books from the Old Testament are mythology written by poets and similar figures interpreting God through various stories, correct?

>>6039211
so someone can be forced to believe, and taken with your statement, should be forced to believe

>>6039214
Define normal

>implausible and even outright silly stories.
You're talking about the OT right?

>>6039222
No, someone can not be forced to believe nor will themselves to believe. Faith is not a choice but a gift from God that evokes a response.

>>6039231

nah brah it got way more realistic when a dude walked on water and sprung fish and chips out of thin air

>>6039220
That would be the only correct consensus, yes.

>>6039238
>No, someone can not be forced to believe nor will themselves to believe. Faith is not a choice but a gift from God that evokes a response.
if god granted people free will then it seems like faith is a choice. i.e. you can choose to respond to god's gift or not

>>6039256
How one responds is a choice, but faith itself isn't. Though growing in faith is a choice, and if it's not nurtured faith can be lost. There are people who on some level want to believe but lack the capacity for faith.

>>6039105
Thank you for coming back orthadoxanon.

>In Orthodoxy, free will is important.

Is this rather unique to orthodoxy?

> You have a man drowning in the sea. The Calvinist God would swim out and rescue him. Thereby eliminating his free choice in the matter of being saved. The Orthodox God would throw a rope down (the rope representing his grace) and if he should choose to hold onto that rope, he will be saved.

In this instance I would say that because Orthodox God already knows whether you are going to grab the rope or not its less a choice on the mans part and more just him acting out a predetermined script (which he is blind to) set out for before he was created.

Hence when it comes to decisions in our lives regarding how we act or whether we grasp the rope it doesn't matter whether God personally intervenes in our lives or not because the outcome was already known 100%. So even if God does chose to intervene in our lives or stay silent it doesnt effect the predetermined result which he already knows.

Im still reading the link from last thread so I still might revise this understanding

http://www.scriptureinsights.com/Foreknow.html

What are the best books on the historicity of Jesus?

>>6039905
The Gospels.

>>6039916
Im being serious.

>>6039121
And people think fedoras are arrogant.

>>6039902
>Is this rather unique to orthodoxy?

I wouldn't say it is unique to Orthodoxy. I think Orthodoxy's view on free will is different to a lot of Christians, but we aren't the only ones who value free will.

The idea that the first steps are always in our power and that our free will is instrumental in our salvation is an Orthodox viewpoint. God's grace is important, but our salvation is not predetermined.

This is a good piece on Chrysostom and the Orthodox concept of grace and free will:

http://www.russianorthodox-stl.org/grace_freewill.html

>Hence when it comes to decisions in our lives regarding how we act or whether we grasp the rope it doesn't matter whether God personally intervenes in our lives or not because the outcome was already known 100%. So even if God does chose to intervene in our lives or stay silent it doesnt effect the predetermined result which he already knows.

Well, my detour into the particular Orthodox beliefs about free will was kind of a separate subject. Just outlining what I personally believe about free will rather than how this free will is possible in combination with God's omniscience.

This is going to sound like a cop out, but for a lot of people the answer lies in God's transcendence of time. Train tracks, to use this same metaphor, are linear and temporal. We can only see so far in front of us. God's image of that same train track would be entirely different. He sees all parts of it at the same time, as well as us at all points of that train track. To him, we have yet to begin our journey, are halfway through our journey, and have finished our journey all at the same time.

As I said in an earlier post, the idea of our souls existed before our birth is not a new idea or a particularly uncommon idea.

>>6039918
So is he.

Christian's that argue for God's existence through causality are determinists by default, right?

>>6038950
picture is not correct, Jesus was black

The fedora's are buying google ad space now.

I've become convinced in the existence of God by scholastic theologians. But where do I go from here? I can't just take things on faith suddenly when I've been convinced by reason so far.

>>6041571
The first step is to get into good practices of prayer, meditation, and service to others.

>>6039902

The problem with this mode of thinking is that it assumes that God is bound to our temporal understanding of time and history. The idea that God already knows what's going to happen doesn't negate the will and the choice made by individuals.

The problem with this is that it assumes that your choice--your will--is insignificant due to knowledge that God already knows. Whether God knows it or not is not the issue, the issue is whether the individual uses his will to determine faith or doubt, as the individual is still in temporal time and is thus unaware of any knowledge which God may know. Thus his will is an active driving force in his faith. Kirkegaard summarizes this problem rather eloquently in The Sickness Unto Death where he equates the problem of the human soul (self) as an eternal being stuck in a mortal shell and thus attempting to understand and achieve immortality (infinitude) in a mortal environment. This is something which is ultimately unknowable (at least for a mortal individual), and it takes an act of total faith to achieve the infinitude the soul desires. This is where the concept of the 'knight of faith' comes into play.

>>6041571

If you've been convinced of the logic behind God, you'd be best to begin looking at the more mystical side of religion and God. I would recommend some of the Christian mystical writers.

>St. John of the Cross (The Dark Night of the Soul is necessary reading for all Orthodox believers IMO)
>St. Julian of Norwich (Revelations of Divine Love)
>Soren Kirkegaard (All his works are great, but particularly Fear and Trembling, The Sickness Unto Death, and Practice in Christianity)
>Thomas Merton (Seven Storey Mountain and No Man is an Island
>The Desert Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, Pseudo-Dionysus, St. Athanasius)

This is a good starting point.

>>6041429
>"existed"
>implying God is subject to time
>"god"
>not capitalizing God
>"claim your own life"
>implying theism opposes life-affirmation

>atheism
>not a mental disorder

>>6041571

I'd also add that Chesterton is a fucking gold mine for people coming to religion and Orthodoxy in general

The Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy are fantastic. The writing alone is enough to warrant studying but he makes some compelling arguments and observances which are pretty convincing.

>>6040227
I fail to see how that's arrogant. I'm just saying only God can prove His own existence.

>>6041621
Haha look at this schizphrenic retard. He doesn't realize his dead religion is sustained primarily by niggers yet he spends his life on /pol/

Is monotheism in danger of effectively becoming a 'polytheism of one' where God is treated anthropomorphically? It also seems that most lay believers' conception of God is quite different from the abstract, unknowable deity of thinkers like Aquinas or Eckhart. Will any adequate conception of God necessarily be understandable only by a minority?

I admire people like Maimonides who said that Jews who worshipped a God with human qualities were committing idolatry, but there are sections in the Tanakh which present a very corporeal image of Yahweh.

>>6043193
To some, maybe. But most sects of Christianity recognize that the anthropomorphic images of God don't do full justice to the scope of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being. Keeping an adequate conception of God requires keeping the incomprehensibility of Him in mind, and people who have forgotten that have broken away(Mormons creating a new definition of omnipotence, Islam creating a distant conception of God that requires submission to rules rather than an obedience borne of a close relationship, etc.)

>>6039110
>You have a man drowning in the sea. The Calvinist God would swim out and rescue him. Thereby eliminating his free choice in the matter of being saved. The Orthodox God would throw a rope down (the rope representing his grace) and if he should choose to hold onto that rope, he will be saved.

That's not quite right. Calvinists believe in free will, but that God is the catalyst for salvation. The main point is that someone cannot choose against their nature, and their salvation depends on whether they have a disposition to allow themselves to be saved by nature or to fight against God's salvation. The rope analogy would be the same in both cases, but the person in question's disposition would be different.

>>6043525

But Calvinists believe salvation is predetermined. There are people who are predestined to be saved and people predestined to go to hell. That's all I've ever encountered in Calvinism.

>>6043584
It's not quite that simple. Yes, they believe in predetermination but not to the exclusion of free will. Essentially they believe that each individual makes the decisions whether they are saved or not, but that it is determined in part by their nature and that God knows beforehand what decision they will make. It's not God making the decision, but the person responding to the situations of their life.

>>6038965
Being a True Agnostic, similar to what your picture implies.
>>6038950
Ok, here's my $0.02:
Being a true agnostic is the only theology a human being should follow. Ones actions while alive should be, to even the feeblest or primal of minds, Just.
We all know basic Justice, not to kill, don't steal what isn't yours, etc.
I believe that should be enough.
I see the afterlife as a 4 way split.
1. There are/is beings/a being that not only created everything, but are beyond our scope of understanding, to the point that we will never understand them, And to worship the idea or fear the idea of them is pointless, for they/it knows our ignorance.
2. One of the world's religions is "correct" and depending on which one it is determines your fate in the hereafter.
3. There is no higher being, and therefore we either don't have a life or consciousness after death, or we experience something like #1. That we would never be able to imagine or understand while alive.
4. There is a higher power being that simply made everything, and then perhaps died or something akin to that, and that there is no afterlife even though a being created us all.

My point, is regardless of which may be true, living your life for the sake of being alive And a friend to your fellow organic organisms, is the whole point of life.

>>6043601

I'm really confused, because as far as I know, Calvin preached total depravity and he also preached divine providence. Either one would imply we have no choice in the matter, but together it seems pretty clear that he believed we were so compromised by sin that we were unable to make a choice in the matter and also that every matter is decreed by God. Are you a Calvin? Is this some New Calvinism or something? Because it seems to go against everything I've read from Calvinists.

>>6043608
This assumes that if there is a being that created us it stopped there. What about a truly personal God that has personal relationships with its creation during their natural lifetime?

