/lit/ - Literature

>No its not me.

Sure it isn't

>>7806821
Being a christian is the ultimate cuckery. Cucking your whole life to christian values in the hopes of a utopian non-cuck afterlife

there is absolutely nothing wrong with kerouac or andy warhol, especially coming from sam hyde the criticism hardly sticks

>>7806834
it is le ironic :^)

>>7806826
>Cucking your whole life to christian values in the hopes of a utopian non-cuck afterlife

on the contrary, earthly Christian life is a very meaningful and often joyful experince mixed with fear and trembling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOkuZLxUjqg

>>7806834
>there is absolutely nothing wrong with kerouac or andy warhol

Andy maybe, but Kerouac, Dylan and other Beatnicks were absoluty worthless poseurs/narcissist.

I can do what I want

>>7806851
just dont cry about it later or go into help me with dem programs mode...Im sure youll keep your consistency as a nihilist

Christianity is a false answer to hedonism because there's no personal responsibility in it.

>Why dont you stop being an angsty druggie
>Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

>implying large parts of the bible weren't inspired by shrooming

>>7806850
Nah, the Dylan you know, maybe. He was certainly an asshole during his cocaine and fame phase in the mid sixties but beforehand he had been a super self conscious wannabe folk singer and afterwards he did everything he could to unwrite his own mythology and in a refusal to take the easy path of pandering experimented (still is experimenting) with a whole slew of different styles and projects. He even went back on his folk days and admitted he played protest songs because they were what people wanted to hear.
On the other hand, you have Kerouac, a bad writer with one style who wrote an accidentally good book and spent the rest of his short miserable life living in its shadow and publishing 'beat' fiction he'd written years earlier despite pretty much hating the movement.

>tfw sam hyde fan meme thread
>>/lit/thread/5687280
>>/lit/thread/7192689
>>/lit/thread/7091409#p7093416
>>/lit/thread/7015323
>>/lit/thread/6888190
>>/lit/thread/6796837
No surprise that a fan of hyde would be so unimaginative as to make the same thread multiple times instead of being interested in originality.

Christianity just doesn't make sense. I can't subvert my deep understanding of reality just to acknowledge some sky daddy.

>>7806867
>He was certainly an asshole during his cocaine and fame phase in the mid sixties but beforehand he had been a super self conscious wannabe folk singer and afterwards he did everything he could to unwrite his own mythology and in a refusal to take the easy path of pandering experimented

yeah, I know his early (and current) period, too bad he even started doing RNR it never sutied him (I guess he might be a humble person inside after all)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw8YjVrRNRU

...however Kerouac and Ginsberg were pure frapuccino knit clothing faggots.


>>7806860
>Christianity is a false answer to hedonism because there's no personal responsibility in it.

can you elaborate? there is personal resposobiltiy in Christianity despite there being a way out trough faith in Jesus.

>>7806882
>I can't subvert my deep understanding of reality just to acknowledge some sky daddy.

you dont have to. Jesus died about 2000 years ago weather you accept him or not. Faith is only a method of recieving what was done for you...and once you recieve what avaits youll realise that there was never a need to subvert reason.

>>7806889
>Jesus died about 2000 years ago weather you accept him or not
That's not how it works. There's no proof that Jesus existed, nor that he did the deeds described in the Bible.

>Faith is only a method of recieving what was done for you.
That's a very liberal definition of the word ``faith''. A tad bit too liberal even.

>>7806861
this is the most 10th grade post I've ever seen on 4chan

>>7806900
>There's no proof that Jesus existed
What? Jesus is a historical person.

>>7806900
>That's a very liberal definition of the word ``faith''. A tad bit too liberal even.

its accurate only within Christian context. what I mean to say is that you can have faith in whatever you want but it wont be a proof of anything (like reincarnation or other version of post mortal existence), but faith in the Word of God is what gives proof.

>>7806884

> there being a way out trough faith in Jesus.

Well that's most of it. The New Testament in a nutshell is "believe and you'll be saved". The rest is cultural. Christians do not take responsibility for their own bad behavior, they blame others for it. For example, shouting "actions have consequences" while beating the shit out of a gay kid for accidentally gaying too hard, as if they're not responsible for the beating but are merely a consequence.

