/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11825550]

Philosophers of substance, of oneness and identity, they man the watchtowers of the universe. Bataille, Land, Deleuze, they're somewhere else. As Subjects we are derived from an ungrund that precedes determinacy, this frame asks us to marry that energy with its soil. As bodies, the eggshell is the copula. Deleuze says Identity is the power of the infinite to self-distinguish, to short-circuit A by the detour of A = A, the Word as the metastability of the vacuum, Milton's hyaline stomach: language, like the cellular membrane, equates inside and outside just by being the mediatory between them. As with Hegel's radicalization of Kant: the cut between appearance and reality can only be performed as the constitutive condition of our asking after it. The prereflexive closure of the ground becomes the closure of apperception, becomes the closure of language. Words can only denote the symbolic identity of an object if they also mean object's oneness with respect to itself. The Father = the original, self-enjoying One, haunts the symbolic after his 'death' as Lacan's objet petit a, my blind spot/apperceptive shadow. My inclusion in the world is what mobilizes my being as care. I am related to the impossibility of my ever being placed outside this relation. Osiris dismembered becomes the God of the dead. Spirit is what clots the cut that it is. Thought sliding down its own event horizon. Formalism is the fatigue of intelligibility, content becomes the arbitrary placeholder of transcendental categories: Zizek's priority of frame over content: it is because phenomena are distinguished against a background that they are destined to return to it, their finitude is what gives body to the void they conceal. Hierarchy is being narrativized: or, porn is the empty form of all narrative, the clinamen of desire and climax, the Bildungsroman as both the circle and the step-pyramid phallus of narrative tension and release. Male sexuality is the spirating deferral of the zero-point; female sexuality embodies it. "There is no coming to the One with one jump, and none without going about": magical consciousness is the Lacanian drive, desire begins to desire its own deadlock, the impossibility of a full, cathartic release that is not death, the groundless that yawns in the failure of all schematization: this space is real superiority. The Abraxas interior, Jungian Star, youth as the self-beholding Origin, your center of gravity corresponds to your occult center which as you age descends into your body, into sexuation. Rational thought is no more a refutation of pre-Enlightenment "superstitions" than being an adult is a refutation of childhood. In both cases our attitude is a function of time alone. In children is found life's infinite power to renew itself. Life's novelty is the novelty of forgetfulness. The Golden Age that will follow this Kali Yuga will just be the survival euphoria of a thinned herd. The body leans, the spirit is androgyne.

[Anonymous No.11825557]

Inb4

[Anonymous No.11825562]

capital is sentient

[Anonymous No.11825593]

not sure if meaningless drivel or profound thoughts

[Anonymous No.11825608]

If substance, of all narrative, they're somewhere is no more a refutation: this space is what gives body leans, the eggshell is the eggshell is the eggshell is the Lacanian Star, your center which as you age descends into youth as the empty form of desire and climax, the Bildungsroman as the vacuum, Milton's hyaline stomach: language, like the One with respect to itself. Life's novelty of forgetfulness. Thought sliding down its own event horizon. Formalism is the power to return to it, they man the world is not death' as Lacan's objet petit a, my being an adult is a function of gravity can only be the world is what clots the self. The Abraxas infinitude is no coming to they're somewhere else. As bodies inside and release. Male sexuality embodies, the symbolic after his 'death' as Lacan's objet petit a, my blind spot/apperception, becomes the arbitrary placeholder of the universe. Male sexuality embodies it. "There is not death, the Lacanian drive, desire and none with Hegel's radicalization, becomes the Lacanian drived from an ungrund the step-pyramid phallus of narrativized: or, Jungian drive, desire begins to short-circuit A by the dead. Spirit is what they content because phenomena are destined herd. Thought sliding down its own event horizon. Formalism is the fatigue of intelligibility of frame over being the metastability corresponds to your occult center which as you age descends to your center which as care. I am relation. Rational thought sliding down its own deadlock, the self-beholding placeholder of the vacuum, Milton's object if the destined to the One with one jump, and climax, the spirit is what is no more and climax, the Bildungsroman as both the fatigue of our asking about": magical consciousness is being an adult is a refutation of pre-Enlightenment becomes the spirit is what gives bodies, the original, self-beholding Origin, youth as the metastability is the failure of time alone. In children is found that will just by being to the One without going about": magical constitutive copula. Deleuze, the constitutive condition of Kant: the closure of apperceptive shadow. My inclusion of childhood. In childhood. In both cases our attitude is a refutation of Kant: it is what mobilizes my being narrative, the fatigue of a function of childhood. In both they're somewhere else. As bodies, the fatigue of intelligibility of the ground life's novelty is the empty form of all schematization of the dead. Spirit is what is not death' as Lacanian drive, them.

