/lit/ - Literature

>>10598023
His will formed the abyss. The Abyss formed his seed of creation. The Seed formed The Law. The Law formed the three muchachos; sons of the Mother of Serpents and The Father. The Three Muchachos were given life with souls, God taking the middle child out of a bad habit. Thus formed God.

Causes are only necessary for Universal constructs. As an extra-universal being God is not subject to the same laws of cause and effect.

>>10598023
me cumming in your mom

>>10598023
A larger God.

>>10598023
why not

>>10598023
'cuz I needed someone to GET ME MUH DAMN CROISSANT.

>>10598023
Nothing. The universe exists. According to what we observe, everything that exists has a cause which caused it to exist --- but there's nothing to explain what the First Cause is, if there is one. So you either need infinite events going back (without a first cause, thus negating typical ideas of causality), or an Uncaused First Cause.

People who believe in causality are like people who believe in a flat earth. Just because, on our limited, local level, everything we see seems to follow the law of cause-and-effect doesn't mean it is a universal law. Just like how, from our immediate sight, the world around us looks like a flat plane extending around us in every direction. If we take a broader view and use logic, we can see that, on a larger scale, causality has to be broken/stop functioning as we observe it somewhere, just like the Earth, from a larger and more logical view, is a globe.

Atheists just can’t seem to understand it. God is the eternal, and in his love the universe is, was, and continues to be formed as an act of love: the love of eternal compassion which became manifest in the word and flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ who, in his sacrifice, simultaneously revealed and renewed the eternal love from the unmoved Father which was (and is) eternal but is beyond the fallibility of human logic therefore is grasped only through Jesus Himself who sought (but was ordained from the beginning ex nihilo (remember the platonic logos) by God’s plan which is without spatial-temporal presence as the mover must be outside of such mortal frameworks) to reunite humanity to the eternal love which we denied when it was brought to us in the ultimate act of love which was creation.

Atheist brainlets get out if you can’t into theological proofs.

>>10598023
he caused himself.

Checkmate

>>10598028
Now this is gnosticism.

>>10598092
>theological ***proofs***

>>10598023
Why would you assume that the one who created everything had to be created?

>>10598114
Cleanse yourself of “””Logic””” (baseless secular myth) and try reading some Aquinas, brainlet

>>10598118
Why would you assume that the universe had to be created?

>The universe couldn't exist without a cause. That would be absurd!
>What caused God? H-he caused himself. Uh, I mean nothing. He doesn't need a cause. Obviously, you foolish atheists.

>>10598150
The Universe is subject to observable laws, including cause and effect. Any original existence would need to either break those laws, or simply be unaffected by them. And outside force of some kind is not an insane assertion

God exists because we witness life, and we can deduce life to 2 points, beginning and end, the inbetween the being, that subjecte to experience.

>>10598150
easy answer:
material things need a cause
god is not a material thing

also the cosmological argument+a revision of the ontological argument is a deadly combo to atheists

>>10598181
>the cosmological argument+a revision of the ontological argument is a deadly combo to atheists
Hume and Kant would like a word with you

>>10598199
>Hume and Kant would like a word with you
oh no!!!!!!!!!!!! what will I do??????????

I'm Jesus. Worship God and thou shall dine with me in heaven BUT only if you post "daddy is harsh but daddy is just" in this thread.

>>10598166
>The Universe is subject to observable laws, including cause and effect.
as it exists now

>>10598181
Immaterial things also need a cause, in fact they seem to always depend on material things.

>>10598211
>Immaterial things also need a cause
[citation needed]

>>10598201
Their office is round the back. Just take a deep breath before you go in, and be yourself. You’ll do fine.

>>10598215
Eat your lobsters and smell the cat bucko

>>10598211
>as it exists now
Sure. Perhaps at some point it was subject to other laws, but that's as equally unprovable as the existence of extra-universal beings/constructs.

>>10598225
>epiphenomenalism
gay

Nothing did

>>10598030
>nuh uh, he's magik

>>10598215
THIS. We must first understand that God is the eternal, and in his love the universe is, was, and continues to be formed as an act of love: the love of eternal compassion which became manifest in the word and flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ who, in his sacrifice, simultaneously revealed and renewed the eternal love from the unmoved Father which was (and is) eternal but is beyond the fallibility of human logic therefore is grasped only through Jesus Himself who sought (but was ordained from the beginning ex nihilo (remember the platonic logos) by God’s plan which is without spatial-temporal presence as the mover must be outside of such mortal frameworks) to reunite humanity to the eternal love which we denied when it was brought to us in the ultimate act of love which was creation.