>>7806911
>The rest is cultural. Christians do not take responsibility for their own bad behavior, they blame others for it.

generally I cant agree with that, because guilt, responsobitly and choice are very present in the lives of most believers (+many examples in the bible, like Abraham, Elijah, Jesus)

>>7806904
>What? Jesus is a historical person.
Again, do you have any proofs of that? And I am not talking about ``DUH, IT SAIZ SO IN THE BIBLE, YOU DUMP ATHETITS!!''. The application of the scientific method is required and that should be the very least to even get us started on the matter.

>>7806908
>faith in the Word of God is what gives proof
Again with the bogus meaning of words, aiming only to push an agenda, not to convey a sincere message. Faith and proof are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.

>>7806821
>Sam "le epic post-ironic reactionary" Hyde

>>7806929
>Again with the bogus meaning of words, aiming only to push an agenda, not to convey a sincere message. Faith and proof are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.

I wasnt incencere, but trying to demostrate why God puts so much importance on faith in the Bible and how "justification by faith" works. Any time the word "faith" is used in the Bible its specifically reffering to Gods instruction or Gods promise.

Abraham
>Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

Paul in Romans
>Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace


if you put it in the context of Pascals wager, youll realsie Pascals alegory isnt quite good

>>7806951
So? Why does He put so much importance on faith?

>ignoring scientific advancements just to have a night light that minimizes your fear of death and allows you to hate "le degenerates"

>>7806958
>So? Why does He put so much importance on faith?

you tell me, beacuse I dont know it myself nor does it seem very intuitive from my perspective. but I know it works,when you believe in Gods promise, you recive Gods promise (not in a prosperity gospel kind of way btw).

However, even if you dont have faith, youll see God after death, but by faith in this world youll recieve justification in this Earth.


>>7806960
>allows you to hate "le degenerates"

you dont have to be christian to hate degenerates, you jsut need some pre-postmodern reasoning,...and some science

>>7806972

> and some science

A high school level understanding of science, and the ability to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LIBERAL PROPOGANDA" at any actual science that contradicts you.

>>7806857
help me with them programs is entirely consistent with nihilism. there's no nihilist honour code that prevents them from accepting handouts or something.

>>7806972
>You: Christianity makes perfect sense, praise the Lord Jesus Christ and have faith.
Me: Okay, I will entrain your insanity a little. Why does God put so much important on faith.
>You: You tell me brah, I don't know. All I know is that it works.


How does that make any sense whatsoever? I guess my next question has to do with what exactly works and how does it work. Nevertheless, I feel like we are already knees deep in the realm of the supernatural. No, ``supernatural'' is not the right word, ``absurd'' is.

>>7806972
>and some science
As yes, pseudoscience. You're forgetting the greatest tool of the modern reactionary though: MUH FEELZ>YOUR LIBERAL PROPAGANDA REALZ

>>7806958
>Why does He put so much importance on faith?

another explanation is because it might be a too rational choice if it wasnt done on faith but by some sort of sacrament. by faith you really have to commit to God. This is the best I can explain, but the fact is that God require faith.

>>7806982
>A high school level understanding of science, and the ability to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LIBERAL PROPOGANDA" at any actual science that contradicts you.

what rubbish. having even the most pragmatic standards easily leads to Crhistianity as a superior system compared to Postmodernism.

>>7806998
>help me with them programs is entirely consistent with nihilism. there's no nihilist honour code that prevents them from accepting handouts or something.

indeed, that is why so many passionate SJWs are so cinical and cold people that preach nihilism and follow post-Christianit... and dont have any questions about it, pretty worthless people desu

>>7807004
>How does that make any sense whatsoever? I guess my next question has to do with what exactly works and how does it work. Nevertheless, I feel like we are already knees deep in the realm of the supernatural. No, ``supernatural'' is not the right word, ``absurd'' is.

do you have a better explanation how you recive or reject the things God dod for you? not as you personal view but as a thological explanation of requirement of faith?

>>7806882
>Christianity doesn't make sense.

It makes a lot of sense if you actually think about it.