>>6043628
No anon,I simply stated how I think the afterlife could play out.
I believe in,agnosticism, in the belief that we don't...don't know...and may never know, so its best to live a life that by any standard was Just, and to live for the sake of being alive, of having the opportunity to live.
And yes, that's a valid implication and assumption.
Is that what you believe, or are you simply debating my points?

>>6043621
You're mostly correct, but I think the problem may be how you're defining "free will." If you mean libertarian free will then Calvin certainly rejected it. However, Calvin still affirmed that man has enough free will to warrant moral culpability. As in, the ability to choose free from coercion. It is not that God decides our fate, but that He allows us to choose between the two paths.

I'm not a Calvinist, but have studied a fair amount of Calvinist theology. It's not a cut and dry issue, is what I'm saying.

>>6043643

Fair enough. I've never fully read Institutes. Only portions of it, but it's been on my reading list for a while and I'll get to it. It's still quite different to Orthodox theology.

>>6043637
I believe in an interventionist God, yes. Though I was partly pointing out the flaw in your four points in that they all rely on a passive image of god(s). Though, there's also the issue that what is considered just from a purely human standpoint isn't universally agreed upon beyond a few minor issues.

My personal view on God is that no matter how it's called all true worship is the same. If we both knew a man but called him by different names it wouldn't change who he was or if we knew him, so why should God be any different?

>>6043666
>Flaw
Um anon, I don't think you understand what I originally meant.
Those points? They are simply how I could theorize an afterlife to be like, or how it may all end up being after I kick the bucket. I don't know.
>I don't know
This is the basis of what I believe in. I believe that I do not know, and that my belief in what I know, which is that I do not know,is enough for me. I am comfortable living my life like any good person should, without assurance or hope that in the end, there's hellfire, nothing, heaven, or something else completely.
I'm saying that regardless of what we all personally believe or want God or a higher being to be, that there's a better chance that at the end of the day, we are all making guesses and sticking to them with the entire conviction of our beings.

>though, there's also the issue that what is considered just from a purely human standpoint isn't universally agreed upon
That's my point.
We all have an idea of what we think is True,and except for minor issues, is almost a universal viewpoint.

My ENTIRE point
Is that we do not know for certain
And we should accept this as fact
And simply move to live life in a way that reflects the goodness that I personally believe is in each and every functioning organic being on our planet.
(I cant speak for aliens, assuming their existence)

Does this make sense to you?

Hello, just a quick question. I´m interested in reading both the bible and the quran. I have a bible but I don´t know where to start with the quran. I have no idea what translation or what edition to get. Any suggestions?

>>6043688
Read a philosophy text first. Then read the Jewish books. Then,the Islamic. Then, read the Christian texts.
Don't just read one holy book either, read all of what you can find.

Why is nearly everyone who ever existed religious in some way, even though there is zero evidence for god(s)?

>>6043692
Umm, see my post >>6043680, I am not religious.

>>6043692
It's in our deepest intuitions. The peculiar way evidence is now defined and examined precludes the existence of God as an a priori. You're nothing but a product of your culture, anon, not a critical thinker.

>>6043692
because empirical evidence as such as an ontological absolute is a relatively new phenomenon

>>6043688

Oxford World Classics edition translated by Abdel-Haleem is what I have and it is one of the better translations to my knowledge.

>>6043692
>there is zero evidence for god(s)
Do people seriously still believe this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae
I have personally found more evidence for God than against

I notice a lot of people stress free will in Christianity, but then they say we have no choice over belief, we can only believe in God if God makes us believe in him.

>>6041571
Leap nigga
Leap
Abandon reason now. It got you this far, so good on it, but at this point it's honestly more emotional. If that seems scary, consider love. You can factually be in love, but you only know that fact through emotion.
But of course, that there was also just reason, which is useless.

>>6043915

But most people don't say this, so you're wrong? Have you read any of the talk of free will in these threads?

No, this is my first time posting in these threads, but I have seen it come up regularly that faith is something that only happens as a gift from God, it is not possible to choose faith. Hell, I even heard that in church last Sunday.

>>6044008

No, God's grace is a gift from God and also, in this instance, his will. But as has been covered in these threads, in every branch of Christianity, there is a choice that precedes God's grace.

I don't even know what you are talking about when you talk about "faith". In every theological understanding of faith, it's precisely a human choice. We have to have faith.

We use our free will to choose salvation and then God's grace guides us on the path to salvation. Choice is always first in most Christian branches. Even in the ones where there is limited free will there is still some semblance of choice. I don't know what backwards church you go to, but this is not something I've ever heard from anyone.

>>6044028
I mean this opinion
http://livingtheology.com/Faith.htm

>>6044054
And this
http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/faith_god

>>6044057
And this
>Where does faith come from? Faith is not something we conjure up on our own, nor is it something we are born with, nor is faith a result of diligence in study or pursuit of the spiritual. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that faith is a gift from God, not because we deserve it, have earned it, or are worthy to have it. It is not from ourselves; it is from God. It is not obtained by our power or our free will. Faith is simply given to us by God, along with His grace and mercy, according to His holy plan and purpose, and because of that, He gets all the glory.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-faith.html

>>6044054

I just skimmed over that, but did you read it? He's talking about faith being a gift at our salvation.

>So we see that faith is a free gift from God and comes to us at our salvation (Rom 5:1 and Rom 4:5).

Yes, God gives us faith. At our salvation. That is after we are saved. I assume this is the "spiritual gift of faith" that we can find in 1 Cor. Which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Which implies salvation has preceded that. Because no person has the Holy Spirit in them that isn't saved.

It happens after salvation, so it's not in conflict with free will.

>>6044057
>>6044063

Yes, none of this conflicts with free will. We need faith to please God is what's repeated, and we need God's grace to be saved, but the choice has to come before the grace.

See:
>>6039105
>>6039110
and
http://www.russianorthodox-stl.org/grace_freewill.html

>>6044072
So your doctrine is pretty much tie opposite of both Catholic and Protestant, in which God initiates first and our free will is assent.

I'd like to make an argument here concerning faith. Now, Christian doctrine in general is that faith is required to please God (this is in the Bible, after all). But I hold that faith is not required to please God(s) at all, because faith is not needed to honor God(s).

To illustrate: if someone dies, and a thousand years later people are uncertain if that person ever existed, believing that person existed does them no real honor compared to actually honoring their purported grave with offerings and song. Similarly, God(s) are most honored by one worshiping them in glorious ways, that is what pleases them; personal belief is mostly of value to self, rather than God(s)

>>6044143

God inviting us to choose is not an imposition of his will or an initiation of any kind. Catholicism teaches this. Augustine's view of grace and free will is no longer really representative of the Catholic church. They believe in free will.

Protestants have no view because protestantism includes Calvinists, Baptists, Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Lutheran. It's too diverse to make blanket statements about. JWs don't even believe in the trinity.

>>6044152
>Now, Christian doctrine in general is that faith is required to please God (this is in the Bible, after all). But I hold that faith is not required to please God(s) at all, because faith is not needed to honor God(s).
'Faith' is believing God, not believing that God exists, you dumbass.

It doesn't matter whether you believe in the 'reality' (whatever that means) of God's existence as long as you trust in his plan for creation.

>>6044321
I am speaking of Kierkegaard's conception of faith, which relates with affirming the irrational and impossible as a proof of trust in God.

>It doesn't matter whether you believe in the 'reality' (whatever that means) of God's existence as long as you trust in his plan for creation.
So you can be an atheist with great faith in God?

>>6044334
>So you can be an atheist with great faith in God?
Yes, and that happens frequently.

Like Tertullian once said, 'the soul is by nature Christian'. People naturally feel like there is some grand meaning and deeper significance to the Universe, that it's all supposed to make sense in the end, that it converges to some greater ultimate good, even if each individual person is too limited to understand the grand picture. (Hollywood, for example, loves preying on this feeling.)

P.S. The problem with this approach is lack of rigor, of course. It's impossible to separate the genuine good from the chaff of mimicry when submerged into the nooshperic ocean of bullshit like we are. You need something solid and concrete to latch on to. (This is why the allegory of the 'rock' is so powerful in Christianity.)

>>6038965
I think it was stated in your pic related.

>>6044445
>People naturally want to feel like there is some grand meaning and deeper significance to the Universe, that it's all supposed to make sense in the end, that it converges to some greater ultimate good, even if each individual person is too limited to understand the grand picture. (Hollywood, for example, loves preying on this feeling.)

>>6041621
I like you.

>>6039017
Any religion that claims that other religions are just different is retarded.
They are simply too contradictory.

>>6044445
This is a very unusual idea of faith, certainly not something I've encountered before. Affirming that Christ died for your sins and accepting Him as your Lord and Savior are fundamental components of faith to every Christian I've ever known and talked to about faith

>>6044476
>Affirming that Christ died for your sins and accepting Him as your Lord and Savior
I don't believe this, now what?

>>6044506
You do not represent most Christians, and that's counter to the doctrine of just about every single denomination.

>>6044523
I'm not him, I'm not a Christian.

>>6044476
>This is a very unusual idea of faith, certainly not something I've encountered before.
It's absolutely standard and purely orthodox. 'Even the demons believe and yet tremble'.

>Affirming that Christ died for your sins and accepting Him as your Lord and Savior are fundamental components of faith to every Christian I've ever known and talked to about faith
Only in the weirdest and most heretical protestant sects.
'Affirming' and 'accepting' have nothing to do with faith, since faith is an active process of changing your life. There's no faith without atonement, and there is no atonement without willful real-world action.