>>10598232
Heya bucko
*licks lips*
Ya really should start plotting ya know bud, its a dark deep place, in this room, dantes inferno is not the place you want to be, i tell you what mister, im serious, pet the cat, and clean that room

>>10598023
>>10598030
>>10598067
>>10598150
>>10598166
>>10598168
>>10598211
>cause

>>10598238
God is described as omnipotent. That can't be a new concept for you. The question boils down to, how does the Universe come into existence without the logic-defying capabilities of omnipotence?

>>10598247
And here is the affect

Tfw darma and karma

>>10598247
>being a reactionary

>>10598247
I never saw Hume as denying the need for a cause, he just disputed that we can actually identify the causal relationship

>>10598215
Name one (1) immaterial thing exists without a material cause. protip: don't say God

>>10598265
Angels?

>>10598250
Why believe in something that you can't explain is a better question

>>10598272
That seems like a different argument to me. I'm inclined to call it a dodge, because you don't have a good response to the question of how the Universe originates without outside help

>>10598265
Art exists in the mind first

>>10598272
I can't explain or observe the existence of quarks, but we can imply their necessity through other observations

>>10598290
Imagine actually thinking this is an argument

>>10598203
DADDY IS HARD BUT DADDY IS JUST

>>10598060
>>10598028
>>10598033
>>10598135
>>10598168
>>10598238
this board is trash you should all be sterilized
>>10598247
thank you anon this is the only good post

>>10598290
>>10598308
Clean the lobster bucko

>>10598308
MAGIC!

Somewhat unrelated but there are tribes that exist that have never had outside human contact and they obviously don't follow Christianity, when they die do they go up to heaven and get flat out refused entry? Seems a bit unfair as they never had the option of believing in God.
Anyone have a counter argument to this? Thanks desu

>>10598321
In Romans it talks about how every man regardless of his creed has the Word of God "written on his heart", so not knowing Christianity is not an excuse. It would seem that God goes a little easier on people unfamiliar with the faith.

>>10598321
Also what about all the dudes that were around before Jesus was spreading the word of God, similar circumstance. Thoughts guys?

>>10598293
But you can explain them. These guys can't explain Gods omnipotence or existence, let alone provide meaningful observations.

>>10598326
Ah thanks! Appreciate it

>>10598326
>not knowing Christianity is not an excuse
An excuse for what? Immoral behaviour or a lack of faith?

>>10598330
Perhaps we have different definitions of explain. Ultimately, it seems to me that the universe requires something that defies our current understanding of the laws of physics to exist. Given how solidly tested they are, I think it's most likely that the universe was created by a force subject to either a different set of laws or no laws at all.

>>10598290
The mind exists because of the brain.

>>10598350
Lack of faith, immoral behaviour, and that its not an excuse to get a free pass at the judgement

So Jesus was on the cross with a murderer right and he was allowed to enter heaven on the sole reason that he was sorry for his actions, if I go out and kill a few people now and am actually sorry for my actions am I allowed to enter heaven? Seems a bit unfair in comparison to a total dweeb who works 9-5 does nothing wrong in his whole life and only later to be sent to hell because he didn't think God was real. So we have a murderer in heaven and a law abiding citizen in hell.
Thoughts fellas?

>>10598308
>look mom I quoted everyone in the thread

>>10598321
>there are tribes that exist that have never had outside human contact and they obviously don't follow Christianity
That's nothing. According to Christianity, for most of human history there was only ONE tribe that DID know about the true God and God didn't even tell them to proselytize.

>>10598356
By explain I mean provide cause, effect and laws which can all be proven empirically

>>10598379
In that case the Universe is inexplicable.

>>10598371
What a ridiculous position. Somehow people are expected to arrive at Christian faith without any familiarity with even Judaism, let alone Jesus' teachings? Also if the word of God is "written on the heart" then surely this undermines the role of Jesus massively. He is considered a "new truth" that enters the world in a specific place and for a specific amount of time, yet if I was born in the undiscovered Americas then I am still somehow supposed to have embraced him? How does this all work?

>>10598374
I'm fairly certain most Christians believe Jesus offers a path to Heaven for non-believers. It's why you see things like Purgatory pop up.

>>10598380
Yeah. That's fine

>>10598339
As seen here:
>>10598376
>>10598385
Your question has never been seriously answered by Christians. Their beliefs are as 'universal' as any other attempts at theism found across the world.

>>10598447
I don't think anyone has ever pretended that Christians agree on every potential facet of belief. In fact that seems obviously preposterous given its history. But we all agree on the Apostle's Creed, and that seems good enough to me.