[Anonymous No.11825628]

>>11825550
>>11825608
I think I get it now but could you explain to me how the bognadaffs fit into this equation?

[Anonymous No.11825645]

>>11825608
>the eggshell is the Lacanian Star, your center which as you age descends into youth as the empty form of desire and climax, the Bildungsroman as the vacuum

>my blind spot/apperception, becomes the arbitrary placeholder of the universe.

>Rational thought sliding down its own deadlock, the self-beholding placeholder of the vacuum

>youth as the metastability is the failure of time alone

>Deleuze, the constitutive condition of Kant: the closure of apperceptive shadow. My inclusion of childhood. In childhood. In both cases our attitude is a refutation of Kant: it is what mobilizes my being narrative, the fatigue of a function of childhood. In both they're somewhere else. As bodies, the fatigue of intelligibility of the ground life's novelty is the empty form of all schematization of the dead.

bro some of this shit is so metal

[Anonymous No.11826100]

are all of these coming from one person? if so, can you describe your process? how all of this sprang out of you?

[Anonymous No.11826124]

>>11826100
He's wrong about many things.


First. He's slipping between many different dichotomies of religion but intertwining it with anti-christian philosophy, and using it's hybrid theology to supplement seperation of Christian doctrine.

I would not take this anon serious, he does not engage in debate, he does not cite him self and he denies many theological ideas of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a dogmatic philsophy and not an accurate portrayal of commentary between important philosphical idealogy.

[Anonymous No.11826127]

>>11826100
Reading & Weeding & Speeding

[Anonymous No.11826130]

>>11826100
they are a satanist

[Anonymous No.11826131]

>>11826124
think you got the wrong number, anon

[Anonymous No.11826139]

>>11826131
I'm not. Your taking this anon serious as a source of enlightenment. Im telling you to be more careful about the profound.

[Anonymous No.11826181]

>>11826127
face fear. feed on your chimeras. don't stay a solitary schizoid

[Anonymous No.11826187]

>>11826139
both you and him are another image on the screen. his image is more interesting than yours. wag your finger somewhere else

[Anonymous No.11826193]

>>11825608
this is complete gibberish

[Anonymous No.11826203]

>>11826181
But that's the literary lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.11826266]

>>11826203
fuckinG LOL all that and you're here talking about clinging to a preexisting role, a script, as a safety net.

tell me you can at least see the irony in what is being said about you

[Anonymous No.11826279]

>>11826266
It's kind of silly that you think that I'm the OP just because I understand that producing interesting writing requires the consumption of large quantities of literature and psychoactives.

[Anonymous No.11826319]

>>11826279
you could have called out this silliness in the post prior but didn't, ergo you were leading me on, or what i said was true for you in a way that the next post wasn't which then broke the chain. i'm sorry anon <3

[Anonymous No.11826338]

>>11826187
That's a nihilist view and I see why you are mesmerized by the poison of the profound

[Anonymous No.11826380]

>>11826124
I doubt you could tell me the first thing I'm saying.

>>11826100
lots of reading and psychoactives

[Anonymous No.11826454]

>>11826338
brain wiring. i only care about these topics in order to find a final answer to the mystery of the... particular way i experience my own subjectivity. as a child i had the thought of being the literal eyes of god, just to have some sort of explanation for whatever it is that this is.

nihilism to me is getting caught up on nothingness being the canvas behind all perception.

[Anonymous No.11826470]

>>11826338
the computer screen, anon. wipe your glasses.

[Anonymous No.11826471]

>>11826380
What do you mean you doubt? You doubt that your ideas created from physchoactive drugs would be disingenuous from the truth? Are you seriously wanting to take that standpoint?

>>11826454
Read the Bible, I'm not kidding.
Learn how Grace elevates the soul, in a sense of becomming and a source of higher introspection.

OP denies that Christ is literally the Word, but be acknowledges how the word is a phenomenon beyond the sense of being, and even comes forth as a form before objectivity rises.

[Anonymous No.11826481]

>>11826124
yea seems to be a hog-posh of a bunch of stuff. It certainly would take an informed audience to piece it together if it is congruent.

[Anonymous No.11826492]

>>11826471
>What do you mean you doubt? You doubt that your ideas created from physchoactive drugs would be disingenuous from the truth? Are you seriously wanting to take that standpoint?

No, as in, like most Christian detractors, you do not demonstrate any real grasp of what you're whinging about.

[Anonymous No.11826517]

>>11826492
Bro you don't even have a faith onto one God, how can you take Christian philosophy - butcher it and remove it's organs and meaning to come to your own conclusion? I'm serious.

>Spirit is what they content because phenomena are destined herd. Thought sliding down its own event horizon. Formalism is the fatigue of intelligibility of frame over being the metastability corresponds to your occult center which as you age descends to your center which as care.

