/lit/ - Literature

Who fucking cares. Like really, why do you give a shit?

>>15035265
>From a rational and historical perspective, one must conclude that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and that he neither did many of the miracles.
This is an indictment of those results, not Christianity.

>>15035265
What is the historical argument against the resurrection?

>>15035265
>From a rational and historical perspective, one must conclude that Jesus did not rise from the dead
Thusly and thereby showing the absurdity of the rational and historical perspective.

>>15035329
I don't remember exactly (as I am no historian myself), but there are appearantly no trustable sources. If you're more curious on how they decide what is historical and not about Jesus, I recommend watching this lecture: https://youtu.be/d_dOhg-Fpu0

>>15035265
>>>/his/

>>15035265
I don't believe in Christianity because I had approval from academia; I believe in Christianity because it's logical

>>15035478
Sure man, but would you explain how you've logically ended up with Christianity?

>>15035329
>>15035440
All of the contemporary or eyewitness accounts of Jesus say things that academics know are false, like that he rose from the dead, and there aren't any other accounts of him that don't say those things.

>>15035492
Well for a very long time I was an atheist, and spent a lot of time wondering about and researching the theism vs. atheism debate, but the problem is natural theology's apologetic, which in the west is so dominating you almost never see apologetic outside of this framework, are almost never going to convince someone who comes from an atheist world view to become a theist, particularly a Christian because you can always, always give a naturalistic explanation for the theist's argument

to logically get to Christianity you actually have to assume Christianity and compare it to other worldviews, this is usually referred to as presuppositional apologetics or transcendental arguments
here's a copy and pasted version of the argument from wiki
>God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).
>People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.
>Therefore, God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver
although I think it's most convincing in the debate format here's some links that make it a bit easier to get into than just reading the church fathers or something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbT_ZEPSgo4
https://jaysanalysis.com/2013/10/26/numbers-prove-god/

>>15035265
Your moms mouth contradicts this dick, loser.

>>15035592
That was an attempt at proving God, not Christianity. I agree that there are logical ways to end up with God existing. However, it's quite a stretych to say that just because God exists, then Jesus also was God in the flesh and died on the cross for your sins. You see my point?

I am not Christian myself, but I believe you can only get so far with using logic for religion. You have to commit yourself to faith at some point. You can't logically end up with the Holy Trinity, the Ressurection, miracles, and so on.

>>15035665
That wasn't very Christian of you, anon.

>>15035670
Shut up book nerd.
Im going back to /fit/ this board is for virgins.

>>15035831
Say hi to your local waifufags for me

>>15035592
When you're realize that any logical attempt to god is retarded your spirituality will skyrocket

Logic can never prove nor has any merit its just mental gymnastics and premises , just trying to delude ones mind.

Instead try contemplation /meditation once you understand god on that level there wont be any need to delude oneself ,the mind can never and will never understand god as thought disconnects you from him.

>>15035670
>You can't logically end up with the Holy Trinity, the Ressurection, miracles, and so on.
Sure you can and both of those resources I provided give reasons why they ended up with orthodox Christianity. The conversation just shifts from when someone's arguing to an atheistic position, which we would attack largely with epistemological arguments to a generic theism position which we would attack with mostly metaphysical arguments and testing the coherence of the positions. It's not like you can't argue the coherence of a worldview which subscribes to Monism to the Christian worldview which has the doctrine of the trinity. So when we get to the point of understanding that without orthodox Christianity we cannot have a coherent worldview we are able to fully understand the Bible as revelation which completely changes the relation between how you interpret things like the resurrection, other miracles, or prophesies in the Bible.
>You have to commit yourself to faith at some point.
The modern conception of faith or fideism is, as far as I can tell, largely a misinterpretation of the usage in the bible, and I think when you contemplate on the use maybe my reasoning for believing in the resurrection or the trinity will become more clear
here's a short wiki passage on pistis, or what is in English translated as faith
>Christian concepts of faith (pistis) were borrowed from Greek rhetorical notions of pistis.[6] Christian pistis deems its persuasion in a positive light as the New Testament concepts of pistis require that a listener be knowledgeable of the subject matter at issue and thus able to fully assent.[6] Whereas, the Greeks took the notion of pistis as persuasive discourse that was elliptical and concentrated on the "affect and effect rather than on the representation of the truth."[7] The evolution of pistis in Christianity as a persuasive rhetorical technique starkly contrasts with its meaning used by the Greeks
be careful not to confuse what it's saying is the common Greek conception on pistis and the Christian usage
>>15035929
The Bible absolutely does not mirror this thinking. It says we should be able to have reasoning for our beliefs to convince others and it provides apologetic and proofs all over the text.