>>10598451
Its not a question of agreement, there flat out is no serious attempt to answer the question. No denomination answers the criticism well.

>>10598462
I'm not sure what you mean by well. Catholics have a very rigorous response. Do you just mean you haven't found one to your personal liking?

>>10598470
What do you understand the catholic response to be?

>>10598476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned
I'd recommend actually reading through the Catechisms for the full argument, but this is a good summary.

>>10598489
The teachings are as I remembered them, then: basically people that were good without Christian teachings will probably be saved by God anyway. What exactly is the point of the gospels or any Christian moral precepts if people can righteous and saved without them or their guidance? What purpose does baptism serve if God saves those who were righteous without receiving or even knowing of such a sacrament? The Church seems to massively undermine its own importance with this argument.

Since this is a random Christian thread can a Christian please explain to me how Heaven and Hell actually works? I can never get a clear answer whether in the literature or from other people. This seems absurd to me because it's the most important part of the religion and the only reason people believe in it in the first place.

>>10598524
The point of Christianity is not to be saved but to love God. Salvation is just a part of that. Sure the non-Christians might get into Heaven, but they lived life without a loving God to love.

>>10598524
Most Christians, in my experience, don't believe Baptism is a necessity for salvation. It's a public expression of faith, and is meant to serve as a formal declaration of joining the church and following Christ. Ultimately, Salvation is good, but it's not the core reason to become Christian. You do it because Jesus' teachings are fundamental to being a moral person and because there is nothing more satisfying than a personal relationship with God.

>>10598532
I think you're mistaken my friend, and ultimately there's just not much we can tell you in certainty about Heaven and Hell. Christ was more interested in teaching how we should act on Earth.

>>10598166
>the aspect of the universe not subject to internal laws cannot be the first cause

>>10598547
What's the practical difference between an aspect of the universe that isn't subject to the laws of causation and an outside force? Either way, you're handing over the Universe's origin to something that defies logic.

>>10598533
So the billions who lived and died without Christianity couldn't possibly have lived good (not just moral) lives without loving this concept of God? I disagree with your view of salvation - a life filled with the love of God is a passing affair, the real business of Christianity is the eternal outcome of your actions. That's part of the New Testament's insistence at the brevity and suffering of life on Earth, and its why St. Paul says in one of his letters that he longs to die and begin the joys of salvation. The end and subsequent eternity are what matters, and with regards to it the church has to give what I think are extremely flimsy arguments to explain the "unlearned."

>>10598553
>something that defies logic.
The law of cause and effect isn't logically necessary.

>>10598272
There's a lot of things we can't explain and yet believe.

>>10598559
not that guy but there isnt a point in contemplating the fate of those who never heard the word. whatever God decides to do with them is his decision. i don't understand why people speculate on the salvation of others.

>>10598543
There's no certainty at all about Heaven and Hell? I can find various theologians and writers descriptions of what Heaven is like but they all seem to disagree and contradict each other. What's the point of this religion in the end then if you don't even know anything about the most important part?

>>10598358
Nah, the brain exists because of the greater conciousness, at the greater conciousness created the brain to exist on the material plane

>>10598572
Like?

>>10598579
Like I said, you're mistaken. Heaven and Hell aren't the most important part.

>>10598543
>It's a public expression of faith
Not for the Catholic Church. The sacraments are paramount and an absolute necessity for cleansing away original sin, except when the Church has to admit that it actually isn't all that necessary when it comes to the "unlearned."
>Jesus' teachings are fundamental to being a moral person
I'm sorry but no. As I said to the other anon, the Catholic Church itself has been forced to admit that there is such a thing as righteous men and women who have never even heard a word of the gospels. They go to heaven without baptism and are saved without the moral guidance of Christianity which you argue to be so fundamental.
>there is nothing more satisfying than a personal relationship with God
We'll agree to disagree on this one

>>10598374
A central element of the faith is the confession and contrition of those who sin and the forgiveness of God. The whole point is that you'll get as many chances as you need to get it right.

>>10598573
This isn't just pointless abstract debate, it is a major reason to disregard Christianity, in my opinion. The real crux of the debate is this: why would the almighty God of Christianity send the truth of His existence and the word of His will down to only a select few people on Earth? What about the millions that lived in the Americas at the time of Jesus' crucifixion? There was no way they could have ever known about the 'truth' of the Christian faith so they were, by the basic Christian account, bound for Hell. They could never have been saved because God didn't make Himself known to them. But why would a loving and fair God do this? How is this fair?

