/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16602632]

>dude the greeks literally had a God of thieves and Zeus raped women!
>meanwhile their desert demon god genocided entire races
Why do christcucks believe they have any say in criticizing everyone else's Gods when their God is the most immoral and evil tyrant to come out of the Canaanite pantheon?

[Anonymous No.16602640]

>>16602632
because that's the truth of the matter, and God is an explanation that's the most beautiful for the purpose of surrender and absolute reliance on His absolute decree.

[Anonymous No.16602645]

Because most of the ancient church fathers never had access to the whole of scripture.

[Anonymous No.16603255]

How can God genocide people if everyone dies by his will and every life came from his grace?

[Anonymous No.16603273]

>>16603255
>literally "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" for religitards

[Anonymous No.16603276]

>>16602632
>when their God is the most immoral and evil tyrant to come out of the Canaanite pantheon?
Get off of 4chan and reflect on who you are

[Anonymous No.16603313]

>>16603273
Is this the Stephen Fry argument?

[Anonymous No.16603320]

>>16602632
based gnostic

[Anonymous No.16603326]

>>16602632
that is not even his argument, justa small point in it, about inconsistency of morals

[Anonymous No.16603373]

>>16602632
>>16602632
That's a picture of Saint Augustine, you should actually try reading him.
>Nor knew I that true inward righteousness which judgeth not according to custom, but out of the most rightful law of God Almighty, whereby the ways of places and times were disposed according to those times and places; itself meantime being the same always and every where, not one thing in one place, and another in another; according to which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, and David, were righteous, and all those commended by the mouth of God; but were judged unrighteous by silly men, judging out of man's judgment, and measuring by their own petty habits, the moral habits of the whole human race.
>Even such are they who are fretted to hear something to have been lawful for righteous men formerly, which now is not; or that God, for certain temporal respects, commanded them one thing, and these another, obeying both the same righteousness: whereas they see, in one man, and one day, and one house, different things to be fit for different members, and a thing formerly lawful, after a certain time not so; in one corner permitted or commanded, but in another rightly forbidden and punished. Is justice therefore various or mutable? No, but the times, over which it presides, flow not evenly, because they are times. But men whose days are few upon the earth, for that by their senses they cannot harmonise the causes of things in former ages and other nations, which they had not experience of, with these which they have experience of, whereas in one and the same body, day, or family, they easily see what is fitting for each member, and season, part, and person; to the one they take exceptions, to the other they submit.
>These things I then knew not, nor observed; they struck my sight on all sides, and I saw them not. I indited verses, in which I might not place every foot every where, but differently in different metres; nor even in any one metre the self-same foot in all places. Yet the art itself, by which I indited, had not different principles for these different cases, but comprised all in one. Still I saw not how that righteousness, which good and holy men obeyed, did far more excellently and sublimely contain in one all those things which God commanded, and in no part varied; although in varying times it prescribed not every thing at once, but apportioned and enjoined what was fit for each. And I in my blindness, censured the holy Fathers, not only wherein they made use of things present as God commanded and inspired them, but also wherein they were foretelling things to come, as God was revealing in them.

[Anonymous No.16603398]

>>16602645
Simply untrue, they had more scripture than Protestants. Kek.

[Anonymous No.16603408]

To be fair, Augustine literally had no fucking clue what he was talking about, and doesn't really hide this fact. He's shitting on his religious and political enemies, and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.16603458]

>>16602632
Because the god that Christians claim to worship is nebulously defined. When Christians want to scare people, they characterise him as evil. When they want to appeal to people, they characterise him as benevolent. When they want to make their religion sound sophisticated and unfalsifiable they characterise him as some kind of vague, non-physical spirit or thought-form. When they want to sell their religion on the grounds that is emotionally fulfilling, then they characterise him as a close friend, even a lover. The god which Christians worship is nothing like the original Yahweh, except when he needs to be, then he is. Christianity is the spiritual equivalent of McDonalds: there's nothing really substantial in there, but it's bland and diverse enough to achieve multi-national, mass-market appeal.

[Anonymous No.16603486]

>>16603373
Don't even try, this guy is a regular poster. Every other day he makes a thread with the same exact picture of Augustine always whining about Christianity and how it's so "illogical" and "evil".

[Anonymous No.16603503]

>>16602632
He did what all Christians did. They superimposed the polytheist first principle on their YHWH demon and then proceeded to mock the religion and culture of the philosophers. You see similar things in the modern world where certain segments of the population will mock and belittle the people or culture that even makes mockery possible. Always pretending that all that they were given just plopped out of the ground as a necessity.
>tl;dr Christians are retarded and gay
Also Augustine didn't understand polytheism at all. He was merely punching down at a culture and religion that was already by his time on its way out. Polytheism during his time was the WASPs of today.

[Anonymous No.16603516]

>>16603503
>Polytheism during his time was the WASPs of today.
WASPs who incidently have gotten fucked by racial caths and women all throughout the last century. Always the same culprits, huh?

[Anonymous No.16603518]

>>16603503
t. has never read anything

[Anonymous No.16603520]

>>16603486
From the looks of it, he didn't even tried, he just copypasted a totally unrelated blob of text and completely ignored OP's point.

[Anonymous No.16603525]

>>16603518
>jewish lesbians twerking in church has always been one of the core tenets of lutheranism
very strange take

[Anonymous No.16603526]

>>16603520
>moral relativity of polytheism is unrelated to op's point
ok brainlet

[Anonymous No.16603535]

>>16603520
Being able to read is a prerequisite for posting on this board.

[Anonymous No.16603542]

>>16603526
Not really. "Polytheism" is a descriptor encompassing multiple religions. It's a meaningless term, there were no "polytheists" just practitioners of Roman Religion, Greek Religion, etc. You're trying to accuse Pre-Christian religion of being "morally relativistic" and as such invalid (which is a weird thing to do because by being a Christian you actually uphold moral relativism via supercession), but no one who actually held there being multiple Gods would agree with you. You might as well say that Christianity is morally relativistic because not all monotheists agree in lock step with each other.

Which still completely ignores OP's point, by the way.

[Anonymous No.16603544]

>>16603535
>i haven't read augustine, the blob that anon posted, OR OP, but my opinion is really important!
lol

[Anonymous No.16603547]

>>16603544
Projecting

[Anonymous No.16603549]

>>16603518
No u

[Anonymous No.16603562]

>>16603503
Your worldview is impotent. You frame a historical power (one into which you project yourself) as victim, and do nothing but whine about its decline and fall. Where are your works, today? What are you doing, today, to make real your struggle against Jesus Christ and His followers?
Nothing. You threw in your lot with a defeated power and went no further.
Fag.

[Anonymous No.16603572]

>>16603373
>gods moves in myserious ways bro, morality is relative man
bad take

[Anonymous No.16603596]

>>16603562
I didn't throw in my lot with anyone. I studied, jogged my noggin, and saw the truth, and realized that truth lost a long time ago. The world fell. What do you want me to do about that?

[Anonymous No.16603634]

>>16603596
Shut up virgin.

[Anonymous No.16603659]

>>16603486
I'm not doing it for him. I do it for the anon that may end up believing what he says.
>>16603572
Learn to read.
There is eternal justice that comes from God, and there are arbitrary traditions and customs that come from the pacts of men.
Augustine says in this same chapter (this is, the chapter III of the confessions) that you should respect your traditions and covenants because these are what maintain order in society, and that it is not fair to give in to the whims of foreigners. Nevertheless, the eternal and transcendent justice that comes from God takes priority because is objective.
This is because the covenants that men make change in time and space, but God's commandments are eternal and immutable.
>Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

[Anonymous No.16603668]

>>16603659
What about when the eternal commandments are in conflict with your customs?

[Anonymous No.16603691]

>>16603668
As i said, our customs are arbitrary and thus subjective. God's commandments are eternal and objective, so they take priority.
>Can it at any time or place be unjust to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbour as himself? Therefore are those foul offences which be against nature, to be every where and at all times detested and punished; such as were those of the men of Sodom: which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is Author, is polluted by perversity of lust. But those actions which are offences against the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs severally prevailing; so that a thing agreed upon, and confirmed, by custom or law of any city or nation, may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether native or foreigner. For any part which harmoniseth not with its whole, is offensive. But when God commands a thing to be done, against the customs or compact of any people, though it were never by them done heretofore, it is to be done; and if intermitted, it is to be restored; and if never ordained, is now to be ordained.