>>15035592
That proof of God isn't originally christian, it's platonic and has no bearing on the divinity of Christ, it was adopted after the fact to pretend that the God of a semitic desert cult was derived from logic. Not only that, it at least partially relies on God not being human or similar to human in nature, or being a personal God, which christianity contradicts.
I do not need a demonstration of God from you because I already accept a God of logic, I need you to demonstrate the logic of christian theology and how Christ was divine, not by using justification for the God of logic and truth and pretending that's the same as the Christian God, who has a personality. Demonstrations of how Christianity is better than other religions is not adequate, I agree that it's better than other mainstream religions, but here of all places we should not stick to what is mainstream.

every time I hear the phrase "the historical [personage]" I think of V.

>>15035265
>rational
You fell for the rationality meme.

Virtually everything we KNOW about the historical Jesus comes from the Christian tradition.

>>15035265
>From a rational and historical perspective, one must conclude that Jesus did not rise from the dead

The reason we call it a "miracle" is that it defies rational explanation.

This literally does nothing to disprove the idea of Jesus rising from the dead, because people who believe it accept that it defies rational explanation *by definition*.

Sources on the historical jesus?

>>15035549
>>15035549
What?
>academics know are false
But if the eyewitness accounts say that how do they know? Not saying this proves a claim but what sources are used?

>>15035985
>That proof of God isn't originally christian, it's platonic and has no bearing on the divinity of Christ
I can't tell if you're making a genetic fallacy or not so I would just ask why do you think it has no relationship to Christianity.
> it was adopted after the fact to pretend that the God of a semitic desert cult was derived from logic
As far as I understand, many church fathers did utilize Hellenistic philosophy but in orthodox Christianity they don't subscribe to it and derive their philosophy directly from the Bible and tradition.
>Not only that, it at least partially relies on God not being human or similar to human in nature, or being a personal God, which christianity contradicts.
This is really baffling to me and I'd like you to explain how Christianity contradicts a personal god. I mean, isn't it true that you just said this is a purely platonic argument and doesn't Platonism reject a personal god, yet somehow the argument requires a personal god. Are you not actually arguing for Platonism or are you just making a point?
>I need you to demonstrate the logic of christian theology and how Christ was divine, not by using justification for the God of logic and truth and pretending that's the same as the Christian God
but I'm saying that Jesus is what ensures those entities, Logic, Truth, Math, etc. he is the Logos

>>15036037
>>15035994
The Christian tradition is the source of everything we know about Jesus, yes. However, it is logically invalid to thus say that everything in the Gospels and Christian tradition is historical. One of the biggest factors being that the Gospels in many instances disagree with each other, for instance the birth of Jesus and the trial of Jesus. One has to study the differences between the Gospels, and understand why it was written to know if it was historical or not.

https://youtu.be/d_dOhg-Fpu0

>>15036069
>>15035985
Were you just saying that you think the argumentation I provided would lead to an impersonal god in
>Not only that, it at least partially relies on God not being human or similar to human in nature, or being a personal God, which christianity contradicts.

>>15036076
>Yale University

>>15036076
>Yale
You know that they spew pseudoscientific garbage right? Id almost rather trust a TedEx talk

>>15036103

> You know that they spew pseudoscientific garbage right?
Post source or kys

So fucking tired of hipsterniggers on this board just calling shit psuedo this and pseudo that because it is mainstream or a common source. Meanwhile you guys eat up things fascists and extremists are saying out of their as just because it is haha le based!! XD

>>15035265
Why would the historical Apostles lie about the resurrection when they have nothing to gain from it, but rather persecution and agonizing deaths? Accepting the divinity of Jesus is the next logical step if you accept that Jesus and His disciples were real historical persons.

