/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14512762]

Can someone tell me who refuted Aquinas and every form of intellectual Christian thought please? I can't stop crying. I really miss having fun and masturbating and having no morality and doing crazy stuff but I'm too scared of hell now. Please tell me who refuted him. I'm not joking.

[Anonymous No.14512774]

Atheists like to say they've refuted Aquinas, but they basically have just decided to ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.14512777]

The other fat man

[Anonymous No.14512802]

>Aquinas
Lmao at anglo retarded translations

[Anonymous No.14512807]

>>14512762
>scared of imaginary places
Never gonna make it.
>>14512774
>"atheists ignore scholar who believed in Sky Man"
Never gonna make it.

>"wash your penis as if God exists"
This guy is on to something.

[Anonymous No.14512827]

>>14512807
Based atheist

[Anonymous No.14512863]

>>14512762
>is fat
He retroactively refutes himself, anon.

[Anonymous No.14512880]

Just relax and confess your sins to a priest. Jesus was a gigachad and he promised everlasting life.

[Anonymous No.14512892]

>>14512807
>never gonna make it

make it where exactly

[Anonymous No.14512907]

Bro, what if... hear me out here, what if there isn't a hell?
-An equally weighted "reasonable" take

All talk of religion boils down to subjective make believe. Get to a makin me believe you aren't a worthless faggot, anon. Don't waste your energy fussing over what is beyond your awareness. Also don't be a pussy who hedges his bets. You aren't fooling anyone, and a god that accepts pussies isn't worth serving anyway.

[Anonymous No.14512944]

>>14512762
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman

tldr: Jesus was just a dumbass and/or schizo who thought the world would end in his lifetime.

[Anonymous No.14512961]

>>14512762
The Amazing Atheist completely rekt'd Aquinas arguments forever.

[Anonymous No.14512981]

>>14512762
“The glory of God is a man fully alive,” so wrote St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century AD. And in what context did he write? In defense of the Apostolic faith that was under attack by the Gnostics, those who claimed to have the definitive, intellectual knowledge of how the world really works.

[Anonymous No.14512990]

>>14512944
If Jesus literally rose from the dead then everything He said in the Gospels is true.

[Anonymous No.14513011]

>>14512944
his prophecies are real in three ways
1) they came true for the Second Temple
2) they come true for every man when he dies
3) they will come true for the world when He returns

[Anonymous No.14513101]

>>14512892
to Hell

[Anonymous No.14513107]

>>14513101
basado

[Anonymous No.14513108]

>>14512990
There's no real evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

>>14513011
Predictable, canned cope.

[Anonymous No.14513122]

>>14513108
>cherrypicks just part of the information to justify your viewpoint
Historians are dishonest retards who believe their hobby is an objective science.

[Anonymous No.14513170]

>>14512762
Shankara proactively refuted Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.14513262]

>>14512762
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is the answer you're looking for

[Anonymous No.14513276]

>>14512762
Aquinas didn't prove Christianity is true . You can't prove Jesus died for our sins and is God.

[Anonymous No.14513292]

>>14512990
He didn't really die, he just had a weak heartbeat. Succulent algae grew inside his cave, hydrating him and nourishing him back to health. He was braindamaged when he woke (hypoxia).

[Anonymous No.14513301]

>>14512762
He's just as valid as pretty much any other intelligent and well spoken religious scholar. Don't hold yourself to any one religion.
If you're gonna be spiritual then go all the way my man. Buddhism, Shinto, Christianity, fuck it whatever. Don't think that one religion has everything figured out.
If you end up in hell at the end then whatever god was real wasn't worth the effort to worship.

[CHADICUS WRECKS: MK ULTIMATUM,(...) No.14513314]

>>14512777
LOL DAMN HE S RIGHT THO

>>14512762
cant you fucking read?
JUST NOT YET

[Anonymous No.14513370]

>>14512990
Jesus died. Someone claiming to be Jesus said it was him then dipped when the prank got old.

[Anonymous No.14513513]

Daily reminder that Thomists REFUSE to apply the principle of sufficient reason to free will because they only like it when it helps them build cosmological proofs, not when it refutes Christian doctrine.

[Anonymous No.14513522]

>>14512762
Aquinas didn't prove hell by philosophy it is held by faith alone.

[Anonymous No.14513533]

>>14513262
Yes but Kant (pbuh) in his near infinite wisdom gave an even sturdier proof of the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.14513540]

>>14513170
>Nordic white boys appropriating Eastern philosophy written by brown Indians because they had no important contributions to wider culture of their own

[Anonymous No.14513546]

>>14513301
Every pyramid goes up to a single point.
For me, it's Truth. That puts me pretty squarely in the Christian tradition.

[Anonymous No.14513556]

>>14512762
Kant refuted everything Aquinas had to say about God (and in general, ANY speculative judgement on ANY sort of necessary entity). Now, if you genuinely have faith in the Holy Scriptures that won't change a thing for you. If instead you were just persuaded by Aquinas' rational arguments, then it is time to get familiar with the Critique of Pure Reason.

[Anonymous No.14513559]

>>14512907
Based Eriugena preemptively BTFO'd St. Thomas

[Anonymous No.14513575]

>>14513556
>Kant refuted everything
Kant was himself retroactively refuted by Shaykh Réné Guénon (peace be upon him).

[Anonymous No.14513587]

>>14513575
How, if I may ask? How did Guenon refute Kant's Trascendental Dialectics, especially the part concerning the determination of the concept of a necessary being?

[Anonymous No.14513599]

>>14512762
St Gregory Palamas refutes the t*mist in his dialogue with a barlaamite

[Anonymous No.14513605]

>>14512863
Fat people have more of the universe, meaning more of God, thus they're closer to perfection.

[Anonymous No.14513623]

>>14512762
Schopenhauer btfo all theologians who dressed as philosophers in the intro of "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason"

[Anonymous No.14513639]

>>14513546
But the perfect(divine) shape is the circle which has no point?

[Anonymous No.14514153]

Since Aquinas is getting brought up I want to mention I find his theory on werewolves interesting. He says demons can transmute flesh consistent with the Bible describing the staffs turning into snakes in Egypt. However, he says the soul can only be transmuted by God. Therefore, a werewolf would have full human agency and mind. Does /pol/ agree with this?

[Anonymous No.14514193]

Damascius Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles

[Anonymous No.14514456]

>>14514153
This is dumb dude. Your soul is not equivalent with your intellect in Christian theology, it’s like the Greek “animus”.