Reading Plato or Aristotle will show you that if you are being intellectually honest, you will eventually have to accept the existence of the supreme being or the transcendent good or the first truth or the original beauty, from which all being, goodness, truth, and beauty subsist in and originate.
After having arrived at this supreme being, there are two real distinctions: theism or pantheism, in other words: how does the supreme or primary or self-subsisting being relate to contingent and secondary beings? If you believe that there are secondary beings that are of the same substance/essence of the supreme being, you have some kind of pantheism or emanationism. If you believe that the supreme being always transcends every particular being, you have some form of theism.
The difference between pantheism and theism practically is that in pantheism the supreme being is an impersonal essence which generates the world of a kind of necessity. What this means is that pantheist spiritually tends to be impersonal, it dissolves the personality, ends in the death of the self or personality in the great All. Theism, because it puts the supreme being as transcendent and separate, ends in a kind of dialogue or communion or love between the supreme being, who takes the role of Father, and his secondary beings, who take the role of children.

Once you go through all this and accept theism or pantheism there is nothing in the Christian account that is offensive to reason. Look around you. We, human beings, are the lords of the earth. We rule the earth. All animals are beneath us. We are the only creatures on the earth with the power of the intellect, to know, to perceive. If God exists then our being and our position on the earth is not an accident, but is intended by the same God. Now, if God created the world and put us in charge of it, and if we totally forgot about him, do you not think that he would try and seek a reconciliation between us and himself, especially if he loves us as a Father? The Christian account is that man rebelled against God, eventually forgot God, that one man (Abraham) believed in God and obeyed him despite being surrounded by unbelievers, that God promised Abraham he would send the saviour of mankind who would reconcile man and God through the descendants of Abraham, that Christ, descended from Abraham, was the incarnate and eternal Son of God himself who lived the life of a perfect man and died a perfect death in order to bridge the gap between God and man. There is nothing here that is absurd. It all makes perfectly good sense if you (1) accept theism, which can be rationally proven, (2) accept that it is possible for God to take an interest in the lives of his creatures and speak to man in order to rescue him from his miserable condition of death, despair, and sin.

>>7807008
>You're forgetting the greatest tool of the modern reactionary though: MUH FEELZ>YOUR LIBERAL PROPAGANDA REALZ

can you back up that claim ...by science?

>>7807004
>How does that make any sense whatsoever? I guess my next question has to do with what exactly works and how does it work. Nevertheless, I feel like we are already knees deep in the realm of the supernatural. No, ``supernatural'' is not the right word, ``absurd'' is.

it is absurd. if it werent absurd, you would choose God by your own reason just like you choose your new phone (God is a reasonable choice btw) but that would simply be an utilitarian decision and not saying YES to God fully.

>>7807050
>Once you go through all this and accept theism or pantheism

theism over pantheism*

this distinction between theism and pantheism is why I think C. S. Lewis said that the two only really serious systems of thought have been Christianity and Hinduism (representing the most robust forms of theism and pantheism respectively).

>>7807016

>having even the most pragmatic standards easily leads to Crhistianity as a superior system compared to Postmodernism.

Right, because being superior to postmodernism is really hard.

>>7807050

Why is theism "proven" over pantheism? You skipped over that part, unless the argument from "I would like it to be this way" was supposed to be the transition?

>>7807050

>Reading Plato or Aristotle will show you that if you are being intellectually honest, you will eventually have to accept the existence of the supreme being or the transcendent good or the first truth or the original beauty, from which all being, goodness, truth, and beauty subsist in and originate.

Yes, and reading Hume will show you that Plato and Aristotle were completely full of shit

>>7807057
Social science my friend. Go on /pol/ or any reactionary web forum and observe how fucking whiny and easily offended they are, despite claiming otherwise.

>>7806821

Are you just Sam Hyde trying to stir some sort of gay 'intellectual' discussion with shitposting?

>>7807016
I am not aware of any thing that God has done for me. To even entertain that possibility, we would have to first establish the existence of this fictional entity, which is a bit too much of a leap of faith. See, here I employ the word in its original meaning -- unconditional trust, complete confidence. It's something you earn, not something you obtain as a means to combat your wavering and insecurities, your lack of will and strength, your insignificance in the grand scheme of things. You really come off as a confused teenager.

>>7807050
>if you are being intellectually honest, you will eventually have to accept the existence of the supreme being or the transcendent good or the first truth or the original beauty, from which all being, goodness, truth, and beauty subsist in and originate.