[Anonymous No.16603701]

>>16603659
>>16603691
>moral relativism is okay when WE do it
lol

[Anonymous No.16603710]

>>16603701
How is this moral relativism when there is an objective moral ground that takes priority over the subjective morals of man?

[Anonymous No.16603736]

>>16603710
>how am i a moral relativist if i believe that morality is open to interpretation with no solid ground?
Do you believe that circumcision is necessary to attain salvation?

[Anonymous No.16603742]

>>16603373
>>16603659
>>16603691
Sounds like the poormans Neoplatonism to me. They made the same arguments but because their God and his eternal justice was not the YHWH of the Bible they could continue to venerate and cherish their gods, customs, and festivities.

Tell me again why we need your God and his scriptures?

[Anonymous No.16603751]

>>16603710
>How is this moral relativism when there is an objective moral ground

This is not objective morality. The Bible can and has been interpreted any way which is convenient for the interpreter.

[Anonymous No.16603766]

Because christcucks are deluded retards

[Anonymous No.16603810]

>>16603736
>>how am i a moral relativist if i believe that morality is open to interpretation with no solid ground?
There is a solid ground for morals which are God's covenants. Read the passage i quoted, Augustine says that it wouldn't matter if everyone agreed to commit the sins of Sodom, it would still be wrong because it goes against an objective moral mandate.
>Do you believe that circumcision is necessary to attain salvation?
No, i find it morally reprehensible, probably because I find myself traversed by modern ideas about freedom of choice, and I don't think it's fair to have a piece of you taken away from you as soon as you are born without your consent. Those where and are jewish customs, and they are incompatible with western society. That's precisely why it generates such controversy too.
>>16603751
>The Bible can and has been interpreted any way which is convenient for the interpreter.
You're right, but you could also say that about many books. I have heard people argue that Plato was in favor of homosexuality, and others argue that Plato despised it. The fact is that there is only one reading of Plato that is correct, and the same applies to the Bible (please, don't give me Barthesian nonsense about the death of the author).
I would suggest that you ignore those fallacies of protestant pastors and read the church fathers. You will notice that there is a consistency in the message they preach.
>>16603742
>Tell me again why we need your God and his scriptures?
Look around the current state of the world and tell me yourself.

[Anonymous No.16603832]

>>16603810
>You're right, but you could also say that about many books.

The difference is that nobody's claiming that "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" is the cornerstone of objective mortality.

[Anonymous No.16603837]

>>16603832
False equivalence. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is not trying to teach you morals in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16603850]

>>16602632
>>dude the greeks literally had a God of thieves and Zeus raped women!
Not justifiable.
>>meanwhile their desert demon god genocided entire races
Justifiable.

[Anonymous No.16603861]

Morality is explicated through philosophers, not scriptures. Polytheist societies being morally relativist while monotheist societies are not is complete nonsense.

Even the 10 commandments needed thousands of years of philosophers making sense of them and find every exception that is not included in them. Be it the starving child "stealing" a loaf of bread or muh crusades or why forming a piece of stone into a woman giving it a name and putting a golden hat on it as you prostate in front of her is not idolatry.

Pagan Rome was not relativistic. The myths were rarely seen as being the source of morality, reason was.

Fuck Augustine and fuck Christians.

[Anonymous No.16603865]

>>16603837
How do you know that the Bible is? It was assembled long after it's constituent parts were written and most of the books are anonymous.

[Anonymous No.16603880]

>>16602632
>horned helmet fedora makes his 1,000th thread
>uses the explicitly Christian understanding of the term 'demon' to perjure against the Christian God
Fuck you're a dumbass

[Anonymous No.16603881]

>>16603562
That was a very poignant response.

>>16603596
This is what someone says when they’ve been shown to be effete and ineffectual.

[Anonymous No.16603888]

>>16603810
>Look around the current state of the world and tell me yourself.
Your religion and scriptures gave us that. Paganism never turned an entire continent and its colonies into a desert of apathy, nihilism and atheism. Christianity did that.

You do not cure cancer by starting to smoke again.

[Anonymous No.16603903]

>>16603865
>It was assembled long after it's constituent parts were written and most of the books are anonymous
That's not important anon, the important part is the content of the books. Even if you don't believe in God, you have to admit that it's a philosophical book. It deals on metaphysics, ethics, politics, epistemology, aesthetics, and so on.
Take the book of Job, for instance. It doesn't really matter who wrote it, because it deals precisely with an ethical question, "why do good people suffer".

[Anonymous No.16603920]

>>16603888
>Christianity is responsible for the symptoms of departure from Christianity
I bet you're the kind of dumb fuck who stops taking antibiotics halfway through the course and gets mad when his infection comes back

[Anonymous No.16603931]

>>16603920
>halfway through
I think we can reject cures that takes over 2000 years to supposedly start working.

[Anonymous No.16603942]

>>16603931
>2,000 years of relative health
>100 years of historically immediate decline in response to abandoned doctrine
>surely the 2,000 years are at fault
Christ alive, I hope you aren't such an insufferable metaphor-blind pedant around your family and friends

[Anonymous No.16603946]

>>16603903
>That's not important anon,

Yes it is. We're discussing the intent of the authors, therefore the fact that the authors are unknown is of paramount importance. Anything you might say about the "Book of Job" is speculation until we know, how can you be sure it wasn't a work of satire?

[Anonymous No.16603982]

Christian here, funny to see my religion living rent free in your heads. Might debunk some of this nonsense, but I have prayers and readings to attend to atm.

[Anonymous No.16604009]

>>16603888
No anon, modern protestantism and the subsequent decay of roman catholicism gave us that.
Do you think that the call of thousands of nobles and servants that was made during the crusades in order to put an end to Muslim oppression and regain sacred territories is possible in a state of nihilism? Do you think it was their atheism that motivated these men to sell their possessions just to buy materials for a trip that they knew was quite possible they weren't coming back? Do you think it is apathy that maintains the morale of men during more than a hundred years of perpetual war?
>>16603946
>Yes it is. We're discussing the intent of the authors, therefore the fact that the authors are unknown is of paramount importance.
Not really, if we knew the authors you could still argue that the intent of the author is not important. I'm arguing about the content of the book.
>Anything you might say about the "Book of Job" is speculation until we know, how can you be sure it wasn't a work of satire?
What aspect of the book of Job can be interpreted as a satire?

[Anonymous No.16604016]

>>16602640
What kind of cuck needs someone else's absolute decree in their life?

[Anonymous No.16604043]

>>16604009
>I'm arguing about the content of the book.
The content of the book is subjective unless we know the author's intent. People have drawn all sorts of internally consistent meanings from the Bible. Only information about the authors can create a consensus.

>What aspect of the book of Job can be interpreted as a satire?
Sorry if this sounds disrespectful to the book, but examine the facts of the tale. God makes a hasty bet and then torments a man to ensure that he is the winner. Then he gives a grandiose speech about how his motives are beyond human understanding, which provides a certain amount of bathos given that we, the reader know that God had the most petty and understandable reasons for what he did: - he was trying to win an ill-conceived bet. Some historians have even suspected that the story was a satirical re-imagining of traditional Jewish ideas about justice, specifically that God always rewards the just and punishes the unjust.

[Anonymous No.16604075]

>>16604009
Pagans were perfectly able to defend territory and regain sacred spaces. Important to remember that those sacred spaces existed in Europe though.

Yes religion makes people do stuff. So it's a problem that Christianity happens to be a religion that is so wholly unbelievable and silly. I hope you're not under the impression that the collapse of Christianity is over some strange historical accident and subversion, that technically did not have to happen.

People stopped believing in Christianity because of the things that are essential to Christianity, not some strange non-essential attribute of Protestantism or whatever. People left Christianity because of the biblical Jesus, and everything else you'll find in the most trad Aquinas approved catechism. You people are in complete denial.

