Seraphim Rose book "Nihilism"

[Anonymous No.19347144]

Any other books debunking modern syncretism ideology? How can the modern man understand that only Christianity is the true path, not Buddhism, not Advaita or other fancy ideologies that capture the modern male's mind?

Those who have escaped the syncretic Guenonian mindset, what was the deciding factor for you?

[Anonymous No.19347150]

>>19347144
>How can the modern man understand that only Christianity is the true path
By showing how it differs from any other religion that claims to be the sole arbitor of truth and morality, like Islam.

Which you never will

[Anonymous No.19347154]

>>19347150
>You can only be saved by X
>You can only be saved by Y
>They both make exclusive claims so therefore either one is fine
Perennialism is nonsense

[Anonymous No.19347160]

>>19347154
No, so therefore they can't all be right. So, which one is?

[Anonymous No.19347165]

>>19347144
>Any other books debunking modern syncretism ideology?
Question regarding Technology by Heidegger, but without LE ESOTERIC

[Anonymous No.19347168]

>>19347150
>Which you never will
It has been demonstrated many times. With Islam it's completely laughable, it's a blatantly inconsistent ideology which builds itself on top of something it rejects. Islam is just a heretical offshoot of Syriac Christianity. Just watch this to see the basic epistemic problems any Muslim gets into, this is not even touching upon theology (of which there is no consistent islamic view, just generic Mohammadan perennialism) - https://youtu.be/TKvJxQXIcOE

[Anonymous No.19347174]

>>19347160
>So, which one is?
We all know the answer.

[Anonymous No.19347178]

>>19347160
As a Calvinist this type of issue doesn't make much sense to me. I cannot "prove" Christianity to anyone. God will give someone faith or he won't. Argument, preaching, etc. is just a means by which God may act.

[Anonymous No.19347193]

>>19347174
>We all know the answer.
this is just your opinion, others have other opinions and they also have arguments for it, you are not special

[Anonymous No.19347197]

>>19347144
>Those who have escaped the syncretic Guenonian mindset, what was the deciding factor for you?
Unironically seeking the truth. It's that simple.
I stopped caring about seeming cool and mystical, but wanted to find the truth and do anything needed to follow it.
>>19347178
>As a Calvinist
Calvinism is a monophysite heresy. It cannot be true because you deny the incarnation, you hold to one will in Christ, so Christ is not really human in your scheme.

[Anonymous No.19347207]

>>19347193
That does not render the different positions interchangeable or make them all acceptable. It just means you cannot come to a conclusion with your current methodology.
>>19347197
>Calvinism is a monophysite heresy. It cannot be true because...
This is an amusing accusation, as Calvinists are most often accused of being Nestorians, i.e. of treating Christ as if he were two separate persons, a human person and a divine person. I would argue Calvinism is necessitated logically by the Christian conception of God. Any other stance is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.19347209]

>On this question, the pronouncements of highly learned men are so varied and so much at odds with each other that inevitably they strongly suggest that the explanation is human ignorance, and that the Academics have been wise to withhold assent on matters of such uncertainty; for what can be more degrading than rash judgement, and what can be so rash and unworthy of the serious and sustained attention of a philosopher, as either to hold a false opinion or to defend without hesitation propositions inadequately examined and grasped?
—Cicero, The Nature of the Gods

Christianity has no epistemic advantage over any other metaphysical belief system

[Anonymous No.19347213]

>>19347209
Your soul isn't saved by having your epistemology worked out. God cares not for this vanity.

[Anonymous No.19347218]

>>19347213
Thats fine but how do I know christianity is true rather than Islam? I can’t save my soul if I follow wrong religion

[Anonymous No.19347231]

>>19347207
Nestorius believed in one will too, his views aren't incompatible with monothelitism. And yes, Calvinism is Nestorian as well, since it separates Christ into two subjects, one who died on the cross as was "left" by the Father, and the Logos. Calvinists and other Nestorians do not understand that natures do not act on their own, but only in the mode of hypostasis.

[Anonymous No.19347235]

>>19347218
By seeing that Islam is based on Christianity and contradicts itself in not following it.

[Anonymous No.19347238]

>>19347218
Mohammed married a 9 year old and told his followers that Allah found it offensive if they lingered around too long after a dinner party.

Christ didn't.

Is this really a hard choice?

[Anonymous No.19347247]

The following reply was generated automatically by an AI using OpenAI’s GPT-3

“ The deciding factor for me is that if you ask an Esotericist or a White Supremacist or any fanatic of any kind, and if you ask them ‘what is the most important thing in your life?’, they’ll tell you what the most important thing in their life is. No matter how different their answer is, they’ll still say ‘well for me, my religion is what I’m most committed to’ or ‘my country is my most important’. They don’t care about what you think, they really don’t. I would probably get into that in more detail if I started talking about Esotericism, but I’ll save it for later. They don’t care if their Religeon is the most important thing in the world to you, they don’t care. They don’t care about taking away your freedom, they don’t care about anything. I guess that’s one factor for me.

I think it’s the only factor. There’s always that ‘what’s the deciding factor?’, and I think that it’s the only deciding factor. You have that question come up every once in a while, and I tell people that. It’s just a simple question, and I think an easy one to answer. As long as I’m not being dragged into a room and told to join a cult or something, I don’t have a problem with anyone being a religious fanatic or being religious at all. So I have no problem with someone being a fanatic. That’s a given. If you really believe, I have no problem with it at all.

There’s a bunch of things that get into that ‘what’s the deciding factor?’.”

[Anonymous No.19347250]

>>19347207
>would argue Calvinism is necessitated logically by the Christian conception of God.
Do you believe Christ has a self-determining human will? If not, He is not human and a mere puppet. If yes, then salvation is synergistic cooperation of human and divine will.

[Anonymous No.19347264]

>>19347209
>Christianity has no epistemic advantage over any other metaphysical belief system
I'm going to take you seriously here and point out that epistemology is only one leg of the three legged stool on which a coherent worldview rests on. The three fundamental aspects of a worldview are :

1. Epistemology - What do we know and how do we know it?

2. Ethics - What should we do? What is the best way to live life?

3. Metaphysics - What is?

What you've just said is basically the key flaw of the modern worldview. A vastly overemphasized focus on epistemology to the detriment of the other two legs of the worldview. This leads to the modern worldview being massively imbalanced in favor of trying to know things with absolute certainty while introducing an intractable relativism into ethics and metaphysics to the point where even if your epistemology was absolutely perfect it wouldn't even matter because you would no longer be able to justify WHY it's important to know the truth in the first place (ethics) or even what IS truth in the first place (metaphysics).

The ancients truly believed that you could go back from ethics and discern things about reality purely based on ethical duties. This is because the ancient worldview is an interconnected web where what you believe about the nature of reality necessarily has consequences for how you should act, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.19347272]

>>19347218
>I can’t save my soul if I follow wrong religion
You can't save your soul no matter what you do, as that is solely the purview of God.
>>19347231
I will be frank with you. I do not see this sort of Christological navel-gazing as having much practical value. I will tell you something straightforward instead. If God knows the future, and God's knowledge is infallible, then there can only be one possible outcome to events. There can only be one set of humans who will be saved. And if God knew this future before he created the world (which he did, in the sense of logical order) then he chose to actuate this future as an act of his own will, therefore foreordaining all that come to pass.
>>19347250
Salvation, strictly speaking, is forensic in nature. The atonement is primarily a penal substitution. Again I think what you are talking about is philosophical navel-gazing.

[Anonymous No.19347276]

>>19347218
Islam is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, contradicts it (Isaac vs Ishmael), and we know for sure the Old Testament was preserved for at least a thousand years before Muhammad. Old Testament speaks about the divine Angel of the Lord, which Islamism ignores.

[Anonymous No.19347290]

>>19347144
read fr. Romano Guardini and Fr. Jean Daniélou. Guardini says:

>What interests the Christian is quite a different matter—namely, how the actual world is to be redeemed, and what is to become, in eternity, of the person and of the events of his life. Christianity is not a metaphysics; it is the witness to Himself of the true God. It is the proclamation that God has seized upon earthly existence and will carry it on to a new state in which the old is not lost, but rather will receive its ultimate meaning.

and

>If the body does not rise, then an immortality of the spirit alone becomes, to speak frankly, rather indifferent. Christianity is not concerned with the idea, the essence of man, but with the reality of man, with his responsibilities and his human dignity, his actions and his destinies—briefly, with his history. History and body, however, are inseparable. The resurrection of the body safeguards man as a personal and historical being and sets him off, on one side, from nature, and on the other, from metaphysics and myth.

Fr. Jean Daniélou has a whole chapter discussing Guénon, his value and his defect

[Anonymous No.19347306]

>>19347272
>I will be frank with you. I do not see this sort of Christological navel-gazing as having much practical value. I will tell you something straightforward instead. If God knows the future, and God's knowledge is infallible, then there can only be one possible outcome to events. There can only be one set of humans who will be saved. And if God knew this future before he created the world (which he did, in the sense of logical order) then he chose to actuate this future as an act of his own will, therefore foreordaining all that come to pass.
Yuck. Calvinist nonsense. Very bad philosophy. You're only correct in that events occur due to Gods permissive will, this does not mean God actively wills these things to happen. It's the difference between choosing not to catch a ball and letting it hit a bystander and throwing the ball yourself with the intent to hit the bystander. Is it true there are a predestined number of people who will be saved? Yes, absolutely this is a logical consequence of Gods omniscience. Does this mean what we choose doesn't matter because it was predestined? Absolutely not. We live in time, we're still living out and creating the future that only God knows the outcome of. Our choices are our own, the fact God exists outside of time and observes all points simultaneously does not changed that.