>>6044528
Neither am I.
>>6044152
>>/lit/thread/S5966608

>>6044534
> 'Even the demons believe and yet tremble'.
They don't accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, neither did He die for their sins.

>'Affirming' and 'accepting' have nothing to do with faith, since faith is an active process of changing your life. There's no faith without atonement, and there is no atonement without willful real-world action.
The concept of having faith without even belief in Christ existed is completely foreign to me. Christ said the only way to God is through Him.

>>6044544
>They don't accept Christ as their Lord and Savior,
They believe in God's existence and acknowledge God as the Lord of the Universe.
>neither did He die for their sins.
The legalistic conception of salvation is obviously heretical.

>The concept of having faith without even belief in Christ existed is completely foreign to me.
It doesn't matter how you self-identify, what matters is how you act. People think one thing and act out something else all the time, it's a natural state of mankind.

>Christ said the only way to God is through Him.
Obviously true, of course you need trust in Christ for salvation. That doesn't mean some sort of weird legalistic lipservice 'contract' is needed; after all, people follow demons into damnation without acknowledging their existence all the time.

>>6044576
>They believe in God's existence and acknowledge God as the Lord of the Universe.
Not necessarily YHWH.

>The legalistic conception of salvation is obviously heretical.
So is your idea of faith, at least to anyone besides Orthodox,

>It doesn't matter how you self-identify, what matters is how you act.
Everyone is a sinner, Christ even said mere thought counts as bad as action. But if you accept Christ as paying the toll for your sins, then you can achieve salvation.

> That doesn't mean some sort of weird legalistic lipservice 'contract' is needed; after all, people follow demons into damnation without acknowledging their existence all the time.
They also get their without faith in him, not really an apt parallel.

>>6039032
>That's just word salad
you're reaching now

>>6039121
This. Logic and reason don't cause the belief or disbelief of God. It's only through experience that anyone can come to a conclusion. God doesn't exist in theory

Here's a riddle: Methodism states that homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian lifestyle. It also states that it is against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Can a homosexual become a Methodist? (Hard mode: no oaths of celibacy allowed)

>>6043692
why is there zero though? Why do people think that God's existence depends on their view of him?

>>6044152
Dude, all christian doctrine holds that faith is the most important factor in understanding God. You can't just say that it's not necessary because you feel like it. Yes, they like to be worshiped, however, part of worship requires some sort of spiritual and emotional connection from the one giving it. Without faith, there is no worship

>>6044444

>>6044794
>Dude, all christian doctrine holds that faith is the most important factor in understanding God
The actual existence or lack thereof of God(s) is more important to me than Christian doctrine.

>Without faith, there is no worship
I don't agree with this. Faith is something extremely important for life and realization of Godly living (but this is more faith in eternalism than in God(s)), but you can worship without faith: if you watch your favorite TV program all day long and cover your room with its merchandise, you are worshiping it, regardless of faith.

True agnosticism is best.

>>6044152
Faith is required to honor God, because doing all the things that honor God without a heart of faith treats God as the recipient of your benevolence rather than you being the recipient of His. Someone who does all the motions of worship but doesn't have a heart of faith is like a homeless person giving their filthy, ragged, coat to a king and expecting the king to be honored by that act alone.

>>6045631
If the homeless person makes sincere effort to give this gift in a way pleasing to the king, if the homeless person scrupulously follows every procedure and gives a coat over and over and over again, and the vagrant checks the coat thoroughly and removes every protruding thread and cleans and perfumes each and every spot, and it cannot merely be about the coat, but about sincere honoring of the king.

>>6045927
Yeah, and it's not about the things we do to worship God just as it's not about the gift the homeless man is giving. Without faith a person can't have the right attitude to truly honor God and instead is making their worship about themselves and what they do for God as if God is lacking in some way that the worshiper can address.

>>6045967
yeah honouring god without god is some pharisee bs

>>6045195
>True agnosticism is best.
Islam is best.

>>6046023
Dem cherrypicked pictures, holyshit.

>>6045967
>Yeah, and it's not about the things we do to worship God just as it's not about the gift the homeless man is giving.
That's right, it's as much about the ritual and regularity of the libation, rather than just some random libation time one time or another.

> Without faith a person can't have the right attitude to truly honor God and instead is making their worship about themselves and what they do for God as if God is lacking in some way that the worshiper can address.
I don't really see it that way, I don't think any worshiper would see it as a lack God(s) has that the worshiper is fixing, regardless of faith.

>>6046046
It's a pretty accurate representation.

>>6046107
>That's right, it's as much about the ritual and regularity of the libation, rather than just some random libation time one time or another.

Ritual and regularity serve us more than God. They can be important but if the entire point is the ritual then the worshiper is the object rather than God.

>I don't really see it that way, I don't think any worshiper would see it as a lack God(s) has that the worshiper is fixing, regardless of faith.

Maybe that's not how you see it, but it's the implied attitude. By worshiping without faith the thing being done is what takes the highest importance and distracts from the object of worship. Having faith means having a heartfelt desire to worship, and honors God because it is solely focused on who God is and what He does rather than on making the worshiper feel good about what they are doing. God loves a cheerful giver, and worship without faith is about duty and obligation rather than sincere adoration.

>>6046131
Next thing you're going to say is that the west and/or israel are to blame for all the infinite problems of the muslim world.

>>6038950
Lo! The Lord, Lo! Twas lost in the sweet purity of my Lord and Saviour's face, long struck by fervent rapture, feeling as though -- as I met him eye to eye and felt not the desire to bow from deference! -- our spirits entwined and as though upon me a blessing was bestowed, a miracle!, my poor heart, my forgotten broken soul, burst forth with earnest light -- it was in this glorious, rapturous moment, this common parlance between loving subject and All Mighty, in this moment, my friends, that, and I say this quite deliberately -- Nigga's got eyes like a bitch mane.

>>6046190
Ritual and regularity serve both us and God(s). And ritual isn't the only valid form of worship; creating works of art glorying God(s) are also worship. If I spend tremendous time and effort on a painting glorifying you, I am honoring you. This same applies to ritual, albeit ritual is accessible to people with no discernible talent.

Why do atheists generally believe in knowledge of the external world, other minds, and the past when there is no evidence for any of those things?

>>6046263
>Ritual and regularity serve both us and God(s)

Except for God, who literally tells us in His Word that it does not serve Him.

>>6046263
Ritual and regularity may edify us and help us to serve God, but they do not serve or honor God directly.

Imagine a man follows a set of rituals with regard to his wife. He buys her gifts regularly, takes her on dates, and helps her in other ways but does it all with a sense of obligation. Does he do anything to honor his wife as a person, or reduce her to a series of tasks to be accomplished?

>>6046324
>>6044815

>>6046333
A wife is his equal, though. Not superior. If he were doing these things for his mother purely out of sense of obligation, it would certainly be honoring her.

>>6046346
Could you explain a little better?

>>6046351
Even changing the person in question from wife to mother still holds that it is not her the man is honoring, but the position. If you take God to be some impersonal being or character of the universe then it is possible to honor it without sincere desire. But then you're not honoring God but the office of God.

>>6043688
>quran
Don't go for the ones which try to capture the style of the Qur'an, while it might give you an idea into how it is poetic, it smothers the meaning and makes it hard to understand. The ones based on being solid clear translation are best. You'll also want one without external influences such as sunni or shia parenthesis.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Quran-A-Monotheist-Translation/dp/097967154X
This is a good one.

Also you can use this website to see a lot of translations side by side for each verse, including the literal word for word arabic translation.
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/

>>6046381
I mean that I am concerned with God(s) as actually existing, regardless of whether or not that coincides with the Bible.

>>6046415
They're the same thing. Would I honor my mother as such if she weren't my mother? No. Would I honor my mother as such if she were an awful mother? No. She is both my mother and a noble mother, I therefore honor her.

>>6046440
>They're the same thing. Would I honor my mother as such if she weren't my mother? No. Would I honor my mother as such if she were an awful mother? No. She is both my mother and a noble mother, I therefore honor her.

There's a difference between honoring your mother purely as a "mother" and honoring her as a person who is your mother. If everything done is out of a sense of duty and obligation and not a love for your mother you're not honoring her, but the concept of a good mother. She may see it as honoring her because she can't know your true motives, but God sees motives as much as actions so to truly honor God includes honoring His agency and "person"hood not merely honoring the idea of a god.

>>6046506
This is an artificial distinction. Consider trying to distinguish duty from love in relation to one's country.

>>6044598
>So is your idea of faith, at least to anyone besides Orthodox,

That wasn't me, but I just want to say that, yes, I am Orthodox. But my concept of faith is not unique to Orthodox nor is it heretical by any stretch of the imagination to the vast majority of Christians.

I can't think of a branch of Christianity off the top of my head that believes in faith as you have presented it. Your view seems to be entirely informed by misunderstanding and cherry-picking. Even the articles you linked aren't in line with what you apparently understand to be faith in the Christian context. Faith is required to change our lives and God's grace is required for salvation, but there is a choice that precedes both in every major branch of Christianity.

So can you stop saying that there isn't? You are able to believe whatever you want about faith and you are also able to interpret the bible in whatever way that you want. That is certainly in your power and, as evidenced by the many, branches, sects, and denominations of Christianity, people have been doing just that since the dawn of Christianity.