[Anonymous No.16604202]

>>16603810
So then you believe morality is indeed relative, temporally. So, you are a moral relativist.

[Anonymous No.16604222]

>>16603458
Thats because with Christianity the consciousness of the numinous is complete. Read Otto’s Das Heilige.

[Anonymous No.16604257]

Reminder that even before Augustine roman paganism was already dead. There were even abandoned temples (which became occupied by christians after governmental decree allowing their occupation). Paganism was degenerated with Roman “paganism”.

[Anonymous No.16604261]

>>16604222
I'd pick the Roman numen over whatever Otto is talking about.

[Anonymous No.16604269]

>>16604257
in certain areas of the empire*
Whoops!

[Anonymous No.16604278]

>>16604075
Chrisitianity survived schisms, protestant revolution, economic revolutions, political revolutions, modernization. What do you have to say about pagans themselves abandoning their own temples? You are completely deluded, how can you don’t even realize your own irrational hatred.

[Anonymous No.16604285]

>>16604261
>roman numen
What does it even mean lol. We are talking about numinous consciousness, universality. Read a book, you illiterate idiot.

[Anonymous No.16604321]

>>16604016
This is what pagan 4channers are, all crypto-atheists.

[Anonymous No.16604340]

>>16604075
>>16604269

[Anonymous No.16604350]

>>16603273
Refute the argument.

[Anonymous No.16604355]

>>16603701
>God should be judged like a common man in 2020
absolute state of bugmen

[Anonymous No.16604377]

>>16604350
It is not morally justifiable for a parent to kill their child merely because they created it. Therefore, even if God exists it is not morally justifiable for him to kill his children.

[Anonymous No.16604399]

>>16604377
such morality is made up by you though

[Anonymous No.16604402]

>>16604043
>People have drawn all sorts of internally consistent meanings from the Bible. Only information about the authors can create a consensus.
Well, consider that the book of Job is quoted in other books of the Bible of which we know the author, and never considered as a satire, but taken seriously instead. For instance, this happens on the Psalms and the Proverbs.
You could also argue if satire, as a literary genre, was conceived by the Hebrews. I'm seriously not sure about this one, but as far as i know, satire as a genre has greco-roman roots.
Christianity also solves this by arguing for divine inspiration. If such a mistake was made, God would have intervened to correct it. But this is an aspect of faith, and if you don't believe this will sound like nonsense to you.
>God makes a hasty bet and then torments a man to ensure that he is the winner. Then he gives a grandiose speech about how his motives are beyond human understanding, which provides a certain amount of bathos given that we, the reader know that God had the most petty and understandable reasons for what he did: - he was trying to win an ill-conceived bet.
It's not a hasty bet if you know the result beforehand. Re-read the book with that in mind.
The whole point is that bad things may happen to you, even if your're a good person, but you should not stop being a good person because of that.
>>16604075
>Pagans were perfectly able to defend territory and regain sacred spaces.
Yet they were not able to defend the advance of Christianity. I don't want to be disrespectful, but you pagans seriously have to decide if you are going to praise muh "might is right" or keep complaining because of the "evil violent Christians".
>Important to remember that those sacred spaces existed in Europe though.
I remember Donar's Oak.
>Yes religion makes people do stuff. So it's a problem that Christianity happens to be a religion that is so wholly unbelievable and silly.
" But behold, I see a thing not understood by the proud, nor laid open to children, lowly in access, in its recesses lofty, and veiled with mysteries; and I was not such as could enter into it, or stoop my neck to follow its steps. For not as I now speak, did I feel when I turned to those Scriptures; but they seemed to me unworthy to he compared to the stateliness of Tully".
>I hope you're not under the impression that the collapse of Christianity is over some strange historical accident and subversion, that technically did not have to happen.
I do, it's called the Great Schism. Do remember that the orthodox faith never had a reform in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16604412]

>>16604285
>What does it even mean
Google it. Christianity lacks the numinious. It is a religion of systematisation and of dogmas. Dusty scriptures and zealotry for it is all it can provide.

[Anonymous No.16604416]

>>16604399
I didn't invent the concept that killing one's own children is immoral. It's such a common notion that exceptions to it are notable.

[Anonymous No.16604459]

>>16604416
but its still subjective morality therefore cannot be used as evidence to support your claim

[Anonymous No.16604464]

>>16604402
>Well, consider that the book of Job is quoted in other books of the Bible of which we know the author, and never considered as a satire, but taken seriously instead.
This line of reasoning is flawed. The fact that we know of people who interpreted a text one way does not tell us anything about the correctness of their interpretation. We know of many authorities who believe that "Fahrenheit 451" is a book about censorship. But Ray Bradbury, asserting his prerogative as the author, tells us that it is about intellectual complacency in a technologically advanced society.
>Christianity also solves this by arguing for divine inspiration. If such a mistake was made, God would have intervened to correct it.
Your logic is flawed. Christians attribute heretical views and atheism to humans misunderstanding the Bible and/or the Bible itself being the flawed product of man. Therefore, it is established that God will not intervene in cases of Biblical misunderstanding.
>It's not a hasty bet if you know the result beforehand.
It is not a bet of any kind if the outcome is known. This is a plot-hole resulting from the extra-cannonical notion that God is omniscient. If the story is taken in isolation, the plot hole does not exist.
>The whole point is that bad things may happen to you, even if your're a good person, but you should not stop being a good person because of that.
Who is the authority who declared this to be the case? How does he know for certain?

[Anonymous No.16604478]

>>16604459
It's not evidence, it's a counterexample. It does not, in itself, prove that killing children is wrong. It merely disproves the Christian notion that killing one's own children is justified.

[Anonymous No.16604568]

>>16604464
>This line of reasoning is flawed. The fact that we know of people who interpreted a text one way does not tell us anything about the correctness of their interpretation.
Yeah, fair enough.
>Christians attribute heretical views and atheism to humans misunderstanding the Bible and/or the Bible itself being the flawed product of man. Therefore, it is established that God will not intervene in cases of Biblical misunderstanding.
Let's set aside your beliefs for a moment, and just suppose hypothetically that the God of Christianity exists.
You think God wouldn't correct his saints and prophets by forbidding them of quoting this book? You think he wouldn't have warned David that he shouldn't quote the book of Job seriously while he was writing the Psalms?
As i said, this is a matter of faith, so i don't blame you if this sounds like nonsense to you, but faith is one of the philosophical cores of the Bible as a whole.
>If the story is taken in isolation, the plot hole does not exist.
And that's the other problem. None of these books are meant to be taken in isolation. If you check the Bible, you will find that probably it has little footnotes that indicate when a specific passage is referencing something that it's said in other book. Only Job references Jeremiah, Corinthians, Acts, Amos, the Psalms, Proverbs, Revelations and so on. Not only that, its the first of the seven sapiential books, and it's meant to be read in conjunction with the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.
The logic of the text comes from these books, and at the same time it gives meaning to the next books. It's kind of hard to explain, think about it like if the books were written and ordered imitating the transcendent image of God. Always looking before and after, implying things that happened and have yet to happen. Sometimes, when you look for a specific answer to a question, you have to read these books in a different order that the one it appears on the Bible. For example, on the specific problem i mentioned, "why do good people suffer?", you should read first Proverbs to get exposed to what does it mean to be good on the eyes of God; then Ecclesiastes to recognize that a lot of times good people suffer and bad people live peacefully; and then Job to understand that this doesn't mean that you should stop being a good person.

[Anonymous No.16604571]

>>16604412
you have no idea about what religion is lol much less of numinous consciousness. read a book please i even recommended a good one to you.

[Anonymous No.16604605]

>>16603810
>No, i find it morally reprehensible, probably because I find myself traversed by modern ideas...
So you find something that God commanded morally reprehensible because of modern day culture. Sounds like moral relativism to me.

>read the church fathers. You will notice that there is a consistency in the message they preach.
There isn't. For example the epistle of Barnabas is one of the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament, it teaches that all the laws of the Torah are metaphorical, for example the prohibition on eating pork is a metaphor for not being gluttonous like a pig. Other church fathers totally disagreed, teaching that the laws were meant to be literally carried out although they were really laying the groundwork for Jesus.