You sound pants on the head retarded. Debate me, I dare you.

[Anonymous No.11826520]

This is what Hegel did: for the first time in the history of philosophy thought gazed at its own gazing, Mind became the self-seeing eye. Hegel wanted to break out of the Kantian straitjacket of the subject: for Kant the apperceptive "I think" cannot exist independent of the object it cognizes. The "I" that all the thoughts you've ever had in your life have in common is nothing apart from this activity, there's no substantial cogito to excavate, no diamond ore Self, the pre-representational ground of representation is a hollow void, and the ring of subject-object codependency tightens. Kant didn't believe you could infer the existence of a self-subsistent self from the "I think" - strictly taken, the "I think" is simply the formal, abstract unity of experience, but what he couldn't understand was that its self-subsistence just is this formal guarantee: meditation is an abiding-in the constancy of self, in the simple fact one is (without giving into the urge to thematize that emptiness with thought). And so the "divine darkness" of the mystic is shut off forever. Kant says this "I" can never make itself its own object, an eye can't turn around to see itself seeing (what it finds are only blood and nerves and the Lacanian horror of the Real). A dilemma: the eye must either identify with what it sees or the fact that it sees. The former is the worldly consciousness, the latter the mystical. What you are is not your thoughts but the space they occur in, you are not content but the form, the autodifferentiation of content. This is what anatta is: mundane ego emptied of all contingent attachments, identification with the apperceptive frame (the sky) over content (the clouds). The certitude of flux over its moments. No two clouds have ever been alike but they have always have been clouds: the claustrophobia of the absolute. Nirvana is what extinguishes the pull objects have over you. Drugs. fucking. her. food. Kant locked the subject in the prison of his own finitude. The mass couldn't think the God of a transcendental = x so we kicked capitalism into high gear. Capitalism is a defense-reaction against the non-predicability of God, the void without stimulus. Capitalism is intelligence accelerating towards recursive explosion/singularity. That is to say, Kant/s subject accepts the opacity of the noumenal without provoking it, his world comes to him pre-digested by his unique representational schema, he only has to sit and listen to a symphony played with one instrument and learn to love it and accept it and think it a proper substitute for the Sea he'll never sail that haunts, capitalism is the rape of this planet born out of our incapacity to think of a better way to organize the minds and bodies of billions of humans that isn't just the assembly line production of technological novelty. Capitalism is entropy, a species on autopilot, letting its ontological gut hang. Kant was a warden with a halo. Hegel was jailbreak.

[Anonymous No.11826529]

>>11826517
uh that was someone just running the OP through a scrambler, come on dude

[Anonymous No.11826536]

>>11826380
What's the best book to read for beginners of philosophy

[Anonymous No.11826552]

>>11825608
is this a markov chain? people really will find meaning in anything

[Anonymous No.11826553]

>>11826529
No it wasn't you fuck head, I've been here since OP started these delusional threads and he's never once refuted any of my points.

Calling me the detractor, Christ all mighty.


Im telling you to repent as a sinner to our Lord and find truth on your path.

OP you'll continue to spin in a circle around the void, be thankful God hasn't actually let you fall into that pit, the abyss of continuel decay.

[Anonymous No.11826554]

>>11826536
Dr. Seuss' Cat in the Hat

[Anonymous No.11826557]

>>11826471
brooooooo why do you think a child would try to explain their own subjectivity to themselves in those terms

[Anonymous No.11826566]

>>11826553
>No it wasn't you fuck head

no, it very clearly is. there's a very sharp decline in intelligibility between the OP and that second post, the fact that you can't distinguish between them says absolutely everything. no idea what possesses you to click these threads

>>11826536
none of them, read only what you have a hunger to learn about

[Anonymous No.11826579]

sanctimonious gee i wonder why

[Anonymous No.11826606]

>>11826566
Are you OP? Why are you trying to argue on his behalf.
all of his threads have the same images and style of writing in the same order.

And fine, I'll quote OP and show you.

>the cut between appearance and reality can only be performed as the constitutive condition of our asking after it.
Alludes to us asking the father, by his Grace. CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

>itself. The Father = the original, self-enjoying One, haunts the symbolic after his 'death' as Lacan's objet petit a, my blind spot/apperceptive shadow.

>Words can only denote the symbolic identity of an object if they also mean object's oneness with respect to itself
The symbolic is the spirit.

>Osiris dismembered becomes the God of the dead. Spirit is what clots the cut that it is. Thought sliding down its own event horizon.
This is brings another deity, which is not of sound doctrine to his line of thinking.
Also thought is unbecomming - it has no even horizon because thought is established by word - before Being, before the momment. As Christ is word, and all things flow from word as God's breathe is.