But claiming that your concept of faith (I believe to be based mostly on ignorance and misunderstanding) is the concept held by the majority of Christians is another thing entirely and is patently wrong. To then use your incorrect assumption about what Christians believe to effectively call Christians hypocrites is even more ridiculous.

It's not an Orthodox thing, it's a pretty common belief that choice precedes faith and grace. As someone pointed out in a previous thread, even Calvinists (those most likely to believe in divine providence) believe in some way in the choice beforehand.

>>6046312
Because they pretend to be analytical and attentive when they're actually just lazy and follow whatever mainstream science says

>>6046525
Countries don't have a personal being, and it is possible to fulfill obligations to a country without affection for the country.

What metric do you use to determine between a true and a false faith?

>>6046802
There's really no way of knowing what another person really thinks or doesn't think

>>6046802
Ultimately, >>6046815 is right.

Though it can be approximated by how the person treats others, particularly those who spite them. Someone secure in faith can love their enemies and bless people who want to do them harm.

>>6046754
Only under compulsion or for financial benefits.

>>6046440
>I mean that I am concerned with God(s) as actually existing

And in the case of the Christian God's existence, He is not served by empty rituals. Are you separating sacred texts from the Gods they belong to or something?

>>6046815
I understand that point but I was speaking more towards differentiating between say Christianity and Hindusim/other religions.

>>6046889
I'm interested in establishing God(s) as actual, rather than working from a religion first. You work from a religion first, well, that's how people become atheist when what makes sense as God(s) doesn't coincide with the religious premise they started with.

After working out God(s) as existing, then work out which religion(s) coincide with the proper worship of him.

>>6046873
Doesn't take away from the fact that doing things out of duty is not the same from doing them from love. Honoring the image of God is not the same as honoring God.

>>6046969
How can you establish that without using past evidence of belief in God?

And why have you moved on to worship discussion without establishing the existence of God, if you're not using religion?

>>6047119
>How can you establish that without using past evidence of belief in God?
You don't need past evidence of belief in God to reason what would be the case if God were true. To examine which religion(s) most coincide with God, of course, would require examination, but that comes later. There's also technically no reason why one cannot synthesize a singular religion best adapted to the case.

>And why have you moved on to worship discussion without establishing the existence of God, if you're not using religion?
Ah, but despite being a theist, the premise of my argument here is agnostic: I'm saying *if* God(s) exist, then such and such, not "God exists, therefore such and such".

>>6047176
Isn't that just worshiping your own reasoning and creating an ideal in your image, rather than establishing God(s)?

>>6047354
According to Aristotle, to be virtuous is to be Godlike, and reason is the most Godlike quality.

I don't entirely agree that reason is closest quality mortals have to Gods, but I do think reason is what makes humans distinct from other animals, and if we were not distinct from other animals, God would not be important to us. Therefore since reason is required for God to be important,reason would be a special divine gift, supposing the existence of God(s)...reason is holy.

>>6047381
Reason is highly valuable and an important gift from God, but it's also highly flawed and using "reason" to construct what God is is as likely to come up with a faulty image as drawing on religious texts.

>>6047488
I agree that it's not the highest quality to find God, but it is only through reason that the other faculties become available. Reason is important for determining *some* aspects of theology, although ultimately one cannot move past agnosticism on reason alone. To understand the nature of God fully, it is important to imagine what Godly perception is, and from there what sorts of God that would entail. I think instead of obsessing over God's values, it is to start with determining what God's values *could be*, what would be the basis of these values. That basis would be something higher than reason, and trying to apprehend it (actual apprehension being impossible) is what allows to discover and value things with something higher than reason.

I explain myself in more depth here
>>/lit/thread/S5966608

>>6047488
I agree that it's not the highest quality to find God, but it is only through reason that the other faculties become available. Reason is important for determining *some* aspects of theology, although ultimately one cannot move past agnosticism on reason alone. To understand the nature of God fully, it is important to imagine what Godly perception is, and from there what sorts of God that would entail. I think instead of obsessing over God's values, it is to start with determining what God's values *could be*, what would be the basis of these values. That basis would be something higher than reason, and trying to apprehend it (actual apprehension being impossible) is what allows to discover and value things with something higher than reason.

I explain myself in more depth here
>>/lit/thread/S5966608

What do you all think of Hermeticism?

>>6047551
Sure, but if we rely on ourselves for our conception of God is bound to include us raising things we feel are important to higher levels than what is true. Religious texts are important because they draw on multiple people's experience with God and so some of the human error is removed.

>>6047702
Sounds interesting. Got any info outside of what wikipedia provides?

>>6047716
What do values have to do with truth? Certainly, it's reasonable to think some values can be more Godly than others, but that's not the same thing.

>>6047702
Try this
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKocZwBnFDxNAoxyxZ0w7mum35YY4v0nb

>>6047740
Well, you can read the Corpus Hermeticum and other Hermetic texts online, but generally they're the Mead translations, which are serviceable for the most part but actually not that good. There's a translation that's just called "Hermetica" that's much more recent, which contains the Corpus Hermeticum and the Asclepius.

These are the earlier religious texts that kind of lay the groundwork for Hermetic belief and cosmology.

There's also lots of medieval and later shit that I'd recommend taking with a huge grain of salt.

Honestly, I recommend reading the Wikipedia article, then reading this http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/th2/th237.htm slowly and making sure you understand everything before moving on.

The other thing to keep in mind is that while Hermeticism is often considered a "gnostic religion" due to its focus on divine knowledge, it is, in some ways, further from Christian Gnosticism than regular Christianity is, because Gnosticism teaches that the world is an evil place to be escaped, Christianity teaches that the world is a good place which has become corrupt but will one day be restored, and Hermeticism depicts the world as good and serving a purpose in God's divine plan, even if it seems unpleasant to us and can be incidentally bad when it distracts us from pursuing goodness.

>>6047755
What I mean is that what we desire God to be can be read into our image of God if we rely primarily on our own abilities, rather than interacting with what others have written about God to help temper our own faults. We're as likely to create a god to our own ideals as we are to discover the God(s) that exist.

>>6047763
Meant for
>>6047740

McLean is a fantastic presenter.

>>6047763
Hey, thanks. I was mostly looking for discussion, as I've already read a bit of early Hermetic stuff, but I will most definitely bookmark that to watch when I'm more awake.

>>6047776
No worries, highly recommend it.

>>6041621
This always struck me as the stupidest thing, people who refuse to capitalize God even though it's a proper noun, even when it's at the beginning of a sentence.
Going out of their way to type it as "gOD" is even worse.

>>6047772
>rather than interacting with what others have written about God to help temper our own faults
What others have written about God has frequently been contradictory. Even if you can find numerous correlations for one perspective, you can find numerous for another. There's also an issue with your premise, which is that God can only have one value system, which is not necessarily true anymore than Man has one value system.

> We're as likely to create a god to our own ideals as we are to discover the God(s) that exist.
That is quite possible, which is why it is important to look at the source of our ideals, their wellspring. To discover God's values, it is first necessary to inquire as to what their wellspring would be, and proceed from there.

>tfw you will never know the Eleusinian Mysteries because the Christians destroyed everything

"The last remnants of the Mysteries were wiped out in 396 AD, when Alaric, King of the Goths, invaded accompanied by Christians "in their dark garments", bringing Arian Christianity and desecrating the old sacred sites.

>>6047813
>Arians
>"The Christians."
Most Christians thought the Arians were heretics, for whatever that's worth. They claimed Christ was a created being rather than God.

>>6047813
Feels bad, man.

>>6047824
Well Christ said don't praise me, praise God.

But it doesn't really matter, even the official Church would have cracked down the Mysteries sooner or later. Really too bad,, they might have survived in practically the same form to this day otherwise.

>>6047848
>Mysteries
>they might have survived in practically the same form to this day otherwise.

Meh, wasn't that just Greeks sat around taking magic mushrooms?

>>6047824

The Arians were unquestionably Christians. The reason why they were eventually considered to be heretics and stamped out was because Constantine didn't approve their point of view, but such a view of Christ was not uncommon for the early church. The Ebionites downright denied the divinity of Christ, for example, and plenty of other early Christian sects such as Nestorians and Gnostics held views of Christ that would later be found blasphemous and unorthodox. But orthodoxy as to the metaphysical nature of Christ was not established till the Council of Chalcedon half a century after Alaric's invasion.

>>6039121
Summed it up well.
If someone has a relationship with God, they're never not going to, and if someone has never connected with God, no argumentation will make them.

These threads are cool, people really seem to know what they're talking about.

One concept of Christianity I still can't quite wrap my head around is the Trinity. There's the classic diagram (pic related), but I don't logically understand how, for example
>God is the Father
>The Father is not the Son
>But God is the Son
and the others as well. It's said that "each is God, whole and entire", yet there is only one God, and the Father/Son/Holy Spirit are not each other.

>>6047810
>>6047810
>What others have written about God has frequently been contradictory. Even if you can find numerous correlations for one perspective, you can find numerous for another.

Which can usually be sifted through. Most of the contradictions tend to be humanization of the divine or attempts to resolve logical issues.

>There's also an issue with your premise, which is that God can only have one value system, which is not necessarily true anymore than Man has one value system.

Depends on if you see God as a singular being or multiples. If God is singular and perfect, then He has a perfect value system. Man's multiple value systems come from multiple personalities and desires.