>Look around the current state of the world and tell me yourself
The European powers being Christian didn't stop endless wars against each other and the atrocities of the slave trade. Bad actions happen with or without Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16604625]

>>16604278
Modern day Christianity in no way, shape or form resembles early Christianity or even Christianity from a few centuries ago even slightly

[Anonymous No.16604628]

>>16604625
You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.16604652]

>>16604625
Orthodox churches don't? In the more specific case of RC which has been suffering much more with the attacks of modernity and infiltrations, I warrant you they still practice the Sacraments.

[Anonymous No.16604656]

>>16604628
No, you’re just historically illiterate. Virtually nothing classically known as Christian has survived in the modern West. Politically, Christianity is almost entire absent, intellectually it has now considered little more than one religio-philosiphical school of thought. If it’s even present at all, it has completely changed, and now holds views that even a few decades ago would’ve been unheard of

[Anonymous No.16604675]

>>16604652
The Orthodox Church has virtually turned into a Putin worshipping LARP fest. It’s now quite literally just Slavo nationalism with Jesus icons

[Anonymous No.16604677]

>>16604568
>You think God wouldn't correct his saints and prophets by forbidding them of quoting this book?
Whether I am a Christian, an Atheist or anything in between, I must hold the opinion that God would do nothing to correct an errant Bible or erroneous theology. We know that errant Bibles exist, we know that people disagree about the interpretation and even the contents of the Bible and no divine sign has appeared to conclusively end these disagreements. Therefore, we must conclude that if God exists, he is prepared to let errors stand.
>None of these books are meant to be taken in isolation.
They were written centuries apart and only combined later. We even have letters from the Rabbis who assembled the Torah disagreeing over the intended contents. And we have many accounts of the early Christians disagreeing vociferously about the contents of the Bible. Some of these disagreements are still ongoing. The fact that the authors came from the same culture and were drawing upon similar themes, sometimes even referencing each other, does not prove that the books were supposed to be read together. the "Sherlock Holmes" stories were written in the same culture as Shakespeare, Marlowe and Dickens and there are references to them in the Holmes canon. But nobody can reasonably claim that Sherlock Holmes is internally consistent with the entire corpus of English Literature.

[Anonymous No.16604750]

>>16604656
>>16604675
A simple, quick example was given to you: the Sacraments. The current of modernity is an altogether opposition to the mentality of antiquity which only survives with Christianity in the west. The west has never suffered such an opposite force against its own foundations. Can you think how the exoteric aspects of paganism and its polytheism would suffer with commodification in capitalism, with secular, materialist, transgressive politics and science?

>The Orthodox Church has virtually turned into a Putin worshipping LARP fest.
Completely retarded. I also said Orthodox Churches, not only the Russian one. I don't think you have an idea about how many other orthodox churches there are in the east.

[Anonymous No.16604751]

>>16604478
but it dosnt again subjectivity whats good for you is bad for someone else, and what notion that killing ones own children is justified?

[Anonymous No.16604790]

>>16604751
>what notion that killing ones own children is justified?

The chain of reasoning is thus:
1) God created man.
Lemma: the creator of a thing is morally justified in destroying it.
Conclusion: God is morally justified in destroying men.
However, this is unsound, because the lemma is unjustified. There are many examples of times when we do not accept it, such as parents and their children. Therefore, it is not a self-evident truth and therefore cannot be used as a lemma.

>but it dosnt again subjectivity

The subjective nature of the counterexample is irrelevant. The mere existence of a counterexample proves that the edifice is not logically sound.

[Anonymous No.16604816]

>>16602632
but Plato made the same complaint; the idea that the guys were immoral and inventions of poets didn't even come from St. Augustine; these original complaints are sourced from Plato and many of the Greek philosophers at the time

Hellenic philosophy became more "rational" in regards to religion; a lot of the new philosophers/pseudo-cultist groups made their name by critiquing the common paganism

>>16603503
>Also Augustine didn't understand polytheism at all.

Before becoming christian Augustine was one of the the neo-platonists most famous debaters; seeing as he not only lived in the era and was a sincere polytheist, it's more than likely he knew more about it than you or anyone alive ever will.

[Anonymous No.16604821]

>>16604790
different anon here but i think the difficulty lies in the ''creator destroys its creation'' which is false. creation brings its own destruction by diverting from the law and principles.
also why would god be restricted to such a moral logical positivism?

[Anonymous No.16604864]

>>16604821
>creation brings its own destruction by diverting from the law and principles.
That's a different perspective. I was asked to refute the perspective that incidents where God chooses to destroy human beings are morally justified, solely because God created humans.

>why would god be restricted to such a moral logical positivism
He may not, but that path leads to Deism. Christianity depicts God as omnibenevolent. If that word means anything at all, humans must be able to understand God and apply a consistent system of moral standards to him.

[Anonymous No.16604877]

>>16604605
>So you find something that God commanded morally reprehensible because of modern day culture.
The circumcision is a visible mark that implies perpetuity and commitment, two values really important for a group of people that got out of Egypt thanks to God, and immediately started to worship icons after their prophet left for five minutes. If you have read the Bible, you know that is a recurrent problem. More important than that, it implies exclusivity with Israel, which ended after the Hebrews killed Christ (Remember the Parable of the Great Banquet).
I could also find morally reprehensible when a father kills his son, and yet God asked Abraham to kill Isaac, and in the same fashion he gave his own son as a sacrifice for humankind. "And I in my blindness, censured the holy Fathers, not only wherein they made use of things present as God commanded and inspired them, but also wherein they were foretelling things to come, as God was revealing in them".
>There isn't. For example the epistle of Barnabas is one of the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament, it teaches that all the laws of the Torah are metaphorical, for example the prohibition on eating pork is a metaphor for not being gluttonous like a pig.
The epistle of Barnabas is a transitional work, as many of the early christian writings. It's trying to reconciliate elements of the old testament to the new covenant that God made with humankind. The argument is not that it's metaphoric, is that the old commandments for the Hebrews contain transcendent values that we can still apply.
>Other church fathers totally disagreed, teaching that the laws were meant to be literally carried out although they were really laying the groundwork for Jesus.
Tell me which church fathers said this.
>The European powers being Christian didn't stop endless wars against each other and the atrocities of the slave trade. Bad actions happen with or without Christianity.
Yes, i agree. Nevertheless, you have to be in denial if you don't notice the absolute state of decadence that we're living right now.
>>16604677
>Therefore, we must conclude that if God exists, he is prepared to let errors stand.
I'm not talking about Bible translators or theologians here. I'm talking about Moses, David, and Solomon. Read the book of Judges and tell me if God is not willing to correct his prophets.
>They were written centuries apart and only combined later.
Yes.
>The fact that the authors came from the same culture and were drawing upon similar themes, sometimes even referencing each other, does not prove that the books were supposed to be read together
If some anon here said that he wants to read Plotinus, and some other anon said that he has to read Plato before to understand him; would you say to him that these two authors have to be read isolatedly, because the fact that they were "part of the same culture" and were "drawn to similar themes" is not relevant at all?

[Anonymous No.16605000]

>>16604877
> I'm talking about Moses, David, and Solomon.
Assuming those men existed, we don't have access to their original copies of these books, so it's irrelevant.
>Read the book of Judges and tell me if God is not willing to correct his prophets.
There is a great gulf between how God is depicted in the Bible and what he became in the popular imagination. The problem of reconciling the actions of God in the Bible and the contemporary depictions of him are an entirely different puzzle and it is one that I'm not very skilled at solving.
>would you say to him that these two authors have to be read isolatedly?
If the authors are asserting mutually incompossible ideas, then you have to consider them separately for the sake of discussion. For the sake of being easily understood and with no disrespect intended to the Bible, I'll use a childish metaphor: I remember, when I was a boy, reading a "Superman" comic from the 1930's in which Superman is almost killed by a fire. I also remember reading a "Superman" comic from the 1950's in which Superman stands at Ground Zero of a hydrogen bomb explosion and is entirely unharmed. It isn't possible to have a discussion of Superman in which both incidents are taken into account, they're contradictory. Any such discussion about the Man of Tomorrow would have to first define the meaning of Superman. Are the interlocutors discussing 1930's Superman? or 1950's Superman?