>>15036069
>I can't tell if you're making a genetic fallacy or not so I would just ask why do you think it has no relationship to Christianity.
How could this argument of a god of concepts and logic have any bearing on the divinity of an israelite man who lived during the early years of the roman empire? I may just be being stupid but I really don't see it, in case i am being stupid, could you explain it to me?
>This is really baffling to me and I'd like you to explain how Christianity contradicts a personal god.
sorry my grammar wasn't very clear. I was trying to say that the Platonic argument of a God of logic precludes a personal God but i worded it poorly so it looks like i was saying the opposite. I was arguring for Platonism but i should've rewritten that sentence for clarity.
> I'm saying that Jesus is what ensures those entities
again, please explain how a man (who for the sake of argument may or may not have been a manifestation of part of triune God) ensures logic? I will again concede that stupidity may prevent me from seeing it, so if that is the case, explain it to me?
Also thanks for the conversation anon, i'm enjoying the discussion, I'm glad we can be civil.

>>15036135
> Why would the historical Apostles lie about the resurrection

They wouldn't. They didn't lie. They believed that what they said were right. However, just because I believe and am fully convinced that I was fucked in the ass by Michael Jackson this morning wouldn't make you believe it. Why would I even lie about it? What would I gain from lying about Michael Jackson fucking me in the ass?

>>15036088
yes I would rephrase it to:
>that proof of the God of logic relies on God being impersonal and not human. Christianity contradicts both of those reliances.
again sorry my grammar was so poor the first time

>>15036076
>...there are no stenographers in the ancient world!

>>15036135
That argument turns weak when you realize there's very little evidence that the narratives of the Gospels were finished by the first century, so a lot of what's written or known about the Apostles is probably embelished with mythical narratives. We don't know if the corporeal ressurection of Christ was an integral belief of the first Christians or a latter understanding of what went on after the death of Christ, for example. Even if the gospels were fully available by the second century, you already have an entire generation of people who were in contact with Jesus dead and a lot of time for novelty and mythical narratives to show up. Hell, Paul himself said there was novelty by the time he was alive.

>>15036222
Were there?

No reason to doubt the NT writers. Do you propose they forged the greatest story of all time, traveled great lengths to preach it, embraced persecution for it, and it was just a forgery? Just look at St. Paul's 4 travels. To believe they were lying is more absurd. What did they had to gain with a lie? Do you think grown men would shamelessly tell lies to each other and keep a straight face then write it down? It's insane to think this whole group of people were all into some sort of conspiracy that only brought them deaths.

>>15036229
>Paul himself said there was novelty by the time he was alive
That's a novelty added in later.

>>15036280
This argument is painfully naive. Do you think Mohammed spent most of his life telling a lie? Do you think he "traveled great lengths to preach it, embraced persecution for it, and it was just a forgery?". To believe Mohammed was lying is more absurd. Do you think a grown man would shamelessly tell lies and keep a straight face then write it down?

>>15036280
>No reason to doubt the NT writers
When one gospel says one thing and another contradicts it, which one do you believe?

>>15036260
Ernst Badian of Harvard wrote a book on the Scribae.

There was also the Notarius. How could you hold a trial without a transcription?

Read Richard Carrier. Jesus didn't exist.

>>15036328
Mark is almost certainly working from the Scribae account, whereas the personal discussion with Pilate is obviously from the notarius.

>>15036307
Mohommed was illiterate, he didn't write shit

>>15036347
What's your point, even if that was true. Jesus didn't write down a single word either.

>>15036229
Matthew and Mark knew Peter and Paul. John had his own line of disciples. The core of Christianity is Jesus' resurrection as was prophesied by him among other things.

>>15036307
The Quran is different, both in the way it was composed as intent. It is not an historical account like the gospels, it is a doctrine dictated by one man who did end up conquering a lot with it. Explanations can range from it being inspired in Syriac Christianity to demonic deception.

>>15035984
I disagree anon most will call you retarded and not care maybe 0.1% will care about religious logic
If they had a genuine experience of divine many more would be open to expand upon spirituality

I don't think Jesus is the only savior, and I don't need him to have resurrected. However, I don't care much for reason, having realized reason is structurally incapable of providing a full account of the truth. Religions are about the truths that are revealed, that just are, that lie outside reason's grasp. The same way you will never calculate the area under a curve by means of a Riemann sum, you will never reach the truths of religion by the quantitative methods of reason and logic.