>That is quite possible, which is why it is important to look at the source of our ideals, their wellspring. To discover God's values, it is first necessary to inquire as to what their wellspring would be, and proceed from there.

I'll give you that, though we also need sources to base these checks on. Scripture serves as such a check.

>>6047958
I'm pretty sure it's just considered a collective, and the individuals that make up that collective simply aren't other individuals.

God the collective encompasses them all.
But as it says, The Father is not The Son, etc.

Would someone be polite enough to explain the difference between Satan, Lucifer, and the devil?

>>6047980
Different names for different times/contexts.

>>6047958
There's no easy way to answer that. It's not a completely logical picture, because it is beyond human understanding. However, one way is to think of a person. We have a body, a mind, and a spirit. Each serves its own function and can be wholly us, but at the same time each is not us. Trying to understand it is a bit like trying to understand how God can be omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnipresent. We can't fully understand and must to some degree accept or reject it as a mystery.

>>6047877
No. Mysteries were the most ancient practices of Greece, they involved involved elaborate initiated, prehistorical rituals and and hymns in pre-Homeric Greek. The most well documented Mysteries are the Orphic Mysteries, and they have their own mythology and theology, not to mention a different poetic tradition (the Orphic Argonautica, for instance, is written in first-person from Opheus's viewpoint). Orphic Mysteries placed holy value on proportion in art and music, and considered learning the mathematical ordering of the universe to be part of the mortal quest for God.

>>6047980
>Satan
Leader of the rebel angels.
>Lucifer
Satan before he rebelled.
>The Devil
A general name for Satan.

The Dragon and The Serpent are other manifestations of him as well.

>>6047963
>Which can usually be sifted through. Most of the contradictions tend to be humanization of the divine or attempts to resolve logical issues.
Most of the contradictions are a result of attempting to resolve contradictions?

>epends on if you see God as a singular being or multiples. If God is singular and perfect, then He has a perfect value system. Man's multiple value systems come from multiple personalities and desires.
No, even God as singular. Because the idea of a single perfect value system is as bizarre as a single perfect canon of beauty. There are multiple kinds of perfection.

>I'll give you that, though we also need sources to base these checks on. Scripture serves as such a check.
Does scripture ever really explain God's basis for His value system?

>>6047988
>>6048003
Makes sense, thanks.

>>6047980
They're different descriptive terms. Satan means to obstruct or oppose, devil means to slander or accuse, and lucifer means "shining one/morning star" contrasts with Christ as the true bright morning star.

>>6048004
>Most of the contradictions are a result of attempting to resolve contradictions?

No, they're attempts to understand aspects such as omnipotence or other attributes or to explain away(rather than simply accepting) things like the problem of evil.

>No, even God as singular. Because the idea of a single perfect value system is as bizarre as a single perfect canon of beauty. There are multiple kinds of perfection.

I disagree, but I can see why you would think that way. Ultimately if God exists He is the single standard for both beauty and perfection. There may be multiple aspects, but a single definition.

>Does scripture ever really explain God's basis for His value system?

Not explicitly, but it is found throughout. Which is the idea of virtue, especially the virtue of love.

Have you guys figured out how many angels can dance on a pinhead yet?

>>6047980
Satan is a Jewish character who first appears in the Book of Job: he works for God, his job is to test faith and to play the Prosecutor when God weighs the sins of humanity.

Lucifer is means "bright star". When Isiah is prophesying the fall of Nebuchadnezzar, he sees a "bright star" [Lucifer] being cast out of heaven and crashing to the earth.

The Devil is the Beast, an Antichrist that is prophesied in the New Testament, which will rule over people characteristically and stand for the opposite values Christ does.

>>6048062
>No, they're attempts to understand aspects such as omnipotence or other attributes or to explain away(rather than simply accepting) things like the problem of evil.
What would just accepting the problem of evil entail?

>I disagree, but I can see why you would think that way. Ultimately if God exists He is the single standard for both beauty and perfection. There may be multiple aspects, but a single definition
What about contradicting beauties?

>Not explicitly, but it is found throughout. Which is the idea of virtue, especially the virtue of love.
Love of what? Everything? Just people?

>>6048092
>What would just accepting the problem of evil entail?

Recognizing that there will never be a perfect answer for it. Rather than reducing capacities of God(such as Mormon's making an image of God that isn't omnipotent or other groups saying God is not all loving) accepting them as definitions and our limited scope.

>What about contradicting beauties?
Such as?

>Love of what? Everything? Just people?
Love of God, then love of people. Far too detailed to be reduced into a single post on the matter.

I have class with a guy with a doctorate in theology. Any questions you want me to ask him?

>>6048125
>Recognizing that there will never be a perfect answer for it. Rather than reducing capacities of God(such as Mormon's making an image of God that isn't omnipotent or other groups saying God is not all loving) accepting them as definitions and our limited scope.
That would be reasonable except a crucial aspect of your faith is God as omnibenevolent, that's what makes the Christian God so good, supposedly.

>Such as?
Beautiful violence as opposed to beautiful tranquility.

>Love of God, then love of people. Far too detailed to be reduced into a single post on the matter.
But does He love inanimate objects? And if his love is infinite, how can there be a hierarchy to it?

>>6048140
>That would be reasonable except a crucial aspect of your faith is God as omnibenevolent, that's what makes the Christian God so good, supposedly.

Our scope makes it so we can't see the greater good of His actions. Just look at the response in Job, it's not to explain the actions but to point out that we as humans cannot understand the greater implications of His actions.

>Beautiful violence as opposed to beautiful tranquility.

I'm not sure I've heard of such a thing as beautiful violence. Any examples?

>But does He love inanimate objects? And if his love is infinite, how can there be a hierarchy to it?

The valuation is not for God, but for us. All of creation is loved, but only humans(and angels) are capable of responding in kind, and the response is what is valued.

>>6048154
>Our scope makes it so we can't see the greater good of His actions. Just look at the response in Job, it's not to explain the actions but to point out that we as humans cannot understand the greater implications of His actions.
Okay, but His omnibenevolence has a lot to do with Him being worthy of worship and trust.
>I'm not sure I've heard of such a thing as beautiful violence. Any examples?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticization_of_violence
>The valuation is not for God, but for us. All of creation is loved, but only humans(and angels) are capable of responding in kind, and the response is what is valued.
So does God love inanimate matter as much as He loves people?

>>6048180
>Okay, but His omnibenevolence has a lot to do with Him being worthy of worship and trust.

Yes, but all of the attributes must be taken as definitions and then explanations follow. We will never be fully able to understand the machinations of God and how bad things lead to a greater good(though we are shown through our own lives small inclinations of this). We can't give a complete answer because we were neither there at creation nor will be there in the end. It is beyond our imaginings or reasoning ability.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticization_of_violence

That's a matter of subject rather than a true contradiction. What makes one piece beautiful could still be what makes another beautiful even if they depict vastly different subjects.

>So does God love inanimate matter as much as He loves people?

No, and it would be an imperfect system that values all things equally. A rock is not as capable of appreciating God's love as a person, and returning it to bring honor to God. Ultimately God loves His own glory and the more closely something reflects His glory the more love it is worthy of.

There has never been a decent theological argument that doesn't rely on axioms

come at me

>>6048235
There hasn't been any argument ever that doesn't rely on axioms.

>>6048246
>There hasn't been any argument ever that doesn't rely on axioms.
don't be stupid

>>6048252
There hasn't. Even Euclid relies on axioms (postulates).

>>6048246
You don't get to pick and choose your own starting point though. Thomism just assumes there can be no first term, but why did he get to just declare that without any good reasoning behind it?

You can prove some crazy things with axiom of choice. Check out the Banach–Tarski paradox

>>6048296
>Thomism just assumes there can be no first term, but why did he get to just declare that without any good reasoning behind it?
Doesn't really matter, since Hume eventually proved that.

>>6048296
>implying reasoning isn't simply articulating preformed ideas

>>6047958
Explained with mathematics: 1 x 1 x 1 = 3

>>6047958
1 x 1 x 1 = 1

>>6047958
There is no answer, its just something Christians have to accept as a matter of faith. Even Augustine the pinnacle of Christian apologetics couldn't come up with an better answer than this.

>>6048540
isn't it 1+1+1= 1 though?

>>6047958

You can't understand it because it's illogical. Like jesus being fully god and fully human.

It's like if someone built a religion around the sacred squared circle. Then they went on trying to explain how that's not a contradiction because the square is just *word that doesn't describe anything* and the circle is another *word that doesn't describe anything*. And then they made sure that every analogy that makes sense is actually a heresy.
Finally, they try to say that faith in the square circle and reason don't stand in contradiction.

Anyone know any good books about religious figures of Judaism and Christianity?

>>6047958
As has been said, it's hard to comprehend how three is one, but the reason they aren't each other while also all being God is because they all have separate roles. The Father is the origin and is sourceless. The Son is begotten by the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. They each have distinct qualities.

>>6047958
A Christian friend recently described it to me this way:

Individuals within categories of things are distinct because they have different qualities.

The only qualities each of God's persons has which are different from the others, are in relation to one another. Thus, each is only definable relative to the others. You cannot contrast the Son with a hat, for instance, in any way that will not also apply to the Father or the Spirit. Thus each depends on the others for identity and cannot be said to be fully separate, despite not being the same thing.