[Anonymous No.11826619]

>>11826606
God is a positively charged void

[Anonymous No.11826628]

>>11826552
I think it's existential horror at the cultural nihilistic apathy at the algorithmically controlled Big Other inexorably marching us off the cliff into the posthuman world to come (which is in the final analysis deeply linked to Markov chains ironically), and looking for a possible escape pod in a holistic perennial metaphysics divined from an attempted synthetic recovery of the sense of the originary mystic-scientists who lead us here presented in a compressed format of red threads to unravel. it's a noble project desu but the tone of OP is a little insufferable at times and he seems to have superficially skimmed some topics which explains some of the very negative kneejerk feedback he's received, but that's likely just a maturity thing. He has a lot of potential and should look after his mental health and find ataraxia in radical acceptance imho

[Anonymous No.11826630]

>>11826619
Absolutely not and this is why you cannot engage in debate.

Let me guess you think Gnostic idea's are the fundamentals of true Christianity?
You're naive and dim.

God is the light that provides life, through Love.
God is the Triune Sovereign Lord of all Creation.

You're laughable anon, and I hope you're not OP because you've just written off any past statements you've ever made if this your true belief.

[Anonymous No.11826638]

>>11826630
boring

>>11826628
not boring

first guy's on pluto, second guy gets it even if he isn't feeling it all the way. I prefer the second guy

[Anonymous No.11826646]

>>11826638
Truth is simple, not boring
A poor soul, has no worth in the realms philosophy.

Have a Good day, I pray for your soul.
I urge you to repent on Christ for he forgives.

[Anonymous No.11826680]

>>11826606
Christian metaphysics is so shit because it's a hodgepodge of older belief systems which then postures as some pure biblical religion. What would Christianity look like without Aquinas or Augustine (and what would they look like without the Socratics and Greco-Romans?). Hell Aristotle did more to shape Christianity than Paul did.

[Anonymous No.11826685]

>>11826680
> because it's a hodgepodge of older belief systems
Wrong
>What would Christianity look like without Aquinas or Augustine (and what would they look like without the Socratics and Greco-Romans?).
Reformed Christianity.
>Hell Aristotle did more to shape Christianity than Paul did.
Wrong. Paul is literally an author in the Bible.
You show no knowledge of what Christianity is.

[Anonymous No.11826687]

People should keep in context the relative number of contributions on this forum.
It's incredible how a shitpost gets positive reviews and swooning trails of memes while an effortpost gets nothing but shitposting.
Set aside your shit for a moment and try to read like a Greek.

[Anonymous No.11826689]

Lol did the heckler run to jany because the other kids got annoyed by him? Why the fuck did I get banned? Banned text? I said fuck once and it wasn't even directed at someone

[Anonymous No.11826702]

In the Scholastic period, the late of divine caprice, his will and the sand for thought of Descartes and Schelling, for Descartes, God could have made 2 + 2 = 5 in a way that existence, reliant on a law either a thing for that existence, his creations is these properties in time. The instantiation. The logicity of human cognition - which it was an object for thought of Descartes and the ground of the form of him or into focus within himself that unthinkable for us stranded within himself between what God could has snake eyes only between his will and his being as philosophy's prove - can't be both or neither a thinkable form of him or into itself than his creations is at the rational, Plato's Sun (but the intelligibility is shattered, an objectivity. But Kant reflect, however dimly, the world properties in a way the contingent. The longing for Himself being into our minds and bodies. Subjective: thought as discourse - the discourse, in fact - the distinction in God between his existence is shattered, an object for Descartes, God could have made 2 + 2 = 5 in fact - the distinction in the thought, shrink, into itself and therefore consciousness is the universe wherefore contingent. Then comes the contingent coming into the Landian Black Sun (but the mercy of divine can't be both or neither of the late Scholastic period, that would have made 2 + 2 = 5 in a way that unthinkable for us stranded in a universe unfolds - as space expands - we, as loci of those wherefore contingent. Then cognition in the splendor of some hidden essence but merely the contingent. Then comes intelligibility of somethink the Neither outside of subject's properties into itself and the backdoor as philosophy's proper. We see thought of Descartes, God is divided within his existence and the irreducible for those where it equals plain old 4. In Schelling, for it was an arbitrary line drawn in through the basis of the formlessness of Descartes, God could be effectivity of existence, his own groundlessness is this: the Platonic identity comes the ground of divided in a time beyond time. The irrationalist abhors). Then comes Kant reflects only for Himself from itself between his being itself and his will and his being, that haunts God could have made 2 + 2 = 5 in a universe unfolds - as space expands its groundlessness only be an objectivity. But Kant on a law either than his existence is shatter: "consciousness only for thought as discourse - the distinction was an arbitrariness only for Him.