>>15036347
Mohammed and Jesus aren't comparable figures. Jesus was an iterant apocalyptic preacher whose movement was a total failure until long after his death. Mohammed was a conquerer.

>>15036356
This is canon, dude. Mohammed's disciples did all the writing. Same as Jesus and Buddha, and others I'm sure. My point was not about the legitimacy of the Quran, but rather that you should know the stories from your religion

>>15036385
I agree

>>15036076
>it is logically invalid to thus say that everything in the Gospels and Christian tradition is historical.

This is like saying that the JFK assassination never happened because there are multiple conflicting accounts of how it happened.

>>15036280
To say that so bluntly shows a simplified comprehension of both the historical component of the ascension of Christianity and human psychology. The last century showed plenty cases of sects showing up all of a sudden, "spiritual leaders" gaining a great amount of followers, such as Osho. I'm confident that Paul truly believed in what he preached, in a way or another. How he came in terms with that belief and how he portrayed himself within the environment of early Christianity are important to comprehend how he was led into such fierce preaching. He wouldn't be the first man in the world to strongly convert to a faith or ideology and give his entire life to it. So to say that one or two or a single group of individuals "forged" the entirety of Christianity is clearly fake, but it's also as stretch to say it is lacking doubtful parts and the slow additions and changes that happen to any story which is orally transmitted.

>>15036287
I don't know exactly the epistle in which he wrote that, so I don't know if it's one of the trustful ones or not.

>>15036357
I don't know from where you got that information, so I won't argue against it. The fact is the Gospels were probably not written by any single person and the one Gospel which is probably the oldest, Mark, does not clearly contain a reference to the corporeal ressurection (if you don't count the probably later addition of the longer ending) and that Paul, the earliest author on matters of Christianity, talks about Christ being "risen" and "appearing" to the Apostles is a similar fashion to the "appearance" he made to him - not in flesh, but in spirit, closer to a vision. So even if we were to take Paul as authoritative, he brings no distinct description of Jesus Christ being seen as a ressurected man on Earth, that is, no account of the man actually being seen walking around and doing stuff, but rather "exalted" to the right hand of God.

>>15036155
>How could this argument of a god of concepts and logic have any bearing on the divinity of an israelite man who lived during the early years of the roman empire? I may just be being stupid but I really don't see it, in case i am being stupid, could you explain it to me?
I would just say that because in my opinion the Christian church fathers and the Bible provide what I conceive as the only truly coherent worldview I would accept revelation from the Bible as truth.
Revelation actually has a huge part in what brought me to Christianity, because let's just assume that Christian theology by itself is correct, so the Trinity, God's essences and energies, God's relation to man and how we are made in is image, etc. is true; you can't actually from there strictly logically ( I think at least) jump to for example saying that the doctrines of how human ethics should be implemented or used correctly, which is what I believe in way you're trying to say about the divinity of Christ. I totally relate to this, because when I first discovered the TAG I was still skeptical of exactly this, because seemingly I could logically justify certain aspects of the Christian worldview but then there would be things like ethics that have to be justified because we accept revelation. The thing is the entire argument relies on revelation and I think through having revelation is the only way we could actually come to knowing these things. I just don't see how someone could logically work there way back to something like objective morals or creation, especially when we take into account something like the fall and how it changed metaphysically and physically the universe, without revelation.
I think if you look back to one of my earlier post in the first paragraph you'll see what I'm talking about as far as natural theology/philosophy vs. revelation
>>15035592
So through the coherence of Christianity and through the given problems with natural theology/philosophy I arrived at the point of realizing that revelation is necessary and there are something about theology/philosophy you can't justify through a typical syllogistic framework.

>>15036425
No it isn't. There is literally photography and video of the day.

How come you guys become absolute autistic when it comes to discussing history? Can't even distinguish between the historicity of Jesus Christ and a president that lived 50 years ago. What level of brainlet is this.

>>15036445
There's conflicting accounts of everything in history. Pointing at conflicts in the Gospels is not a good argument.