>>6048728
This is a lot of words that didn't even try to point out what in there is illogical.

>>6048728
>squared circle
That's a slang term for a pro wrestling ring. Just so you know.

>>6049092
Please lads
Anything about someone like Moses, Abraham, Solomon, would be gr8

>>6043908
>I don't understand how the universe worked so there must be an non-contingent mover/causer
>Things have purpose outside of human value systems
>This is proof for the Christian God

>>6043908

>what is the argument from ignorance
>what is special pleading
>what is begging the question
>what is self-organization
>what are causal loops
>what has science been doing for the past 300 years
>what is empiricism
>who was David Hume
>who was Immanuel Kant
>who was Kurt Gödel

I'm pretty young, and not well read, but I'm taking a comp religion class and considering taking up the task of reading the old teste. Any reading advice? Most importantly, translation information. I've heard the true original is Aramaic and that a lot of important messages are lost in translation. Aside from that I'd have my own struggle in that some stuff I'm sure will go over my head and some stuff I will probably wrongly over-analyse.

It'd be a long-term goal and I'd read some novels along-side it. But would it be wise to just put it off until I'm more well read? I think not because in either case I can just return to it and I'll have already read it so things will come easier.

And when I say not well read I mean I'm recently out of high-school. In high-school I didn't read anything. But since leaving I've wanted to start again and slowly managed to read a few great books. The toughest to read was Camus' Myth of Sisyphus but not too much was lost to me, I just had to read it slowly, so I got the big messages. So you can gauge me off that I guess.

>>6049950
Read the RSV, Oxford Annotated edition.

You're welcome.

>>6050049
Looks pretty good. Thanks. Also, how much value does the new testament have?

>>6050090
>Also, how much value does the new testament have?
That... is a loaded question. Wow. Are you a Christian? Thinking of converting to Christianity? Trying to understand Christian belief? If so, it's far more important than the old testament.

If you're asking from a purely literary standpoint, about the same as the old testament.

>>6050099 here. I'm using "loaded question" in the colloquial sense, not to refer to a question predicated on unsupported assumptions.

>>6050099
Not religious and not planning on becoming religious. It's more of a literary standpoint, if the bible isn't a genius work it's still at least relevant to anyone in this world.

And the way people map out/interpret the symbols/metaphors/messages in Christianity can be pretty fucking fascinating.

>>6049381

That's the easy part. The trinity implies that three persons are just one being. This is obviously false as three persons are always three separate beings, though they may hypothetically share a body.

>>6050698
see
>>6049351

How do Protestants justify the reformation in spite of the belief of the Holy Spirit guiding the church from falter existing for 1,500 years prior? Granted there are two understandings of "the church", it makes no sense regardless.

If the church is to be recognized as the centralized institution, then the church would not have faltered to the point reformers felt a reformation was important.

If the church is the body of believers, then they could not have believed in church authority over scripture for over 1,000 years, as all sects did before the Reformation.

The only clear cut answer is that the Protestants are wrong.

>>6051164

How do Christians justify Christianity in spite of the belief of Yahweh guiding Judaism from falter existing for thousands of years prior?

How do Jews justify Judaism in spite of the belief of the Gods guiding Canaanite polytheism from falter existing for thousands of years prior?

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

can't be bothered to to read shit.
Religion is all make believie.
Guys still believe in this lie?

Why do you think the Christian Reformer Martin Luther may have loved Virgil and Plautus?

Also, why do you think Saint Paul referenced Aratus, Epimenides, Menander, Euripides, and Xenophon in the New Testament?

>>6051200
>How do Christians justify Christianity in spite of the belief of Yahweh guiding Judaism from falter existing for thousands of years prior?
The New Covenant and the arrival of the Messiah. It's all throughout the New Testament.

>How do Jews justify Judaism in spite of the belief of the Gods guiding Canaanite polytheism from falter existing for thousands of years prior?
Not quite sure, we know very little from that time but I'd assume it's just a "false gods" answer.

>>6051277
>The New Covenant and the arrival of the Messiah.

Not according to the Jews. They assert that Jesus was a fraud and that the Messiah still hasn't arrived. So who is telling the truth?

>>6051295
Who gives a fuck, don't change the topic. I'm asking how Protestants justify their claims.

>>6051316

Do you know that cursing is sinful?

Anyway, they justify their claims probably in the same way that you do, they think that God is on their side and probably believe that their faith is enough, just like you probably do

>>6051323
Okay, you don't know, I'll wait for someone else. Thanks.

Opinions on Christian existentialism?

>>6049906

Don't really want to start a discussion, but misapplication of special pleading fallacy in refutation of 2nd cosmological argument is easily provable from set theory. Causal loop is proper refutation though if we come off a premise that causal loops can in fact exist in the first place.

>>6051569
I would like you to start a discussion.

>>6049351
Your friend is a heretic by the sound of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

When >>6048728 said that they made any reasonable explanation heretical he wasnt joking.

>>6051164
>How do Protestants justify the reformation in spite of the belief of the Holy Spirit guiding the church from falter existing for 1,500 years prior?

Because the holy spirit came to them and required them to reform the church. The reformation was a feature of the holy spirit guiding the church rather than a deviation.

>If the church is to be recognized as the centralized institution, then the church would not have faltered to the point reformers felt a reformation was important.

That doesn't follow, it being centralized is not important it keeping in line with the teachings of christ and the guidance of the holy spirit is.

>If the church is the body of believers, then they could not have believed in church authority over scripture for over 1,000 years, as all sects did before the Reformation.

>Doesnt know about the lollards

Silliness aside the history of the church prior to the reformation was preparing the world so that the changes of the reformation could take place. A church being a body of believers was not viable on a global scale until the conditions of the 16th century (the printing press, increased urbanization ect) which is almost certainly why the holy spirit did not unleash the creative forces of the reformation until then.

>The only clear cut answer is that the Protestants are wrong.

Or that perhaps the holy spirit acts in ways contrary to your biases and preconceptions

>>6051879
>that pic
what the actual fuck?

>>6051909

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/anti-sectarian-campaign-is-on-the-right-track.22068333

Just a gem from the British Isles

>>6048216
>Yes, but all of the attributes must be taken as definitions and then explanations follow
What exactly is the basis for these definitions?

>What makes one piece beautiful could still be what makes another beautiful even if they depict vastly different subjects.
I think not, what makes violence beautiful are things like struggle and pain.

>No, and it would be an imperfect system that values all things equally
But then how is his love infinite?

>>6051930
Holy shit, I'm fucking speechless. What's the matter with brits these days?

>>6051164
The Church employed their free will to ignore the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

>>6051949
With the break down of families and social cohesion people are increasingly relying on the state to manage their morality. Of course this ends disastrously because of how isolated and insulated the state and its policy makers are from their increasingly diverse citizens.

Its a problem effecting the West in general but it seems to be particularly bad in the UK.

>>6051967
This cohesion thing seems to be a particularly british obsession, whatever happened to the society of rationally self-interested people you guys came up with?

>>6051967
States always managed morality, it's just that they're secular now. Families might have managed morality, but the morality they taught was heavily influenced by church and state propaganda. Public school just cut out the family as the middle man.

>>6051995
>States always managed morality,

Not the same extent though. Which is why human society has managed to function without a police force or welfare system for thousands of years.

>Families might have managed morality,

Yes and that is one of the most salient features. Enforcement of morals was principally a private matter.

Why is the Based Irenaean theodicy of evil and suffering better than pretty much all christian apologetics?

i thought this board was for intelligent discussion...

>>6052008
>Not the same extent though. Which is why human society has managed to function without a police force or welfare system for thousands of years.
I don't know if they functioned "well", there were always beggars and they had it pretty bad in the bast, there were homeless children and mothers and all sorts of issues. And crime was a serious issue in high population density areas.

>Not the same extent though. Which is why human society has managed to function without a police force or welfare system for thousands of years.
That was before widespread urbanization.

>>6051987
Im not a brit, although I am a bit of a britboo but I believe the answer to this

>whatever happened to the society of rationally self-interested people you guys came up with?

Is that firstly it was greatly overstated and to a large part dependent on the culture of their leadership and secondly that it was for the most part conditional on having a strong level of cultural unity and economic stability.

When this was radically changed in the 80s with the rise of neo-liberal economics and multiculturalism (and corresponding change in the views of their leaders) the fruits of the previous system all fell apart rapidly with the state being left to pick up the pieces.

>>6047958
It's like water in it's different forms.
Ice
Gaseous
Liquid
Or at least, this is how I heard someone say it. Either way, all are divine.

>>6052052
>I don't know if they functioned "well", there were always beggars and they had it pretty bad in the bast, there were homeless children and mothers and all sorts of issues. And crime was a serious issue in high population density areas.

The same can be said for our times as well, the take away part from my earlier statement would be to think of how a society without a police force and welfare state could possibly function. These features are natural to us and seem like an indispensable part of existence without which society would collapse into barbarism.

Yet what we instead find is that society did in fact manage to function beforehand and not just in a barbaric state but a civilized one.

>That was before widespread urbanization.

The idea of the welfare state only started to take place in the very late 1800's and only became the norm in the post war period. This is well after the spread of urbanization.

>>6052070
But they cant be the all three at once.

Its kind of like how each human can be a child, teenager and an adult. Each is is different form however having all three at once is an impossibility.

You can have water, ice and vapour but the atoms cannot be all at once.