[Anonymous No.14514464]

>>14514456
You mean psyche

[Anonymous No.14514469]

>>14514464
You mean logos

[Anonymous No.14514687]

>>14512762
just like every religitard cherry picks from favourite their religious text, christian cherry pick from aquinas.
>muh proofs
>oh don't pay attention to all that stuff about literal witches on broomsticks and summoning demons even though they were written by the same person and stem from the same beliefs

[Anonymous No.14515226]

>>14512762
>I really miss having fun and masturbating and having no morality and doing crazy stuff but I'm too scared of hell now.
Truth is, you never understood him in the first place and are just a typical religious brainlet. If you understood what he wrote, you would realize the perils and the frivolity and uselessness behind recreational sexual acts, and you would further understand how lust induces an overarching control over the faculties of will, memory and intellect. You would have deduced their ill effects, out of some blind fear but with logic. Theologically, you remain at enmity with God because your will is corrupt to have its affections on these, and rightfully would still go to hell even if their non-use was maintained. You, as St. Augustine wrote, count your self unfortunate for suffering the loss of a miserable felicity.

I am the opposite of you. I do not believe in God, at all, yet still see merit in why such big brains as Aquinas set out to prove the deleterious, controlling, effects of lower passions.

[Anonymous No.14515276]

>>14514193
Can you explain exactly how it refutes Aquinas? I've seen you name drop it a few times but you never actually have anything interesting to say about it although I wish you did

[Anonymous No.14515293]

>>14513556
>>14513587
Guénon indeed is always refuting some of Kant's thoughts in his books. But Kant was also pointed to have many problems by Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. Jacobi also refuted him.

[Anonymous No.14515295]

>>14512762
Can anyone explain to me what argument is supposed to be convincing?

[Anonymous No.14515299]

>>14513122
>everyone who disagrees with me is a lying retard
christfags are so tedious

[Anonymous No.14515334]

>>14512907
>Don't waste your energy fussing over what is beyond your awarenes
If humans didn’t do this, we would die, since much of our action requires faith for practical purposes. You don’t know if the food you’re eating is poisoned, but you eat it anyway. You could go the “rational” route and be skeptical of everything but your own existence, but that would just lead to quick death.
>Also don't be a pussy who hedges his bets. You aren't fooling anyone, and a god that accepts pussies isn't worth serving anyway.
From someone like you who doesn’t think that it’s possible to actually believe, it might seem like it’s just a bet. But that’s not how it works. You’re supposed to seek true faith and gain it over time.

Deuteronomy 4:29
>But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
>You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.
Matthew 7:7-8
>Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Isaiah 55:6-7
>Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Lamentations 3:25
>The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

[Anonymous No.14515348]

>>14512990
That’s a poor inference. There’s no reason to suppose that people who rise from the dead can’t be mistaken about things or liars.

[Anonymous No.14515523]

>>14514687
Nothing wrong with that though? It’s like saying newton doesn’t count because of his crazy religious beliefs or that neetch doesn’t count because he thought semen reabsorbed into the blood if not expended. Just a typical narrow minded criticism to avoid exposing yourself to ideas, like calling some “crazy” or “racist” to instantly discredit them

[Anonymous No.14515531]

>>14515299
At least they fucking read something

[Anonymous No.14515583]

>>14512762
Rather than Aquinas, what destroys Christianity is the Bible. If it's false, the whole faith collapses no matter what some later philosophers worked out.

Read Ezekiel chapters 40-48. In those, the prophet Ezekiel (c. 593-550) receives a vision from God about the restoration of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Israel. In it, he sees a rebuilt Temple complete with sacrifices carried out by the priests, re-instated observance of jewish religious laws, and a line of kings descended from king David. Now, in Chrstian theology, the restoration of Israel is understood to mean the ministry and resurrection of Jesus, which are the beginning of the new covenant in which gentiles become members of Israel. For Christians, this ushers in a new covenant which gentiles can enter, where the sacrificial and legal obligations of the Old Testament are done away with (so no jewish priests!), and in which Jesus is the king as the heir of David. If you're reading closely, you can see the problem: Ezekiel prophecies a restoration of the old jewish religious system with a new line of jewish kings, while Christians (who believe Ezekiel was an inspired prophet) believe something totally different, that there is a new religious system in which there is only one immortal king, who also replaces the role of the priests (see the book of Hebrews). Christianity is totally incomplatible with scripture that it holds to be inspired by God. It is clearly incoherent.

[Anonymous No.14515622]

>>14515583

Yes...? This is why they hated and executed him.

[Anonymous No.14515631]

>>14515622
They didn't execute him because of Ezekiel. My post was about the internal inconsistency that the book of Ezekiel creates within Christianity.

[Anonymous No.14515635]

>>14515631

Yes.

[Anonymous No.14515652]

yet to be refuted:
>>14513605
>>14513605
>>14513605

[Anonymous No.14515660]

>>14512762
Start your journey by reading Robert Ingersoll's Some Mistakes by Moses.

[Anonymous No.14515705]

>>14515660
Also The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine is a good classic of religious scepticism.

[Anonymous No.14515719]

>>14515631
>>14515583
Why do you think the coming of a Messiah and the building of a prophecied Second Temple are opposed?

[Anonymous No.14515726]

>>14513170
most based

[Anonymous No.14515728]

>>14513605
>more
>more of God
Retroactively refuted by Guenon in "Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times".

[Anonymous No.14515742]

>>14515652
*sigh*
World =/= God
unless you are a pantheistic, not a Christian. Contrats, you got a (You)

[Anonymous No.14515749]

>>14513540
The ancient Aryans where white. The people who wrote the vedas were certainly part of a blond elite ruling over a dravidian subcontinent. The men who wrote the Vedas were obsessed with ways to prevent race-mixing, and implemented the caste system to minimize the damage from mixing. Even today the Brahmin caste is much lighter than the people around them.

Your post should read

>appropriating Eastern philosophy written by BLOND INVADERS FROM THE PONTIC STEPPE because they want to.

[Anonymous No.14515751]

>>14513533
Kant doesn't prove the existence of God, nor was that ever an intention of his

[Anonymous No.14515786]

>>14513540
>seethes and copes

You should tell that to the original white boys who appropriated an entire continent and invented all of Vedic culture.

[Anonymous No.14515790]

>>14515583
So the pharisees thought also, but lo--when they crucified Christ, their unholy temple did fall. Israel, by the deed of the High Priest, forfeited their inheritance. Ezekiel is a prophet, not a writer of law--therefore understand that he writes not of materials but of spirits. It is the Holy Ghost who reveals to him the coming of Christ. You read him poorly, for you seek contradiction. Read proverbs and gain wisdom, for as John says--let him who has wisdom understand.

[Anonymous No.14515799]

>>14515742
>Im the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[Anonymous No.14515806]

>>14515728
is there anything that book doesn't refute?

[Anonymous No.14515899]

>>14515806
Advaita, Sufism, Taoism

[Anonymous No.14515943]

>>14515799
WORD or WORLD? Kek

[Anonymous No.14516014]

>>14515719
It would be the third Temple, the second existed 515 BC to 70 AD. Ezekiel exlicitly prophecies that there will be restored sacrifices and observance of the Jewish law, which Jesus supposedly did away with.

>>14515790
That's not true, Ezekiel explicitly talks of material things, such as the physical dimensions of the new Temple (Ezekiel 40-42) and the need for physical circumcision to enter the Temple (Ezekilel 44:6-9), and Levitical priests descended from Zadok will administer to the Temple (Ezekiel 44:15-31).