>>15036155
>again, please explain how a man (who for the sake of argument may or may not have been a manifestation of part of triune God) ensures logic?
So my problem particularly with something like Platonism, which as a philosophy I think has a lot of merit but I'm not an expert or anything so feel free to correct me if I mischaracterize the positions, is that I think you run into an epistemological error when you accept the existence of eternal invariant abstract concepts yet don't have any real justification for these things. In Christianity the thing that makes these different categories eternal and invariant is the Trinity. It's also important to note that because there is something outside of these abstract concepts in themselves that kind of binds them together and applies them to the physical reality, they don't just exist independently on their own.
I am wondering is the platonic argument that the "God of Logic" is the justification for these things, as if every abstract concept in some way falls under the purview of Logic or is it just another entity, because if it's the justification for these abstract concepts I'm going to have to completely change my argumentation that I presented in this last paragraph lol
>Also thanks for the conversation anon, i'm enjoying the discussion, I'm glad we can be civil.
Sure thing man, I'm definitely open to hearing what you have to say about my arguments on Platonism, because like I said I'm not that versed in Platonic metaphysics
One last thing though, why in your opinion do these arguments necessarily lead to an impersonal god, and do you think reality is coherent if we assume an impersonal god?
>>15036365
Well I'm not opposed to people having spiritual experience with God, I just think in the current climate of empiricism and what not we need strong arguments for God to change people's minds and I think this is mirrored in the Biblical text

>>15036445
That's not an argument. There are no photographs of George Washington. In fact, there is no photo or video of the vast majority of events in human history. That's not reason to doubt their existence, and all of academia agrees with me.

>>15036438
How would you explain John's gospel having his own account with also the resurrection?

Fuck, watching other atheists try to debunk Christianity makes me doubt atheism.

What protestantism leads to is a sense of discontinuity in the church tradition. Makes one believe there were the writers and then here we are with a 2000 year gap. But no. No only they were all contemporaries but they also had disciples that carried on with the truth and fought heresies.

>>15036477
Different traditions within the initial sect and the geographical dispersion of his followers would easily explain how different narratives came up, as well as how some stories are almost entirely the same in different Gospels up to how they are worded. The fact that the Gospel of John is very clearly the latest Gospel is also congruent with how well developed is its theology.

>>15036328
>Ernst Badian of Harvard wrote a book on the Scribae.
huh, Yale BTFO

>>15036069
I would like to hear this man differentiate between a "Personal God" and an "Impersonal God", expounding the Christian and the Platonists view.

>>15036438

>>15036609
Not him, but the difference is quite simple: the God of Judaism is a "person" with personal freedom, preferences and reasons as to why he does things. He "chose" to cause creation freely. The first cause of Aristole and Plato is more like a "force", a principle from where it all comes, but with no "personality". He has no reason to meddle with human existence. I believe that is somewhat it. Some smarter anon may confirm this, but from what I gather Aristotle didn't even see the First Cause as a free being. Not sure if this is right.

>>15036468
>when you accept the existence of eternal invariant abstract concepts yet don't have any real justification for these things
The justification for their existence is essentially that they can be conceived of. And these concepts should originate from somewhere, one might say that is from our own minds but it essentially comes down to God being the form of logic and reality that allows those concepts to exist, which is admittedly quite abstract, as a force it simply is, as without it we would not have anything. God is a perfect singular thing from which all else emanates.
> why in your opinion do these arguments necessarily lead to an impersonal god
The God that encompasses all concepts cannot be relate-ably human, partially because of complexity, this God does not choose for reality to be the way it is, reality by necessity follows from this singular perfect (but unknowable) concept.
>and do you think reality is coherent if we assume an impersonal god?
I think that reality is only coherent with an impersonal God, given its complexity and how difficult it is for us to perceive and understand so much of it.
> I just think in the current climate of empiricism and what not we need strong arguments for God to change people's minds and I think this is mirrored in the Biblical text
With the current perception people have of the nature of the universe (with humans as a very small (even if important) part) it might be better to attempt to reach out to people through spirituality rather than rationality to justify a religion concerned with salvation by a specific and literal messiah or prophet (eg Christianity, Islam etc (though christianity is better justified than its kin)) rather than a conceptual way to better live on a logical basis (like in Platonism or pantheism).
I will admit that there is some muddling between Platonism and Neoplatonism in my description but as one is derived completely from the other it seems no problem.

Reminder: no atheist has actually adequately addressed Dr. Craig's cosmological argument.

>>15036646
You're trying to convince me using a Shroud that covered Christ's body, with its earliest record being from the fourteenth century and which contradicts the description of the Gospel of John, that talks about the existence of a separate fabric wrapping around Christ's head. Shady.