[Anonymous No.16605004]

>>16604864
well I'm sure that is a very flawed perspective for being rather superficial in its humanization of God. The matter is ultimately about Providence. And I think God's omnibenevolence in this case is remarkable for the fact that God is not Himself the Principles He willed to rule creation but still keep them.

[Anonymous No.16605037]

>>16605004
>well I'm sure that is a very flawed perspective for being rather superficial in its humanization of God.
That gets us back to Deism. If we are not qualified to understand God, how are we justified in declaring him to be all-loving? How do we know he's not malevolent? Or entirely amoral?
>God is not Himself the Principles He willed to rule creation but still keep them.
Which principles? If you're referring to moral principles, then God does not adhere to them, that's the very issue at hand. The question is: why does God act in a manner contrary to morality? and if his rationale is justifiable. If there is a moral justification for God to excuse himself from morality then the notion of an all-loving God can still be salvaged.

[Anonymous No.16605073]

can you "pious" faggots talk about this shit somewhere else, and dont get started with apologetics bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16605095]

>>16605037
How did my post suggest Deism? I think it is obvious we are qualified to understand God for the very fact I presented in my prior posts, that is, His Principles ruling his creation (cosmos and man - the latter's consciousness, reason always leading to him and to development of a moral consciousness - and specially metaphysical principles).
>Which principles?
See above.
>why does God act in a manner contrary to morality?
Care to expand on it?

[Anonymous No.16605096]

>>16604377
You’re comparing a mortal to an immortal.

[Anonymous No.16605116]

>>16604377
basically this: >>16605096. it is the same as comparing universal with individual. there is no measure of comparison. i think that the simplified view that ''god can do whatever he wants because he is god'' means literally that he is beyond any moral restriction for being precisely what he is, infinite.

[Anonymous No.16605130]

>>16605073
No you, fagtron.

[Anonymous No.16605156]

>>16605095
>How did my post suggest Deism?
When you said:
>well I'm sure that is a very flawed perspective for being rather superficial in its humanization of God.

It's a chain of reasoning which leads to Deism. If we're going to leave questions about God unanswered and justify it by arguing that our mortal perspective cannot comprehend God then we are lead to the conclusion that God cannot be understood. Ergo, we cannot make any judgements about him, which is the fundamental premise of Deism.

>Care to expand on it?
Any occasion in the Bible in which God kills men. As an omnipotent being, there are an infinite number of ways God could resolve a problem. Therefore, we can assume that if God kills, he does so not out of necessity, but out of choice. It's generally agreed by most moral systems that the intentional, pre-meditated and unnecessary taking of a life is an evil act. Therefore, God is committing an evil act. However, if it can be proved that it was necessary for God to kill these people, then it was not an evil act.

[Anonymous No.16605165]

>>16605096
>>16605116
What particular attribute of God makes him uniquely justified in killing conscious, sentient beings? That is the question. It's not sufficient to simply say: "because he is God". There must be some particular aspect of Godhood which makes an immoral act permissible.

[Anonymous No.16605223]

>>16603503
sincere point although it rest on augustine being an idiot which is a bold claim
>>16603562
good answer
>>16603596
respectable answer
>>16603516
>>16603518
>>16603634
shameful

[Anonymous No.16605279]

>>16605156
What do you think deism is? Because I don't see how God not being human-like leads to deism. We can attain God and understand Him in His incomprehensibility, which is ultimately the foundation of all reality. If God were comprehend by something he would be something different from what He is. What is it that comprehends That that comprehends everything? This is something obvious in many different traditions. Thus said, I ask you again: how can anything of this lead necessarily to deism?

>Any occasion in the Bible in which God kills men.
How does he do it? Does he fire at them? Does he get a knife and stab each one of them?
>Therefore, we can assume that if God kills, he does so not out of necessity, but out of choice.
Yes, He willed the Principles ruling all creation. If something dies it dies according to the principle which death happens. God's choice will always be looking for what is good, since he can only do good, and in this way there will be a necessity in his will for what is good. There is no choice for good between evil and good. This is a choice for rational, good-and-evil-knowing creatures, to make and as such God's Providence, following His Principles, takes place.

[Anonymous No.16605295]

>>16605165
>What particular attribute of God makes him uniquely.
can't you see how dumb a question this is?

[Anonymous No.16605357]

>>16605279
>What do you think deism is?
To my understand, the premise is that God exists, but does not and cannot interact with humans.
>I don't see how God not being human-like leads to deism.
A God who cannot be understood by humans is functionally identical to a God who does not interact with humans.
>How does he do it? Does he fire at them? Does he get a knife and stab each one of them?
"Flaming hail" and the Flood are the examples that spring most readily to mind.
>God's choice will always be looking for what is good, since he can only do good
This premise is the one that's being investigated. the Bible is replete with counterexamples, the objective is to try to find a justification.
>>16605295
No, explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.16605371]

>>16605165
>There must be some particular aspect of Godhood which makes an immoral act permissible.
>immoral act
Please provide proofs God has ever committed an immoral act. Of course by this it is not meant an act that offends /your/ personal tastes, but an objectively immoral act.

[Anonymous No.16605404]

>>16605371
>Please provide proofs God has ever committed an immoral act.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, here is my proof that it is objectively immoral.

1) God is all powerful.
2) An all powerful being can solve a problem in infinite ways.
3)Killing is only justifiable in cases of necessity.
4) Considering (1 and 2) God did not kill the people of Sodom and Gomorrah out of necessity.
5) Therefore (from 3 and 4), God has committed an unjustifiable act.

The same proof can be used for Noah's flood.

[Anonymous No.16605421]

>>16605357
I agree with your understanding of deism, but how does
>a God who does not interact with humans.
follow
>A God who cannot be understood
Since the Bible is allowed in this discussion with you, I will remember you that a God that cannot be seen interacts with Moses.

>"Flaming hail" and the Flood are the examples that spring most readily to mind.
How do you distinguish God's ''personally'' killing these people in this way from His Providence taking place through the principles governing nature?

>This premise is the one that's being investigated. the Bible is replete...
In the understanding of Christianity God is Love and The Good. This is not subject to investigation. As to the Bible being replete with counterexamples we have to ask ourselves whether we know what the Good itself is and its relation to what we think the Good itself is, the difference between what seems good and The Good itself. Finding in the end that God The Good is seen in His Providence (which is good). This will inevitably lead to a very winding post. I restrict myself to resolve this question simply saying: read Plato.

[Anonymous No.16605434]

>>16605404
flawed logic on the spot.
2 does not necessarily follow 1. 3 is contradicted by 1 (if he is all powerful would his power be diminished by necessity?)
didnt bother to read the rest

[Anonymous No.16605453]

>>16605404
and what if from gods point of view those things where actualy good acts in the long run and seeded the positive future development of the world?

also a few notes, stop calling god "all powerful" and then using your own concept of him as means to call out imagined contradictions god does not fit into your concepts of good and evil and your notion of all 'powerful' mening hes some magic genie,

[Anonymous No.16605456]

>>16605404
Yeah, so you haven't even begun to get your feet wet. You haven't even considered addressing Justice, Mercy, any of the attributes of God really, the relation between God and Man, the events actually being recorded, the lessons to be learned, the meaning of Scripture etc. You're like the guy who thought up one zinger, it fell flat in his debate club or whatever, but he doesn't have any other material or understanding so he keeps repeating it hoping it sticks and earns points with the judge.

It's not that you're intelligent, or have a good point and people just don't want to hear it. It's that you're posting room temperature takes and don't want, or cannot, learn, so you persist in error.

[Anonymous No.16605488]

>>16605404
a bee keeper discovers a hive of his bees are becoming agressive and is worried their agression will spread to the other hives

does he (a leave the bees to africanize the other hives and risk ruining more
or (b destroy the already africanized hive and repopulate it at a later date to save the other hives?