This is totally at odds with the New Testament which says the new Temple isn't physical (Hebrews 9:6-14), that physical circumcision is no longer required (1 Corinthians 7:18-19), and that Jesus is the only (immortal) priest and that the Levitical priests have been done away with (Hebrews 4:14-5:10, 7:11-27).

Christian theology directly contradicts the earlier prophecies which the religion is supposed to fulfill.

[Anonymous No.14516091]

>>14515749
>Even today the Brahmin caste is much lighter than the people around them.
Lighter skin tone doesn't mean they are fucking Caucasians, you can see from their facial characteristics that they are obviously not Europeans. Just because a lot of them have lighter skin doesn't mean they used to be white Europeans a long time ago but they changed because of race mixing, that's completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.14516103]

>>14515786
Imagine being so convinced of the superiority of the white race that you make up imaginary invasions of whites in India to explain the caste system, Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.14516128]

>>14516103
>imaginary
you should try reading a book one of these days

[Anonymous No.14516137]

>>14516091
>>14516103
Ok. Then how did the Indo-European languages get to India? Obviously from the Aryan invasians. And where does the caste system come from? The Vedas that the Aryans wrote.

Imagine being so insecure about being Indian that you have to deny history.

[Anonymous No.14516171]

>>14516091
um.... is that a guy or a girl?
my dick is confused at that flat chest

[Anonymous No.14516195]

>>14512762
He doesn't need "refuting." Evidence of Hell=0. The concept of Hell=idiotic. Don't waste your time debating nonsense and fairy tales. There are few things more pathetic than people trying to pretend logic somehow proves their mythology.

[Anonymous No.14516202]

>>14516171
look at those fucking hands

[Anonymous No.14516210]

>>14516091
>see from their facial characteristics that they are obviously not Europeans.

Indians, Middle Easterners and Europeans are all Caucasians that differ through complexion. Denying this would be like saying Indonesians and Koreans are not both mongoloid. Yes they are all different from each other, but they have something in common. And the Aryan invasians are a real event in history. Why do you think Europeans and Indians speak languages belonging to the same fanily? The Aryans also invaded Europe and replaced the indigenous European languages.

[Anonymous No.14516230]

>>14512774
fpbp

>>14512762
No one yet. The only way anyone has "refuted" Aquinas is by addressing ridiculous shit like phenomenology (which is really just psychology that went on a walkabout) instead. And that entire movement has gone nowhere, because words mean things and we practice philosophy with them and not with obscure notions and unnatural invented jargon.

[Anonymous No.14516238]

>>14516014
Well, you got me there, as in Idk what to answer. There is a Wikipedia article I am checking bc of you. You could maybe give it a read.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Temple

[Anonymous No.14516239]

>>14516195
or by being a room temp IQ like this guy and just not knowing anything about the subject before dismissing it out of hand. this is honestly where most of philosophy and philosophers in recent centuries have failed.

[Anonymous No.14516245]

>>14512774
This

[Anonymous No.14516247]

>>14513292
Big if true. Describe the algea taste.

[Anonymous No.14516250]

>>14513101
based

[Anonymous No.14516253]

>>14516014
Jesus Christ is the third temple big dummy. He rebuilt it in three days when he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. That's how a Christian can erect an altar in their mind at a moments notice and pray to God and be heard without having do a barbecue or buy a goat just to set it loose or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14516260]

>>14516195
>The concept of Hell=idiotic
It makes perfect sense and would make this world actually tolerable.

[Anonymous No.14516274]

>>14516253
You haven't answered the issues. Ezekiel prophecies a physical third Temple, he's a canonical prophet, and Christianity totally contradicts him.

[Anonymous No.14516287]

>>14513262
Kant is the serious answer.

[Anonymous No.14516290]

>>14516274
>I don't believe this prophet, I believe that other prophet instead
very well, enjoy your Judaism I guess

[Anonymous No.14516297]

>>14516287
>>14513262
no, Kant ignored the possibility of metaphysics. he stuck his head in the sand and refused to engage with Aquinas. that is not refuting.

[Anonymous No.14516299]

>>14516260
An afterlife that would automatically condemn most humans to eternal suffering for not being raised in a specific area or family "makes perfect sense," does it? Unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.14516301]

>>14516290
>a future prophet can somehow explicitly contradict previous prophets and still be legitimate
are you brain-dead?

[Anonymous No.14516304]

>>14512762
>Please tell me who refuted him
literally evolutionary biology + evolutionary psychology is all you need. these decimate the christian paradigm of personhood and values.
we are all just the products of random mutational processes and the entire contents of our consciousness is constructed solely to better reproduce and survive. reject the christian myth of the given, and also their erroneous appeals to substance ontology.

[Anonymous No.14516309]

>>14516290
So you don't believe Ezekiel? A prophet divinely inspired by God? My whole point is that believing in Christianity entails believing in the Old Testament prophets, which results in absolute contradictions. The faith is internally incoherent.

[Anonymous No.14516310]

>>14516239
The subject is bullshit, anon. Mental gymnastics don't change the idiocy of believing the Bible. It's not worth anyone's time.

[Anonymous No.14516323]

>>14516301
the future prophet (John the Baptist in this case) can contradict the ancient prophet Ezekiel because he is a true prophet of the son of God who revealed himself in the flesh, personally, literally spoke to mankind and people wrote it down and his message of love and forgiveness and peace on Earth led to thousands of years of prosperity. yeah.

[Anonymous No.14516330]

I never understand these threads; you can't refute a person, only what he says, yet nobody ever actually posts statements to be refuted and everyone on both sides plays along in order to have a retarded dick swinging contest of buzzwords with zero intellectual rigor so as to avoid being exposed as the frauds you are. Admit it; your positions are emotional, not informed.

[Anonymous No.14516335]

>>14516309
Contradictions are explained in Christianity by non-traditional formal logic systems which are axiomatically meta-relative. Why would God's message coincide with the first logical system humans happen to invent? Truth of god has to be timeless and the current mathematics is insufficient to describe the problem. It's your conception of non contradiction that is flawed not the teachings. Sit down with a working mathematician and talk it out, spoiler: They agree we lack fundamental dimensionality and have made bad assumptions in building up the Cartesian system.

[Anonymous No.14516351]

>>14516309
>faith is incoherent
ask me how i know you have not experienced your metanoia yet

>>14516310
the Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible are more complicated than you know. they aren't simply "believed" credulously and entirely. They must be read and understood, and some people very often have interpretations contrary to the actually spirit of the message. They believe for cultural reasons or whatever, but ignore the Holy Spirit in their lives.

[Anonymous No.14516352]

>>14516309
Jesus is kinda more important than any other prophet. He stablishes a new and definitive Covenant, after all. And He doesn't just take away Ezekiel's prophecy. He just fulfills that with his Body as the third Temple. Why do you need a third

[Anonymous No.14516356]

>>14516323
>can contradict the ancient prophet Ezekiel
Lmfao. So God's relevation can contradict itself? This is your brain on idolatrous heretical strands of Judaism.
>because he is a true prophet of the son of God
So Ezekiel isn't a true prophet of the son of God because he is "ancient"?