[Anonymous No.19347307]

>>19347272
>I do not see this sort of Christological navel-gazing as having much practical value.
Then you believe in a different God. Is belief in the incarnation of the Word not necessary for salvation? If I believe Christ has merely a phantom body, and only appeared to suffer, is it "Christological navel-gazing" to say that I have no salvation? Or that Christ was just in good relations and union of will with the Father after His baptism, but was not God Himself. Nobody in the early church taught these questions were meaningless, how do you claim to know better? It doesn't seem like you care about the truth.
>he chose to actuate this future as an act of his own will
God knows our actions, but does not create them. There is still the created subject acting and really choosing things, not God who chooses for us. Otherwise you have to conclude absurdities like God choosing to sin. God also chooses to enact different things with His will, His providence (creative control over the world in history) is distinct from Him creating the world. Otherwise creation itself is eternally predetermined and was not a free act.

[Anonymous No.19347313]

>>19347247
it´s incredible how AI have a cheerful tone, almost shallow, like an unexperienced somewhat wise teenager. its dont have that robotic cold tone know-it-all we universally imagine... very creepy. i suppose they try to make it this way so everyone can understand it, but still creepy.

[Anonymous No.19347321]

>>19347272
>I do not see this sort of Christological navel-gazing as having much practical value.
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

[Anonymous No.19347331]

>>19347174
This is just classic heresy logic. It also doesn't answer why a muslim can't say the exact same about a christian

[Anonymous No.19347338]

>>19347272
>Salvation, strictly speaking, is forensic in nature.
I fail to see how universalism is false under your view if Christ did indeed die for our sins and it is purely forensic. If there is no human will involved in choosing to participate in Christ's righteousness and obedience to the Father onto the cross, then God eternally predetermined with His active will His own creation (who do not choose Christ) to be damned, which shows He created it evil and in need of damnation from the get-go.

[Anonymous No.19347343]

>>19347331
The Muslim cannot remain logically consistent when saying this, as he tells the Christian to use his own scripture to judge Mohammad. I do just that and see that Mohammad is a fraud who was deluded by a demon who didn't even present himself as Gabriel, that was what a heretical Christian priest conveyed to Mohammad. He also taught that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete Christ speaks of as the Spirit of Truth was Mohammad.

[Anonymous No.19347357]

>>19347306
>You're only correct in that events occur due to Gods permissive will, this does not mean God actively wills these things to happen.
It does for the reason that I gave. God chose to create this world. He could have created a different one but he created this one knowing full well what would occur in it. He knew X person would go to hell and he created that world. Rom. 9:21 "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
>We live in time, we're still living out and creating the future that only God knows the outcome of. Our choices are our own, the fact God exists outside of time and observes all points simultaneously does not changed that.
I don't disagree that we are responsible for what we do. But there is only one thing you can ever do in any given situation. A non-elect person, for example, can never have faith in Christ. It is impossible.
>>19347307
>Is belief in the incarnation of the Word not necessary for salvation?
I did not say that I do not believe in the incarnation. I am talking about some of the later Christological debates.
>Nobody in the early church taught these questions were meaningless, how do you claim to know better?
They are not a lump, they are a collection of individuals with varying opinions, and Christology is something that was gradually developed over time. A lot of this would be quite irrelevant depending on which century you chose to poke around in.
>>19347321
Did a first century Christian need to know if Christ had one or two wills in order to be saved? Do you?
>>19347338
Christ died for the sins of the elect, not all humans. Human will is involved in salvation conceived broadly, but to speak strictly it is not, as the human will entirely corrupt and incapable of faith unless it is regenerated by God.
>which shows He created it evil and in need of damnation from the get-go.
I would not state "in need of," but yes a reprobate is created to be damned.

[Anonymous No.19347375]

>>19347357
>Did a first century Christian need to know if Christ had one or two wills in order to be saved? Do you?
Yes, because it is directly related to Christ truly becoming incarnate. The apostles gave the faith to us once and for all, and it is necessary to believe in for salvation.
> I am talking about some of the later Christological debates.
Later Christological debates are precisely defending the notion of the real incarnation against vain philosophers injecting their own corrupted idea into the Church. If you say Christ has a phantom body and only appeared to suffer, you have no share in the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the same for any other heresy, because you end up saying that Christ did not become human and did not die for our sins.
> they are a collection of individuals with varying opinions
The seven ecumenical councils present a very clear and coherent view of Christology, constantly defending against either of the two extremes of making Christ into only God or only man. You only follow the ones you like because you have no truth, so you're forced to pick and choose to fit things into a created philosophical system.

>>19347357
>as the human will entirely corrupt and incapable of faith
Is it corrupt by nature and incapable of seeing truth?
>yes a reprobate is created to be damned
So creation is not good by nature?

[Anonymous No.19347381]

>>19347218
There are many ways to know. The Qur’an is full of errors. It says that Jesus did not die on the cross, it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Miriam, sister of Moses, even saying that Mary has is the sister of Aaron and has a father named Imran (Amram).

The Islamic prophet Dhu al-Qurnayn (He of Two Horns) is traditionally identified with pagan king Alexander the Great. His name comes from coins depicting him as Amun-Ra, a two-horned pagan god. Hardly a champion of monotheism, here! Dhu al-Qurnayn’s stories are also filled with information from Syrian legends like called the Alexander Romance, saying that the sun sets in a pool of murky water in the West.

There are also no prophecies predicting Muhammad in previous scriptures. Muslims also declare all previous scriptures corrupted to avoid this problem, but the Qur’an remains unproven. There is no historical evidence for any of this alleged corruption. The Qur’an also asks Christians (5:47) to judge by the Gospel to assess the Qur’an’s claims, but why would Allah ask us to judge by a corrupted scripture, or a scripture that has been lost? It’s stupid, and there’s no evidence of the “book” given to Jesus.

Muhammad was also a caravan-robbing polygamist pedophile. Jesus said to judge prophets by their fruits. Muhammad fails on all accounts. John, Jude, Paul and many others warn against false prophets that will come to lead men from the Gospel. Muhammad is one. Paul even warns of Satan disguising himself as an “angel of light”. Muhammad got his revelation from “Jibreel”, an entity claiming to be Gabriel giving him revelation contradicting all previous scripture. He never got the Qur’an from God. It was all from Jibreel

Daniel 9.24-27 proves Christianity, says that the Messiah will die and predicts that foreigners will destroy Jerusalem. If we calculate the numbers in accordance with Biblical principles such as the ‘sevens’ or ‘weeks’ of the prophecy referring to periods of seven years (attested in Leviticus) we can calculate the exact year of Jesus’ time, i.e. 30 AD or so.

These are all reasons (and there are more), why I am not a Muslim

[Anonymous No.19347386]

>>19347357
>yes a reprobate is created to be damned.
>. A non-elect person, for example, can never have faith in Christ. It is impossible.
Now I understand the western bugmen who cry about God being an "evil demon". If the only thing you know is this Calvinist abomination, then they are perfectly correct.

[Anonymous No.19347392]

>>19347357
>A non-elect person, for example, can never have faith in Christ. It is impossible.
You have zero possibility of knowledge if this is the case. Do you have faith right now? If you say yes, then you are guaranteeing that you will never fall away from faith because you are the elect. But clearly there are people who fall away from faith after visibly having it, so you make certainty of knowledge impossible and get into confusion where you doubt everything you see. You are always artificially doubting your own faith. This explains why the "pastor in doubt" archetype is so popular in American fiction.

[Anonymous No.19347395]

>>19347357
>A non-elect person, for example, can never have faith in Christ. It is impossible.
You're trying to view things from Gods perspective which is presumptuous in the extreme. If you're God? Yes this is true, otherwise you need to see how things play out through time with every other being that isn't God. If you're unable to discern who is elect and who isn't then your observation is simply meaningless and amounts to the obvious statement that God knows everything. If your theology is only useful in hindsight then it's not a useful theology.

[Anonymous No.19347399]

>>19347381
>Muslims also declare all previous scriptures corrupted to avoid this problem
This. But then they face the problem in this video (>>19347168) where they task us with the impossibility of verifying Muhammad with corrupt scripture. You can't be a muslim if you study even the Old Testament with an open mind.

[Anonymous No.19347403]

>>19347381
>It’s stupid, and there’s no evidence of the “book” given to Jesus.
What do the Muslims answer to this? They literally think the Injeel was a book given to Jesus, don't they? Why do we not have any hints of it historically?

[Anonymous No.19347406]

>>19347238
>Mohammed married a 9 year old
This is like saying Christianity is false because it permits slavery and the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers. You’d be judging it by modern standards. Augustine was betrothed to a 10 year old girl
> Christ didn't.
Except if you believe in Christ everything attributable to the Old Testament God is attributable to Christ

[Anonymous No.19347410]

>>19347264
>Cicero was a materialist

[Anonymous No.19347412]

>>19347406
>everything attributable to the Old Testament God is attributable to Christ
Christ was not incarnate in the Old Testament and did not marry anyone in there. Also prepubescent intercourse is different from a young age of marriage.

[Anonymous No.19347414]

>>19347410
Cicero was a cuck which is close enough to being a materialist

[Anonymous No.19347419]

>>19347412
>Christ was not in the Old Testament
fixed

[Anonymous No.19347420]

>>19347412
A young age of marriage implies a young age of intercourse in most cases. Age of consent higher than 13 is a recent development. A Christian doesn’t have much better grounding than a Muslim

[Anonymous No.19347424]

>>19347357
>Christ died for the sins of the elect, not all humans
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

[Anonymous No.19347425]

>>19347420
>Age of consent is a recent development
fixed

[Anonymous No.19347432]

>Book of Daniel
>written in 2nd century BC larping as a story from 6th century BC
>"prophecy" is completely accurate until it starts talking about events supposed to occur after the date of composition
>predicts a war between the Egyptians and Syrians that never happened
>says Antiochus will die in Palestine when he died in Persia
This unironically ruined the religion for me. And that's not even the worst thing in Scripture. How the fuck do Christians even cope

[Anonymous No.19347441]

>>19347419
>>Christ was not in the Old Testament

But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:

“Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.

>In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the LORD sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said:
>“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!”

[Anonymous No.19347445]

>>19347432
Surely the Word of God must be wrong, and not you!