[Anonymous No.16605497]

>>16605421
>but how does
>a God who does not interact with humans.
follow A God who cannot be understood.
Becuase, if it is assumed that God is not understood, infinte questions can be raised about his motives. How can we say with confidence that he was telling Moses the truth? How do we know that his behaviour is even following any pattern? God may just be doing things, with no actual plan.
>How do you distinguish God's ''personally'' killing these people in this way from His Providence taking place through the principles governing nature?
The Bible anthropomorphises him. He is shown reconnoitering the situation, developing an emotional response to it and being motivated by that emotional response to personally destroy the cities/planet.
>In the understanding of Christianity God is Love and The Good.
Then the word: "good" is being abused here. This definition of "good" is wildly divergent from any common usage of the word. Therefore, it shouldn't be used.
>>16605434
2 and 1 are premises. 3 does not contradict 1, God is not bound by necessity, therefore he is never justified in killing, that's the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.16605503]

>>16605456
its ok he watched batman v superman and likes to use lex luthors quote of "if god is all powerful he cant be all good" as his main point

[Anonymous No.16605556]

>>16605453
>and what if from gods point of view those things where actualy good acts in the long run and seeded the positive future development of the world?
If we accept that it was necessary to remove Sodom and Gomorrah from Earth, there were many ways for God to accomplish that goal without killing, therefore, it was unjustified.
>also a few notes, stop calling god "all powerful"
I thought he was.

>>16605456
I don't see how any of those concepts are necessary considerations for that very simple bit of propositional calculus. You can amend it to include those things and show me the revised version. Or, you can keep speculating about my 'zinger', whatever one of those may be.
>>16605488
Your logic is flawed. The mortal beekeeper has a limited range of options and therefore is justified in resorting to killing, once all other options have failed him. I'm not sure if God is all-powerful (I have just been informed that he is not) but, I think I'm justified in assuming that he is somewhat more powerful then a man.

[Anonymous No.16605557]

>>16605497
You simply keep repeating yourself and none of what you say follows. You still didn't show how one follows the other and now you are literally saying something wholly different. What does His telling Moses the truth or not have to do with the question of deism? It even is contradictory.
>The Bible anthropomorphises him...
Again, not addressing the necessary difference to be justified.
>This definition of "good" is wildly divergent from any common usage of the word.
The divergence is in what I implied in my post before this one: there is difference between first-order and second-order good. Again: read Plato.

This is a waste, I knew it. Farewell.

[Anonymous No.16605573]

>>16605556
>The mortal beekeeper has a limited range of options and therefore is justified in resorting to killing, once all other options have failed him.
You are right but that has relevance to other aspects. The options to be optioned are related to definite facts, not indefinite or infinite. In this way God's choice concerning definite facts (a historical human fact) is restricted to the definition to be resolved not to the agent's scope.

[Anonymous No.16605580]

>>16605556
>>16605573
not to mention that evil or bad is never an option to God (power in itself is good and God choosing evil would only diminish His All-Powerful Nature).

[Anonymous No.16605586]

>>16602632
Hate it when athetards say "b but muh canaanites they was innocent oh no genocide bad wa wa" nigga they were sacrificing children and fornicating with their own mothers and brothers, they absolutely deserved it. All of them. Gen 18:
23Then Abraham drew near and said,"Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?24Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it?25Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked,so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”26And theLordsaid,"If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
[...]
32Then he said,"Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.”

[Anonymous No.16605595]

>>16605556
>I don't see how any of those concepts are necessary considerations for that very simple bit of propositional calculus.
Formal logics really must have set philosophy back hundreds and hundreds of years. You're not even talking about God here, you're just playing with a make-believe term you decided to name God, ignored everything that concept might contain except one very specific detail that you don't even understand, and then imposed your imagined concept onto God for the purpose of making bad hot takes.
>You can amend it to include those things and show me the revised version.
Anon, this is a topic that requires as many years of study and prayer as most people live in order to gain good answers.

But go ahead, please explain how Sodom and Gomorrah violates the attributes/nature of God.

[Anonymous No.16605609]

>>16605595
What is God?

[Anonymous No.16605623]

>>16605609
are you interested in knowing what God is? we can recommend you books or do you expect us to be here at your disposition to answer all your questions?

[Anonymous No.16605679]

>>16605623
I'm always interested in hearing what prophets have to say.

[Anonymous No.16605731]

>>16602632
>God of thieves and raped women
yeah within their own tribe

>Genocided entire races
enemy tribes

see the difference?

[Anonymous No.16605896]

>>16605165
>uniquely justified in killing conscious, sentient beings?

There is a difference between killing the flesh and killing the soul.

My argument was never"He is God", my argument was we cannot compare two things in different realms.

[Anonymous No.16605914]

>>16605679
Well, you should start with the Holy Bible. Personally, I enjoy the Gospel of Luke more than the others but some recommend the Gospel of Mark to start. After that, I'd read the rest of the Gospels, then the epistles. Once you've completed the NT, You could go to the Old Testament. I've seen it suggested the OT is hard to understand without having first read the NT. The claim for that is that the OT is like set up for the NT, but unless you've read the NT it wouldn't make sense(of course, some things in the NT wouldn't make sense without the OT either, but things are generally pointed to when necessary). Once you've read the Bible, you could start with the Church Fathers. Here's where your reading of Plato will help you. Then I suppose you should continue through the Church Fathers and read Aristotle. Once you've completed the Church Fathers and Aristotle, you're ready to move onto scholasticism. There's a lot of writers in this period and a lot to ingest. They cover most every topic and question worth posing but all of them are worth reading. I wouldn't bother with Descartes onward.

After all this, you should devote yourself to prayer and meditation, and repeat everything from step 1.

Will any of this benefit you? Probably not. There is an uncrossable chasm to God that only God can bridge. To cross is requires faith, but faith is the gift of God. If you don't actually want to understand or believe, then nothing you do will help you any. If you do want to understand or believe, then you really needn't try so hard. Just ask God and He'll tell you.

[Anonymous No.16605943]

>>16605609
Neoplatinism will answer all your questions

[Anonymous No.16605983]

>>16602632
>dude the greeks literally had a God of thieves and Zeus raped women!
Soul.
>meanwhile their desert demon god genocided entire races
Soulless.

[Anonymous No.16606368]

>>16605983
>Worship of the Living, True Apophatic God.
Soul
>Worship of dead false gods.
Soulless.

[Anonymous No.16607087]

>>16605556
>If we accept that it was necessary to remove Sodom and Gomorrah from Earth, there were many ways for God to accomplish that goal without killing, therefore, it was unjustified

How do you ascertain that killing wasn't the justified resolution to a city of complete immorality?

[Anonymous No.16607128]

>>16607087
Is there any justification for killing other then necessity?

[Anonymous No.16607153]

>>16607128
If they swear an oath against God and humanity, and consistently do all crimes imaginable without repentance.

Are you going to defend mentally sane people
capable of repentance, who follow the above principle devoutly?

[Anonymous No.16607180]

>>16602632
>implying there is anything wrong with genocide
Dogs eat scraps from their masters tables and you can quote Christ on that

[Anonymous No.16607182]

>>16607153
Yes. I don't think it's morally justifiable to kill people over an ideological difference. It is sometimes necessary to kill people over ideological differences (in cases of High Treason, for example) but that's a reflection of man's limited power. If it were as easy to exile such people to a place so far removed from civilisation, that they could never threaten it again as it is to execute them; then nobody would support the Death Penalty.

[Anonymous No.16607271]

>>16607128
If you entertain the notion if a divine god, both all knowing and all powerful and the trappings of the christian god, then death is merely an expedited judgement, one which might come for anyone at any time.

So from within the confines of the worldview we are considering, yes, there can be many such justifications, because death is far from the worst thing in this worldview.

That is also the value of christianity as a transcendental idea.

[Anonymous No.16607286]

>>16607271
Death isn't the worst thing, no. But it's very bad and the manner in which they died was manner that would have resulted in a great deal of prolonged suffering. If we accept the premise that God is all-powerful, or even very powerful, we are left with the conclusion that he chose to make people suffer, this conflicts with the premise that his is all-loving.