[Anonymous No.14516370]

>>14516335
>Sit down with a working mathematician and talk it out
Working mathematician here, you're talking non-sense. Most of us don't give a single fuck about axiomatic foundations and consider them meaningless modernist drivel invented to distract us from true metaphysical mathematical considerations.

[Anonymous No.14516376]

>>14516356
>So God's relevation can contradict itself?
See other anon, or even my humble post above. Inadequate interpretation is the problem. Rather like divine providence, we can't know for certain until all the results are in. Evidently, you are still waiting for a Messiah. And that's fine. Shalom.

>So Ezekiel isn't a true prophet of the son of God because he is "ancient"?
See above. And no, things are typically held to be true because they are ancient. Even by modern people today, in laws or philosophy or custom.

[Anonymous No.14516383]

>>14516370
>>14516356
samefagging out to be an executable offence

[Anonymous No.14516392]

>>14516383
>"samefagging"
redditry and ignorance of 4channel terminology out to be an executable offence

[Anonymous No.14516396]

>>14516376
>Inadequate interpretation
Please tell me how the clear, traditional and straight-forward interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy given above is inadequate.

[Anonymous No.14516415]

>>14515583
https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/05/does-ezekiels-vision-of-a-temple-contradict-christianity.html

[Anonymous No.14516446]

>>14516396
Like I said, we won't know until the results are in. Maybe it COULD be possible that you're right and Christians are wrong, but I really don't think so and find the very notion spiritually dangerous. That is: it IS possible Ezekiel's prophecy about the third temple being a physical place with dimensions he enumerated, but choosing to believe this means one likely has to proclaim Jesus Christ (who became the temple) a false prophet and false messiah, and that is definitely not the case in my view. Because Ezekiel would be right, see, and the "real messiah" would not have arrived yet to rebuild the temple. That's why I say you would have to be Jewish.

But. Like I said. All the results aren't in yet. We have not lived to the end of time, we have no knowledge of future revelations. We exist as mortal beings. See you in heaven buddy.

[Anonymous No.14516467]

>>14516230
Again, you are unfamiliar with prohoecy. These are not predictions, like a soothsayer. They are an agreement. God offers these visions through a righteous man as pledge and promise and sign. If the people of Israel had listend to Ezekiel well and turned from all sin, the second temple would have been as Ezekiel described. However, they were lukewarm. Their freedom was adulterated, and they did not construct the temple as commanded. Thus Christ is fulfillment of the old law. The Israelites rejected their covenant with God, and so therefore those things which were promised to them are forfeited. What was material in Ezekiel was secondary to the spiritual, as is always so. By focusing on the material, you place the lower above the higher and so fail to see what is made plain.

[Anonymous No.14516469]

>>14516446
>one likely has to proclaim Jesus Christ (who became the temple) a false prophet and false messiah
Nope. Muslims believe in all of the prophets listed above: Ezekiel, John the Baptist and Jesus (as the messiah). You don't even have to reject Jesus (as in the actual words he said during his life) to see how this narrative constructed later is blatantly contradictory.

[Anonymous No.14516471]

>>14516210
No historian takes seriously the Aryan invasion theory because there is literally no evidence for it, some Europeans merely saw that Brahmins had generally lighter skin and assumed it must have been white gamer boys who created the Indian civilization.
>Why do you think Europeans and Indians speak languages belonging to the same fanily?
Well the Indians were they older civilization, so the Europeans were obviously influenced by them.

[Anonymous No.14516497]

>>14516469
They reject the divinity of Christ, which he himself claims, and the resurrection which he himself predicts.

[Anonymous No.14516506]

>>14516469
>making sure your Christian theology is consistent with Muslim beliefs

[Anonymous No.14516508]

>>14516497
>which he himself claims
According to fake data.
>the resurrection
They deny only a literal death and ressurection. According to them, G-d spared him from the suffering.

[Anonymous No.14516523]

>>14516506
>NOOOOO!!! YOU CAN'T JUST USE A REAL WORLD FACT TO SHOW A COUNTEREXAMPLE TO A RETARDED UNIVERSAL STATEMENT WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE BELIEF!!!!

[Anonymous No.14516528]

>>14512777
Hume

[Anonymous No.14516529]

>>14516506
Anon, I don't think he's a Christian

[Anonymous No.14516535]

>>14516137
>Then how did the Indo-European languages get to India?
The Indian civilization is older than any European, what are you even talking about
>And where does the caste system come from? The Vedas that the Aryans wrote.
Not to be confused with white Europeans
>Imagine being so insecure about being Indian that you have to deny history.
Except that no historian believes in that stupid theory, so you are the one who denies history

[Anonymous No.14516547]

>>14516497
>They reject the divinity of Christ
So does the Old Testament. It literally goes on and on about how G-d is singular.

[Anonymous No.14516579]

>>14516297
>Kant ignores the possibility of metaphysics
Kant starts off the critique by doing the explicit opposite of this. Why are you pretending

[Anonymous No.14516591]

>>14516128
If you bothered to do a google search before you pretended to have knowledge on the topic you would know that there is nothing controversial about what I said.

[Anonymous No.14516602]

Nietzsche, Stirner, Hume, Spinoza, Plotinus, Kant, Schopenhauer, Plato and more.

Just because Aquinas used some of these thinkers as an influence to his thought does not mean that they were talking about God.

Look into Plato's euthyphro dilemma, look into Kant's "existence is not a predicate." You can refute the existence of the Christian God by simply interpreting God through a secular lens. And that's only just beginning. Also look into Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud for a psychoanalytical approach of the genesis of God in the mind's eye. Read meditations by Rene Descartes and understand that the cogito is the Archiemedian secular point of modern secular philosophy and that most philosophers agree that Rene Descartes' argument for the existence of God was bunk. This is just a gist and should get you started.

[Anonymous No.14516618]

>>14516602
>Nietzsche, Stirner, Hume, Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer, and more.
>Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud
>meditations by Rene Descartes
All retroactively refuted by Rene Guenon.

[Anonymous No.14516637]

>>14516230
You don't need to refute Aquinas, his proofs are based on extremely controversial and hard to defend metaphysics like essentialism, the actuality distinction etc.
>phenomenology (which is really just psychology that went on a walkabout)
Jesus Christ, at least check the Wikipedia page on phenomenology before posting about it

[Anonymous No.14516646]

>>14515749
Go home, Varg.

[Anonymous No.14516653]

>>14513599
Palamists is based. Thomists are cringe.

[Anonymous No.14516684]

>>14516618
>Kant refuted
Troll post. But a good one at least.

[Anonymous No.14516702]

>>14516684
wait till you realize that he wasn't joking.