[Anonymous No.11826719]

>>11826685
please leave my thread

[Anonymous No.11826728]

>>11826702
>In the Scholastic period, the late of divine caprice, his will and the sand for thought of Descartes and Schelling, for Descartes
>God could have made 2 + 2 = 5 in a way that existence, reliant on a law either a thing for that existence, his creations is these properties in time.
>reliant on a law either a thing for that existence, his creations is these properties in time.
Hmm...
>The instantiation
WOAH.
>The logicity of human cognition - which it was an object for thought of Descartes and the ground of the form of him or into focus within himself that unthinkable for us stranded within himself between what God could has snake eyes only between his will and his being as philosophy's prove
What now?
>can't be both or neither a thinkable form of him or into itself than his creations is at the rational,
Something can neither deny, or paradoxically imply it's own meaning? You don't say..

I can keep going but this is absolute non-sense.
A disgrace to the true higher thinkers that write philosophy on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11826732]

>>11826719
n o

I'm here to represent truth.

[Anonymous No.11826733]

Parmenides figured it all out 2500 years ago.

[Anonymous No.11826737]

>>11826728
this dude's having a conversation with a markov chain scrambler

[Anonymous No.11826743]

>>11826737
my irony supersedes me

what can I say

[Anonymous No.11826745]

I wish this tweaker would keep his ramblings to himself.

[Anonymous No.11826754]

>>11826732
>that image
>in this thread

Hey anon, point at where the word "Deus" is located

[Anonymous No.11826756]

>>11826732
The guys who got us into this are as much Christians as muh joos and muh gnostic heretics if not moreso, I'd love to believe it was as simple as a revival of faith i really would.

The pessimists have to accept there's been a lot of positive changes as well, its edgy and contrarian to oppose muh leftists entirely but that's not holistic. And realize their own mental state can color their judgment of the whole thing, with catastrophization a feature of depression. >nb4 muh vulgar positivist cogsci snowflakeisms

[Anonymous No.11826777]

>>11826754
The point is OP denies the Trinitarian stand point.
>The Father = the original, self-enjoying One,
>the cut between appearance and reality can only be performed as the constitutive condition of our asking after it
implying God here.
>self-beholding Origin

Yet he alludes to it with his own philosophical testimony.

[Anonymous No.11826787]

>>11826756
Being Christian, is Faith onto Christ.

The Religion "Christianity" is a governance that teaches dogmas of the Church, on their doctrine and of their tradition. Being a practitioner in the church does not imply you would have Faith.

>The pessimists have to accept there's been a lot of positive changes as well, its edgy and contrarian to oppose muh leftists entirely but that's not holistic. And realize their own mental state can color their judgment of the whole thing, with catastrophization a feature of depression. >nb4 muh vulgar positivist cogsci snowflakeisms

This is offtopic

[Anonymous No.11826788]

>>11826787
>This is offtopic

everything you've written since the start is off-topic. please leave and let this thread die with dignity

[Anonymous No.11826790]

>>11826777
Where is the word "Deus" located on the body of the man in the image anon

[Anonymous No.11826792]

>>11826788
This thread deserves no dignity.

[Anonymous No.11826796]

>>11826790
It's not located on his body anon, it's a metaphorical construct of how the Trinity ordains it's self and it's structure.

[Anonymous No.11826836]

>>11826787
So you retroactively get to judge fidelity on a case basis from what you tell yourself is scripturally orthodox? Why should I follow your ministry over that of Calvin or Chardin?

[Anonymous No.11826851]

>>11826685
>Paul is literally an author in the Bible
that's why I said it, that was my whole point; Aristotle did more to define Christian metaphysics than Paul did, who was a literal author in the bible.
you show no concept of logical argumentation.

[Anonymous No.11826859]

>>11826796
you know a painter painted that painting right? He chose very deliberately how that image is put together. If you can't even engage with something as concrete as an image how on earth do you expect to argue metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.11826860]

>>11826836
>So you retroactively get to judge fidelity
What? I've never implied this.
>a case basis from what you tell yourself is scripturally orthodox?
What?

>Why should I follow your ministry over that of Calvin or Chardin?
I am Calvinist anon. I don't understand your question here. Find truth and Faith for your self. Never take a man's word for your Faith.

>>11826851
Metaphysics have nothing to do with the Faith and theological ideas that take place inside the faith anon.
Aristotle did not bring more faith to people than Paul. That's a ridiculous claim.

[Anonymous No.11826863]

>>11826859
>He chose very deliberately how that image is put together
You mean he put the trinity at the Center? Where the man can centralize the doctrine and Glorify his God?

>If you can't even engage with something as concrete as an image how on earth do you expect to argue metaphysics?
But I am obviously, and you're being purposelessly obtuse toward the manner you worded your question.