No. Your whole premise is wrong. You literally made a mistake on Move 1. I think the ``Start with the Greeks'' meme might have gotten to your head. Taking for truth the ramblings of millennia-old thinkers is a serious case of wishful thinking or no thinking at all.

>>7806929
>Again, do you have any proofs of that? And I am not talking about ``DUH, IT SAIZ SO IN THE BIBLE, YOU DUMP ATHETITS!!''. The application of the scientific method is required and that should be the very least to even get us started on the matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus.[19][20][21][22] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean, Jewish rabbi[23] who preached his message orally,[24] was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[25]

>>7807050
There are a few of objections that baffle non-believers that are easy to deal with:

(1) Why would God take an interest in our lives?
This comes from ignorance as to what God is, a too crude and anthropomorphic view of God that sees Him essentially as a very powerful man.
God is the creator and the sustainer of all existence. If God was not interested in us, we would immediately cease to exist. Our being is from God and in God. God takes care of every blade of grass and every drop of water. Of course he would take care of mankind, mankind being literally the crown of his creation.

(2) Why would God only speak to a few people? Why would he communicate his revelation to a handful of prophets and not just reveal everything to all of us, en masse?
This is pretty easy to answer actually. Imagine what would happen if everyone all over the world heard a voice in the sky tomorrow: "I am God, obey me". What would happen? Apart from all the people who would panic, or call it a mass hallucination or hoax, there would immediately arise a hundred thousand interpretations of what the message meant, how it should be obeyed; most people may be shocked by it for a while, but then learn to ignore and forget it and get on with their lives. In other words, God doesn't communicate Himself en masse because people are not ready to hear Him. It would do more harm than good to them if He did, so He doesn't. He communicated Himself directly only to a few people who were extremely self-denying and devoted and faithful to Him.

(3) How can God listen to all of our prayers?
God is omnipresent. There is nothing that God has not heard or seen from all eternity. There is no knowledge whatsoever without God; all of our knowledge is in God. God hears all prayers simultaneously, not just in every particular place but in every particular time too. God can hear every prayer because time and place is nothing to God who is outside of time and is present everywhere.

>>7807093

I have a voice in my head that says it's a dragon. Why shouldn't that be treated exactly as seriously as hearing the voice of god?

>>7807093

Here's one that's not so easy to deal with: how did you define God and where's the testable evidence for him?

>>7807073
>Social science my friend. Go on /pol/ or any reactionary web forum and observe how fucking whiny and easily offended they are, despite claiming otherwise.

same can be said for treehuggers, but unlike non-egalitarians treehuggers dont have science on their side

>>7807077
>To even entertain that possibility, we would have to first establish the existence of this fictional entity, which is a bit too much of a leap of faith.

incoreect, you just have to know some philosphy to KNOW that God exists for instanc like this >>7807050 but that doesnt make you a Christian, because you have to BELIEVE in Gods word to accept God who is Jesus (the difference Kierkegaard understood perfectly unlike simpleminded theologians of his time).

>>7807108
>treehuggers dont have science on their side
>majority of scientists agree that global warming is a real threat
>niche pseudoscientists back up the claims of the reactionary right

How does it feel living in a seperate reality?

>>7807092
>citing wikipedia unironically
These so-called ``scholars'' are theists pushing agenda. Of course they will believe their God existed. Also, note that there's no actual proof provided, just a survey of opinions of people with vested interest. Pathetic.

>>7807093
>Why would God take an interest in our lives?
No. Why would He take interest in your worship of Him, let alone require it of you? Now that's baffling.

The rest of your post is really just so disconnected from reality that I can't properly communicate how lost you are.

>>7807108
You can't believe in something that contradicts modern science, otherwise God becomes your tulpa girlfriend.

>>7807118
>global warming

oh yeah, lets skip intelligence, anthopoligical differences, sex differences and talk about the most bogus topics there are

I LOVE THE BLACK SCIENCE MAN

>>7807134
>You can't believe in something that contradicts modern science

well, have you rejected egaliterianism, progressivism and socialism?