[Anonymous No.16607287]

>>16607182
The idea of keeping people alive instead of judging them immediately is also a relic and necessity of our innate lack of ability to judge accurately every time.

There would be no such need and no value to it when one presumes a perfectly good force.

[Anonymous No.16607295]

>>16607286
How do you judge that them living in exile with each other, so surrounded by other immoral people is not a worse punishment?

Or seperated from each other? Would that not be even worse to be seperated from everyone that you know?

[Anonymous No.16607302]

>>16607287
This explains why God killed people. It does not explain his method. God did not quietly euthanize the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. He rained fire down from Heaven, the fortunate would have burned to death. The unfortunates would have suffocated due to the ensuing firestorm.
>>16607295
People in exile can create the own society, one which mirrors their own twisted values. For them, it would be a paradise.

[Anonymous No.16607306]

>>16607286
>>16607295
But more importantly, you're judging by suffering and appealing to mercy. But mercy for evil is the second worst injustice there is (only behind judging the innocent). It's an evil to have mercy on evil. Does that require explanation?

[Anonymous No.16607308]

>>16604321
And?

[Anonymous No.16607318]

>>16607306
I disagree with the fundamental idea that it's evil to have mercy on evil. I believe in justice, not in vengeance.

[Anonymous No.16607328]

>>16607302
>People in exile can create the own society, one which mirrors their own twisted values. For them, it would be a paradise.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. It would assume that there is much more relativism in morals than there actually is. No it wouldn't be paradise, the way chicago isn't paradise. The way sudan isn't paradise. The way soviet union wasn't paradise. It may be people living together under similar twisted values, but that does not maje it paradise, not to "them" either.

You should revisit your moral relativism, because it no doubt harms you in many ways that have escaped your examination.

[Anonymous No.16607331]

>>16607182
>I don't think it's morally justifiable to kill people over an ideological difference

You think my argument is "everybody should have the same belief", but my argument is:

It is obvious what is harmful and so there is a limit to how much/what kind of harm you can do without repentance and then without fair punishment.

>but that's a reflection of man's limited power

Is your point: "we can't control free will" ?
If so, my reply would be "we can instill order"

>It is sometimes necessary to kill people over ideological differences (in cases of High Treason, for example)

We basically agree.

[Anonymous No.16607332]

>>16607286
>>16607302
Death is not always a bad thing in cases of agony. Even in the case of the Fall of Man, death was made by God a gift. He fixed the worst thing imaginable for man with death. Being in this fallen condition eternally would be eternal punishment. You judge things with a literal and mundane mind. If you accept literally God's Providence in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, why not accept that the people were evil and corrupt and without any possible conversion into good? Why would it be fair to keep such miserable creatures without true freedom alive and sinking more and more into a godless abyss?

[Anonymous No.16607340]

>>16602632
christian is just jewry with extra steps

[Anonymous No.16607344]

>>16607318
Well no point in me suggesting alternatives if your mind is closed on this issue.

[Anonymous No.16607374]

>>16607318
there is a fundamental difference between mercy on evil unrepented and mercy on evil repented (which is what is the point in Christianity)

[Anonymous No.16607379]

That's old testament Jew shit idiot, new testament is about forgiveness and love.

[Anonymous No.16607387]

>>16607306
>It's an evil to have mercy on evil
I don't think it's wise to fight fire with fire, fight it with water. The best choice is maximum defense. Lest in the process of hunting monsters you too become a monster. And, who are we to judge another? We are all sinners. It is dangerous arrogance to think otherwise. When you love your enemies you distinguish yourself among humans because everybody, good or bad, love those who love them and hate those who harm/hate them, to love all is to transcend into the point of view of an immortal.

[Anonymous No.16607412]

>>16607328
I wouldn't like to live in a place where everybody is rude and argumentative. But it sounds as if you would, this is the strength of my approach. I don't think of at as moral relativism, because I don't think that your ideal society would be morally just. I simply acknowledge that it's not my problem and you'd be far happier living a life of loose morals then you ever would if you were forced to accommodate yourself to civilisation.
>>16607331
I agree almost comprehensibly. My only disagreement is that I don't think a god should be bound by the same kind of necessity that a human would. I would think things would have to get very out of hand (like, for example the End TIme) before a god needed to start using fatal violence.
>>16607332
If they're already going to Hell, why do they need to die? Moreover, why do they need to suffer as they die?

[Anonymous No.16607491]

>>16607412
>My only disagreement is that I don't think a god should be bound by the same kind of necessity that a human would

What you're trying to say is, don't apply the same fairness to humans as God
and you say that, because I said,

>If they swear an oath against God and humanity,

If so my reply is:

I included God because imagine that x religion is correct. A person against God would slander the word of God and attack the powerless human in possession of these texts. The problems with that is, now that the laws are changed then chaos thrives.

[Anonymous No.16607512]

>>16607412
>If they're already going to Hell, why do they need to die?
Not to bring more people to Hell? Not to prolong their own suffering (unless you think living a life of evil can be good to the one person and to others)? You still don't understand that the evil is not the fact of sweeping these people off of the world, but the fact that they deserve it. Anyway, it does not matter what anyone of us tell you, you already made your choice. Good luck, I guess.

[Anonymous No.16607583]

>>16607491
>A person against God would slander the word of God and attack the powerless human in possession of these texts.

Granted. But, if the religion is true, then the religious person is never powerless. God would always defend his people. Being all-powerful, he would have unlimited ways to defend his people without causing collateral damage. At one time, this was mainstream Christian thought; when I was at school I heard thousands of wonderful legends about Roman persecutors trying to kill Christians, only for the Christians to prove invulnerable. Stories like that are wonderful, they really give you the sense of God's unlimited power. I think the whole of Christianity suffers from the fact that the writers of the Old Testament clearly had a terminal lack of imagination, the New Testament God that I was taught about at school would never do anything as lazy and cruel as calling in an airstrike.

[Anonymous No.16607602]

>>16607387
>And, who are we to judge another?

The example we were examining wasn't about people judging one another, it was about divine judgement, so the question is moot.

I don't know you, but it seems to me you have motivation in muddying up the waters about what is or isn't evil and why it shouldn't receive it's due judgement.

Either you've fallen for the words of evil people who profit of people accepting that kind of immoral idea or more commonly, you have yourself commited actions that you feel the guilt of and want to avoid being judged for.

That's how it seems to me anyways. Don't forget that harsh judgement is the most loving thing that can be given to unrepentant evil. Evil by its nature is self destructive.

[Anonymous No.16607644]

>>16604016
No, the omnipotence of God suggests that every action of every atom in this world is by his decision, in compliance to him, his "decree" especially according to Islamic Ashariism.
Therefore we are now literally obeying his decree wether we like it or not.
The fact that I believe is by his decree thus sort of giving me an image of a divine love as he could've literally done anything to me but chooses for me a pretty decent life under the submission of his commands and scriptures.
It has little difference with the Zen Buddhist conception of surrender.
Hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.16607684]

>>16607412
>I wouldn't like to live in a place where everybody is rude and argumentative. But it sounds as if you would, this is the strength of my approach. I don't think of at as moral relativism, because I don't think that your ideal society would be morally just. I simply acknowledge that it's not my problem and you'd be far happier living a life of loose morals then you ever would if you were forced to accommodate yourself to civilisation.

Me calling something dumb, is about as rude as you calling me rude. If we ignore any pre-amble, people will think I am the wrong, and you are the more mannered one.

They may even be right, I am not perfect and accept your rebuke.

But a more important point: do you see how your rudeness was justified, whereas mine wasn't? Do you see that a similar mechanism activates in the judgement and possible killing of killers?

>I don't think of at as moral relativism, because I don't think that your ideal society would be morally just. I simply acknowledge that it's not my problem and you'd be far happier living a life of loose morals then you ever would if you were forced to accommodate yourself to civilisation.

This doesn't make sense if the presumption is a christian god. In all of your posts is the presumption of only a material world with only material results. If you refuse to look at an idea from inside it, it will never make sense. But worse, you'll never understand why it makes sense to others.