[Anonymous No.14516706]

>>14516618
Also just looked into him more.
>Christians literally relying on esotericism now to justify their metaphysics
>Occultism
LMAO

[Anonymous No.14516707]

not reading this thread again. someone please just tell me if anyone offered any criticism beyond the usual superficial ignorance and name dropping this subrddit is known for.

[Anonymous No.14516712]

>>14516707
>tell me how to read

[Anonymous No.14516715]

>>14516618
>he even refuted "and more"
Based.

[Anonymous No.14516748]

>>14516712
how new are you

[Anonymous No.14516753]

>>14516618
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.14516758]

>>14516618
baste. if he supports aquinas (reading his reign of quantity right now) then he was probably correct.

[Anonymous No.14516782]

>not one actual refutation has been offered
gentlemen....

[Anonymous No.14516787]

>>14516171
Your dick needs more experience with women, anon. That isn't one, and doesn't remotely resemble one.

[Anonymous No.14516796]

>>14516748
So did you start the thread or not? if yes then refer to this because I gave you thinkers that you asked for.

>Can someone tell me who refuted Aquinas and every form of intellectual Christian thought please?
> I can't stop crying.


If not, please leave. You're not contributing to the thread and you're just complaining.

[Anonymous No.14516805]

Thousands.

Try Foucault.

[Anonymous No.14516809]

>>14516787
>and doesn't remotely resemble one
my hentai doujins suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14516819]

>>14516782
>this is a refutation thread
bro....

[Anonymous No.14516820]

>>14512762
>refuted Aquinas
Saint Aquinas (pbuh) was retroactively protected from all refutation by Saint Guenon (pbuh).

[Anonymous No.14516828]

>>14516805
>Try Foucault.
Try Guénon.

[Anonymous No.14516835]

When did /lit/ become occultic. What happened to the western canon and western philosophy. Now it's shamanic threads and DMT-tier authors.

[Anonymous No.14516841]

>>14516835
>occultic
Guenon is distinctly anti-occultic. Occultism is retroactively refuted degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.14516851]

>>14516796
i didnt make this thread, but some variation of it has been made daily for years now. never seen any actual concrete criticism

[Anonymous No.14516854]

>>14516835
>What happened to the western canon and western philosophy.
This fine French gentleman happened.

[Anonymous No.14516870]

>>14516851
Who do you want criticism by? the thinkers of western philosophy or by someone in the thread?

[Anonymous No.14516893]

>>14516841
Please leave. And don't follow me on my IP. Not a good idea.

[Anonymous No.14516894]

>>14516870
anything that isnt vague name dropping or outright illiteracy

[Anonymous No.14516901]

>>14512762
Aquinas makes a lot of assumptions so that his arguments support a monotheistic god.

Just ask yourself if you agree with Aquinas definition of perfection and whether he's truly objective in his assertions resulting from that.
For example, why does perfection require uniquenes?

[Anonymous No.14516902]

>>14516893
>And don't follow me on my IP. Not a good idea.

[Anonymous No.14516904]

>>14516893
Forgot to post this image along with this post

[Anonymous No.14516919]

>>14516904
Yes, he had interest in things he refuted, that's kind of a prerequisite. Looking above where it says "School" gives the correct perspective into his thought.

[Anonymous No.14516938]

>>14516919
Western philosophy doesn't waste time with refuting occultism because it isn't philosophy it's occultism.


You're stupid.

[Anonymous No.14516955]

Any lurkers in this thread that have followed the thread should make sure to check their sources and make sure that the "philosopher"s they're looking into are not occultic.

Stick to the western canon.

[Anonymous No.14516967]

>>14516938
>Western philosophy
Guenon isn't a Western philosopher by any means. He had an interest in correct Western thought (Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas and more) only insofar as they confirmed the great Eastern Teaching which itself derives from the primoridal Tradition associated to Atlantis and Hyperborea.

[Anonymous No.14516977]

>>14516967
Lol exposed. GTFO

[Anonymous No.14517001]

>>14516977
>"Those who might be tempted to give way to despair should realize that nothing accomplished in this order can ever be lost, that confusion, error and darkness can win the day only apparently and in a purely ephemeral way, that all partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the greater equilibrium of the whole, and that nothing can ultimately prevail against the power of truth."

- ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥyá (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.14517023]

>>14516938
Give him a chance.

>>14517001
Based. Here is another quote from him that I enjoy.

>The young and the inexperienced will no doubt be misled and confused by some of the materials invoked in the preparation and some of the details concerning the milking and will be led astray to ruin, but we nevertheless advise to initiate them into the transubstantiatic "lesser circle" as soon as may be reasonably possible. If a full consumption of the Sacrament does not appear to be feasible, a simple anointing of the lips will suffice.
>Extreme precautions must be taken to not consume even a single dropling of an Amrita that has not yet fully transubstantiated, as it can contribute to great spiritual anguish. It is for this reason that the drinking of Amrita should be in its essence an initatic Sacrament.
>As observed above, this knowledge relates to the life-transforming power of the Amrita-sacrament. Oaking that which has not fully dried and lost its healing potency, and which has not seen yet the light of day is not acceptable. As a lay person must not let his lips intentionally touch that which is yet not in his nature.

[Anonymous No.14517027]

>>14516894
Alright well this thread is about to end. I would have contributed but got sucked into a vortex of esotericism. Sorry anon.

Just read this post. >>14516602
And read those authors. You can't take any of their thoughts in isolation. They're systematic and most of them are building a system. So you kinda have to read just the authors. Hence the name-dropping.

[Anonymous No.14517055]

Beware Guenonfag!

[Anonymous No.14517072]

>>14517027
>And read those authors.
weren't all of them refuted by the monkey man?

[Anonymous No.14517083]

>>14517027
if you genuinely think the state «plotinus refuted st thomas» is sound then you are just as namedropping retard and i doubt you've ever read elements much less the commentary on the parmenides. moreover i doubt youve read beyond the most famous works of each of these authors. have you ever read we philologists or morgenröte? of course not. you didn't even understand the euthyphro

[Anonymous No.14517086]

>>14517055
This is dedication. Thanks anon. Expose this cancer more. I just got back into /lit/

[Anonymous No.14517097]

>>14512774
This. Most athiests have never read Aquinas, or even heard of him. And they actually think that Christians believe in a literal magic man in the sky

[Anonymous No.14517114]

His causality supposes that A->B, but that has never happened in the real world, since causality is always A<->B. The same thing with creation. He needs a creator because he assumes a creation, when the fuck in this world has anything ever be created, give me one single example of a thing being created ad nihilum ever, has that ever been observed in reality? I am NOT saying that all knowledge has to be empyrical necessarily, but ffs the guy is claiming that "creation" is true, he could at least provide evidence for creation ever having happened

[Anonymous No.14517118]

>>14517083
> have you ever read we philologists or morgenröte?
Not yet. Added to reading list.

I read the major works of those philosophers. I still don't understand what you're wanting out of this thread. My post equated secular interpretations of God with indirect refutations of the Christian God. I structured my post really carefully and tried to qualify it to the best of my ability. Also I've been arguing with an occultist.