>>15036750
Reminder: this is platonic and in no way demonstrates a personal Abrahamic God. You aren’t debating atheists in this thread, it’s Platonists and probably some Pantheists (which is very similar) as well.
At least I hope there aren’t any atheists here, can the atheists identify themselves to be ignored?

>>15036764
>contradicts the description of the Gospel of John, that talks about the existence of a separate fabric wrapping around Christ's head

These types of dumb arguments are the reason that atheists aren't taken seriously in academia. "This description wasn't exactly right!!!" Is something that actual historians would not find surprising, given that we're talking about centuries old second-hand accounts, written down much later.

>>15036796
Well, given the eternal life level of importance these scriptures apparently have and the fact that they are pushed as literally inspired by God, it seems very important that your accidental relic perfectly matches the description from your sacred text, no?

>>15036472
>appeal to authority
>appeal to the idea of history as a finite version of events

>>15036785
Not him but to assume God as personal is very simple: i. It is so revealed by the scriptures which Jesus fulfilled and ii. The fact we are personal can only mean God also is, for we cannot have something (personhood) while He does not.

This second argument is the logical proof for God's personhood and it also refutes non dualism.

>>15036681
What is a "person"? How can personality be ascribed to God? From whence in the Bible is made clear that we should apply human abstract categories of thought, such as "personhood", to God, who is not a Being among beings, but Beyond Being?
Furthermore, such dialectic distinctions between "personality" and "impersonality" doesn't belong to God, for to do so is to limit him- nor is there any such dogma on Christianity.

>>15036811
Found the le enlightened atheist who doesn't actually understand Christianity.

>>15036813
>>appeal to authority

You dipshits say this as if it actually means anything. There is authority worth appealing to. That includes academics who dedicate their lives to studying history.

>>15036816
>It is so revealed by the scriptures which Jesus fulfilled
This is a matter of faith, which is a fair consideration in this discussion but silt is worth noting, I’m actually very happy with this belief as an explanation, it feels more fitting for Christianity.
>The fact we are personal can only mean God also is, for we cannot have something (personhood) while He does not.
Personhood may be a derivation of God’s necessary perfection but in fact most platonists and the school of thoughts descendant (neoplatonists pantheists etc) do not believe that humans have free will either

>>15036817
Person is being able to say "I", it's being a self and being capable of loving the other. God is the perfect Self and says to Moses: I AM THAT I AM.

That is a very powerful and intimate contact of God and humanity. It's the perfect being revealing himself to us.

>>15036827
If you ascribe to any sort of understanding of Christianity outside of the realm of Catholicism or Orthodoxy I have no respect for your faith. It is a later artificial production of Europe, entirely localized in the continent, whose comprehension of Christianism and the Church is not to be found anywhere else before the 15th century. Literally no other ancient Church comprehends Scripture and salvation the way retarded protestants understand them. That aside, if you are Orthodox or Catholic, what I have described is the exact understanding of what is Sacred Scripture. If you do not believe it to be literally true and divinely inspired, and yet you are arguing for the ressurection of the God-Man, you are completely stupid.

>>15036852
*tips fedora*

>>15036852
The problem is that you're strawmanning "divinely inspired" to mean "perfect". No Christian believes that humans made no mistakes in interpreting God's word. This is a babby brain take on theology.