I don't eve know if I believe there is a god or not, but I can tell you're not rejecting the idea of it, because you haven't really comprehended the idea of it. You're rejecting a strawman of it.

The idea that living a life of loose morals, even at a purely materialistic level if analysis is short sighted. Because it means you have no tools to deal with the immorality of others, which makes you repeatedly vulnerable to the immorality of others. But worse than that, you're vulnerable to the immorality of the self, and all its hidden costs that take their toll.

An unhealthy soul is really like an unhealthy body in a number of ways. Today, tomorrow, next week, you might not notice the difference. But an unhealthy soul for years exacts a terrible toll, just as eating unhealthily for years does.

[Anonymous No.16607712]

>>16607583
>when I was at school I heard thousands of wonderful legends about Roman persecutors trying to kill Christians, only for the Christians to prove invulnerable.

Sounds like they did a poor job and never tell you about what they did to this fella named jesus of nazareth.

[Anonymous No.16607721]

>>16607644
Christian and islamic views are not the same.

[Anonymous No.16607844]

>>16607583
>But, if the religion is true, then the religious person is never powerless.

When one transcends via the parables of Christ then it is clear that they appear to almost willingly give up their life because they're certain their full trust will at least be acknowledged during judgement.

>God would always defend his people.
He shouldn't have to, we should be able to function efficiently without God, but the heart's desires get in the way. Christ's doctrine is the ultimate one, every Christian in my view has failed to go above following the commandments, the image of being a Christian has been ruined, people study the Christian more than they study the Christ. It is written, those who deny the hearts desires will be rewarded. It is written, the only instructor is Christ.

>>16607602
>The example we were examining wasn't about people judging one another, it was about divine judgement

You made and then remade the claim that you have to destroy evil.

My point is

Condemn evil yes, but how we go about it has to be with more intelligence it can't be pointless insults, it must become more of a warning of why something is bad, but first why the sin was committed initially otherwise we cut off the branch and overlook the roots.

>Either you've fallen for the words of evil people who profit of people accepting that kind of immoral idea or more commonly,

I think Christ's reasoning is stronger than your main argument. They will be judged, have patience.

>you have yourself commited actions that you feel the guilt of and want to avoid being judged for.

This is everybody, me and you. Please don't make assumptions, assumptions are a disease.

[Anonymous No.16607907]

>>16607844
>This is everybody, me and you. Please don't make assumptions, assumptions are a disease

Yes, I speak from experience. It wasn't an assumption, it was a suggestion. Or pethspsrhaps spexuculation is a better word for it. It was "see this shoe? See if it fits!"

I have no idea what you're getting at in regards to intelligence or "pointless insults" or how that relates to what I wrote.

Besides, I did not say "evil must be destroyed", I said it was evil to have mercy on unrepentant evil.

It presumes that evilness is accurately ascertained and unrepetenantness too. No easy feat for humans to accurately judge such.

There is a difference in discussing such things in relation to divine power and knowledge as in relation to what people should do.

[Anonymous No.16607911]

>>16607721
Was my rationale different to that of the Christian's?

[Anonymous No.16607934]

>>16602632
Matthew 10:34 “ Think not that I am come to sendpeaceon earth: Icamenotto sendpeace, but asword.

[Anonymous No.16608063]

>>16607911
Yes. It's a complex subject and there is different discussions in both religions, but to simplify the difference in christianity there is god's will and man's freedom to resist that will, whereas in islam there is no resistance possible to allah's will, as everything that happens is allah's will, so even the people that do not subject themselvds to allah's will are god's allah.

[Anonymous No.16608134]

>>16607907
>I have no idea what you're getting at in regards to intelligence or "pointless insults" or how that relates to what I wrote.

>In regards to intelligence
Imagine Homicide is rampant in a city, having an assassin going around hunting people who kill doesn't fix the problem because the hunter has now become a serial killer in the process but with good intentions he also has failed to identify irrefutable evidence on what the cause is, we are chopping off the branches of a tree.

If there's an army 3 days away, the solution is to build a river in between with crocodiles than to have many casualties - firing back, **there's a lateral solution**.

It would be wiser(if we consider the fear of judgment) to create some deterrent like everybody smelling horrible so a serial killer keeps their distance or by wearing a porcupine costume , or by arrest then exile.

>On insults
Pointing out the flaws of the serial killer in court can either motivate him or make him feel guilty, the risk of those two options is unnecessary, it would be better to explain to him why it is bad to kill and how it sends ripples across the community clearly he hasn't done the equation.

> I said it was evil to have mercy on unrepentant evil.
That's vague, that's why were confused.

The rest of your post is already addressed.

[Anonymous No.16608149]

>>16607318
You have no moral code, just sloppy shit then, live by the sword die by the sword and all who are saved will be saved

[Anonymous No.16608204]

>>16608063
>are god's allah.

I meant to write "are allah's will"

>>16608134
Thanks for explaining, but I have even less of an idea of what you're saying now, sorry.

[Anonymous No.16608569]

>>16603458
Interesting point of view, thanks for sharing, I may reflect on that

[Anonymous No.16608679]

>>16602645
What Cathocucks don't tell you, plus most of the church fathers had different scriptures they accepted as canon that were later rejected has heretical.

[Anonymous No.16608992]

>>16607412
> I don't think of at as moral relativism, because I don't think that your ideal society would be morally just. I simply acknowledge that it's not my problem and you'd be far happier living a life of loose morals then you ever would if you were forced to accommodate yourself to civilisation.
You also lack an understanding of what happiness is, and what its causes are. Happiness is only possible through God. There is no such thing as a happy, unrepentant sinner, though he may at times feel an emotion similar to happiness. Be assured his state is far from one of happiness.
>Moreover, why do they need to suffer as they die?
Some things happen not just for our own sake, but for the sake of others to learn from as well. Saint Jude's epistle uses lots of examples of those who did wrong and were punished to encourage its readers to do right. If people were never punished for their wrongdoings it would be hard to convince those on the verge of falling to stay the course, wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.16609036]

>>16602632
Trust me no Christians give a shit about zeus or any other made up 'gods'

[Anonymous No.16609182]

>>16604350
Because god vowed not to do that shit directly any more after the whole ark debacle.

[Anonymous No.16609267]

>>16606368
>the Living, True Apophatic God.

[Anonymous No.16609507]

>>16608992
>Happiness is only possible through God.
I hear this a often from people who have a vested interest in convincing other people of the value of God. I rarely hear it from impartial judges. From what I can see, it is at best a half truth. Ricky Gervais, despite his infinite number of flaws seems like a happy man without God. Whereas, Islamic terrorists, despite the presence of God, seem as if they are always livid.

[Anonymous No.16610921]

>>16603942
>he thinks the world has only gotten worse in the last 100 years
Every period has it's own problems, and while the modern man might be apathetic, distracted, and undisciplined, how do you judge it to be worse then the faults of other periods? You sound as if your entire perspective of the world is based off of traditional catholic new sights. The loss of a christian culture has been a complaint ever since christian culture was a thing. Stop thinking the problems of the modern world are fixed by a single simple thing like Catholicism. As someone who used to be traditional latin mass kind of catholic, it is unhealthy to be caught up in the self satisfying anger of traditional catholic communities.

[Anonymous No.16610932]

>>16602632
Why do threads like this get left up but when I quote something from a book and ask for people's interpretations the jannies take the thread down?

[Anonymous No.16610945]

>>16610932
because jannies are tradcath faggots who hold interest in letting half of the catalog be christian threads

[Anonymous No.16610966]

>>16610945
>jannies are tradcath faggots
>allow anti-christian threads to stay up
>take down all of my pro-christian threads
Yeah, it's the exact opposite pal.

[Anonymous No.16610973]

>>16610945
There are currently 5 threads about Christianity up right now, 2 are anti-Christian. There are something like 80 threads up in total.

[Anonymous No.16610988]

>>16602632
>god genocided entire races
Based

[Anonymous No.16612607]

>>16605609
Cicero - On the Nature of the Gods