/lit/ - Literature

>i wish i believed in fairy tales

>>14953604
I had agnostic parents and a very serious case of teen atheism-Nietzschian angst, but I managed to survive it and overcome it.
The Lord can turn sinners into saints, he can easily turn disbelievers into believers.

>>14953604
you already have a religion, literally everyone does, it's the set of opinions you have you don't even consider opinions and couldn't imagine questioning

>>14953617
That's just a rebranded version of Zizek's concept of ideology

>>14953604
>New Thought Syncretism

You do not need to 'adopt' any particular tradition, just absorb the spiritual truth and wisdom of all of them into your own personal religious understanding and philosophy of life.

>>14953620
That's inherently inauthentic. As if religion were something you could pick out in a supermarket aisle, all the different flavours lined up against one another

>>14953604
I wish I could reply but you posted a n***** in the OP and ruined the thread.

>>14953604
I am a prophet. Do you want to become my disciple?

>>14953619
actually the first person I read it in was Carlyle but I came there on my own. Here is the Carlyle quote more than a century before Zizek:

A man's religion is the chief fact with regard to him... By religion I do not mean here the church-creed which he professes, the articles of faith which he will sign... We see men of all kinds of professed creeds attain to almost all degrees of worth or worthlessness under each or any of them... but the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion.

>>14953623
As if wisdom and truth is consigned to only one tradition, and all others are completely devoid of such things.

>>14953604
That doesn’t mean shit retard, make your own future. Convert yourself and don’t think you have control over others and what they choose to believe in

>>14953634
I think that's the very reason I can't adopt a religious tradition. Because the underlying assumptions that I can't separate myself from are opposed to it. If I were raised in a deeply religious family then it'd be the opposite, I'd have the correct set of underlying assumptions to be truly religious

I was baptized in a comfy church and my grandmother could recite passages from the Bible in Latin. Guess I was lucky.

>>14953617
> it's the set of opinions you have you don't even consider opinions and couldn't imagine questioning
That's philosophy you massive retard. Religion is a sophisticate type of philosophy that deals on every philosophical field (metaphysics, gnoseology, aesthetics, ethics, politics, ontology, etc), and allows you to elaborate on those fields through theology.

>>14953667
In fact, let me correct that. What you defined is actually dogmatic belief on a philosophical notion. The active process of philosophy, be it religious or secular, pretends to turn that dogma into a conviction based on objective knowledge.
Any other definition is wrong.

>>14953667
no what you just said to me right now is your outward religion

your inner religion is a bunch of stuff you are probably not even think to say, but if someone brought up something that contradicted it you would react with total alarm or laugh at it

>>14953684
you have your hierarchy wrong. Philosophy is in service of religion, not the religion in service of philosophy.

Philosophy without religion ends in uncertainty every time, you need a ground.

>>14953613
Holy shit, you are a walking cliche. I genuinely feel sorry for you

>>14953604
I was in a similar boat. My family wasn't exactly anti-religious, but they moreorless just never told me that religious people existed. When I saw them out in the world and asked my mother about it I would only ever get something along the lines of "Oh those are just weirdos."
Then, in fifth grade, we learned about the Homeric myths. It was genuinely the first time that I had any sort of religion or even the possibility of a higher power presented to me. It was quite enticing to me, so I started praying to the Olympians. I did that for a while, until I mentioned it to my family. They made me feel like an idiot for praying to a magical sky-daddy and his family, so I stopped because I was ashamed.
Eventually though, as I became an adult and was left to my own devices to see the world and cope with tragedies, I began to search for a higher power again. I started with Christianity and Judaism, then moved into all sorts of occult books. None of it ever really clicked. Finally, I came back to the Olympians. Obviously, there aren't many Hellenists around these days that I can associate with and learn from, so I just opted to start reading what texts are left from those times in ancient Greece. Orpheus in particular really clicked with me, and so I started singing his hymns and praying and such. I'm sure if I were to meet another Hellenist their beliefs and practices would look nothing like mine, but it works for me. For the first time, it genuinely feels like there is someone listening when I pray. Someone who loves me, and whom I love.
I'm not saying that you should start venerating the Olympians. I only want to point out that finding God can be a long, winding road, with its conclusions in unexpected places. Just don't stop searching.

>>14953728
Accept the divine fire, fiend.

>>14953613
You sure are enjoying that identity you've picked up.

>>14953732
Thanks, y-you too

>>14953613
dominus vobiscum

>>14953617
So if I dogmatically believe that the second Matrix movie was better than the first, does that mean that my "religion" is the second Matrix movie?

>>14953715
>>14953734
Keep seeking the truth, that's all I can say. Knock and the door shall be open, seek and ye shall find.

I'm amazed too.

>>14953715
you remind me of my friend who moved to nyc to feel apart of something. turns out he eats like garbage and pays way to much for a shitty hole in the wall. He likes to tell me how unenlightened i am all the time.