>>14517097
Reading Aquinas, and truly reading Aquinas is reading his entire Summa which is more theology than philosophy. Haven't gotten around to it. Look at the page length of his Summa Theologica

[Anonymous No.14517125]

>>14516471
>>14516535
The Aryan invasion hypothesis comes from linguistic evidence, and every serious scholar does accept it. The Aryans even invaded Europe, but I never see Europeans deny the hypothesis. Just stop being insecure Indians. The Vedas were written in Sanskrit, not Dravidian. And the Vedas also established the Caste system. Ergo- the Aryan invaders are responsible for Hindu civilization and the varna.

[Anonymous No.14517126]

>>14513262
How so?

[Anonymous No.14517161]

>>14517118
>occultist
Define "occultist".

[Anonymous No.14517182]

>>14517161
Not strictly within the Western tradition or Western philosophy thought. Any man or person who has lost connection to the Western mind, to Western man.

This is my personal definition. But look into it more on google.

[Anonymous No.14517206]

>>14517182
>Any man or person who has lost connection to the Western mind, to Western man.
>the vast majority of the world is occultist
epic...

[Anonymous No.14517213]

>>14517182
But those are all good things. Western tradition from the middle ages onwards is absolutely degenerate and itself deserves to be called occultic.

[Anonymous No.14517232]

>>14517213
So you're like the people who scream "those dead white men" of the Western canon but don't offer any legitimate criticism of the authors besides saying "degenerate, etc." That's not good philosophy. That's not good critical thinking. You're not really offering a good argument besides merely asserting that something does not accord with your personal taste of what ever your aesthetic sense may be, which is probably pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.14517262]

>>14517232
you seem underage. read guenon for the arguments. start with his "crisis of the modern world".

[Anonymous No.14517282]

>>14517232
By being infatuated with clockwork Faustian Man went full retarded and lost any ability to properly grasp the nature of the Universe.

[Anonymous No.14517289]

>>14517262
Pay attention everyone. This is how occultists trap you. I am not underage.

Anyone who is still reading look into Sophistry or Sophism because this the post I'm replying to is like it.

[Anonymous No.14517307]

>>14517282
Ah so you're not familiar with Hegel

[Anonymous No.14517343]

According to Walter Kaufmann, the basic idea of Hegel's works, especially the Phenomenology of Spirit, is that a philosopher should not "confine him or herself to views that have been held but penetrate these to the human reality they reflect". In other words, it is not enough to consider propositions, or even the content of consciousness; "it is worthwhile to ask in every instance what kind of spirit would entertain such propositions, hold such views, and have such a consciousness. Every outlook in other words, is to be studied not merely as an academic possibility but as an existential reality".[91] Kaufmann has argued that as unlikely as it may sound, it is not the case that Hegel was unable to write clearly, but that Hegel felt that "he must and should not write in the way in which he was gifted".[92]

[Anonymous No.14517362]

>>14517125
>The Aryan invasion hypothesis comes from linguistic evidence, and every serious scholar does accept it.
No they don't, the theory has felt out of favor for quite some time now because of inadequate evidence. You are literally denying the historical consensus while lamenting everyone who doesn't buy the debunked theory as insecure. Historians had this debate before, it's over now.
>The Vedas were written in Sanskrit, not Dravidian. And the Vedas also established the Caste system. Ergo- the Aryan invaders are responsible for Hindu civilization and the varna.
This is not even an argument, you are just begging the question. You are assuming that the people who spoke Sanskrit were white, and you use that to support the conclusion that the Aryan hypothesis is true. In order for an argument to work the premise can't be identical with the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.14517484]

>>14517362
I didn’t say anything about ‘white’ people. But the people who started Vedic civilization came from OUTSIDE of India. The men who wrote the Vedas were from a non-native ethnicity that migrated to India. The ancient Hindus were not the same people that started the Harappan and Mohenjo-Daro civilizations. They were invaders, and they were cousins to the other Indo-European groups.

I Do not know, for the life of me, why Indians get so triggered when you tell them that a bunch of Ancient cultures acrosss Eurasia have an obvious common root.

[Anonymous No.14517491]

>>14517289
That's not good philosophy. That's not good critical thinking. You're not really offering a good argument besides merely asserting that something does not accord with your personal taste of what ever your aesthetic sense may be, which is probably pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.14517545]

>>14517362
The Varna comes from the Vedas, which comes from Vedic Civilization, which comes from ancient Indo-European migrations.

[Anonymous No.14517557]

>>14517362
610 KB JPG
>>14517362 #
I didn’t say anything about ‘white’ people. But the people who started Vedic civilization came from OUTSIDE of India. The men who wrote the Vedas were from a non-native ethnicity that migrated to India. The ancient Hindus were not the same people that started the Harappan and Mohenjo-Daro civilizations. They were invaders, and they were cousins to the other Indo-European groups.

I Do not know, for the life of me, why Indians get so triggered when you tell them that a bunch of Ancient cultures acrosss Eurasia have an obvious common root.

[Anonymous No.14517695]

>>14517557
>But the people who started Vedic civilization came from OUTSIDE of India.
But there is no older known civilization than that of India that speaked sanskriti, so the theory is completely speculative with no archeological evidence to back it up. You keep talking about the theory as a well established fact that only Indians deny because of their national pride, but in reality the historical consensus rejects it, not just Indians. According to Wikipedia even apparently renown proponent of the theory Mortimer Wheeler admitted that "This is a possibility, but it can't be proven, and it may not be correct". So I don't know why you think historians are in your side on this.

[Anonymous No.14518186]

>>14517097
Christians do believe that, anon, or they're not Christians. I know it's fun to pretend the Bible is a fancy occult riddle and metaphor, only taken literally by fools, but that runs against all theology and the actual scripture. It's a sad defense by people who realized nobody could take their holy book seriously any more, but were desperately trying to pretend it still had wisdom to offer. 41% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ definitely (23%) or probably (18%) will have returned to earth by the year 2050 (and that includes a third of Catholics). Peddle your heresy elsewhere: the magic man in the sky is the orthodox faith. If you find it too silly to take literally, stop fooling yourself about your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.14518233]

>>14518186
What is this phenomenon? Why do people do this? That guy is literally an atheist, arguing as if he’s a Christian arguing against atheism. What is going on here?

[Anonymous No.14518265]

>>14517097
God IS a person. Atheist are right to believe that Aquinas believed that and Aquinas in turn was right to believe it.

[Anonymous No.14518291]

>>14512762
Don't masturbate neither fornicate for the rest of your life. Ticket to heaven assured.

[Anonymous No.14518347]

>>14518186
No, we don't believe he's a magic man in the sky. We believe in the supernatural dna the spiritual. Spirits are beings without bodies--that is immaterial beings--wills and intelligences that have no physical presence. God, being the creator of all things, is the origin and source of all qualities. While he exists in all things, he is contained by nothing, and cannot be said to be in any particular place as though it is a limitation or boundary to his presence.

[Anonymous No.14518358]

>>14518265
Three persons, one being.