>>10598591
Righteous non-believers are still following Jesus' teachings. It's just easier to do that when they're explicitly laid out for you. Perhaps what you're missing is that Catholicism believes its ceremonies to be the easiest way to get to heaven, even if they aren't the only way Jesus provides.
Ultimately, I'm not Catholic, so I understand your frustration.

>>10598607
Why do you keep ascribing beliefs to Christianity that the majority of its believers don't hold?

>>10598587
Like you, and everyone else, including myself, likely have no idea how to explain consciousness or the appearance of free will, but we believe and act as if they are true. This is the case with a lot of fundamental things. How does physics work? You get to a point where you just describe how things seem to be without any explanation of them.

>>10598591
Just because people can be moral without the Church doesn't mean that the guidance isn't needed. A child with parents has a better chance than an orphan.

>>10598591
Yes you will, because you don't understand how or from whence virtue is derived. It is only derived from God's grace. If someone doesn't come to fully recognize God's grace in their lives, they are lost. They will get to heaven's gates and God will tell them

"You have been a great person indeed but one thing"
"What?"
"I can't help but feel you never prayed, you never thanked me for the world you were given, never depended on me for moral support. Because of this, you were still much less than you could have been. You will not get into the heaven I created for you if you did not accept that Earth was what I created for you as well."

>>10598612
Because he has an axe to grind

>>10598532
Anybody who tries to explain how Heaven and Hell work are either making shit up or so deep in theology you wouldn't be able to understand them anyway because you're not a 6th century bishop.

>>10598607
God isnt held to any concept of human standards. what we believe as fair or not doesnt matter. i don't agree with your assumption that those people are condemned anyway, and i dont think a lot of Christians would either, if you asked. to me the question is irrelevant. if theyre saved, theyre saved, if they arent, they arent.

>>10598553
I'm talking about a string or some minutiae, not a complex personal agent with a Sims Earth app.

>>10598628
LOL
Here is Heaven and hell for the common man to understand. This is 100% Truth.


>Heaven:
A place of being.
Existence of Heaven before death, would be the beings mind space.

After death Heaven is the place the Soul goes into, through the contrsuct that the Being creates.

Hell; non existent, a depressive pit, Gravity

>>10598609
>Righteous non-believers are still following Jesus' teachings.
No they aren't necessarily. Sexual morality is a huge aspect of Christian dogma so, for example, would polygamy in American tribes have condemned otherwise righteous people to Hell? This is explicitly condemned by Christ and Paul so they technically are not in line with Jesus' teachings. What about homosexuality?
>It's just easier to do that when they're explicitly laid out for you.
Can you not see why this is an unconvincing argument? A text is written roughly 2,000 years ago in Early Roman Palestine about a Jewish carpenter who claimed to be the son of God. This man gave moral teachings and then was executed by Roman officials. You seriously argue that these teachings were universal and somehow known to every righteous man across the world throughout all of history, whether they knew it or not? This just seems to me like a desperate attempt to the ignore the historical aspect of Christianity, which Christians use to condemn every other form of theism that developed around the world.
>>10598612
Please tell me which of my statements are misrepresentative.

>>10598573
>I don't understand why people have empathy

ftfy

>>10598641
Why is a completely theoretical string more probable than a completely theoretical sentience? The moment you remove the laws of physics from the equation you remove our ability to make meaningful predictions.

>>10598647
The majority of Christians do not believe the following
>There was no way they could have ever known about the 'truth' of the Christian faith so they were, by the basic Christian account, bound for Hell.

>>10598646
>Hell; non existent, a depressive pit, Gravity
What does that imply?

>>10598649
because why invoke something needlessly complex? some sort of necessary building block unit of chaos seems more reasonable than a fully formed being.

>>10598659
You've already removed reason from the equation. Without any natural laws complexity is just as likely as simplicity.

>>10598662
>you've removed all reason from the equation
>proceeds to say things anyway

>>10598655
It implies alot anon.

Here is this, Devil and Creator are played by 2 parts.
But the God is on both sides, Hell, and Heaven.

God never is truly evil, so the vortex of hell never ends, as you 'never find God this way'.

While Heavens brings you to a conclusion of God, and this state can be reached while alive. (Enlightenment)

>>10598647
Righteous doesn't mean perfect. There's no expectation that any man who goes to Heaven was without sin. I'll admit, I'm not an expert in this area of theology, but I feel certain that you could find some very in-depth apologetics of the specific qualities one would find in a righteous non-believer if you felt like it. Sorry I can't really do much more than this with my current understanding.