[Anonymous No.19347446]

>>19347441
>ctrl+f jesus
>0 results

[Anonymous No.19347448]

>>19347432
>written in 2nd century BC
>still trusting (((scholars))) to tell you the truth
You have to ascend, anon.

[Anonymous No.19347449]

>>19347445
The bible isn't the word of god, christcuck. That's the Quran.

[Anonymous No.19347450]

>>19347419
I bet you also think the OT doesn’t teach the Trinity too

[Anonymous No.19347451]

>>19347432
>Believing (((secular))) scholarship
Anon...This shit was tried by Porphyry in the 4th Century and he got completely BTFO by the Church Fathers to the point where he's barely even a historical footnote despite being the author of the Isagoge, the textbook of logic used for over 1000 years.

[Anonymous No.19347452]

>>19347445
It doesn't make sense to presuppose that it is the Word of God, when it might be man-made like any other holy text, in which case I'd be committing some form of idolatry

[Anonymous No.19347455]

>>19347343
>The Muslim cannot remain logically consistent when saying this, as he tells the Christian to use his own scripture to judge Mohammad.
Which, according to Muslims, has become corrupted by shirk

[Anonymous No.19347456]

>>19347449
Already BTFO: >>19347381

[Anonymous No.19347458]

>>19347450
I do and it doesn't, you retarded christcuck

[Anonymous No.19347459]

>>19347445
>>19347448
>>19347451
Any Christian that engages seriously with said "secular" scholarship inevitably makes major concessions to its findings. It's impossible to remain orthodox Christian and be honest with yourself

[Anonymous No.19347462]

>>19347456
Didn't read

[Anonymous No.19347467]

>>19347462
Muslims can’t read

[Anonymous No.19347472]

>>19347459
I've yet to see any secular scholar who doesn't run away in fear at the sight of this book

[Anonymous No.19347473]

>The dinner conversation was philosophical. Aristotle was dismissed in favor of Plato, a preference I again ascribed to the very improbability of Plato’s thought. It seemed that the more bizarre a belief, the more poetic it must be, and hence the more noble it was to embrace it. I couldn’t help sensing that the Scotts were, underneath everything, as American as I, just as skeptical of ideas, and that like me they were convinced by the sincerity of an impulse rather than the rigor of a system. Very well. By a snobbish reverse, the preposterous claims of Platonism and a Platonic Christianity were what most excited them, as though anything that so taxed one’s credulity must be—well, not true, but aristocratic, superior. When they’d talk about Original Sin or the Creation or the Devil they’d become agitated, their cheeks would flush and their eyes would sparkle, as though they were hypnotizing themselves into espousing this obvious nonsense. And the more vague and absurd the things they discussed (angels, the resurrection of the body), the more they used such words as ‘precisely’, ‘undoubtedly’, ‘clearly’ and ‘naturally’, and each time they uttered such a word their eyes would dilate with glee—lying made them gleeful, just as children shriek with pleasure as they egg each other on to think up more and more gruesome details in a ghost story.

[Anonymous No.19347474]

>>19347467
How am I reading your posts then
Didn't think that through did you christshit?

[Anonymous No.19347479]

>>19347419
>>Christ was not in the Old Testament

The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, "Jacob." Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.

[Anonymous No.19347480]

>>19347458
But it does. Even Abraham understood God as triune. One good place to start is Genesis 16. The Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar and tells her that she will have a son and he will be named Ishmael. You should read the chapter yourself to see what I am saying in context and to see that it indeed is in reference to the Angel of the Lord, but Hagar addresses the Angel of the Lord in the following terms:
>She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.
She refers to this ‘Angel’ as God and the Lord. Angel means nothing more than ‘messenger’ it’s important to remember as well.

Also one can look at Genesis 19:24, which I think Justin Martyr pointed to to show multiple persons in the Godhead:
>Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.
The Lord raining down sulfur from the Lord in the heavens is the key point here. Referring to the Son and the Father.

Jacob also wrestles with an ‘angel’ in Genesis 32:22-32. After he wrestles, he names the place ‘Peniel’ or “Face of God”, because “I have seen God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” This clearly puts into context statements about no-one having seen God the Father, and Jesus saying that one who has seen him has seen the Father. Jacob wrestled with the Son.

Exodus 3:2-4
>There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
>When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”
First it says the Angel of the Lord was in the bush, and then immediately after it says God talks to Moses from the bush. This is similar to Genesis 16.

Almost anytime God appears before someone, it is referring to the pre-incarnate Logos, i.e. the Son. Even pre-Christian Jews like Philo identified the Logos with the Angel of the Lord. So yes, it’s true that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. worshiped a triune God. If you’re wondering about the Holy Spirit, it’s right in Genesis 1. The Son is who walks through the garden after Adam and Eve sin. This stuff is all over the place, really.

[Anonymous No.19347483]

>>19347479
>ctrl-f jesus
>0 results

[Anonymous No.19347487]

>>19347455
So how do I follow the Quran in judging Mohammad with my scriptures if it is corrupt? Is the Old Testament, which teaches us about the Angel of of the Lord Who is YHWH also corrupt?

[Anonymous No.19347490]

>>19347472
>Outside the ranks of conservative evangelical Christians, very few, if any, biblical scholars have found Bauckam's case persuasive. It flounders on numerous grounds, not the least of which is its steadfast refusal to take seriously scholarship on eyewitness testimony undertaken for more than a century by such experts as legal scholars who see the real-life importance of the question...The book is also not persuasive that the Gospels are either eyewitness reports themselves, or reports directly based on eyewitness testimony.
Bart Ehrman

[Anonymous No.19347493]

>>19347480
>Even Abraham understood God as triune
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[Anonymous No.19347494]

>>19347490
Bart stopped believing because “if God real why bad thing”, he is another atheist angry at God

[Anonymous No.19347495]

>>19347480
>But it does.
This was singlehandedly one of the biggest factor in my conversion to Christ.

[Anonymous No.19347501]

>>19347490
Ah yes Bart "I don't understand the basics of the Trinity" Ehrman. The Neil De Grasse Tyson of NT scholarship.

[Anonymous No.19347504]

>>19347495
Your mom dropping you on the head as a child?

[Anonymous No.19347505]

>>19347495
Same. It completely changed the way I viewed the Old Testament, along with the typologies all throughout it. It’s amazing

[Anonymous No.19347509]

>>19347459
I'm very honest with myself in dismissing all false worldly knowledge, which is foolishness as St. Paul teaches. Today they have one fairy-tale hypothesis about how the Torah was ""actually"" written, tomorrow it's wrong and there's a new idea. It's constant flux and chaos, no truth.

[Anonymous No.19347510]

>>19347490
>t flounders on numerous grounds, not the least of which is its steadfast refusal to take seriously scholarship on eyewitness testimony undertaken for more than a century
"It flounders on numerous grounds like it won't accept the ridiculous propositions taken for granted by secular scholars for over a century because a bunch of Hegelians were angry at Prussia"

Ok, thanks Bart.

[Anonymous No.19347518]

>>19347509
>Today they have one fairy-tale hypothesis about how the Torah was ""actually"" written, tomorrow it's wrong and there's a new idea. It's constant flux and chaos, no truth.
The fact that a field's hypotheses are provisional and subject to constant revision is a sign in its favour. Scientific activity, for instance, yields more durable knowledge about the world than perhaps any other sphere of human reasoning, but it rarely provides us with stable, incontestable, certain truths. Men's religious attitudes are subject to as much fluctuation, anyway. Your own creed has existed for only the smallest fraction of mankind's existence.

[Anonymous No.19347533]

>>19347518
>is a sign in its favour
Only if you deny real truth as being reachable and give ontological priority to flux and chaos, which is self-refuting and nonsensical at its core.
>Your own creed has existed for only the smallest fraction of mankind's existence.
I don't believe in the fantastical stories about ancient earth, so my religion (as in contact with the Creator God) has existed from the time of Adam.

[Anonymous No.19347554]

>>19347533
Presuming that people can know certain truth doesn't by necessity entail that they currently do... especially when there are many competing claims each describing themselves as absolute certain truth, with no clear way to distinguish between them in terms of veracity... objective truth seems to have a terrible habit of disguising itself as gross subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.19347573]

>>19347487
>So how do I follow the Quran in judging Mohammad with my scriptures if it is corrupt?
You don't? You obviously follow the Quran, which according to Muslims is the literal word of God himself

[Anonymous No.19347582]

>>19347533
>I don't believe in the fantastical stories about ancient earth
>being an unironic creationist, a position even most theists have abandoned

[Anonymous No.19347607]

>>19347144
Stop larping as an apologist/intellectual online and go to church.

[Anonymous No.19347610]

>>19347582
>a position even most theists have abandoned
>appeal to the masses

[Anonymous No.19347618]

>>19347610
Read St. Augustine's discussion of retard Christians who make an embarrassment of themselves through bad science

[Anonymous No.19347622]

>>19347573
The Quran tells me to judge Mohammad by my scripture. See >>19347381 and >>19347168.

In following the Quran I prove Mohammad to be a false prophet. I believe this is Satan's way of getting the Muslim into hell at the Day of Judgment. He will present to Christ this verse and accuse the Muslim with it.

[Anonymous No.19347628]

>>19347618
>St. Augustine
He also believed in young earth and interpreted Genesis as something more than mere reductionist metaphor.
>bad science
I do not use science to argue for it.

[Anonymous No.19347631]

>>19347554
>with no clear way to distinguish between them in terms of veracity
That's a false assumption. We believe that hardness of heart is what makes you not believe. Christ says that even if a dead man were to rise, the Pharisees would not believe. It does not matter if even miracles are shown to such people. It is a matter of disposition of the heart and will, not lack of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.19347636]

>>19347582
>theists
>still believing in "generic theism".
Anon, there is only one God the Father, and His Son and His Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.19347642]

>>19347306
>this does not mean God actively wills these things to happen
But the issue the other poster raises is to view matters from the point of view of God *before* He created the world: "If God knew this future before he created the world (which he did...) then he chose to actuate this future as an act of his own will."