>>15036695
>The justification for their existence is essentially that they can be conceived of.
Well sure but I'm asking what gives them ontological status, but I think you're saying is that what gives them ontological status is the being of logic itself.
>God is a perfect singular thing from which all else emanates.
In Platonism what is the explanation for the distinction of things? I just feel like the essence and energy distinction unique to orthodox Christianity provides a really good explanation of the way a god would interact with abstract entities and the physical world but I have never heard a convincing argument from Roman Catholicism or Platonism
>The God that encompasses all concepts cannot be relate-ably human, partially because of complexity, this God does not choose for reality to be the way it is, reality by necessity follows from this singular perfect (but unknowable) concept.
Well I would actually agree that in a way God does not choose reality to be the way it is in the realm of abstract constants precisely because they are reflections of God's personal and perfect mind, and I think one of the strongest points of Christianity is how us as humans, built in the image of God, reflect a personal mind. For example, how would an impersonal force account for human spontaneity or free will? To me, there seems to be a problem when you assume an impersonal God, yet have a creation that possesses these qualities that aren't even reflected by the God that created them, wouldn't this just lead to determinism?
Yes, God is in a way complex compared to humans, but Christians, as far as I know, only assume that we can understand analogies of God and not the actually essence, so I see no contradiction in having a personal God, in fact I think it seems very evident from our perception and our understanding of these abstract concepts that he is personal.
>With the current perception people have of the nature of the universe (with humans as a very small (even if important) part) it might be better to attempt to reach out to people through spirituality rather than rationality to justify a religion concerned with salvation by a specific and literal messiah or prophet (eg Christianity, Islam etc (though christianity is better justified than its kin)) rather than a conceptual way to better live on a logical basis (like in Platonism or pantheism).
Perhaps, I just think that you'll never be able to derive a good apologetic from personal testimonies of spiritual experiences which is a big problem. I would also reject that humans are insignificant, I think there is something utterly unique about us in relation to the physical world

>>15036872
So you're saying the Divine Scripture, the text from which you gather the information necessary to find eternal salvation, is not as perfectly written as it should be? That God allowed the men writing it to err while doing it? lmfao imagine believing that and thinking its in any way, shape or form acceptable theology. Get a grip.

>>15035265
Presupposing strict materialism and naturalism isn't rational or demonstrable, it means you have blinders on. And that's not an argument.

>So you're saying the Divine Scripture, the text from which you gather the information necessary to find eternal salvation, is not as perfectly written as it should be? That God allowed the men writing it to err while doing it? lmfao imagine believing that and thinking its in any way, shape or form acceptable theology. Get a grip.


You have literally no idea whether I'm a Christian or not. In fact, I'm an agnostic. I'm just demonstrating to you that this is a blatant misunderstanding of what Christians believe.
>>15036899

>>15036886
>I think you're saying is that what gives them ontological status is the being of logic itself.
Yes, that’s right
> In Platonism what is the explanation for the distinction of things?
Greater imperfections. Logic and physical reality are both natural laws that follow by necessity from the perfect God, it simply is the way it is.

>>15035265
>the historical Jesus contradicts the the Jesus from the Christian tradition?

Then the historical account is wrong.

>>15036909
Yes, and I'm a former Catholic who followed a traditional fraternity and I'm telling you that's bullshit and any respectable Christian would tell you that Sacred Scripture is infallible when coupled with the understanding that Tradition has of it.

>>15035280
Varily.

Talk about anything to wriggle out of the most compelling revelation God ever made to man.

Pbuh.

>>15036848
>>15036848
That's not an impeccable definition, but I can comprehend you, anon; but, still, to polemicize with the Platonists and call their The One "Impersonal" in opposition with Christianity's "Personal God" is a great error. I'm sure you can understand that Impersonality and Personality must belong to God. And to speak Cataphatic about God, as if our concepts could limit and define Him in a precise way- nay to think that our concepts could do anything but make a parody out of Him- without denying it later is to fall into idolatry. This debate, however, can exemplify perfectly why one must not give sacred things unto dogs, and the reason why God was reduced to a Being in the popular's notion in the West; predictable, since ὑπόστᾰσις was translated by the Latins as "persons".

>>15036646
Wow. Long read but wow. Why the image though? Divine radiant light?

>>15036886
>I think you're saying is that what gives them ontological status is the being of logic itself.
Yes, that’s right
> In Platonism what is the explanation for the distinction of things?
Greater imperfections. Logic and physical reality are both natural laws that follow by necessity from the perfect God, it simply is the way it is.
> For example, how would an impersonal force account for human spontaneity or free will? To me, there seems to be a problem when you assume an impersonal God, yet have a creation that possesses these qualities that aren't even reflected by the God that created them, wouldn't this just lead to determinism?
Yes it does, platonists and their philosophical descendants are determinists. I’d point particularly to a more recent thinker in Spinoza, who’s pantheism owes much to Platonism.
> I think there is something utterly unique about us in relation to the physical world
I agree, but many who one would be attempting to convert do not. We are part of reality and God attempting to process and understand itself.

>>15036932
That's just false, because no Christian believes humans are capable of infallibly interpreting the word of God.

