/lit/ - Literature

https://youtu.be/eAKsZlGs0Nk?si=BTkzSh7PC7oVRBp-

>>21700161
Jay is an expert in theology and philosophy.
>>21700167
>hateful rhetoric
I am saying the truth. Calling the truth hateful is demonic.

>>20467770
I go to a Baptist church with my parents. I am scheduled to get baptized in a few weeks.
However I also have been learning about Orthodox Christian theology and I think that it has been very helpful because they explain things in a way that is more specific and concrete with like precise definitions and a very robust system of theology.
The people at our Baptist church are very nice but in my opinion the theology is not really as robust and precisely explained. It tends to be more emotional. But not always desu. In fact there have been times when I noticed that our pastor said things that are very much in line with Orthodox theology.

In modern society we see propaganda for an atheistic, materialist worldview. We are told that this is the rational, intelligent, correct way of understanding reality. However, when we analyze the atheist materialist paradigm we will see that it is nowhere near as rational, intelligent, or sophisticated as they want us to believe, and in fact, is precisely the opposite of those things. We will see how atheist materialism is self-refuting, incoherent, and objectively wrong. We will also see that arguments that atheists make against Christianity are not valid arguments, but are nothing more than emotionalism, logical fallacies, and political propaganda.
The contemporary worldview comes from the 17th and 18th century intellectual and political movements of the so-called "Enlightenment". The spirit of this age was one of liberalism, rebellion against the church and the monarchy, and a rise of anti-traditional and anti-Christian thought, famously seen in the likes of Voltaire and the French revolutionaries. Philosophers of this era can largely be divided into two schools of thought: the rationalists and the empiricists. The empiricists believed that the only way to knowledge is through empirical sense data, i.e., what you can see, hear, touch, and so on.
Empiricism quickly ran into a problem as pointed out by the Scottish empiricist David Hume. If sense data is the only path to knowledge, then the only way you could know that is through sense data. There is no sense data which tells us that, and even if there were, it would require you to assume it is correct in the first place. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question," wherein you assume in your premise the very thing that you are trying to prove. David Hume acknowledged that empiricism had no ultimate foundation to stand on. He used an example of billiard balls. If one ball is moving and it hits another ball and the second ball starts moving, you interpret this as causality. You understand that the first ball caused the second ball to move. However, if you are a strict empiricist, then this is an entirely baseless assumption that you just made. You pressuposed the law of causality, which is not material data that you perceive through your physical senses. It is a metaphysical concept, which, on your own grounds as an empiricist, you cannot know. You also presupposed many other transcentental categories such as the law of induction, time, identity over time (that this is the same ball as what you saw one second ago, if we grant you that one second ago really happened, which you have no way of proving), the assumption that you interpreted the data accurately, the external world, the self (that you are a person with awareness capable of making observations of the world around you), knowledge, and the assumption that the future will resemble the past in such a way that this event could be reproduced with predictable results.

I am scheduled to get baptized in a few weeks.

>>20308148
Atheists/agnostics seem to think that their worldview is just sort of "the default," as it were, and that it has some kind of epistemological privilege as such that it doesn't have to justify itself the same way they demand that Christians justify their beliefs.
They are totally wrong but that is an assumption that they all seem to have.

Today I am meeting with the pastor to talk about getting baptized.

I am thinking about getting baptized. My dad scheduled a meeting for me to talk with the pastor next week.

I am not a Presbyterian. I do not believe in Calvinism.

Why do some Christians think that drinking alcohol is a sin? Drunkenness is a sin, of course, but not drinking a little bit. The Pharisees made accusations against Jesus for drinking.
I read that the idea that a Christian cannot drink at all is a modern idea that went together with early feminism/womens' rights movement in the 1800s (many of whom practiced witchcraft).

>>19781174
I am not listening to some woman, least of all an atheistic Jewish woman, trying to tell me what to think. Obviously communism is retarded and gay, but I don't need this putrid whore to tell me that. There are much better criticisms of communism anyway.

>>19751837
In the Orthodox church, bishops are not considered imfallible like how you think of your gay pope.

>>19747920
>Jordan Peterson
I have no interest in Luciferian, gnostic, Freemason interpretations of the Bible, thank you very much!!

>>19434717
Platonic Forms are real desu

>>19429575
I think you are being ironic but the sickening truth is that redditors genuinely think like this whether you are joking or not.

>>19428261
https://youtu.be/4MZErPk3_MU

>>19249088
He literally wrote poems to Satan.
In addition to Marx, I suspect that many other materialist, atheistic propagandists are actually closet Satanists.

>>19217125
Jay made a response to him here
https://youtu.be/cHiXI7E4Ui4

>>19050589
The 3D remix of Computer Love is kino

>>19014038
But he is a feminist. Maybe not the newer more radical type of feminist, but he is friends with older feminists and he supports womens' rights. One of his problems with Islam is that it is "too mysoginist" and could endanger womens' rights.
Why do people ignore these things? He is the stereotype of the lukewarm centrist who never conserves anything.

Atheists/agnostics are almost never willing to have a discussion in good faith and be intellectually honest. They are never logically consistent and they never properly address the points. They play a game of evading every question and going in circles. Very nasty and dishonest people.

>>18897609
Because the covid "vaccine" (if one can even call this gene editing scam a vaccine) is a preparation for the mark of the beast. It is about destroying the image of God in man (same reason for the masks covering your face) and altering your DNA. It is about submission to the beast system. They are already talking about not allowing people to buy or sell without the vaccine.
They also used aborted children in making the vaccine.

>>18897177
As much as Peterson pretends to critique cultural Marxism, he actually is a cultural Marxist himself. He uses basic classical liberal talking points as a Trojan horse to infect people of the moderate conservative persuasion with globalist, anti-white, anti-traditional, pro-feminist values.
He is also a grifter who saw a market for basic bitch anti-woke talking points to appeal to boomer retards much like Ben Shapiro.

Postmodernism isn't really that different from modernism. It's just taking modernism to its logical (or illogical, as it were) conclusion.
You can say that postmodernism is a disease and you wouldn't be wrong to say that, but the fact is that it's just the later stage of the disease that was already in place since the so-called "Enlightenment".