>>14953745
do you believe that as much as the fact that if you fall off a building you'll plummet to the ground?

Do you believe it as much as those types of opinions Im not going to bring up, but those things you could be arrested or ostracized for contradicting?

>>14953635
This is it.
>>14953648
Your just making excuses.
>>14953604
There can be no inauthentic beliefs. Only in authentic people. You sound like one OP.
Read the Bible, Quran, the Gita, the Tao te Ching. Think for yourself. Trust your conviction. Stop mentally masturbating.

>>14953604
>yeah bro Saul wasn't authentic because he was raised jewish

what about converts?

>>14953817
and stop actually masturbating

>>14953783
No, listen, you didn’t understand my post. You are literally a walking talking cliche of the reformed sinner. It also sounds like you mindlessly latch on to any religious identity that is thrown your way. In other words, you are literally the religious version of the NPC meme. There is absolutely nothing authentic or sincere about the ‘spiritual path’ you’ve taken. It is the most cookie cutter spiritual path I’ve read in a long while. I suspect that you ‘converted’ because the cool kidz on /pol/ told you so, which demonstrates your utter inability to take risks and make life choices yourself. Either that or you’re coping with the fact that you’re an angry virgin

>>14953799
And you sound like just about every other fag here on 4chan who desperately tries to fling some jawdropping zinger my way, in the sad hope that someone will pick it up and will turn it into a meme. That’s why you responded to me, isn’t it? You were on the prowl for social good boy points on an anonymous imageboard, because you’re a failure in real life. So this is what your life has come to. Collecting (you)s on an imageboard, anonymously. Because you’re too scared to act out your beliefs in real life. Pathetic

>>14953849
>>14953836
>>14953799
based

>>14953836
>/pol/ influence
Not true, I hung out on a /pol/ discord that kept telling me to NOT convert because "le Christcuk" and "slave-morality" memes, and they encouraged I try zen, idealism, paganism, esoteric national-socialism, or platonism or anything else besides Christianity.

>It also sounds like you mindlessly latch on to any religious identity that is thrown your way.
Couldn't be further from the truth, I've studied and practiced many different ways before accepting Christ as my master. While there are many truths and wisdom in other Ways I found them lacking *something*, only Christ has the fullness of Truth.

>which demonstrates your utter inability to take risks and make life choices yourself. Either that or you’re coping with the fact that you’re an angry virgin
Not a virgin either. I'm not sure why you're so frustrated by someone who has some faith, I'm not the strongest believer by any means, still working on it, but even what little I have garners a lot of pushback... I get bombarded from all sides, all ideologies have problems with Christ, but I'll take my chances with him. I just wanted to let OP know that there definitely is room for conversion and changing your beliefs. I've changed my beliefs a lot in the past.

>>14953689
>your inner religion is a bunch of stuff you are probably not even think to say, but if someone brought up something that contradicted it you would react with total alarm or laugh at it
That's literally dogma, you massive retard. Religion is not necessarily dogmatic, though it can be. With that definition you could call an edgy 14 yeard old atheist "religious" about science he does not understand.
The use of the word "religion" as if it were equivalent to "dogma" it's problematic, leads to semantic contradictions, and i would say that seems to be pretty biased. Stop reading crap, it's damaging your brain.
>>14953700
I was defining how philosophy can be, not how philosophy should be. Philosophy it's always divided in some specific fields and tries to eradicate dogmas, to acquire objective certainty. Now, philosophy has tried to do this without religion and i came to believe that it failed, but it can be done.
Now, about the "hierarchy" you mentioned, i believe it's more about a healthy relationship between both religion and philosophy. When philosophy tries to outsmart religion, you get the heresy of Tatian the Syrian. When religion tries to live without philosophy, you get the Lutheran reformation. When philosophy finds itself in a healthy relationship with religion, you get the theology of Saint Augustine. As simple as that.

>>14953903
If religion were not dogma then the terms philosophy and theology would not exist to differentiate them.

You have to start from some supposition, and that supposition you did not find through reason, it was given to you in revelation, if you follow an actual religion.

But I know you guys and I know you don't actually believe your religions.
Tell me this:

Would you rather shout out to the public "i love raping babies' or 'i dont believe in God'

>>14953613
quintessential cringe post

>>14953836
Dude, he had like two posts. And because something in cliched doesn’t make it untrue. There are cliches for a reason. I don’t have any reason to think he’s authentic or not, but it seem you are the one obsessed with crafting a story from a sum total of like 4 lines of text.

I don’t think you got the ammo to quite psychoanalyze just yet. You are not hot shit. Maybe, MAYBE you could do that with butterfly.