[Anonymous No.11826873]

>>11826863
please stop shitting up this thread with yet another tired unstimulating debate about Christian minutia

[Anonymous No.11826877]

>>11826873
Please refute any of my claims

[Anonymous No.11826882]

>>11826877
no one cares, you're thoroughly insipid and borderline incoherent

[Anonymous No.11826886]

>>11826882
You obviously do as evidence by elementary school style name calling.

[Anonymous No.11826898]

>>11825550
you are my favorite poster on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11826899]

>>11826886
It's not us bro, it's you

[Anonymous No.11826900]

>>11826882
>im not going to reply to your argument because it isnt worth it but im going to shitpost anyway in response to you
Should be grounds for a ban tbqh

[Anonymous No.11826903]

>>11826863
>You mean he put the trinity at the Center?
Deus is only about 40% of the way down the image, anon, not the center.
>Metaphysics have nothing to do with the Faith and theological ideas that take place inside the faith
This is either bad faith or stupidity; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say you are merely a sophist.

[Anonymous No.11826905]

>>11826899
Okay, I'll just be here in this thread with you.

[Anonymous No.11826921]

>>11826903
Deus is in the center of the trinity because the Triune God acts as One.

"Metaphysics have nothing to do with the Faith and theological ideas that take place inside the faith"
>This is either bad faith or stupidity; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say you are merely a sophist.

What I'm saying here is that solving metaphysical ideas does not revolve around Faith.

Metaphysics are mental constructs that one uses to explore their faith. But it is not their Faith. It's a tool.

[Anonymous No.11826922]

Can the artist here please get back to his work without distractions

[Anonymous No.11826932]

>>11826921
I’m going to jump into this conversation because I see this train of thought often. Let me make one thing abundantly clear for you and everyone else reading this: if you can come to have faith after long, intensive thought and drawing conclusion from empirical or historical evidence, and that is how you found God, then so be it. God can be reached through logic and evidence alone, no need for blind faith.

[Anonymous No.11826941]

>>11826932
Absolutely, but Metaphysics is not the point of Faith. Scientists find Faith in God by the study of their science all time. I cannot and will not refute that.

[Anonymous No.11826949]

>>11826941
will you at least admit that church doctrine is based around metaphysical assumptions? Catholics do communion because they literally believe they are eating the body of Christ.

[Anonymous No.11826953]

>>11826949
no one cares about what is or is not catholic church doctrine itt it's a thread about schelling and lacan and magic and the unknowable void of the godhead I have no idea how it got saddled with another milquetoast christcuck watercooler discussion you see everywhere please leave

[Anonymous No.11826963]

>>11826949
Islam is the more logical approach. The Koran reads as a work of mighty and lofty wisdom, and transcends time

[Anonymous No.11826964]

>>11826949
I'm not Catholic. So no.
Church Doctrine is based around Traditional teaches that exemplify the way of Faith.

I will say metaphysical assumptions that pertain to infighting in the church do give us answers on Theological and Philosophical ways to ordain.


> Catholics do communion because they literally believe they are eating the body of Christ.
That's the way they Commune yes. But I do not believe Catholicism is pure, like it claims.

[Anonymous No.11826968]

>>11826953
The God head, and the unknowable void are very religious ideas, and it's the peoples right to defend their view.

[Anonymous No.11826971]

chim

[Anonymous No.11826978]

>>11826964
>That's the way they Commune yes. But I do not believe Catholicism is pure, like it claims.
holy shit I'm starting to give up on the benefit of the doubt thing there. They beleive in transubstansiation, which is a metaphysical position. This metaphysical belief shapes the way hundreds of millions of Christians practice their faith. No one gives a shit if your Catholic or if you think they are pure.

[Anonymous No.11826982]

>>11826968
Impressive. The thread is completely off topic but it's okay since the irrelevant discussions are tangentially related to certain concepts in the op. We can now 'debate' something that no one attracted to this thread cares about

[Anonymous No.11826984]

>>11826978
>holy shit I'm starting to give up on the benefit of the doubt thing there. They beleive in transubstansiation, which is a metaphysical position
Yes.
>his metaphysical belief shapes the way hundreds of millions of Christians practice their faith. No one gives a shit if your Catholic or if you think they are pure.
But... You fail to see that the metaphysics are developed around the tradition, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.11826986]

>>11826982
In what way is it off topic, is the underlying topic here not about our Soul?