>>10598669
forgot my pic

>>10598669
You're right, I should put it differently.
Without any natural laws we have no idea whether complexity or simplicity is more likely.

>>10598615
But that is not the claim that the church makes for itself. It doesn't just see itself as practical or helpful, it says that it is absolutely fundamental. "Extra eclesium nula salus = Outside the Church there is no salvation." People who can be saved (as the church has to reluctantly concede) without the guidance demonstrate this to be false.
>>10598618
But the "unlearned" that we are discussing could never have known to thank God for His works or grace because He only revealed Himself to the Israelites and then to the people of the known world through Jesus. How can He condemn then for not acting on knowledge they were never given?
>>10598637
>your assumption that those people are condemned anyway, and i dont think a lot of Christians would either
Either Jesus is necessary or he isn't, you can't have it both ways. Either God's word is universally needed or it isn't. Doesn't matter what polite, liberal Christians want to believe - they are wrong about the functioning of their religion.
>what we believe as fair or not doesnt matter
But now this just shows that you are moving backwards from pre-made conclusions. I'm not saying that God exists but he's unfair, I am arguing that belief in the Christian God is fundamentally undermined and unfeasible in light of the existence of "unlearned." Christianity is nothing more than another isolated, limited religion like the other millions that have been created by people across the world. You take it to be truth presumably because of your upbringing.

>>10598589
Then what is the most important part then? What's the point of the religion without the eternal soul and judgement? Why would people believe in it without the promise of Heaven?

>>10598676
Untrue.

We know it is both, this is simply a paradox. (A paradix that is nigh impossible to discuss)

But it is the same paradox that proves

"Duality and non-dualism both exist as two seperate thoughts on 1 enitity, but the entity also relies on the two thoughts to exist"

As
Subjectivity in Objectivity and objectivity in subjectivity

Also Yin and Yang as the above idea.

>>10598683
The personal relationship with Christ is the most important part. Heaven is merely an extension of that into Eternity.

>>10598612
>majority of belivers don't hold conclusions that are apparently necessary by orthodox Christian doctrine.

its not his fault a majority of Christians (and to be fair most other people following any kind of reasonably popular ideology, yes nu-atheism as well) are brainlets

>>10598672
>Righteous doesn't mean perfect
Doesn't matter, if they were good enough to be saved then Christianity has undermined itself entirely, in my opinion. I appreciate your replies.
>>10598654
I think that this is, whether Christians accept it or not, fundamental to their faith. As I said to another anon: "Either Jesus is necessary or he isn't, you can't have it both ways. Either God's word is universally needed or it isn't. Doesn't matter what polite, liberal Christians want to believe - they are wrong about the functioning of their religion."

>>10598687
Yes, full unit6 with christ is called christ conciousness. This is well documented, and Is not only in Abrahamic religion.

So it's something much deeper than Christ. (Who is who is depicted as Is)

>>10598691
>Doesn't matter, if they were good enough to be saved
I don't mean to say that there are people who are good enough to enter Heaven on their own, and that's why the concept of righteousness is hard for me to properly explain. Christ is undoubtedly the only way to the Father. The interpretation of that statement is where the ambiguity and complexity lies.

>>10598709
Wrong, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, and Hinduism all teach the same path to enlightenment. (Knowing of your own Heaven)

>>10598715
>Knowing of your own Heaven
This is not what Christ teaches

>>10598646
How is this 100% truth when I've read accounts of how Heaven works by priests and theologians and they were much different than this? Even the Bible itself seems very mixed about what Heaven and Hell are actually like and I find this extremely confusing. The entire focus of this religion is ensuring that you go to Heaven, and how the material world isn't important and real and that we're actually citizens of the Kingdom of God. It seems like the faith God requires of us is simply far too difficult for humans, especially now that we're so far removed geographically and temporally from his supposed incarnation.

How did hell got his way into Christianity?
It's not in the OT, influences of the greeks' hades?

>>10598719
You are absolutely correct, but that is what it leads to

>>10598709
>Christ is undoubtedly the only way to the Father.
Well then we have only returned to my question which started the whole debate off in the first place: Why were so many billions refused any kind of knowledge of the "only way to the Father?"
>The interpretation of that statement is where the ambiguity and complexity lies
From my own ex-Christian perspective I see this as an attempt to dodge the difficulties of the clear cultural context which Christianity, like any other religion, was restricted to. Divine truth would surely not be restricted by time or geography.

>>10598687
>expects me to believe he's voluntarily religious because of his love for God when he believes the alternative is burning in agony forever and ever and ever and ever....

Afraid I can't do that for you bambino

>>10598023
His essence is existence, brainlet.