Iow, at the point of creation, God actuated a certain future by an affirmative rather than a merely permissive act of His will. He affirmatively chose every detail of this creation, whilst knowing that, as a result of those details, only one set of humans would be saved.

> events occur due to Gods permissive will, this does not mean God actively wills these things to happen.

But God did actively will the creation of the world, and every detail of that creation which would result in one set of humans being saved.

I note that I am a Catholic who finds this issue genuinely puzzling, and hold, provisionally, that human freedom is in the category of a theological mystery, at least wrt the above-noted issue (by contrast, the issue of the human will interacting with divine grace, while maintaining its freedom, intuitively makes sense to me).

[Anonymous No.19347662]

>>19347642
> then he chose to actuate this future
False. Christ did not choose to actuate His passion before the fall of Adam. If Adam had not fallen, there would be no cross. Foreknowledge is distinct from active will, because God's mind foreknew all of creation from eternity before willing it. If God willing to create means He actualized all of it, this shows that God is predetermined completely by creation and cannot act freely in it. But the incarnation was a free act of the Holy Trinity's love and mercy.
>and every detail of that creation which would result in one set of humans being saved
No. God did not actively will Adam to fall, He only allowed it in His divine providence and foreknowledge.

[Anonymous No.19347673]

>>19347662
>>19347642
lmao christcucks are so pathetic with their cognitive dissonance

[Anonymous No.19347685]

>>19347642
From our perspective it's quite true that God doesn't know the future since we exist within time. God is timeless. It makes no sense to talk about God "knowing" things that haven't occurred yet from our perspective. There's a fundamental asymmetry here that simply cannot be bridged. Beings that exist within time cannot speak about being that exists above time itself and indeed is the cause of the flow of time. Of course God "knows" who will be saved but such a reality doesn't exist yet. It's the same as saying that God knows what color a unicorns hair is. True? Yes. Meaningful? No. A unicorns hair could be any color since it hasn't been brought into existence from our perspective

Think of those animations that show a sphere going through a 2D plane to demonstrate how 2D beings would perceive the movement of a 3D object. That's us and God but with time. God is only present to us in a slice of time that is the present. The entirety of God exists past, present and future. But since the future doesn't exist yet for us it's not meaningful to say God knows it since from our perspective God in that time doesn't exist himself.

[Anonymous No.19347692]

>>19347582
>being an unironic creationist, a position even most theists have abandoned
Evolution is a materialist myth to bolster capitalism and the Satanic myth of ‘progress’. Most of its head proponents in the 19th century were either explicitly Freemasons or were connected closely with Freemasons. The amount of presuppositions one has to hold that are unbiblical to believe in evolution is astounding.

The Earth is young and was created in six days. There was no death prior to the fall. Simple as

[Anonymous No.19347714]

>>19347636
That's three things, do you know how to count?

[Anonymous No.19347720]

>>19347692
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.19347741]

>>19347720
>he doesn’t grasp the difference between ousia and hypostasis
Every. single. time.

[Anonymous No.19347744]

>>19347741
meant for >>19347714

[Anonymous No.19347749]

>>19347720
Not even meming. What is the indisputable proof for the theory of evolution?

[Anonymous No.19347777]

>>19347692
>Most of its head proponents in the 19th century were either explicitly Freemasons or were connected closely with Freemasons
Well, that explains a lot. It really is an evil teaching which requires you to say that Christ created death and blessed it, that death is a logos or concrete existence and not just a mode of being of falling away from grace. It's not too far from Manicheanism.

[Anonymous No.19347785]

>>19347685
Thanks. It may be my midwittery, but I don't see how the issue of being in time vs. God's timelessness grasps the nettle stated here:

>>19347357
> God chose to create this world. He could have created a different one but he created this one knowing full well what would occur in it. He knew X person would go to hell and he created that world.

With that said, almost every page of the New Testament makes clear that our decisions in this life are meaningful. I do not see how that would be the case on a deterministic hypothesis; on such an hypothesis, life would amount to a kind of game that would not be, in my view, consistent with God's goodness and truth. *If* our decisions are meaningful, as scripture teaches, then an existentially meaningful free will would necessarily have to be a concomitant of that. Which conclusion in turn negates the determinist inference that is suggested by the above-quoted observation. Thus human freedom is real, but it is a theological mystery.

That, in any event, is my provisional thinking on the subject.

>>19347662
Your comments, it seems to me, do not grasp the above-stated nettle:
> God chose to create this world. He could have created a different one but he created this one knowing full well what would occur in it. He knew X person would go to hell and he created that world.

[Anonymous No.19347833]

>>19347473
>sad, nihilstic retard who will never understand the enigma of faith and desire of the metaphysical.
Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.19347835]

>>19347749
How many fossilized bunnies from the Cambrian have you found?

[Anonymous No.19347836]

>>19347777 (checked)
Yeah, it’s a real mess when you look into it. Even unsavory characters like H.G. Wells (a Freemason himself) are directly connected with Darwin’s foremost propagandist T.H. Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog”. Huxley’s descendents like Julius Huxley was an evolutionary biologist and eugenicist known to coin the term ‘transhumanism’, and was also key to the modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis which tries and fails to reconcile Mendelan genetics and Darwinian processes. Masonic rumors swirl around all of these people, but they are are hard to substantiate in some of the cases. Francis Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin and was the coiner of the term ‘eugenics’, a confirmed Freemason. Darwin himself might have been a Freemason, and his grandfather Erasmus Darwin was undeniably a Freemason, and was an early proponent of proto-Darwinian theories of evolution. All of these ideas come from very tied-together cliques of elites.

Let’s not even get into Jesuits like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, where matter is conscious and evolving with all the universe towards an ‘Omega Point’ that he pretends is a Christian idea.

[Anonymous No.19347840]

>>19347741
Sounds like very expensive words for "cope" and "bullshit"

[Anonymous No.19347853]

>>19347785
>Your comments, it seems to me, do not grasp the above-stated nettle:
That statement is correct, but God did not actualize the choices of the person who goes to hell. The choices is what lead him there, not God predetermining him actively to damnation. Even Satan was not created to be damned.

[Anonymous No.19347857]

>>19347835
>denies the flood, denies the fall
>introduces false system explaining the preflood world
>bro why does your truth not match up with my false skewed perspective!!!

[Anonymous No.19347867]

>>19347835
The Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. Over 95%+ of phyla that exist today are said to have appeared in the fossil record within a period of some 10 million years, extremely rapidly. These were not simple organisms either, but organisms just as complex as today. This is the exact opposite of Darwinian theory predicts—gradual diversification. There are 0 (ZERO) intermediate forms between ANY of these phyla either, which is also a huge issue for evolutionary ideas such as gradually branching “tree of life”, as a phylum is defined by wildly different forms of morphology and body plans. The fact that you can not find bunnies in the fossil evidence that we know of does not prove evolution either. You are making theory-laden observations. Numerous alternative theories could be proposed for why there are none, and this is very workable with intelligent design theories, which always mention the Cambrian period and use it to support their theories. This said, I don’t believe any of this nonsense. Scientists can’t even predict whether it will rain outside tomorrow, let alone model the climate correctly. I am not very predisposed to believe that they know the exact age and nature of life 600 some million years ago. There are all sorts of presuppositions they have as well that are essentially unsubstantiated, especially within the reigning scientific paradigm. Under the scientific framework there is no rational way to know if the uniformity of nature has been consistent over time. It can be no more than a presupposition or a mere probability based on experience. Either way it is unfounded. This destroys carbon dating and other methods of dating as well. Christians, however, believe that there is a Creator, and that He has through his grace revealed to us things through divine revelation. Through this we learn that in the beginning in Paradise that the world was extremely different than it was now. There was no death in the world. The sin of Adam effected the entire universe and subjected it to futility, death and corruption. This is impenetrable to science, because they do not acknowledge our fallen intellect and operate on unfounded assumptions such as discussed above. Luckily Moses was inspired by God and wrote Genesis for us.

[Anonymous No.19347884]

>>19347857
>>denies the flood, denies the fall
As anyone should, since the flood is physically impossible, and the fall is literally a retelling of the Myth of Adammu
>>introduces false system explaining the preflood world
It's so false that it lines up with the laws of physics and geology, and is supported by literal mountains of evidence that anyone can test
>>bro why does your truth not match up with my false skewed perspective!!!
Probably because your truth is complete horseshit pushed by control freak fanatics who can't accept they're ever wrong on anything

[Anonymous No.19347889]

>>19347867
>Over 95%+ of phyla that exist today are said to have appeared in the fossil record within a period of some 10 million years, extremely rapidly
Aside from not even answering my question, I thought the earth was supposed to be just 6000 years old

[Anonymous No.19347894]

>>19347889
>didn’t even read my whole post
I can debunk your Masonic myths from any perspective imaginable. The Earth *is* 6,000 years old (give or take)

[Anonymous No.19347903]

>>19347884
>the Myth of Adammu
“It was real in my mind”

[Anonymous No.19347904]

>>19347894
I don't need to read long debunked creationist horseshit, we don't live in 2006

[Anonymous No.19347908]

>>19347903
Wait, so Google is God now?

Anyway, there's a whole book on this by Johannes de Moor, google that instead. The Myth of Adammu is from Ugarit, by the way

[Anonymous No.19347912]

>>19347904
>I don't need to read long debunked creationist horseshit, we don't live in 2006
Cope

[Anonymous No.19347927]

>>19347908
It’s a misremembered and garbled myth, assuming it exists. The Bible is the inspired scripture which provides the account of what actually happened. Same with anything relating to flood myths like Deucalion, Manu, Nu’u, Utnapishtim, etc. These are all folk memories of the story of Noah

[Anonymous No.19348016]

>>19347908
>nooo a different distorted account of Adam's life has to be the original! it simply has to be!