[Anonymous No.14518385]

>>14512990
Deuteronomy 13:1-5

[Anonymous No.14518396]

You may masturbate OP, just not to lewd thoughts or porn.

[Anonymous No.14518402]

>>14515276

[Anonymous No.14518412]

>>14518402
>>14515276

[Anonymous No.14518424]

>>14518347
That doesn't change what I said, anon. Obviously an omnipotent being isn't contained by a single aspect or physical form, but he is a sentient supernatural presence, and he manifests in specific ways in various parts of the Bible. Yahweh isn't some abstract "prime mover" principle, he's a grumpy old man who drowns people and plays with mortals. Isaiah, Moses, Jacob, etc., see physical manifestations of him: a magic old man.
Now I'm going to have to put up with the "Old Testament doesn't count!" crap too, aren't I? Spare me, please: go read Matthew 5:17–19 instead. The OT is 3/4 of your scripture and recited every Sunday.

[Anonymous No.14518442]

>>14518424
I don't think you yet fully understand the scale of what is meant when we say God is the creator of all things. You still seem hung up on a naturalist and humanist perspective of earth and life.

[Anonymous No.14518453]

>>14518233
Just irked by the sad "no true Scotsman" shit that goes on every time intelligent philosophers try to defend scripture, that's all. I was raised Greek Orthodox and attended High Anglican churches for years, anon: atheist doesn't mean ignorant. The Nicene Creed isn't a metaphor, and knowing that Aquinas's arguments are not going to compel any non-believer doesn't require intense study of the Summa. I would have liked to see him levitating, though.

[Anonymous No.14518478]

>>14518442
Nah, I'm just following scripture. You're interpreting it in a way that suits your modern philosophical mind. The idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal is irreconcilable with every action he takes in the Bible: it's a later imposition. Scale Yahweh back to Zeus-level power, and suddenly the texts make sense again. The God in the Bible doesn't display any of those qualities, especially in the OT.

[Anonymous No.14518479]

>>14518402
>>14518412

[Anonymous No.14518484]

>>14518479

[Anonymous No.14518521]

>>14518478
God literally creates the universe and everything in it in Genesis.

[Anonymous No.14518522]

>>14517262
>you seem underage
>read guenon
actual lol, good one anon

[Anonymous No.14518558]

>>14518521
No, he takes a dark, watery abyss and works it into something habitable.

[Anonymous No.14518575]

>>14512892
It, retard

[Anonymous No.14518582]

>>14513108
>There's no real evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
Shroud of Turin counts, no?

[Anonymous No.14518587]

>>14518582
nope

[Anonymous No.14518616]

>>14518521
Sure, and then by Judges 1:19 he can't handle iron chariots, and by Hebrews 6:18 he can't even lie. But it doesn't matter at all: a no-limits understanding of omnipotence is not relevant to orthodox Christian theology, and the faith is much more exciting when you imagine God's power is actually under threat from Satan. That's why literal omnipotence doesn't stick with the laity.

[Anonymous No.14518717]

>>14518347
You're not a Christian.

[Anonymous No.14518850]

>>14512777
Basado

[Anonymous No.14518859]

>>14518717
No u.

[Anonymous No.14518890]

>>14518717
Cringe and Phariseepilled.

[Anonymous No.14518988]

>>14518478
If you, as a materialist, do not understand the Christian notion of God, Angels, and Demons, I doubt you understand Zeus. You need to reestablish your understanding of power, order, and being. God reveals his name as "I am who am." He explicitly states his nominative identity as the self-caused pure being, perfect and complete in and of himself. You seem only to understand being by measurable quantities, so how can you consider a being which precedes and supercedes all quantities and qualities? It beggars the imagination so much that it can only be held by faith, for the scale and majesty is too humbling for any person to recognize without falling into madness.

[Anonymous No.14519430]

>>14518988
Yes, son. Which is to say, it's bullshit: absolute fucking horseshit fantasy which the Bible fails to present with even the slightest consistency or evidence. Have a good night with your faith.

[Anonymous No.14519437]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Hegelians#David_Strauss

[Anonymous No.14519451]

>>14513605
Holy based-

[Anonymous No.14519455]

August Cieszkowski

[Anonymous No.14519479]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Hegelians#Ludwig_Feuerbach


OP LOOK INTO THE YOUNG HEGELIANS

[Anonymous No.14519543]

>>14512762

[Anonymous No.14519557]

Just started reading about this guy. What is a counterargument to his Prima Via about the existence of God: "In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God?"

[Anonymous No.14519574]

>>14517097
>Most athiests have never read Aquinas
Neither have 99.5% of christians

[Anonymous No.14519575]

>>14519557
>But this chain cannot be infinitely long,
why not

[Anonymous No.14519595]

>>14519575
The universe is not infinite, so no possible combination of all the atoms (or quarks or any subatomic particles) could be equal to infinity

[Anonymous No.14519627]

>>14519557
Where it boggles the mind is how he connects this prime mover to the tribal deity of goatherders that lived milleniums before him.

[Anonymous No.14519656]

>>14519557
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxHKXc7ohF0

[Anonymous No.14519663]

>>14519595
>The universe is not infinite
how could you possibly know this my man

[Anonymous No.14519690]

>>14512762
nobody on this board is gonna be able to tell you because none of these retards have read aquinas

[Anonymous No.14519728]

>>14519430
>God calls himself the prime mover, first cause, essence of being, that which is by its own accord, and manages to encapsulate all this into a single name, whose meaning is expressed perfectly in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin millenia before anybody even tries to consider the idea that gravity simply exists without cause or reason
>it's the bible that's inconsistent and closed-minded

[Anonymous No.14519741]

>>14512762
Refuting Christianity via theology is a waste of time. The fact is, there is no historical basis for most of what is written in the NT, so there is no reason to believe it.

[Anonymous No.14519748]

>>14515226
I don't think that's true, theologically. There's more than enough room in theology for people to obey, even against their feelings. In fact the whole process of resisting temptation is exactly that, applying the will against the feelings, even when they refuse to change to accommodate themselves to our understanding.

[Anonymous No.14519799]

>>14519575
Considered not as mere words, but as actual, real being, what would it mean to say that this recursive chain of causes was infinite? Would there not be a directionality of this chain? And by this direction of relationship, would we not be describing a transcendant dimesnion of all things? And if that dimension too had a cause, beginning another infinite chain of causes, would we not return to some other supertranscendental? And by this pattern of transendance and supertranscendance, would not an even higher pattern emerge? If we continue in this fashion, continually introducing infinite layers of ever increasing infinite sets, would there not emerge the shadow of a most infinite--that final infinitude which lay beyond all movement and relationship, which could not be described or approached by anything but itself? And in recognizing this, would not every lesser infinite set be at least finite in some capacity so as to make it lesser than the most infinite? Even if everything always expands outward and forever, there must still be a center--an origin. God is the origing of Being--the center. And God is the end of Being--the furthest, unreachable end of infinity, the always one step beyond, the n+1. The Aplha, and the Omega. The only thing more absurd than suggesting a finite set of material is without cause is suggesting that an i finite set of material is without cause. If the simplest solution is most likely, your position is least likely.