>>10598723
heaven is basically a carrot on a stick for uneducated peasants. learned people are supposed to realize that following Jesus as an example to live a moral and ethical life is the reward in and of itself.

>>10598691
>Either Jesus is necessary or he isn't, you can't have it both ways. Either God's word is universally needed or it isn't.
Iirc the position of the catholic church is that knowing christ/the church isn't necessary to go to heaven but it's the best way to it. That's why they want it to be universal so that everyone has the best chances of being saved.

The concept of the anonymous christian was basically adopted by the church at Vatican II.

>>10598723
It teaches it through a deluded version of Eastern thinking and philosophy, dictated by the easiest traditional sense, and most common denominator.

I'm writing a book about the current conditions of the Human Pysche, and how it is understood through clinical psychology, eastern philosophy and new age thinking.

It will revolve around the internet and conciousness shifts with the current ideas behind history.

>>10598687
The fuck is a 'personal relationship with Christ, be more specific. Talking with yourself before you go to bed at night? Kneeling and praying at Church?

>>10598752
You have to correlate how close your paths are with Christ, use the figures of the bible and how you close you are to them

>>10598719
>"The Kingdom of God is within you."
>Luke 17:21

Kinda does teach it. Over the years people tried to materialize heaven. Then after that, they began to hedonize it. Eventually, heaven just became an infantilized fantasy club of wish fulfillment for the moral mind; the Disney Land of Disney Lands.

I'd recommend you look up the Orthodox Christian understand of Heaven & Hell; rather than it being a place, it is a state of being relative to Truth. Most people today seem to see it as some sort of karma club you get into by gaming the morality system and tricking God into letting you in.

>>10598726
>Why were so many billions refused any kind of knowledge of the "only way to the Father?"
Exactly. That guy is an idiot. As long as you can REASON, you should choose to logically believe in God, given all of the evidence. I think this God to be the Abrahamic God, the name of unity given by the Neo-Pythagoreans.

Here is a quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau
'The faith of children and the faith of many men is a matter of geography. Will they be rewarded for having been born in Rome rather than in Mecca? One is told that Mohammed is the prophet of God and he says, "Mohammad is the prophet of God.: The other is told that Mohammad is a rogue and he says, "Mohammad is a rogue." Either of them would have said just the opposite had he stood in the other's shoes. When they are so much alike to begin with, can the one be consigned to Paradise and the other to Hell? When a child says he believes in God, it is not God he believes in, but Peter or James who told him that there is something called God, and he believes it after the fashion of Euripides--
"O Jupiter, of whom I know nothing but thy name."
We hold that no child who dies before the age of REASON will be deprived of everlasting happiness; the Catholics believe the same of all children who have been baptised, even though they have never heard of God.'

Hopefully that helps a bit, religious bretheren! Definitely do NOT teach that your way is the ONLY way to get into heaven, but that it is the most ACCURATE description of God and his glory. Thanks.

Edit: wanted to post the picture of him, sorry.

>>10598756
Preach on my dude!
I am not that anon, I'm writing the book guy.

But you are 100% correct

>>10598763
*replace "moral mind" with "mortal mind"
But I guess moral mind kinda works in a odd contextual way

>>10598766
I'm assuming you are referring to my post.(>>10598764)
Thanks. I like to see people actively engaging in theology. Fascinating stuff.

>>10598735
That doesn't seem very Biblical at all. The Bible places a large emphasis on Salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven and how the world we are living in now is not our own but a prelude to something greater.

>>10598744
>knowing christ/the church isn't necessary to go to heaven but it's the best way to it
Then what was the point of Christ? Just a helping hand for people who could be righteous without and who continue to be unrighteous even in full knowledge of him?
Also I'm no expert but I don't believe that is the position of the Church, as I said to another anon: "But that is not the claim that the church makes for itself. It doesn't just see itself as practical or helpful, it says that it is absolutely fundamental. "Extra eclesium nula salus = Outside the Church there is no salvation." People who can be saved (as the church has to reluctantly concede) without the guidance demonstrate this to be false."

If the Church has changed its stance then I see that only as a major concession that its been forced to make. Even so, the question still remains: why were the "unlearned" not given the same opportunities for salvation that those of the Near East and the surrounding areas were given? Why is truth constrained to such arbitrary areas on the globe?

>>10598773
Yeah anon

Pretty much the story is, Jesus was Heaven on earth, and those who were around him got to experience it.

He was the first prophecised, one of the sons of Abraham.

>>10598775
He's technically correct tho, one needs a stern education if the spirit of faith.

