/lit/ - Literature

Qualia thread. Post your fuckin' shit

>>14198717
If you have anything more interesting dont mind if I also ask you to share

I converted to Christianity about 5 years ago, but am just recently beginning to doubt my decision. My doubts do not stem from the "logical inconsistencies" of the faith. I have considered, but don't care much about, what modern science and other detractors have had to say about Christianity. Rather, I am having trouble with the sheer amount of Christians that I know who suffer from various forms of addictions, many of which would be considered by others of the faith to be "mortal sins". This is compounded by the amount of Christians that I know who do not differ much from the world at all; they only differ in philosophy and not praxis. Moreover, I've - I hope - conquered a handful of the major sins in my life, but often only by sheer will, also lending advice from many esoteric and initiatic traditions. While that is an immediate red flag to some, why do I see better results than those who merely experience their faith in a passive sense?

The question I have been pondering is: does Christianity provide the experiences necessary for its converts to follow the guidelines it prescribes. Am I becoming a Pharisee or is Christianity at it's heart a passive religion and it's time for me to move on?

I wanna have a good-will discussion regarding free will. I don't expect much but feel free to present your view point however you wish.

Bonus points for arguments against free will that don't appeal to "rationality" and arguments for that don't appeal to the "divine".
>inb4 no such arguments exist

>>13611597
I mean, sure he was pretentious but I thought that most of his work was a pretty spot on description what it mean to live as a human being with specific culture, I never saw his writings or speaking as more than eloquent and inventive sights about society and humanity though so maybe it is different for people that sought his work as purely scientific scriptures.