>>6052057
The economic stability part I get, but modernity as such was a time of enormous cultural upheaval, with values constantly shifting in this or that direction, without it damaging the liberal consensus in any significant way. Imo, this whole cohesion thingy isn't some lame attempt at a solution, but decidedly part of the problem.

>>6052094
>enormous cultural upheaval, with values constantly shifting in this or that direction, without it damaging the liberal consensus in any significant way.

But like I said this was in the context of cultural unity and hence still in an environment of cohesion. The problem wasnt the change of values moreso the transition to system of multiple values hence a lack of cohesion.

>>6052119
British culture, or that of any other modern nation, was never at any rate unified. Thing is, society used to be beneficially disintegrated into individuals, now it is disintegrated into communities, which can stake their claim in the name of cohesion, as criticizing a community would threaten cohesion.

>>6052152
>British culture, or that of any other modern nation, was never at any rate unified.

Compared to the current situation it was substantially more unified which is one of the reason people were more apt to enforce and live according to social norms without relying on the state.

>Thing is, society used to be beneficially disintegrated into individuals,

I would argue at least in the UKs instance it ceased being beneficial in the post war period and that this growing individualism was principally replacing the family with the state.

>now it is disintegrated into communities, which can stake their claim in the name of cohesion, as criticizing a community would threaten cohesion.

This is a problem that I see as stemming from a lack of cohesion in the first place and an attempt from the state to impose a uniform morality on an an extremely un-uniform people.

Naturally such an imposition from an external will always be imperfect and a source of conflict however with this growing multicultural set up conflict has become far more pronounced.

>>6052082
>The same can be said for our times as well,
Not nearly to the same degree, no. There aren't whole communities of homeless families anymore.

>Yet what we instead find is that society did in fact manage to function beforehand and not just in a barbaric state but a civilized one.
I don't think they were especially barbaric, but they still employed torture in France up until the Revolution and crime was a very, very serious issue, which was handled with wide use of execution, but even that wasn't verye effective.

>The idea of the welfare state only started to take place in the very late 1800's and only became the norm in the post war period. This is well after the spread of urbanization.
Yes, I'd say urbanization was largely a product of the Industrial Revolution, and it creating plague of problems that were setting poor people all over to a boiling point, which the welfare state was employed to cope with, in order to prevent a socialist revolution.

>>6052254
>Not nearly to the same degree, no. There aren't whole communities of homeless families anymore.

How do you think the issues of crime and poverty would change if the state were to suddenly leave?

>I don't think they were especially barbaric, but they still employed torture in France up until the Revolution and crime was a very, very serious issue, which was handled with wide use of execution, but even that wasn't verye effective.

You are missing the point again, the point I keep on trying to make is that:

*more culturally unified societies were able to function with a VASTLY smaller state without falling into a state of barbarism and anarchy*

and that the current growth state is intimately linked with the break down of cultural unity and decline of non state organization.

>Yes, I'd say urbanization was largely a product of the Industrial Revolution, and it creating plague of problems that were setting poor people all over to a boiling point, which the welfare state was employed to cope with, in order to prevent a socialist revolution.

How is this relevant to my point of course industrialization played a big role in urbanization and of course the UK , US and Europe were industrialized by the date I mentioned. The societies in the 1600s were still much more urbanized than those that had been seen and extremely importantly people were managing without a welfare state for nearly 200 years after the industrial revolution took place and continued to do so primarily until the depression and post war period.

>>6052327
>How do you think the issues of crime and poverty would change if the state were to suddenly leave?
It would catastrophic for our economy, all of our money is state backed, everyone would become instantly broke until a new currency got up and running. I can't begin to envision what would happen when food distribution and utilities widely shut down.

>*more culturally unified societies were able to function with a VASTLY smaller state without falling into a state of barbarism and anarchy*
Yes, but they were pre-industrial and based on the same families working the land for generations and all knowing each other. There wasn't nearly as much skill specialization, the family worked with the family and all the families knew each other. Unless you have some sort of system where every business is owned by a particular family and staffed almost entirely by that family, I don't see how that could work anymore.

>The societies in the 1600s were still much more urbanized than those that had been seen and extremely importantly people were managing without a welfare state for nearly 200 years after the industrial revolution took place and continued to do so primarily until the depression and post war period.
Things started to get really shitty then. That's why highwaymen and pirates started becoming folk heroes.

>>6052398
>Yes, but they were pre-industrial and based on the same families working the land for generations and all knowing each other. There wasn't nearly as much skill specialization, the family worked with the family and all the families knew each other. Unless you have some sort of system where every business is owned by a particular family and staffed almost entirely by that family, I don't see how that could work anymore.

Not true "per-industiral" forms of social organization were still relevant up until the 1930s and arguably the 1940s.

>That's why highwaymen and pirates started becoming folk heroes.

Just like drug dealers and gangsters.

>>6052436
>Not true "per-industiral" forms of social organization were still relevant up until the 1930s and arguably the 1940s.
Yes, the Mafia thrived on them.

>Just like drug dealers and gangsters.
Not really. The Trenchcoat Robbers of the 1990's were not idolized by society, despite being more successful than John Dillinger. Black people idolize gangsters, and, for the same reasons people in the 1600's did, which is terrible economic conditions; criminals are the most powerful people in shitty neighborhoods, so they're idolized/

>>6052512
>Yes, the Mafia thrived on them.

Charity hospitals, benevolent societies and Salvation army soup kitchens where hardly something Mafia groups thrived on.

>. Black people idolize gangsters, and, for the same reasons people in the 1600's did, which is terrible economic conditions; criminals are the most powerful people in shitty neighborhoods, so they're idolized/

Except they weren't at best they were liked for the fact they struck out against the wealthy upper-classes. They were never idealized until vastly after their time.

>>6052587
>Charity hospitals, benevolent societies and Salvation army soup kitchens where hardly something Mafia groups thrived on.
If you don't think the Mafia thrived on pre-industrial social organization, you should really read Pileggi's "Wiseguy" (basis for the film Goodfellas). Because the communities pretty much never meant to the police with their issues, the mafia was the de factor arbiter of disputes, and because families stuck together so much and knew each other, you couldn't snitch on a mobster without sending someone's friend's cousin to prison.

>Except they weren't at best they were liked for the fact they struck out against the wealthy upper-classes.
Yes, and...?

>They were never idealized until vastly after their time.
Jack Sheppard was adored during his life,

>>6051879
Thanks for the detailed answer.

I have some questions though:

Is any of what you argue to be the case scriptural? Where does your argument come from?


>Or that perhaps the holy spirit acts in ways contrary to your biases and preconceptions

That would not make much sense as the Holy Spirit would have guided hundreds of random sects to appear, which is in direct conflict to scripture.

>>6052648
>de facto

>>6051940
>What exactly is the basis for these definitions?

Direct encounters with God.

>I think not, what makes violence beautiful are things like struggle and pain.

I'd hardly say that those things are beautiful. The aesthetics of the art pieces still rely on compositional attributes that more traditional pieces rely on, though.

>But then how is his love infinite?

Greater and lesser infinities exist. Though the real point is that He is love, rather than that He has an infinite capacity for love.

>Greater and lesser infinities exist.
That's a paddling.

>>6052653
>Is any of what you argue to be the case scriptural? Where does your argument come from?

Given their belief around the bible and sola-scriputra I would argue that for the moderate reformers there would have had to been a great deal of scriptural justification even If I dont know them myself personally.

As far as the radical protestants (ie the anabaptists back when they were still violent) were influenced by Millennialism (itself based on the book of revelations) and Romans 13, which they interpreted in a way which turned it on its head and became a justification for striking down earthly authority figures rather than submit to them. Acts 2:44 ("And all that believed were together, and had all things common)"; was also extremely important to them.

Additionally something that made the radical anabaptists more interesting was their belief in continuous revelations.

>That would not make much sense as the Holy Spirit would have guided hundreds of random sects to appear, which is in direct conflict to scripture.

Well at the time of the reformation this was not apparent and for awhile a uniform message from the bible seemed natural. Now we both know that this isnt the case. As far as how this is reconciled at one end there is the more moderate and modern view that the differences are minor and simply about structure rather than actual belief and on the other hand there is the view that it is actual Satan/demons tricking people into forming these sects by impersonating the holy spirit.

>>6051227
>can't be bothered to to read shit.
>>>/b/

>>6052871
Most of the early reformers also believed in sola ecclesias. Calvin in particular said "away from the church one cannot for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation."

The real problem isn't sola scriptura as it was originally meant, but that the catholic church was so far gone in its worldliness to be reformed. The selling of indulgences being the primary instigator of the reformation as well as previously banning the laity from owning bibles.

>>6053020
>The real problem isn't sola scriptura as it was originally meant, but that the catholic church was so far gone in its worldliness to be reformed. The selling of indulgences being the primary instigator of the reformation as well as previously banning the laity from owning bibles.

The issues with that is that neither cases you mention are a part of the doctrine of Catholicism itself and also weren't at the time. Oh, and the laity being banned from owning bibles is more because of the lack of Bibles generally. The printing press did not exist at the time so all scripture was kept by the church as its property. There is also issue with people distributing copies with translations that the church did not support.

>>6052871


>Given their belief around the bible and sola-scriputra I would argue that for the moderate reformers there would have had to been a great deal of scriptural justification even If I dont know them myself personally.