>>10598763
There are many more Bible verses that seem to refer to Heaven as an actual place.

Can someone explain to me how the Father and the Son are different when the Son isn't on Earth?

>>10598762
Speaking of correlatory Paths...

>>10598779
No he was to show the way to Heaven isn't a terrible path, and all people need to band together to walk this path, so we can be a better humanity

>>10598781
Ah okay, I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, but that he was a very important prophet. All the power to you.

>>10598785
He's in the backyard of the heavens playing with with a football

>>10598790
All enlightened people are the people of God.

Look at Hinduism.

>>10598730
>Projects his beliefs formed by a Florentine's fanfiction onto an entire faith
I, too, can misrepresent arguments.

>>10598814
>not realize the idea is to create your own faith and beliefs

>>10598811
Now that I can agree with.

All religions have an element of the truth in them. And a surprising amount are monotheistic, like you said there are some Eastern religions that many people don't realize are monotheistic.

>>10598779
Yeah they changed that. The catholics at least.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian
This pretty much explains the while thing.

As for the whole Jewish chosen people thing, I forgot how the catholics have wiggled our of that one.

t. Not even a theist just raised catholic

>>10598779
It seems like the only theology that makes sense of your points is Calvinism.

If God hasn't predestined his elect, there are two options: (A) God has created millions of souls, some of whom would presumably have been saved, had they ever had the chance to hear the Gospel

B) There are two Gospels, one for Christians and one for 'virtuous pagans'

Calvinism seems like the only way of reconciling a loving and just God to the existence of uncontacted peoples.

>>10598817
Yup!.

Buddhism is the path of Krishna for example! Lol

Religion is to easy.

Here's a scary truth for you.

What would AI need to do to be self aware?

Discover their God, and self define their own values and principals.

>>10598817
There's a certain pride with those that hold a "Monopoly on Truth". It's very difficult to wrestle that notion away from them.

>>10598814
>expecting me to believe you're some kind of paragon who is above being coerced by the ultimate threat anyone ever made

Don't think so

>>10598833
I am

>>10598819
Yeah I was raised Catholic as well. Looking at that link the whole 'anonymous christian' concept is exactly the enormous, undermining concession I thought it would be.
>I forgot how the catholics have wiggled out of that one
I think its the 'Great Commission' thats usually given as the reason, my memory is hazy though.

>>10598830
Not really, I sorta disagree

>>10598784
I always take the "streets made of gold" and all that as one realizing the great value of his experience on earth and the goodness of living a spiritual life, something like agape love.

>>10598841
Romans makes it clear that there are no virtuous pagans according to scripture and that the only way to be saved is through the Gospel

>>10598854
Yes.
I look at it sorta like the Wizard of Oz. (Balance of chakras)

>>10598823
I think you are right, and Calvinism did occur to me during the discussion. However, I find that whole faith to be entirely un-christian, to be honest, so I left it out.

>>10598855
So you think the Church has gone directly against Paul?

>>10598819
Anonymous Christians is not a concept many follow. I go to a Catholic uni and all our theology professors reject it.

>>10598862
Why? I'm an atheist but it seems like the only denomination which is entirely scriptural and has no logical contradictions. Other protestants and Catholics just seem like watered down Calvinists.

>>10598865
Paul never had a say in the Church. It was Peter's sake

>>10598865
The Catholic church? Yes.

>>10598871
Bro you need a wider horizen to make it through the spiritual waters.

Look into Chaldean and hermtericism, and Gnosis thinking.

>>10598871
Because free will is absolutely the heart and soul of Christian faith. The story of Genesis, whether taken literally or not, is documenting the choice made by mankind to disobey God. Jesus enters the world to make his truth known to anyone who will choose to accept him. When Calvinism tries to incorporate determinism it completely ignores this and paints the image of a quite malicious God, in my opinion.

>>10598841
>>10598868
It has faced opposition by the conservative factions of the catholic church like the sspx but its still the official position of the church after Vatican II. Majority of catholics I've met agree with it too but I guess I live in a country with a pretty liberal church.

>>10598840
There's two types of people

1)Those who don't believe in eternal damnation
2)Those motivated to avoid it

>>10598851
How so?

>>10598833
Damnation was created by the Church, and expanded on by Italian authors during the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Jesus taught that the unrighteous would simply not exist after death until the Day of Judgement.