>>14953949
>If religion were not dogma then the terms philosophy and theology would not exist to differentiate them.
If religion was dogma then the terms dogma and religion would not exist to differentiate them.
Also, I've never said that theology was equivalent to philosophy, though you obviously seem to have a bad understanding of what theology means. Have you even read a theologian? Can you name one book of theology you have actually read?
>You have to start from some supposition, and that supposition you did not find through reason, it was given to you in revelation, if you follow an actual religion.
Yes, that's kind of what Saint Augustine said, but that's not true to Averroes, John Duns Scotus or, most importantly, Saint Thomas Aquinas, probably the most influential theologian of the history of the catholic church... though you obviously have not read any of them anyways.
>Tell me this: Would you rather shout out to the public "i love raping babies' or 'i dont believe in God'.
Philosophy is divided into two, let's say, areas. A practical one, and a theoretical one. The theoretical part of philosophy contains fields like metaphysics or gnoseology, and is the base of the practical area, which contains fields like ethics or politics.
What you described just there was an attempt of an ethical proposition. I say "attempt", because neither you nor I are going to find ourselves into a situation which requires to choose between shouting to the public "i love raping babies" and "i don't believe in God". It is a pure abstraction made for exercise ingenuity based on an ideal hypothesis; it's not practical, so from the start it failed being an ethical proposition. If you come up with a better example, i may consider answering you, but if you're going to keep resorting to trolley dilemma tier abstractions, i refuse.

>>14953999
you'd always still be happier identifying yourself to someone who didn't believe in god than someone who liked raping babies.

because you believe more strongly that you should have that opinion that you do in your 'god'

your actual god is public opinion

>>14954012
Yes, of course, evade every point of what i just said and insist on your flawed abstraction. You sure showed me, anon.
It's not so late for you, you know? Start with the greeks it's not just a meme. Try to understand the values of metaphoric writing on Plato, the epistemology of philosophy on Aristotle, explore the importance of ascetic values with the stoics. Then, perhaps, you can understand why the Bible is written in the way it is, how it relates to philosophy, and why his teachings are good.

>>14953604
>being actively religious by choice
>being passively religious by upbringing
the first is essential,
the second might be helpful, might be harmful, but it is not required

>>14954065
It's not complicated man.

You'd rather say "I don't believe in God' than say 'i rape babies'.

You care more about whatever happening to you than you do about actually blaspheming God. You don't actually give a shit about God. You'd never martyr yourself for Him.

If God told you to rape a baby would you do it? He told Abraham to kill his son after all.

>>14954087
>>14954087
>You'd rather say "I don't believe in God' than say 'i rape babies'.
Hell mate, how much are you going to insist on this? I already told you, neither you nor I are going to find ourselves into a situation that requires to do this. It's a flawed ethical proposition.
>You care more about whatever happening to you than you do about actually blaspheming God. You don't actually give a shit about God.
So if i decide to blaspheme against God to avoid social outrage on myself, that means i don't care about God? that's a big jump to give, don't you think? In any case, i think it would mean that i value myself more than what i value God.
C'mon anon, at least give me a hand here. How would i find myself in such a case? Am i being coerced to do it? I have some sort of brain damage like you? Give me anything to make this scenario remotely believable.
>If God told you to rape a baby would you do it? He told Abraham to kill his son after all.
Now this is sort of a good theological question, why would God want to kill Abraham son? how can He even be called "God" after that? But remember that these stories were made to be thought about after reading it in context with other books.
You know the full story, yes? First, it's a foreshadowing of the death of Christ, with Abraham the father and Isaac the son, there are references to the three days, the wood present on the sacrificial offering, Isaac bound to that wood, etc.. But neither Isaac is Christ nor Abraham is God, they are both mere humans. And then it comes the lamb, brought by an Angel, to be sacrificed instead of Isaac the human. The sacrifice of Christ in the name of humanity. The symbolism it's beautiful, isn't it? And this is a story of the book Genesis, long before the New Testament was written, you know?
There are other layers, of course. When God asks Abraham where is he, he responds with eagerness, different from Adam who previously tried to hide himself from God in the bushes out of shame.
Metaphorically speaking, many people offer their child on sacrificial altars too. Why shouldn't a Christian take his child to the altar of Christ, then? Why should he not take himself to the altar of Christ to be there, abandoned to God's will? You could take this as a metaphor for the importance of baptism, or having a healthy relationship with God and the church. "If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham", said Christ.
You may not agree with it, but that's some of what that story it's trying to convey. I'm probably still missing a lot, as i am no theologian myself, but that's what i make out of it. I also know that's not the answer you wanted, but i still hope you understand it.

>>14954189
if Abraham could have been asked to kill his son could he not also have been asked to rape a baby?

>>14954238
Did you read anything of what i just wrote or are you just dumb?
Maybe you don't even know the end of the story you're quoting, but Isaac doesn't die, Abraham doesn't kill his son, you massive retard. The point of the story was not about Isaac's sacrifice. It's about Abraham's eagerness, it's about how you should relate yourself to God, and, like most things in the Bible, it's about Christ. Why would God need to ask Abraham to rape a baby to make any of these points?

>>14954256
im just dumb buddy

>>14954259
Well, props for recognizing it, i guess.