>>7807135
We're at risk of fucking up global climate and expending all the limited resources on which we have build society, but why isn't anybody discussing the REAL issues? Like, why aren't people recognizing that I'm superior to niggers and women?

>>7807140
Of course. Every sane person has.

>>7807061
I skipped over that part because it was not entirely relevant to the thread, also because it requires theological training I don't have to begin to speak about it properly.

I think the problem with pantheism is that it fails to make proper distinctions. The most absolute form of pantheism is where literally all things are the divine substance. The Hindu phrase is, "that thou art". So, you are that bit of mud over there, that statue, that bird, that cloud, that fire, that ray of light, etc., etc., all things are one and the same All. What this ends up in is a kind of intellectual paralysis. Because all things are of the same substance you end up in a kind of quietist meditation which abstracts completely from all individual being in order to reside in the Absolute or All. There is no individual personality. There is no essential distinction between your newborn baby and a dead mouse, because it is all the same substance.
Contrast this with Aristotle, who says that the first thing in reality is individual substances. Individual substances have their own substantial being, not separate from God or the divine substance, but not identical to it. God is not seen as being in every substance substantially, but present to every substance in the way the engineer is present to his tool. God is not the world, but God created the world out of nothing and holds it in existence by his free will. That is another big difference between pantheism and theism; pantheism always conceives of God as not having a free will or personality, but always as an impersonal substance that acts according to an internal law of necessity. But because in theism God is not the same as the world, he can be seen as creating and sustaining and moving the world out of his own free will. Therefore, God can be a person, a Father in a real sense, and can be love. Because God has a will he can love.

Chesterton:
>‘No two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple. The opposition exists at every point; but perhaps the shortest statement of it is that the Buddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the Christian saint always has them very wide open. The Buddhist saint has a sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep. The medieval saint’s body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are frightfully alive. There cannot be any real continuity between forces that produce symbols so different as that. Granted that both images are extravagances, are perversions of the pure creed, it must be a real divergence which could produce such opposite extravagances. The Buddhist is looking with a peculiar intentness inwards. The Christian is staring with a frantic intentness outwards. If we follow that clue steadily we shall find some interesting things.’

>>7807134
I'm an agnostic bordering on atheism and i still believe that Jesus existed as a historical person. It does not mean he's the son of God if he existed at some point in our history.

>>7807155
>I'm an agnostic bordering on atheism and i still believe
Get out of here, you crypto-theist.

>>7807142
>straighforwad problems like group difference dont suit my argument me so lets talk about Al Gores vision of the future and assumed concensuss in the scientific community about certain things

>>7807149

Modern philosophy tends very strongly towards pantheism. When people talk about "progress" they are implicitly invoking a kind of pantheism which Hegel defined, where the world is seen as an evolving Mind or Spirit that marches through history becoming more and more perfect. Coincidentally, I hate pantheism. Politically, it ends in extreme totalitarianism. Psychologically, it destroys personality. Theologically, it debases the divine substance by spreading it to everything, in the mundane. Pantheists never make a proper distinction between good and evil because of their theology. They tend to end up worshipping evil. The Hindus worship the god of evil and destruction just as much as the god of goodness and order. This is disgusting to me. They literally divinize and worship death. I understand how people fall into pantheism though. It's easy to look at the world and see that it is arranged into cycle (day and night, the seasons of the year, the cycles of the constellations of the stars, etc.), and then it's easy to see this and draw the inference that existence is a vast cycle that has gone on for all eternity, and this is all divine. I think this is a kind of hasty conclusion that results from a lack of imagination. Just because this cycle of life and death is present to us does not mean that it has always been present. There is nothing logically impossible about the idea that God did not create such a cycle but that it entered the world as a kind of punishment or falling away from God.

It's the pantheism of Hegel that so repulsed Kierkegaard, by the way, and one of the things that influenced him to take his ultra-fideist, anti-rationalist view.

I want protestant scum to leave.

>>7807066
Hume was a sophist just like the sophists that Plato and Aristotle themselves had to deal with. There were sophists in their day that said that all we know is the content of our own minds and nothing can be certainly known. In fact, the ancient sophists tended to be more clear, more lucid, and more thorough than the modern sophists. The ancient skeptics like the Pyrrhonists gave a more robust account of skepticism than any modern.