[Anonymous No.19348021]

>>19347894
>I can debunk your Masonic myths from any perspective imaginable. The Earth *is* 6,000 years old (give or take)

[Anonymous No.19348023]

>>19347927
>It’s a misremembered and garbled myth, assuming it exists
It's actually well known and part of the KTU. It also predates the Bible, despite that it contains many of the events from the Genesis story. It's not really hard to see which inspired which

[Anonymous No.19348083]

>>19348023
This is really silly logic even from a secular perspective. Two people writing about the same historical event does not mean one inspired the other.

[the usual stuff No.19348092]

>>19348016
Adam is the distorted version

[Anonymous No.19348129]

>>19348092
Not when the Torah actually presents a coherent view and the Old Testament as a whole has prophesies which get fulfilled in Christ.

[Anonymous No.19348166]

This schizopost is really growing old, least of all because it doesn't convince anyone and we all just waste our breath on irrelevant shit. I started as a perennialist but I am growing increasingly convinced that Christianity is just a dogmatic, non-religious lobotomy doctrine today.
>>19347154
>>You can only be saved by X
>>You can only be saved by Y
This is a bullshit strawman btw, to my knowledge Abrahamic religions are the only ones that dare claim to be the single path to salvation. European pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists etc. all acknowledge the possibility for multiple paths.
>>19347178
In other words you've got nothing other than emotional appeal.
>>19347213
>"God cares not for this vanity!"
>"Why? B-because I fucking said so!"
I could just as well say that God condemns every ignorant person to eternal suffering beyond your imagination.
>>19347445
>the heccing word of god we wrote and compiled is correct and if it's wrong then it's still actually correct because it's the word of god

[Anonymous No.19348171]

>>19348083
It does when one predates the other by several centuries

[Anonymous No.19348176]

>>19348129
Coherent view of what?

[Anonymous No.19348243]

>>19348092
The Bible has fulfilled prophecies which give us exact dates for future events which came to pass. I’ll trust the Bible’s account over some garbled pagan memory of Adam.

[Anonymous No.19348251]

>>19348166
>I am a perennialist
Read: I am a relativist ‘all religions are true, brooo, everything is one!’ hippie who doesn’t practice anything

[Anonymous No.19348256]

>>19348243
>The Bible has fulfilled prophecies which give us exact dates for future events which came to pass.
Name one that wasn't compiled ad-hoc

[Anonymous No.19348276]

>>19348251
Your endless confusion of form with its content is as empty as it is boring. Strictly speaking, no religion is """true""", whatever that means in your delusional head. What is true is the principle which creates the form and serves as its content. The principle is the only thing that matters and the only spiritual factor. The form is just a vessel. When the form is given absolute priority, like you Christian polemicists do, there reigns absolute untruth, materialism and vicious, egoic will to power.

[Anonymous No.19348299]

>>19348256
One good example of this is in the Old Testament book of Daniel, specifically chapter 9.24-27. If one interprets the period of seventy 'sevens' or seventy weeks (depending on the translation) as referring to seventy periods of seventy years, i.e. 490 years (in accordance with the idea of 'weeks of years' in Leviticus 25:8). Several things are predicted in this prophecy. But first, we know that it starts "From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem". This is widely believed to be in the 7th year of King Artaxerxes of the Achaemenid Empire in accordance with the dates given in the Old Testament book of Ezra (Ezra 7). He is believed by secular historians to have begun to his reign in 465 B.C. The seventh year of his reign would be ~458 B.C. The prophecy says that there will be 62 'weeks' (434 years) from the finishing of the restoration of Jerusalem (which would take '7' weeks or 49 years) until the coming of the Anointed One / Christ. So if Jerusalem takes 49 years to restore from the order of Artaxerxes, that brings us to 409 B.C. 434 years from 409 B.C. is 25 A.D., the beginning of the 69th week of the prophecy, corresponding, it seems, with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist at the start of Christ's ministry. Sometime after the beginning of the 69th week, the Anointed One / Christ will be put to death. There are several possible interpretations of the Hebrew here. Either the Anointed One "will be put to death and will have nothing", or possibly, (and more Christologically) he will "will be put to death, but not for himself". In the middle of the 70th 'week' a covenant will be affirmed with many, and sacrifice will become obsolete in the temple. This would occur around 28 / 29 A.D. according to the math, and would likely be the date when Jesus was crucified. And of course, it says that "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed". This seems to correspond with the coming of the Romans into Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which would of course end sacrifice in the Temple forever. There are a few obscure parts of the prophecy, but I find it compelling. Jesus himself references this section in the Gospels. Talmudic Jews who hate Christ have this same prophecy today, but the rabbis have pronounced a curse ( Sanhedrin 97b, in particular) against those who attempt to calculate the coming of the Messiah (because it will be shown to be Jesus Christ).

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.19348306]

>>19348256
>>19348299
On top of this, there are Talmudic accounts that the scapegoats at the Jewish temple stopped having their sins forgiven in the forty years prior to the destruction of the temple (which comes out to literally 30 A.D., give or take). Jews would take a goat, tie a cloth around its horns or neck, and send it out into the wilderness for the forgiveness of sins:

Rosh Hashanah 31b:
<The ordinance was with regard to the strip of crimson wool used on Yom Kippur. As it is taught in a baraita: At first they would tie a strip of crimson wool to the opening of the Entrance Hall of the Temple on the outside. If, after the sacrificing of the offerings and the sending of the scapegoat, the strip turned White, the people would rejoice, as this indicated that their sins had been atoned for. If it did not turn White they would be sad.

<During the forty years before the Second Temple was destroyed the strip of crimson wool would not turn White; rather, it would turn a deeper shade of red
https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah.31b

Yoma 39b
<The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn White, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually.
https://www.sefaria.org/Yoma.39b.5

Truly Christ is risen from the dead, trampling death by death.

[Anonymous No.19348312]

>>19348276
>no religion is """true"""
Saw all I need to see here

[Anonymous No.19348322]

>>19348312
>>no religion is """true"""
>Saw all I need to see here

[Anonymous No.19348330]

>>19348322
>>>no religion is """true"""

[Anonymous No.19348368]

>>19348330
The sad part here is that I know for a fact you're not this dumb. You can, in fact, understand basic English. You are just pretending not to be able to, because if you acknowledged that you understand the point I am making, you would actually have to address it.
Such is the fate of faith without knowledge.

[Anonymous No.19348397]

>>19348368
You say what you mean. You refuse to believe that it is possible that God could have revealed Himself definitively in any one way, which He has. Therefore you reject the Truth for something less onerous. You choose instead to ‘follow’ (implying you practice lol) some sort of crypto-Hindu LARP that makes the feel-good claim that ‘all religions are true’ while simultaneously affirming the opposite. It’s a man-made religion that takes the base commonalities from false religions and plunders Christianity in order to try to make ‘le Primordial Tradition’. It is a joke, and it is Satanic.

[Anonymous No.19348411]

>>19348299
I literally asked for ones that weren't ad-hoc. Do you know what ad-hoc means?

By the way, what you're doing here even has its own name, and is called data mining. It works by trying to find anything that confirms your pre existing beliefs, even by actively manipulating the data available to you, which is honestly half of your post, in order to make it fit your worldview. How you can't see this is beyond me

[Anonymous No.19348421]

>>19348411
Not seeing any refutation here. Daniel was written centuries before Christ. The proof is right before you.

[Anonymous No.19348459]

>>19348421
Yes, but the Gospels weren't. They were written decades after the events in it took place, by people who had a very good motivation to make them fit with biblical prophecies. Naturally they couldn't always achieve this, so they often resort to the song and dance you do in your previous posts, where you have to take a number of verse, multiply it by 12.3, divide in by 6.98, then put it in a diagonal matrix to find a 6, which is one of the three 6's in 666.

Which by the way isn't even the number of the beast, that was 616 and referred to Emperor Nero

[Anonymous No.19348468]

>>19348397
>You choose instead to ‘follow’ (implying you practice lol) some sort of crypto-Hindu LARP
I'm becoming convinced it is just a coping mechanism they use to comfort themselves to not repent and become Christian. The system they follow is just convenient intellectual masturbation for most, maybe some get into the malefic and satanic aspect of it, but for a lot of them it's just intellectual.

[Anonymous No.19348480]

>>19348459
>They were written decades after the events in it took place
The same God who inspired Daniel inspired and preserved them. What is the problem? Daniel's prophesy predicts things you can gather from even secular historians. The Messiah did come into the second temple and it did get destroyed, you just need to understand which tradition holds to His teachings. This is not an impossible task.

[Anonymous No.19348509]

>>19348397
>You refuse to believe that it is possible that God could have revealed Himself definitively in any one way, which He has.
I believe that the Absolute reveals itself constantly in a variety of ways, some religious, some theistic, some directly experiential. A Christian monk could also partake in the Absolute, but a polemical autist too caught up in doctrine to actually know wisdom couldn't possibly do the same. That is what I believe.
>Therefore you reject the Truth for something less onerous.
The idea that Christianity is the "Truth" is completely baseless.
>You choose instead to ‘follow’ (implying you practice lol) some sort of crypto-Hindu LARP that makes the feel-good claim that ‘all religions are true’ while simultaneously affirming the opposite.
There's no copyright on either doctrine or practice. It's not a Happy Meal situation where they only go together or whatever. Cause leads to effect - you pursue one path in the correct way and it will produce the correspondent result. I could - and indeed did - practice Orthodoxy for a time. I got results from that. Now I practice other things, but if I wanted to I could still return to Orthodoxy without being locked down to some dogmatic opinion or being limited and not being allowed to do yoga, meditation, esoteric practices etc. If I wanted to, I could praise Jesus and use Hindu practices at the same time - in fact, one of the famous namefags on this board does just that. I choose not to do the same simply because I no longer see a point in Christianity, everything I can get there I can get elsewhere, and better.
>It’s a man-made religion
Perennialism isn't a religion, I just explained to you that religion is form - perennialism is concerned with the substance that creates and resides within form, but is not form.
>>19348468
You are correct that for a lot of perennialists, it is unfortunate a purely intellectual position. Similarly, for almost every Christian, Christianity is a social or polemical interest - like you and that other anon here.