This is something I'm doubting the more I research issues with the Protestant Reformation and their collective beliefs. There is a lot of issues. Thanks though.

>>6053084
>This is something I'm doubting the more I research issues with the Protestant Reformation and their collective beliefs

What works of thiers in particular have you read? Have you had a chance to look at the book of concord?

>>6053084
>The issues with that is that neither cases you mention are a part of the doctrine of Catholicism itself and also weren't at the time. Oh, and the laity being banned from owning bibles is more because of the lack of Bibles generally. The printing press did not exist at the time so all scripture was kept by the church as its property. There is also issue with people distributing copies with translations that the church did not support.

There are specific councils condemning the ownership of the old and new testaments outside of Psalter. Not translations. And while the selling of indulgences has never been the official position if it wasn't being practiced Luther's 95 Theses wouldn't have gotten anywhere. The issue was more about the actual practice of the church than specific doctrinal positions.

>>6053175
>There are specific councils condemning the ownership of the old and new testaments outside of Psalter. Not translations. And while the selling of indulgences has never been the official position if it wasn't being practiced Luther's 95 Theses wouldn't have gotten anywhere. The issue was more about the actual practice of the church than specific doctrinal positions.

Sorry to jump in but if I recall there are multiple instances of banned scripture. Sometimes bad translations and sometimes the scripture just generally. The councils you refer to do all take place before the printing press to they fall in line with the post you're replying to.

>>6053340
You're right, though if cost were purely the issue as the lack of a printing press would have caused there would have been no reason to ban non-church ownership.

>>6053500
>costs
Scarcity is probably the key factor. Making it illegal to not turn it in to the church would help that.

>>6051164
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

What say you of all these, filthy papist?

>>6052857

>I have no idea who Georg Cantor was

>>6053565
>changing the topic entirely
>the first heresy listed prayers for the dead
>it's started because it's mentioned in 2 Maccabees and thus existed in ancient Israel as well
>it's called contrary to scripture
>sign of the cross
>not even in scripture
>called contrary to scripture

The tripfag is supposed to be the retard here. Not you, anon.

>>6053616
I agree some of the things mentioned are stretches, but the timeline is useful to show that the "Tradition" has been established by what suited the church rather than adhering to an unbroken lineage of doctrinal positions. Of particular note is that the pope being the bishop of Rome wasn't established until 610.

>>6053631
The Bishop of Rome had existed prior. The primacy of that bishop over the rest was established formally in 610 and had arguments rooted in scripture and history to back it, no matter how we consider those arguments to be.

I've read now everything lead to the Papacy's establishment and the one after it and it's all bullshit.

>>6053673
That's what I mean, bishops existed in every city but the conference of the bishop of Rome being the chief figurehead for the Christian church or even the necessity for a pope wasn't established until 610. That's not even mentioning the fact that there's no evidence Peter was ever in Rome to even further undermine the idea of apostolic succession.

>>6053673
I guess it's not much bullshit if I don't explain why.

>sign of the cross
Not in scripture, so doesn't conflict with it. It's a personal vow, in essence anyway.
>prayers for the dead
In scripture.

>Wax candles
>this nigga is talking about wax candles, who gives a shit

>Veneration of angels and dead saints
Honoring good individuals is not against scripture.

>The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted
Wholly from scripture and early Tradition

>Worship of Mary and title of "Mother of God"
She is the "Mother of God" in the Earthly sense and she is not worshiped. Even Catholics argue that they do pray to Mary but to call it a "prayer" is a semantic issue, as they honor her and simply ask her pray for them. They separate the praying from the worshiping.

>Priests begin to dress differently
A new expression of the same reverence. The outfits are not doctrine, either.

>Extreme Unction
Based in scripture.

>Purgatory established
Purgatory is not named specifically but it's heavily alluded to in the texts, particularly in 2 Maccabees. The name is church created but the concept is scriptural.

>Latin language was considered the language of the church
Latin was the known language at the time and, when it fell out, it was still the language of the educated classes. It was made the official language so to centralize the language for the people so more text could be easily understood by just making sure a single language was known.

>Prayers to Mary
As I said, the Catholics call asking saints to pray for them prayers out of a semantic issue. They are not worshiping her, as prayer would usually mean to people now.

All the scripture used against this say nothing about praying, either, but about glorifying God first and foremost. You don't glorify/worship saints, no one does that.

>Papacy
As I said in the previous post, the argument is based in history and scripture.

>kissing the pope's foot
It's not rejected in doctrine but those who argued against it in scripture were displaying reverence for their lord. Some popes did not display the same reverence, sadly. This does not mean a heresy was committed or it became normal.

>>6053737
>Honoring good individuals is not against scripture.

No, but every believer is counted among the saints in scripture. Raising particular believers above the rest is what's anti-scriptural.

>She is the "Mother of God" in the Earthly sense and she is not worshiped. Even Catholics argue that they do pray to Mary but to call it a "prayer" is a semantic issue, as they honor her and simply ask her pray for them. They separate the praying from the worshiping.

But Catholics claim she is the mother of His divine essence. She was the human mother, but not the mother of God. That's the issue.

>A new expression of the same reverence. The outfits are not doctrine, either.

Creating a distinct class between the body of believers is the problem. Those called to preach are not above the rest of the Body of Christ.

>As I said, the Catholics call asking saints to pray for them prayers out of a semantic issue. They are not worshiping her, as prayer would usually mean to people now.

All the scripture used against this say nothing about praying, either, but about glorifying God first and foremost. You don't glorify/worship saints, no one does that.

1 Timothy 2:5

>>6053780
>No, but every believer is counted among the saints in scripture. Raising particular believers above the rest is what's anti-scriptural.
I have seen no arguments to make the claim that that is what is truly anti-scriptural about the veneration of saints. Regardless, we cannot assume who was a true believer and in Heaven very easily so the church goes through a rigorous process to make the claim that they are in Heaven and that they could pray for you. This is not a raising the ones understood to be in Heaven above the rest not understood.

>But Catholics claim she is the mother of His divine essence. She was the human mother, but not the mother of God. That's the issue.
But Catholics don't hold that belief. Ctrl+f "divine essence"
https://carm.org/mary-mother-of-god-logical-fallacy

>Creating a distinct class between the body of believers is the problem. Those called to preach are not above the rest of the Body of Christ.
Giving them ceremonial robes when doing Mass is not raising them up above anyone else.

>1 Timothy 2:5

That says nothing helpful. They aren't mediators.
Look at 1 Timothy 2:1-5. It mentions intercession. They function as intercessors, not mediators.

>>6053812
>I have seen no arguments to make the claim that that is what is truly anti-scriptural about the veneration of saints. Regardless, we cannot assume who was a true believer and in Heaven very easily so the church goes through a rigorous process to make the claim that they are in Heaven and that they could pray for you. This is not a raising the ones understood to be in Heaven above the rest not understood

The real issue isn't so much that the saints and mary are beloved, but that prayers are directed to them.

>But Catholics don't hold that belief. Ctrl+f "divine essence"
https://carm.org/mary-mother-of-god-logical-fallacy

There's not much true distinction between what catholics call "veneration" and worship. That such a distinction must be made is telling.

>Giving them ceremonial robes when doing Mass is not raising them up above anyone else.

It creates a clear, identifiable distinction. No such distinction should be made.

>That says nothing helpful. They aren't mediators.
Look at 1 Timothy 2:1-5. It mentions intercession. They function as intercessors, not mediators.

What is the point of praying TO them if they aren't mediators? It's not the same thing as having another Christian pray FOR you.

If true infinity exists, God must exist within that infinity. Atheists believe everything is finite, that there is a limited amount of energy. Theists believe that there is no end to energy.

Faith is the intuitive ability to understand infinity. Infinity is the end, the conclusion. It is what religion points at. Only God can comprehend infinity.

Try this, seriously, try to grasp 'infinity'. A corridor with no end, time with no beginning, imagination with no limit.

>>6054317
>If true infinity exists, God must exist within that infinity.

That doesn't logically follow

Also, infinity isn't as straightforward as you probably think it is

>>6053848
You don't pray to the saints, you request them to pray for you.

It's quite literally demonstrated by the last line of the Ave Maria
>pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

You clearly don't even know how the practice works in the Catholic Church, so you'd be better off to stop forming opinions on it.

>>6054317

>If true infinity exists, God must exist within that infinity

Why do you do this?
Say stupid things like this, trying to look deep.

No, not really.
Infinity doesn't mean every thing that can exist exists, it just means infinite number of elements. The elements could be all the same, repeated.

>>6053848
>The real issue isn't so much that the saints and mary are beloved, but that prayers are directed to them.

As I've said before, saying there are prayers made to them is a semantic issue as it's not functionally the same as prayers to God.

>There's not much true distinction between what catholics call "veneration" and worship. That such a distinction must be made is telling.

That's because of the semantic issue of "prayer" and some idiots who think Catholics worship the statue of Mary itself and other retarded stuff.

>It creates a clear, identifiable distinction. No such distinction should be made.
There is no scriptural argument dismissing garb for when Mass occurs.

>What is the point of praying TO them if they aren't mediators? It's not the same thing as having another Christian pray FOR you.
That's the semantic issue. You're asking them to pray for you but what do you call the asking itself? Prayer.

Is there a logical argument for the immanence of God? Not the existence of God as a whole, but this quality in particular.