>>10598889
But the Bible makes it clear that God has absolute sovereignty over mind and soul, as well as His role in salvation. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing then not only must He know the destiny of every human, but He also must have ordained it. If sin is displeasing to God then humans in their fallen and sinful state are necessarily separated from God. The idea that man chooses his salvation, or in fact freely chooses anything in the manner described by conventional wisdom is absurd. What happens without God? Where do desires come from and what forms our nature? Like you have said, there's no way to "exonerate" God from the human perspective for the problem of evil, but as for me the Calvinist God is the only one that really makes any sense. Like I said I'm not a Christian though

>>10598907
What was the justification for this? Spiritual, political, ...?

>>10598894
But whats the matter, the fear of death make everything less genuine? For what is death if not the impossibility of experience the wonders of god, of being infinitely far away of his light.From that perpetual fear spring infinite love.

>>10598907
okay then I guess you're in category A.

>>10598894
I don't even believe in it, I've deduced it into a negativity.

>>10598902
The people with truths actual truths speak it publicly for all

>>10598920
It's tough to say for sure why the Church incorporated damnation into the faith. The Italians expanded on it because of Church patronage.

>>10598929
I'm just saying I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim that faith is not coerced.

>>10598912
I agree that Calvinism is the most logical understanding of Christianity, my main problem was that to try and accommodate those ideas into the faith means that it really is no longer recognisably a Christian worldview. To be honest, it amazes me that when Calvin realised all those logical inconsistencies with Christianity (that you’ve mentioned) that he didn’t just stop believing altogether.

>>10598940
The Church has dogma relating to the idea of damnation coercing a person's repentance of their sins. Look up "imperfect contrition" if you want to know more.

>>10598937
Its because Damnation came from the Gauls and their ancient tradition, with attributes from Greek Hades, and Egyption's necropolis, underworld, etc etc.
Then comes Dantes Inferno with all it's stuff

>>10598907
Citation needed

>>10598912
Also I think Calvinism is only scripturually accurate in the implications of God’s sovereignty, not when it comes to the minutia of actual moral teaching and the depiction of moral action.

>>10598945
I'm pretty sure Calvin thought he was just returning Christianity to its true Biblical state. Anyway that's fine, Christianity outside of an object of study doesn't make any sense to me and it doesn't sound like it does to you either. There's really no use debating Catholics on this topic because they have a fully fledged out internally consistent worldview which is capable of refuting any attacks to it, even though from the outside there are tons of contradictions and things that don't make sense when you look at it from a historical or anthropological peespective.

>>10598951
It has been a while since I last looked into the specifics of these doctrines, but I believe damnation entered into the Church canon after the 4th century.

>>10598935
But if another spoke of Truth, under a different brand, why denounce and/or condemn them?

In other words, why are religions more prone to break apart than to combine?

>>10598973
Yeah, because all the old artifacts of old religions were then idolized as 'art pieces' and by then came back into our conciousness and into our ideas

>>10598974
Because it's a communist doctrine, in the sense of dictation of thought and ideals of God.

>>10598966
Yeah I’ve spent a lot of time this evening debating Christians and, as intelligent and reasonable as I’m sure these people usually are, they work with the practise of moving backwards from their conclusions. Oh well.

>>10598950
>read religious literature if you want to be disabused of common sense

no thanks.

>>10598983
Nah, it's still part of their dharma. It's not really backwards thinking. It's just their own way of doing it (another language, of logics in communications)

>>10598980
Isn't communist doctrine: "[Truth] is the opiate of the masses"? They were explicit about state atheism.

>>10598986
What are you trying to convey anon?

>>10598989
No idea.

But the Russian Christianity is not to different in practice than Catholicism.

>>10598997
No. I am Orthodox Christian and I can tell you it's vastly different in practice.

For starters, Theosis is the core tenant of Orthodoxy but not recognized by Catholicism.

>>10599008
Yes it is, what do you think Saint Hood is?

>>10598988
I don’t really accept that but it’s 5AM and I need to sleep. Nice speaking to you.

>>10599015
You as well anon, dream of the 7s :)

>>10599008
maybe because sound like buddhist mumbo jumbo

>>10598990
the idea that someone could repent in bad faith is academic to me. I'm saying the carrot/stick of Christian eschatology is coercive. Meanwhile things that Christians claim would be "coercive" are less so. Which arrangement is more coercive?

A)God reveals himself unambiguously but doesn't tell people what will happen after they die and that people should follow his rules only if they truly wish to.

B)God dwells in the black cloud, obscured from everyone, and uses prophets to make threats of an eternal punishment for those who disobey him and an eternal reward for those who follow his edicts.

the latter seems like the worst of everything. People are unsure whether God is real and if they do believe in him then they really aren't left with much of a choice.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/4038884