[Anonymous No.19348511]

>>19348459
>the Gospels weren't. They were written decades after the events in it took place
This is based on the atheistic presupposition that Jesus Christ could not have known the Temple would be destroyed and that these words were put into his mouth by post 70-AD writers. A Christian knows that this was made known to Daniel centuries beforehand though, and it only came to fruition in the time of Christ. We know the Temple was destroyed by the Romans and the sacrifices ended in that time, just like the prophecy says, and conveniently around the time when someone claiming to be the Messiah walked this Earth and was killed, just like Daniel wrote.

>Naturally they couldn't always achieve this, so they often resort to the song and dance you do in your previous posts, where you have to take a number of verse, multiply it by 12.3, divide in by 6.98, then put it in a diagonal matrix to find a 6, which is one of the three 6's in 666.
The principle used in interpreting the prophecy is attested in the Pentateuch, so we are within reason to apply it to this Biblical prophecy in order to understand it.

[Anonymous No.19348529]

>>19348468
Yeah, you’re spot on. Personally I used to be like this. I was into perennialism for a couple of years, I seriously considered embracing Islam, and then I spent time looking into Vaishnava sects of Hinduism, everything but Christianity really. I just dismissed it out of hand, but luckily I had a Christian friend who could clear the nonsense from my mind, and eventually God made it clear to me that I ought to be following Jesus Christ. This demolished any last copes I had. If these people are sincere in their pursuit they will find Christ eventually.

[Anonymous No.19348540]

>>19348509
You just hate the idea of dogma. You’re a dabbler. You want a free-for-all.

[Anonymous No.19348555]

>>19348540
I don't have a problem with dogma per se, I have a problem with dogmatism, which is the crutch of a broken soul that is too weak and ignorant to make its way towards the light through any other means. A person perfectly in tune with the divine would not need dogma, words or even thought. Since very few of us are perfectly in tune with the divine, however, dogma is a useful tool for the rest of us. It becomes a problem when it is the only tool, and a tool assigned ultimate value, at that.

[Anonymous No.19348559]

>>19348509
>without being locked down to some dogmatic opinion
>Orthodoxy
That is just your understanding of Orthodoxy not taught by any saint. Correct belief and being part of the Body of Christ is necessary for 'gnosis' in the Orthodox understanding. You were following something else entirely, a creation of your mind and nothing more.
You are a self-worshipper, because the epistemic standard you have is only yourself and what you like in a particular moment. It's not substantially different than someone entirely driven by their passion for food, only that your passion is intellectual in nature.

[Anonymous No.19348566]

>>19348555
This is more crypto-Buddhist nonsense about relative versus ultimate truths. You have no reason to believe this except that you personally desire to believe it. It’s more cope

[Anonymous No.19348581]

>>19348559
For what it's worth, I don't think your ridiculously particularistic version of Orthodoxy is "the true faith" either. With that said, don't assume too much about me. I am no foreigner to church service. My father is a priest and I grew with this religion, long before I had any "intellectual" interests.

[Anonymous No.19348599]

>>19348566
This is perhaps the worst case of projection in this thread thus far. You are the one who has no reason to believe everything and whose worldview is apparently entirely predicated in circular logic.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that God's presence cannot be reduced to any element of religion. Will an illiterate peasant be prevented from going to heaven because he doesn't understand scripture? What about a believer who couldn't find anyone to baptise him, or a desert dweller who had no priest to give him confession or communion? A believe who doesn't own and never has been able to obtain a Bible? As you can easily see, none of these things have absolute value - they are aids, which support a man along his path, but the divine presence can manifest completely independently from all of them. There is one ultimate truth, which manifests in a variety of forms and contexts. That is all.

[Anonymous No.19348612]

>>19348599
>You are the one who has no reason to believe everything and whose worldview is apparently entirely predicated in circular logic.
All arguments are ultimately circular at the paradigm level.

[Anonymous No.19348634]

>>19348511
>A Christian knows that this was made known to Daniel centuries beforehand though, and it only came to fruition in the time of Christ.
Yes, and can present absolutely zero evidence demonstrating this, whereas biblical scholars can actually show that it took decades before the Gospels were even written down, much less standardized. That's the great thing about robust knowledge, you don't need to believe in it for it to be true, you can cross-check these claims and find out yourself, whereas your assertion is solely based on belief, the same belief that makes a Muslim assert that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, a Buddhist assert that the words of the Buddha are the true Dhrama, and a Scientologist assert that L. Ron Hubbard had fully discovered the final secrets of the mind. Notice how conclusions based on critical inquiry don't deviate as wildly as those based on blind faith? It's almost like one is more reliable or something

[Anonymous No.19348639]

>>19348612
You will have to expand on that if you want me to address it, but do note that in the context of what I said, it does not follow at all that a given person's worldview must necessarily be based on some form of argument. I believe in basing it on direct experience, ideally.

[Anonymous No.19348641]

>>19348555
Dogma is just explication of revealed personal truth. All of the saints experience the same truth because it is the same Living God revealing it to them. There is an objective truth and dogma is just a formulation of it, explicated to stop people from wandering off into delusion and insanity like worshipping idols for example, which is nothing more than communing with fallen angels (all of this is discoverable directly and experimentally, the buddhist demons tremble at Christ's name which makes zero sense if all religions are the same). If you "practiced" Orthodoxy as you claim, you should have known that we teach a personal connection with God, Who is the Holy Trinity. There is no other way to Truth, Christ said nobody gets to the Father except through Him.

If you really want the truth, maybe you will be interested in St. Sophrony Sakharov and his writings on Buddhism and other eastern religion.
https://findingthewaytotheheart.blogspot.com/2014/03/hinduism-and-buddhism-offer-form-of.html
https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/elder-sophrony-on-eastern-religions/

>>19348581
>I am no foreigner to church service.
You are a foreigner to the body of Christ in virtue of the beliefs you hold. You can go through all of the rituals and still be spiritually dead, in fact the sacraments condemn someone who has no faith (or wilfully wrong faith) and participates in them. It is peak Pharisaism to think that merely being born into something means you understand it or know it in any intimate sense.

"Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’"

>>19348599
>There is one ultimate truth, which manifests in a variety of forms and contexts.
How do you know? Did this "abstract monadic truth" reveal this to you? That it manifests in different valid contexts? Because the God we worship revealed to us the exact opposite. Why is our religion at its most deepest mystical core not also part of your perennialistic scheme if all religions really are the same in substance?

[Anonymous No.19348652]

>>19348612
Imagine having that faggot on your mind and posting a pic of her.

[Anonymous No.19348661]

>>19348599
>Will an illiterate peasant be prevented from going to heaven because he doesn't understand scripture? What about a believer who couldn't find anyone to baptise him, or a desert dweller who had no priest to give him confession or communion? A believe who doesn't own and never has been able to obtain a Bible?
This is "if God good why bad thing happen" style reasoning. God is provident over creation, so nothing is somehow out of his reach, if a person believes in Christ or wills to know the truth with a pure heart, God will provide everything necessary for him in his situation. Salvation is not entirely defined by dogma, this is correct, but there is no dialectic between objective truth as defined in dogma with personal connection with God. You seem to base your extremely fluid and incoherent cafeteria-style religion entirely on opposition to dogma.

[Anonymous No.19348669]

>>19348639
>direct experience
What direct experience did you base it on? Did the "One" reveal itself to you and say that you should follow all the religions, mixing and matching however you please? Please do tell me how you separate falsehood from truth, or do you think all spiritual experience is good?

[Anonymous No.19348676]

>>19348581
>ridiculously particularistic
It is the teaching of every saint in our Church who wrote about these topics. Cleansing of passions and correct belief is necessary for seeing reality correctly, without delusion.

[Anonymous No.19348682]

>>19348581
>My father is a priest
Sometimes I wish that I grew up Christian, but then I see stuff like this and thank God that He let me experience the full force of all the evil ideologies to truly see what they are before I saw the light in Christ.

[Anonymous No.19348751]

>>19347154
They can be right about some things and wrong about others.
Shocking, I know.

[Anonymous No.19348856]

>>19347264
>The ancients truly believed that you could go back from ethics and discern things about reality purely based on ethical duties
They didn't. They all took the epistemology -> metaphysics -> ethics route. You're just coping to save face for your desert cult.

[Anonymous No.19348866]

>>19348641
>Why is our religion at its most deepest mystical core not also part of your perennialistic scheme if all religions really are the same in substance?
This. Read the monastics like St. John Climacus and you see they all teach you tools against falling into demonic deception. Why did the perennialistic god not also clue them in that the demons are actually cool and you should actually worship them for gnosis? The perennialist reading of world religions has to ignore what the religions actually teach for it to make any sense, I don't mean just the "dogmas" (as if you can somehow neatly separate practice from dogma in the first place), but actual monastic practice which has drastically different goals and teachings from Hinduism based directly on the experience of the people who did these practices. By any perennialist metric Orthodox Christian monks should also be in the "enligthened" category of "sages", but why then is there discontinuity and stark opposition in their teaching with the teachings of demons?

[Anonymous No.19348944]

Going to my first Divine Liturgy on Sunday, any tips so I don’t come off as a sperg?

[Anonymous No.19348950]

>>19348639
>I believe in basing it on direct experience, ideally.
And by what basis do you discern good experiences from bad? Even demons can pretend to be good

[Anonymous No.19349001]

>>19348944
Based. There is nothing hard about it, just follow what other people do. Remember that there is no goal to seem "normal" or follow some rules, but to worship God in a reverent way. There are general rules you will understand with time, like when it is appropriate to make the sign of the cross, kneel (not done on Sundays), etc.

Maybe look up the daily readings of the day beforehand so you can follow them better. And look up generally what the liturgy consists of. If you're going to Saturday evening worship, the vigil is mostly just singing psalms, so familiarity with them is great.

[Anonymous No.19349012]

>>19348944
I would be far more concerned about participating in idolatry than "coming off as a sperg". The entire yearly ritual cycle for them both begins and ends with Mary and not Christ who is the Alpha and the Omega. They are Ishtarians and you are falling for it just because you think it looks cool. You *are* a sperg. Find yourself a real Bible believing church instead. It may not look cool, but it will help you find salvation.