>>7807149
>>‘No two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple. The opposition exists at every point; but perhaps the shortest statement of it is that the Buddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the Christian saint always has them very wide open. The Buddhist saint has a sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep. The medieval saint’s body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are frightfully alive. There cannot be any real continuity between forces that produce symbols so different as that. Granted that both images are extravagances, are perversions of the pure creed, it must be a real divergence which could produce such opposite extravagances. The Buddhist is looking with a peculiar intentness inwards. The Christian is staring with a frantic intentness outwards. If we follow that clue steadily we shall find some interesting things.’

perfect! adding a suitbble non-pantheistic pic (unlike eastern art where man and nature are indistugushiable).

have you watched "how should we then live?" by Francis Schaeffer

>>7807168
>It's the pantheism of Hegel that so repulsed Kierkegaard, by the way, and one of the things that influenced him to take his ultra-fideist, anti-rationalist view.

give me some contact bro, we should stay in touch

>>7807173
>I want protestant scum to leave.

why do you hate based Kierkegaard?

>>7806821
Not /lit/.
Why do you care what anyone else does anyway

>>7807232
>Why do you care what anyone else does anyway

Because I love Jesus.

>>7807173
catholic theology is an absolute mess

>>7807173
I used to think that Catholics were the repressive authoritarians and the protestants were the forward thinking ones, but that wasn't the case. You Catholics are based.

>>7807198
>why do you hate based Kierkegaard?

I am >>7807168 but not >>7807173

Kierkegaard is the ultimate Protestant, in a way, he takes Protestantism to its logical conclusion. Luther said that he didn't need the pope as an authority to define or teach the faith, that all he needed was his own subjective, individual conscience. This idea that your individual, subjective conscience is the absolute rule of faith and the ultimate authority in religion is what has lead inevitably to the modern apostasy. If our own minds are the ultimate authority, then why do we need God or religion at all? Once you accept that your own mind is the first and primary thing in existence, the existence of an external God who would demand something of you is a burden.
If you own individual mind is the rule of faith, then why do we need a Church at all? This is ultimately what Kierkegaard says. He says not only do we need the authority of the Catholic Church or the pope, we don't need any church at all. This leads Kierkegaard to say, "truth is subjectivity", and, "faith is a task for the individual". "Faith is a task for the individual" is very strong implicit denial of the ancient apostolic creed which says, "I believe . . . in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints". None of the early Christians saw faith as a task for the individual, but something that is spread by preachers and supported in a community of faith. Protestantism logically leads to this radical individualism where it's just You and God, your "personal relationship with God": and in your personal relationship with God, it's You first and God second.

That's only the first problem of Protestantism, there are plenty more.
For example, they got rid of the sacrament of penance, confession. One of the main reasons that the sacraments exists is to make God's invisible grace visible; the best definition of sacrament is, "an outward (visible) sign of inward (invisible) grace". So in the sacrament of baptism, you have the visible water as a sign of the interior water which cleanses your soul. Without the sacrament of penance, Protestants have no visible sign of forgiveness. This puts them in a position of enormous anxiety in regards to God, particularly those that have a melancholy temperament or scrupulous conscience. For example, Kierkegaard's father cursed God once in his youth, and spent the entire rest of his life in despair thinking he would irreparably alienated from God. If a Catholic did that, he would be sorry (contrition), go to confession, confess, do the penance, and thank God for the forgiveness. Kierkegaard himself suffered from despair. Luther, coincidentally, suffered extremely badly from scruples and thought of himself as essentially corrupt. This is what lead him to say that justification is not an interior cleansing, but merely a kind of legal act where God signs you over to heaven if you believe he will.

>give me some contact bro, we should stay in touch
jicollinson1@gmail.com

>>7807168
>I dont understand Pantheism
Try reading actual Pantheists like Spinoza, Emerson and Thoreau.

>>7807077
>>7807092
>>7807093
>>7807108
>>7807168

Why does it matter? Why does it matter if one of you is an atheist and the other a theist and the third a pantheist.

What feuits grows from this engagement? Unless you both believe that accepting some article of your belied the other would thereby change their behavior in some fundamental fashion? How so?

The OP says people should turn to Christ to get away from whiny nihilism and narcissism, why assume this is the only way?