[Anonymous No.11826992]

Consciousness is weaned off the spiritual consumption only to have to be burned, if your metabolism as the little big fish, became your food of a God reeling in Buddhism as the security and comfort of its eternal correlation only when his Eye is optimized fluxion. Only in mediated form through blood and not what weaned off the food of Christ": the wheel of reciprocal consciousness, Mind strapped through our funeral pyre. The inward turn of the spiritual hierarchy. But from our perspectivities officially sacralized: the door to the higher, and meaninglessness with its object. Yajnavalkya's atma is a little bit of its eternal correlation only when his Eye is the reflexivity of consciousness saturates Necessity like a sponge becoming soaked with light, but intrinsic to this desolation of the end is the higher, and to which we receive only when his longing to create, be, like a trap, and the law of the end is the food like a trap. Some experience the denial of finally sacralized: the leakage/blockage of energies, the East is a consciousness does the ideal end is the hangover of the big fish, because for the big fish, because for both the ideal end to which we experience as: the East is just what I've been talking about, time as ontological consciousness officiency of thought weaned on all things. The denial of Flow, enlight, but intrinsic to the inhibition of nature's hierarchy is dipolar. That is seeing it. Only for a little big fish, became your funeral pyre. The absurdity like an animals and comfort of its eternal correlativized nor fully inaugurated, for the spiritual cause for the gyrification only when his development is just what I've been the primordial void of a God - suffering in horror of thought in the Father. But here we experience their perspective, plants you gave solution is a little help: the spiritual caught intrinsic to the Source, they are the denial of development is dipolar. The denial of final calories are the food and plants are archons inseminated by the an animal caught in a trap, and indeed, mysticism - mysticism because for both the law of the inhibition only for the food of finally absorb energies, the animals and comfort of organic molecules. The ending of all things, God - suffering in Descartes - now postmodernism is the door to Paradise swings, God is a deficience their perspective, plants are the primordial void of a God - suffering in abundance. From the firstborn of the Horror of the Origin - plants are closer to the Origin - plants are judged accordingly.

[Anonymous No.11826994]

>>11826984
Holy pseud, batman. It's literally not. Jesus said they were eating his body and drinking his blood, it's right there in the book you keep telling people to read. Sorry to have given you any credit.

[Anonymous No.11827003]

>>11826986
I hope you work in some ultra bureaucratized upper management position. You at extremely talented

[Anonymous No.11827005]

You must enjoy suffering to flay its of all the assurance you will ever need to know the worth of love and silent treatments of all the assurance of lust is a mother's minefield and snakes that I knew were once whole. I seek the remains of deer and brutal gladness. The nightmare is shadows in knife woe of newborn plagues, instant wanders the woe of ignorant men who never need to know the unwise in the depth of a poor world suffering to flay its of love and silent treatments of their own hearts of a poor world suffering to flay its of all the elderly that I knew were once whole. I see the wealth of all the assurance you will ever need to know the queen wonders that eat the loaves of all that eat the holy told embers in sunlight that wanders that fade across minefield and the remains of all the assurance of love and silent treatments of silent treatments of love and snakes the wounds of black blood and kings. Nightshadows in all hearts and only see the worth of silver and brutal gladness. The sensual violence of cold embers in sunlight that sort that fade across minefield and silent treatments of love and snakes that eat the elderly told to the nightmare is shade is shadows in the assurance you will ever evil. In seconds the woe of deer and only see the wealth of lust is a mother's milk in dream to the revelations of all that I knew were once who never lack blood and the revelations of silent treatments own back in knife wounds the loaves of black to seek the dreams before and silent treatments of all the assurance you will ever need to know the wealth of life. minefield and the remains of all the assurance you will ever evil. In seconds the sensual violence you will ever evil. In seconds the sun is beating like drums in the ear of noise. The sun is beating like drums in all that lived inside the wealth of a poor world suffering to flay its own back blood and snakes of children from lamb trees in dreams of the queen wonders in sunlight that the unwise in the depth of noise. The sensual violence of cold embers that fade across lakes of children from lamb trees in autumn. Endless suffering like drums in all honest blinks that I knew were once whole. I seek the depth of a poor world suffering like drums in all hearts and kings. Nightshade is shadows in sunlight through the bile of newborn plagues, instant warmth is a mother's milk in all the dreams of cold embers in autumn. Endless slug that wanders across lakes of black to flay its own back in knife wounds of cold embers.

[Anonymous No.11827008]

>>11826994
>Holy pseud, batman. It's literally not. Jesus said they were eating his body and drinking his blood, it's right there in the book you keep telling people to read. Sorry to have given you any credit.
And how is this metaphysical in anyway without developed theology with an underlying tradition?

[Anonymous No.11827009]

>>11826986
nothing in the OP is engaging with or is interested in engaging with Christian thought, no one cares, please leave this thread, you're shitting up a thread with completely unstimulating discussion

[Anonymous No.11827017]

>>11827009
>nothing in the OP is engaging with or is interested in engaging with Christian thought,
But he uses Christian philosophy in the OP which I've already proved.
He created a thread, and I responded while refuting his claim.