[Anonymous No.19349057]

>>19347144
>le bearded man in the sky
grow up.

[Anonymous No.19349090]

>>19349001
Thank you for the information and advice, anon, I really appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.19349102]

>>19347144
I have a very soiboy tier take on this where it doesnt really matter what specific religion you are in as long as you are honestly oriented towards love, mercy, beauty, etc.

[Anonymous No.19349104]

>>19348661
>This is "if God good why bad thing happen" style reasoning.
Why is that? Because you don't have any answer for it?

[Anonymous No.19349116]

>>19349012
>has no complete canon yet claims ‘scripture alone’
>has no connection to any historical church
>hates and seethes against Mary any chance they get
>thinks that megachurch rock concerts are ‘reverent worship’
Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.19349193]

>>19349116
>being this wrong on all counts
Only Christ's sacrifice is adequate for covering your shame.

[Anonymous No.19349271]

>>19347853
>God did not actualize the choices of the person who goes to hell. The choices is what lead him there, not God predetermining him actively to damnation. Even Satan was not created to be damned.

I agree. Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.19349365]

>>19349104
I just answered it. These kinds of reasonings blatantly ignore God's providence. You cannot divorce history and creation and the circumstances of your life from God's providence and foreknowledge.

[Anonymous No.19349370]

>>19349102
>where it doesnt really matter what specific religion you are in
>as long as you are honestly oriented towards love, mercy, beauty, etc.

[Anonymous No.19349373]

>>19349370
Are you comparing me to the snake? I dont see why

[Anonymous No.19349375]

>>19349102
The problem for this kind of view is that love is not an abstraction, but personal. There is no inherent love outside of the Holy Trinity, all other true love is by participation in it.

[Anonymous No.19349380]

>>19349373
Because the snake uses such terms to lead people into demon worship. The Hinduists claim to follow love and beauty too, but we know their gods are demons who are hateful creatures. It also only "doesn't really matter" what religion you're in as long as it's not Christianity, then it suddenly becomes evil and dogmatic and you need to accept demon worship!

[Anonymous No.19349384]

>>19349380
But I have no problem with Christians. It is the religion which appeals most to me

[Anonymous No.19349394]

>>19349384
Then the view that different religions are okay is mutually incompatible with Christianity if we care about truth. Christians say other religions worship demons, so there is no consistent possibility of mixing and matching with other religions.

[Anonymous No.19349416]

>>19349394
I know but I dont really agree with them. I'm sure many people do worship demons in a sense but you could do that while claiming to be Christian too. The impulse towards what Christians call the holy spirit and grace is inborn in people imo.

[Anonymous No.19349469]

>>19349416
Yes, people are made in the image of God but some choose to ignore it and act contrary to their conscience, which includes worshipping idols. And the Holy Spirit is the God we pray to, not just some force though.

That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
(John 1:9)

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
(John 3:18-21)

[Anonymous No.19349550]

>>19349365
When is God actually going to do something useful with that foreknowledge, like cure a disease or something? Because right now, he's about as present in this universe as a deadbeat dad. Did the universe cheat on him or something?

[Anonymous No.19349652]

>>19349550
>Because right now, he's about as present in this universe as a deadbeat dad
You are blinded by sin, it’s like you have cataracts over your eyes.

[Anonymous No.19350146]

Seraphim Rose threads are peak comfy

[Anonymous No.19350537]

>>19350146
If you enjoy Rose you'll really enjoy Bulgakov

[Anonymous No.19350541]

>>19348641
>Dogma is just explication of revealed personal truth.
Maybe in theory, but certainly not in practice.
>You are a foreigner to the body of Christ in virtue of the beliefs you hold.
I did not hold these beliefs until 2-3 years ago. Until then I had been a Christian for my entire life.
>How do you know? Did this "abstract monadic truth" reveal this to you?
I would not call it abstract, but yes, it did.
>Why is our religion at its most deepest mystical core not also part of your perennialistic scheme if all religions really are the same in substance?
It is. As I said earlier in the thread, a Christian monk can indeed partake in the Absolute. In fact, every Christian monk who has direct and experiential connection with Christ does partake in the Absolute through the medium of Christ-worship and the Christian religious form.
Unfortunately this does not stop annoying Christian polemicists from pushing their wrong views everywhere.
>>19348661
I am not sure what you thought I was saying, but you are agreeing with me in your post - dogma is peripheral, connection to god is central. I am also not trying to assert some sort of rigid dualism between connection to god on the one hand and dogma on the other - if you read further up the thread, you will see that I said I have no problem with dogma in itself. What I have a problem with is the absolutisation of dogma, which is a peripheral thing, as we just agreed.
>>19348669
My connection to the Absolute is currently mediated through reason. I do not have a direct noetic perception and knowledge of the Absolute, if that is what you are asking. This is a hard thing to do and stands at the peak of spiritual achievement - it is analogous to something slightly above Theosis.
>Did the "One" reveal itself to you and say that you should follow all the religions, mixing and matching however you please?
That's not what perennialism is about.
>Please do tell me how you separate falsehood from truth, or do you think all spiritual experience is good?
The demonic stems from materiality, the divine stems from the spiritual. This is my guide in the day to day. Whatever is motivated purely and exclusively by an orientation towards wisdom and virtue enjoys my confidence, nothing else.
>>19348676
>Cleansing of passions and correct belief is necessary for seeing reality correctly, without delusion.
Every traditional religion agrees on this, the problem is precisely in this unilateral attempt at usurpation of this view on behalf of polemicists.
>>19348682
I hope for your own sake that you truly did see the light of Christ and are not just larping, although I am afraid that you probably are.
>>19348950
That which enslaves or promotes materiality and attachment is demonic, that which promotes the opposite is not.

[Anonymous No.19350593]

>>19350541
Are you a Gnostic, anon?

[Anonymous No.19350683]

>>19350541
>The demonic stems from materiality, the divine stems from the spiritual
But muh demons aren't material beings, aren't they?
>That which enslaves or promotes materiality and attachment is demonic, that which promotes the opposite is not.
Love is a form of attachment too. Should one get rid of it too on his spiritual journey.
>>19350593
The last post was full on Gnosticism. I noticed it too.

[Anonymous No.19350910]

Nothing ITT is convincing

[Anonymous No.19351862]

>>19348682
There are plenty of evil Christian ideologies
>even the Devil can quote scripture

[Anonymous No.19351992]

>>19350541
>The demonic stems from materiality
Pure demonism.

[Anonymous No.19351999]

>>19350541
>mediated through reason
>I do not have a direct noetic perception and knowledge of the Absolute
So you have no personal connection and are worshipping your mind, got it.
>it is analogous to something slightly above Theosis.
>slightly above Theosis.
Imagine the pride one needs to have to say this.

[Anonymous No.19352034]

>>19350593
I am not, although I respect them.
>>19350683
>But muh demons aren't material beings, aren't they?
Depends on what you mean by "material" and "beings".
>Love is a form of attachment too. Should one get rid of it too on his spiritual journey.
Conditional love is slavery and a source of attachment, yes. Unconditional and universal love on the contrary enables man to appreciate everything for its own virtues and liberates action from the yoke of passion. A man who loves everything is much freer to choose what he wishes than a man who only loves some things or who only hates some things.
>>19351992
Glad you agree, I guess?
>>19351999
>So you have no personal connection and are worshipping your mind, got it.
I would love to hear how you reached that insane conclusion, seeing as how nothing I said would point in that direction. I have had experiences that have confirmed the validity of my approach for me, but these do not constitute perfect noetic knowledge of the Absolute, which is what the ultimate reference point should be.
>Imagine the pride one needs to have to say this.
There's no pride in what I said at all. Some Orthodox monks naturally go beyond Theosis although they may not be aware of it. The problem is the way Theosis relates to the essence-energies distinction. Theosis only allows becoming one with God's energies, but not with his essence. A properly integrated state would mean becoming one with both. Obviously it is a very rare thing, but some people reach that peak.

[Anonymous No.19352157]

>>19352034
>essence-energies distinction
>energies
>essence
You're mixing and matching things from contradictory systems in an inconsistent cafeteria-style path, as all gnostics do. Do you realize that how essence (ousia) is defined, it is completely meaningless (logically and syntactically) to even speak of becoming 'one' with it? I don't understand how you can not see your syncretism, if there is theosis, then all else is delusion, that follows from the very definition of theosis. What you speak about it something else, not the same things Orthodox monks talk about when they say theosis. The concepts are not on a scale of further progressive enlightenment, but are mutually exclusive.
If in your view Orthodox Christian monks do reach "enlightenment", why does it without fail lead them to say that your path is demon worship? Should they not become more "open" to "Eastern practices" because it all is secretly the same "esoteric core"? (remember, there is no distinction in the uncreated in your view, so if they achieve a glimpse of the absolute it has to be the same thing they perceive as the Hindu). This is what I don't understand in your worldview, how you pretend to square completely opposed things. Maybe Guenon could get away with it because he was ignorant about Orthodoxy, so thought it was just a "mystical Roman Catholicism", but when you actually read the saints it becomes clear how their experience leads them to drastically different conclusions than what you propose. Your method of discerning the demonic is also completely different from theirs, which would naturally mean they get deceived by demons because they do not follow your methodology, since their way of discerning is mutually exclusive with yours.

> I have had experiences that have confirmed the validity of my approach for me
Do these experiences give you a direct perception of the absolute? If not, they are created mediators and you are worshipping your mind. In other words you do not have knowledge of what you are worshipping, it is literally as St. Paul said to the philosophers of Athens.

[Anonymous No.19352183]

>>19347144
>only Christianity is the true path
What branch?

[Anonymous No.19352212]

>>19352183
Orthodoxy

[Anonymous No.19352241]

>>19347867
>evolution is darwin

yeah go kill yourself, Huxley already critiqued gradual evolution when Darwin was still alive.