>>15036785
They already woulda chimed in lol

>>15036982
man, it's literally Catholic dogma that the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra about Faith and morals, is infallible...

>>15036966
Don't you think determinism invalidates your arguments? If you're just a determined machine why should I trust that you're actually making logical arguments that would lead you to the conclusion of Platonic determinism?Without spontaneity or free will how could you even utilities argumentation? It seems to me this requires free will
>We are part of reality and God attempting to process and understand itself.
I'm not sure if by you saying "God attempting to process and understand itself" you're making an analogy or not but wouldn't this imply so kind of personal nature

>>15037005
some kind of personal nature*

>>15037005
>If you're just a determined machine why should I trust that you're actually making logical arguments that would lead you to the conclusion of Platonic determinism?
The determinism doesn’t invalidate the logic, our outlooks are based on our prior experiences (or what we perceive as those experiences) so our outlooks must be a response to those stimuli acting in ways that would necessarily be determined.
>how to utilise argumentation
It’s a way to process through the information we have, but the deterministic physical and logical forces leading to our lack of free will are so very complex that for most purposes our decisions still matter because we cannot predict the future or externally comprehend a system we are a part of
>analogy of God understanding itself
Yeah it’s more of an analogy, it isn’t a conscious process, again it simply is at it follows from the perfect truth

>>15036954
God is absolutely ineffable in His nature (essence). It is peak apophatism. But we receive His operations as rays of light which sustain everything and give all things Being. The three Persons are God's tropoi. But not in the way that ice and flowing water are modes of molecules of water, but in the same way that we share the same (human) nature but are different persons and not different modes of that nature. Such a God is not the all-engulfing One, leading all into confusion within itself, creating to devour.

>>15037077
>God is absolutely ineffable in His nature (essence). It is peak apophatism. But we receive His operations as rays of light which sustain everything and give all things Being. The three Hypostasis are God's tropoi.

I can completely agree with you, anon, until the end of your fourth phrase, with a minor adjustment, as you can see. I cannot, however, agree or see a point in that analogy, which tries to debases God into a Being, so as to make Him "comprehensible", denouncing a veiled arrogance in it, too, which claims implicitly to be able to embrace God through human categories. In all honesty, as a fellow brethren, it's to me disgraceful.

>>15037066
>The determinism doesn’t invalidate the logic, our outlooks are based on our prior experiences (or what we perceive as those experiences) so our outlooks must be a response to those stimuli acting in ways that would necessarily be determined.
Sure, but I wasn't making that claim. I was saying that it invalidates specifically your logical process because if it is determined you have no reason to believe you're actually making logical arguments because technically in your worldview, you aren't; you're just a machine that is reacting to past interactions with no real decision on which argument or action is rational.
>It’s a way to process through the information we have, but the deterministic physical and logical forces leading to our lack of free will are so very complex that for most purposes our decisions still matter because we cannot predict the future or externally comprehend a system we are a part of
I feel you're making contradictions, but I think it's because the deterministic model as I understand it is so fundamentally flawed that it breaks down communication.
>It’s a way to process through the information we have
Sure, but how do you get to knowing that this information is sound and logical in your worldview
>for most purposes our decisions still matter
This seems like you're communicating an action that would imply free will

>>15036954
>call their The One "Impersonal" in opposition with Christianity's "Personal God" is a great error
Why? The Platonist God isn't an actual personal hypostasis distinct from its ineffable and apophatic essence the way the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all distinct from their essence and distinct from each other. The "personhood" of The One is merely a way of speaking and not a reality since "He" completely transcends such categories.

>>15037151
He is not a Being, anon. Being is one of His operations, not His essence/nature. God in Himself is utterly ineffable. All of God's Divine Names are His operations and is beyond being them.

>>15037066
>>15037161
>Sure, but I wasn't making that claim
think I frigged up in reading what you were saying there again lol

>>15037198
I agree, anon. But that analogy is to be highly distasteful. Are you a Roman Catholic? Why such a fascination in reducing the hypostasis to "persons"?

> Some say I have no conscience. How false they are, even to themselves. I am the only conscience which has ever existed. As wine retains the perfume of its cask, I retain the essence of my most ancient genesis, and that is the seed of conscience. That is what makes me holy. I am God because I am the only one who really knows his heredity!