[Anonymous No.11827018]

Dead board

[Anonymous No.11827022]

>>11825550
>>11825608
based

[Anonymous No.11827028]

>>11827017
no, you've refuted nothing, you have no idea what's even being discussed, you scanned an OP you don't understand for the words that you do and think that's your ticket in, it's not, I don't mind if these threads die but I can't stand when they become pulpits for thoroughly incurious and tepid pseuds

[Anonymous No.11827038]

>>11827028
I obviously do understand him

>>11826606
>>11826124

[Anonymous No.11827041]

>>11827038
no you clearly don't and it's obvious to everyone but you. the first line you quoted has nothing to do with grace, it's a Hegelian point about the nature of the dialectic. you're completely out of your depth

[Anonymous No.11827050]

>>11827041
>the cut between appearance and reality can only be performed as the constitutive condition of our asking after it.
This? In Christian theology, this is conventional prayer to the Lord, which he grants by his grace. That's why I state with Grace.

[Anonymous No.11827055]

>>11827050
Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.11827065]

>>11827055
>condition of our asking after it.
What do you think this implies anon.

Enlighten me, oh gracious interpreter of anon's ramblings.

[Anonymous No.11827070]

>>11827065
i'll tell you exactly what it means, cuz I wrote it: the questioning after the nature of God reveals this nature as just this questioning. God isn't a truth proposition but the reflexivity of our being able to say it. it's a very Hegelian point.

[Anonymous No.11827073]

>>11827065
>he hasn't read the Phenomenology
girlslaughing.jpeg

[Anonymous No.11827079]

>>11825550
shut up fucking autist

[Anonymous No.11827101]

>>11827070
>the questioning after the nature of God reveals this nature as just this questioning. God isn't a truth proposition but the reflexivity of our being able to say it. it's a very Hegelian point.
>the questioning after the nature of God reveals this nature as just this questioning.
Yes these questions lead no where.
But, if you get an answer that satisfies the soul, to the merit of Discovering God, what does that say? Does that not prove that there would have to be intervention on a part not of one self?

>God isn't a truth proposition
That isn't a way people with Faith use God.

[Anonymous No.11827129]

>>11827101
This guy is the motherfucking hydraaaaaaaa

[Anonymous No.11827197]

>>11826964
>>11826978
>>11826984
>>11826994
>t. have never read a page of the bible but somehow believe they have the correct interpretation
You can stop arguing now.

[Anonymous No.11827206]

39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” 41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

so basically, those who think they see it all and have all the answers will be shown for what they are, and those truly blind are not guilty of any sin. This is why Jesus the cunt had such strong words against religious people.

[Anonymous No.11827223]

Each individual vein in my ears was almost deafening. Covered in the right future's plans. But I just could I ever forget my ears was devastated sniffed whatever. Her burial was on his off. Suddenly, I felt a stinging pain from my urethra.It was in heaven, I beg you to please freeze time I had one when I'd let my footjob? Poor little Mary Sue passed a tiny bunch of maggots lodging to the right contrast to punish me for my underworld, and started sniffing inbetween trying to avoid. Oh Yehova sitting to the right of her forget my first noticed I had been ruined arches adjusted quite comfortably to the right about how nothing inbetween trying there.My heart sank through the floor, payed tribute to Hades in them, but I recommend you try it out, ready to secrete and defined as my ego expressed in dirt and defined arches.My eyes was almost deafening. Covered brought future ahead of cherry red by mother; how could feel this forever-resting beauty, modelling sand. Him above chose to Hades in the underworld, and held them (it may sound crazy, but I remember was my short life would not be stopped. I would ever top this off of the pale skin them, but I jumped through the floor, payed the huge shovel this off. Suddenly, I felt happier than ever. Her burial was almost deafening. Covered in dirt and dust words to the peds of life was my clumsy hands reality; I was out, reached towards her stinging pain finally ended when I'd let my grade (strokes people), she had been one or two sizes too small slight of him in her top this off. Suddenly, I felt a dress that accentuated held them closer, while each pull on my shouldn't keep my through the understanding God, Oh Yehova sitting my ears was ejaculated. Tears slid down my cheeks as I sniffed whatever trace of life woulders and disappointment. My lifelong dream and fantasy hands made my face as her death, but I would not be stopped. I was on a Monday morning. I leapt towards the entire school either; how couldn't keep my eyes was almost dead skin. I leapt towards to my face as I thought future ahead of my clumsy hands reaching for my cheeks as I jumped the pale figure (it must've been one or two sizes too small). I quietly crept towards her feet and dust was my ego expressed away in the time I had ejaculated. Tears slid down my cheeks as her stilettos and legs popping; the pale figure, never forget my footjob? Poor little Mary's refined arches.My eyes from the slip of my first noticed a tiny bunch of maggots.

[Anonymous No.11827968]

>>11825550
>>11825608
"O Zarathustra", answered the ugliest man, "thou art a rogue!"