[Anonymous No.19352242]

>>19352183
There are no branches on it, only the Body of Christ (Orthodoxy) with various sects splitting from it historically
.

[Anonymous No.19352262]

>>19350146
>>19347144
>Seraphim Rose
Based. https://youtu.be/qCJu3Ek7ZLM
Syncretism really is part of the religion of the future. Look at pictures of the 'Abrahamic worship houses' they establish, it is pure evil. I can see perennialism soon becoming the default religion, in a way it already has, with a transition into overt satanism.

[Anonymous No.19352269]

>>19352034
>>But muh demons aren't material beings, aren't they?
>Depends on what you mean by "material" and "beings".

[Anonymous No.19352283]

>>19352242
Orthodoxy broke off from the Catholic Church. They had a string of heretics as Bishop of Constantinople with Nestorius and Photius and eventually just degenerated to the point where they withered away completely.

[Anonymous No.19352299]

>>19352157
>You're mixing and matching things from contradictory systems in an inconsistent cafeteria-style path, as all gnostics do. Do you realize that how essence (ousia) is defined, it is completely meaningless (logically and syntactically) to even speak of becoming 'one' with it?
That's a you problem. What I said is perfectly sensible to those who understand. No Gnosticism necessary.
>The concepts are not on a scale of further progressive enlightenment, but are mutually exclusive.
I know. Theosis is doctrinally limited by the crippled doctrine of Christianity. However, this does not prevent some monks from attaining higher states than Theosis on the practical level.
>If in your view Orthodox Christian monks do reach "enlightenment", why does it without fail lead them to say that your path is demon worship?
It doesn't. I know some who incorporate eastern practices in their worship, although obviously without the knowledge of their fellow monks. Also, spiritual enlightenment is not the same as having a flawless perception of everything in profane terms. It is possible to go beyond a given doctrine spiritually without also going beyond it intellectually.
>Should they not become more "open" to "Eastern practices" because it all is secretly the same "esoteric core"?
Why should that follow? Few Buddhists incorporate esoteric Hindu practices, for example, even though their doctrine doesn't have the pretensions that Christianity does.
>(remember, there is no distinction...)
That's true but that doesn't mean that when one attains the Absolute, one should discard everything he has done thus far in terms of practice. Things go on as usual. Or would you expect a Hindu sage to abandon all of his Hindu practices and pick up the practices of another religion as soon as he attains the Absolute?
>This is what I don't understand in your worldview, how you pretend to square completely opposed things.
They are not opposed, when there is opposition it is always because of peripheral elements which are irrelevant.
>Your method of discerning the demonic is also completely different from theirs
Naturally, since my ad hoc approach is tailored to circumstances.
>which would naturally mean they get deceived by demons...
Not necessarily. Moreover, even if someone gets deceived occasionally, it does not mean that they will be deceive always, or deceived about important things. Christianity is already pretty unambiguous about the sources of corruption and generally I am in agreement with its standards.
>Do these experiences give you a direct perception of the absolute?
I just pointed out that perception of the Absolute is the highest peak of spiritual achievement. You are asking a bit much.
>you are worshipping your mind.
Doesn't follow from your argument, I am making an observation on the same lines as observing the weather.
>In other words you do not have knowledge of what you are worshipping
Neither do you unless you have attained Theosis (at least).

[Anonymous No.19352317]

>>19352269
Don't know what you want of me, to write you a book on what demons are? I am not an expert on demons and don't care to be one. What I can tell you is that unlike deities and human beings, demons have no ontological value or presence. They are like shadows - the absence of something rather than its presence, insufficiency embodied. Demons lack Being in general as an ontological category, much less an existence comparable to that of a cat or a dog. With that said they belong to nature and matter, not to supernature, to which only the divine belongs. They can also be expressed in matter, so at least temporarily they can actually have a material body, as in the case of demonic possession. Can they manifest in material bodies of their own? Maybe, I don't know. All of these considerations are just scratching the surface, which is why I gave you the answer that I did. For my purposes, it's sufficient to know how to identify and avoid them.

[Anonymous No.19352320]

>>19352317
Demons are fallen angels

[Anonymous No.19352344]

>>19352320
The response you have sent has no meaningful content, but I am now inclined to believe that you probably have a poorer understanding of what a demon is than 18th century Puritan girls did.

[Anonymous No.19352352]

>>19352344
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm

The name commonly given to the fallen angels, who are also known as demons (see DEMONOLOGY). With the article (ho) it denotes Lucifer, their chief, as in Matthew 25:41, "the Devil and his angels".

It may be said of this name, as St. Gregory says of the word angel, "nomen est officii, non naturæ"--the designation of an office, not of a nature. For the Greek word (from diaballein, "to traduce") means a slanderer, or accuser, and in this sense it is applied to him of whom it is written "the accuser [ho kategoros] of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night" (Apocalypse 12:10). It thus answers to the Hebrew name Satan which signifies an adversary, or an accuser.

Mention is made of the Devil in many passages of the Old and New Testaments, but there is no full account given in any one place, and the Scripture teaching on this topic can only be ascertained by combining a number of scattered notices from Genesis to Apocalypse, and reading them in the light of patristic and theological tradition. The authoritative teaching of the Church on this topic is set forth in the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council (cap. i, "Firmiter credimus"), wherein, after saying that God in the beginning had created together two creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is to say the angelic and the earthly, and lastly man, who was made of both spirit and body, the council continues:

"Diabolus enim et alii dæmones a Deo quidem naturâ creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali." ("the Devil and the other demons were created by God good in their nature but they by themselves have made themselves evil.")

Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they became evil by their own act.

[Anonymous No.19352371]

>>19352317
>With that said they belong to nature and matter, not to supernature, to which only the divine belongs.
What a senseless mess of comic books and movies your head must be.

[Anonymous No.19352402]

>>19352352
Amerifat Taliban are obsessed with Satan, who appears only as a witness for the prosecution and the whole Manichean Good VS Evil Marvel Universe is gay garbage.

[Anonymous No.19352415]

>>19352402
>Chrysostom was American
This is your brain on Gnosticism

[Anonymous No.19352425]

>>19352402
>gets fooled by Satan into worshiping Ishtar
>thinks he has room for criticizing others about Satan

[Anonymous No.19352452]

>>19352371
>What a senseless mess of comic books and movies your head must be.
Gnosticism is literally Marvel, the religion. It is a fanfiction on Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19352571]

>>19347209
I'd say it has the advantage that in it God has become man and shown us the way the truth and the life.
>>19347144
Like >>19347197 said. Just stopped being arrogant and accepted that Christianity is the best ethical system out there. It truly is in giving that we receive and in loving that we are loved.

[Anonymous No.19352649]

>>19352571
>Christianity is the best ethical system out there
In this system most people go to hell to be tortured in the everlasting fire, the place God (who is LOVE) prepared for Satan, his angels and just for you, unrepented atheist.
Don't get me wrong. I do like Christianity but all this talk about unbelievers going to hell, believers going through toll houses (in Orthodoxy), Ananias and Sapphira story from the book of acts, etc. just looks like plain social engineering and cult building to me (which it is).
Also, the OT God can't be justified by any moral system. Even Romans back in the day though that this Yahweh guy was too hardcore.

[Anonymous No.19353112]

@19352649
>all this talk about unbelievers going to hell
>I do like Christianity
Pick one. You like your own mental construct of it, not the teaching of Christ who spoke about hell and of the Holy Spirit who inspired Acts.

[Anonymous No.19353118]

>if god good why bad?
This is all their argumentation ever amounts to.

[Anonymous No.19353129]

>>19352649
>the OT God can't be justified by any moral system
The OT God, who is Christ, is justified by the moral system He gives, because only He is Good and there is no conception of Good without Him.

[Anonymous No.19353140]

>>19352649
>In this system most people go to hell to be tortured in the everlasting fire, the place God (who is LOVE) prepared for Satan, his angels and just for you, unrepented atheist.
>Don't get me wrong. I do like Christianity but all this talk about unbelievers going to hell, believers going through toll houses (in Orthodoxy), Ananias and Sapphira story from the book of acts, etc. just looks like plain social engineering and cult building to me (which it is).
>Also, the OT God can't be justified by any moral system. Even Romans back in the day though that this Yahweh guy was too hardcore.

[Anonymous No.19353196]

>>19353112
Okay, I like my mental construction of it. In my view, there are bad and good things about it. There is some truth in it which is accompanied by some clearly manipulative parts.
>>19353118
And why do bad things happen? What is the reason behind unreasonable child deaths, animal suffering, etc.?
>>19353129
Can you honesty read something like Deuteronomy and say that it was a perfect and reasonable moral system for its day?
>>19353140
Any arguments?

[Anonymous No.19353460]

>>19347144
I won't read Seraphim Rose because I refuse to read any books by Americans on spiritual matters. I am American btw.

[Anonymous No.19354191]

>>19352352
Depending on how exactly you define "spiritual" this is fully compatible with everything I have said, not that I would need it to be compatible.
>>19352371
If you perceive demons and god to be of the same nature, all of your accusations of "Satanism" and worshipping devils take on an extremely ironic tinge. But keep up those ad hominem attacks since it seems to be all that you people can do. For your information, I haven't watched movies in years and I have not read a comic book since I was 10 years old when I was reading Mickey Mouse comics.
>>19353129
Here's a perfect example of the ridiculous circular logic stuff a "believer" has to engage in if the highest horizon he knows is that of mere theism.
>>19353460
Based?

[Anonymous No.19354998]

>>19352649
> God as defined is a being with complete access to all relevant information to not only make necessary judgments but the right ones judgements.
> Human limited to his perspectivist/interpretation of facts that he can sense or intuit via his limited "rationality".
Honestly, arguing against the existence of God is one thing. More power to you. But this argument based on the grounding of ethics and the foundation of moral systems...this is some basic bitch shit.

[Anonymous No.19355153]

>>19354191
>Based?
No, imagine reading *anything other than the Holy Bible*vrrxr on spiritual matters.