[Anonymous No.14519806]

>>14519741
>if you don't count the Bible or the Church as history, there's no evidence of Jesus
The first pieces of Christian scripture are closer to their source than the earliest written copies of any ancient text.

[Anonymous No.14519853]

>>14519806
Maybe that was poorly worded, but I never meant to imply that Jesus didn't exist (and besides his existence is independantly attested by Josephus, most notably). But some elements of the gospels (like the whole "choose between Jesus and Barabbas") are either made up (or were exagerated). Some others were writen from oral traditions.
All epistles (aside from seven written by Paul) are strongly thought to be forgeries so they can be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.14519896]

>>14519853
How does puttin a story down on paper any more or less credible? The credibility is due to the witness, not the medium. You doubt oral tradition, because you doubt the memories of those who heard it. But you accept blindly what a man hears if he wrote it down? Josephus saw nothing himself, but was told of what the people were saying. Who told him? How true was his memory? Man had fire for how long before he had paper? Do you doubt the tradition of firemaking because it was never written down? There is a clear lineage of people who have been practicing an unbroken tradition of worship since the time of Christ. The letters of the apostles demonstrate their presence and their beliefs. There is strong evidence of this organization, and the organization has continued unbroken to today. By the faintest shreds of hearsay and conjecture you wish to say these stories are exaggerated. And yet, if the stories are true, would they not lead to the very results we can clearly see today? You close your eyes so that you can imagine what an illusionary man may have seen, rather than see the obvious truth in front of you.

[Anonymous No.14520049]

>>14514687
>Lol retarded christfags believe in demons

Reminder that literal demons are real

[Anonymous No.14520080]

>>14520049
Those aren't demons, nor are they possesed. Sadly, they have suffered rather extreme demonic oppression, and sibmitted to wickedness and perversion. Their souls are in grave danger, and they should be prayed for, along with everyone they know. Sickening that our societ and culture has reached a point that anyone could so blindly bring a child into such wretchedness. Were the Israelites ever so sinful? I must admit, I fear a great retribution is coming.

[Anonymous No.14520126]

>>14516618
No one here understands Guenon, that is why they "like" him. He's a name to drop. But his ideas are really not very complicated, he just writes in a complicated way which people mistake for intelligence. He was an occultist, his ideas stem from 19th century occultists including Spermo-Gnostics. He eventually moved on to the more mainstream occultism of freemasonry and then Sufism. He never stopped being an occultist.

[Anonymous No.14520135]

>>14517023
>The young and the inexperienced will no doubt be misled and confused by some of the materials invoked in the preparation and some of the details concerning the milking and will be led astray to ruin, but we nevertheless advise to initiate them into the transubstantiatic "lesser circle" as soon as may be reasonably possible. If a full consumption of the Sacrament does not appear to be feasible, a simple anointing of the lips will suffice.

You realise that he is talking about eating semen here, right? He hung out with spermophagist gnostics.

[Anonymous No.14520177]

>>14520135

Guenon was part of the Gnostic Church...
Here is a description of their "Sacrament" or "Amrita".
>Saint Epiphane gives a complete description of the ceremony of the Eucharist, but attributes it exclusively to the Gnostics and takes care to represent it as in aberration abhorred by true Christians; in their assemblies, he said, men and women reciprocally ate the reproductive seed of humans, turning to the altar, and saying (to the All Mighty) "Offerimus tibi donum corpus Christi" "We offer in sacrifice the body of Christ!"

https://www.parareligion.ch/eucha.htm

[Anonymous No.14520228]

>>14515749
>and implemented the caste system to minimize the damage from mixing
Not exactly. Aryans have always structured their social hierarchies in such ways, regardless if the society was purely Aryan or a racially heterogeneous morass. Aryan Europe had the same caste system with different terminology:
>Clergy (Sacerdotal Nobility)
>Aristocracy (Warrior Nobility)
>Third Estate (Merchant class, Bourgeois)
>Peasants (Villeins, Serfs)
The indigenous Dravidians whom the Nordic invaders subjugated were initially considered out-castes. The Sudras more readily absorbed the Dravidian due to proximity, and as time went on the dark blood slowly percolated up the hierarchy: hence why the Bhrahims are of lighter complexion.

[Anonymous No.14520292]

>>14520049
>>>/x/
I see the end results of liberalism and intense mental illness in this picture.

[Anonymous No.14520465]

>>14512762
>I really miss having fun and masturbating and having no morality and doing crazy stuff but I'm too scared of hell now.

Your mistake is equating masturbating and doing crazy stuff with having no morals, thats just chrurch autism.

Become a chekovian christian instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwPCJ9WpH7E&t=

[Urantia reader No.14520488]

>>14520228
>tfw Bhramin

[Anonymous No.14520536]

>>14519799
I don't understand this. Why can't the answer to the above rhetorical questions be "no"? By the way they're asked I can tell that the answer is supposed to be an obvious affirmative, but I don't see it. Why can't the infinite be just that--infinite? Why must there be something beyond it? Even if everything expands outwardly forever, there doesn't have to be a center, no; there could be an infinity of "centers". And if anything transceded the infinite then yes, it would not be infinite; but why can't the infinite be just that?

[Anonymous No.14520553]

>>14520228
One is not born Brahmin, he is only Brahmin according to his actions, in accordance with the Manusmriti

[Anonymous No.14520554]

>>14512762

[Anonymous No.14520597]

>>14519896
>You doubt oral tradition
Actually, I don't, I think it's where the more credible bits of the gospels come from, but I see how you could read that from my post. The writers then used these credible bits to craft their own narratives as they saw fit.
>But you accept blindly what a man hears if he wrote it down?
No and I never implied that.
>By the faintest shreds of hearsay and conjecture you wish to say these stories are exaggerated
It's not shreds, careful examination of the synaptic gospels shows passages where Matthew and Luke took what Mark wrote and made it "bigger, better".
>And yet, if the stories are true, would they not lead to the very results we can clearly see today?
If the stories were true, the world would have already ended, and Jesus would have already come back when Paul and the disciples were still alive. But I fail to see why the stories would have to be true for this organisation to have come around.
>letters of the apostles
Which ones would that be? All the epistles other than Paul in the NT are forgeries, as far as I know, most of the disciples were illiterate and none of them was trained in rhetorical Greek. Apocryphal literature doesn't fare much better.

[Anonymous No.14520623]

>>14520597
>All the epistles other than Paul in the NT are forgeries
There's zero evidence of this other than faggot secular scholars saying "Durrrrr this doesn't sound like what the real Peter would write". They have no fucking idea, they're just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Compared to the universal witness of the early Church what modern scholars say means precisely jack shit,

[Anonymous No.14520631]

>>14512762
christ is king

[Anonymous No.14520639]

>>14519574
>99.5% of christians
99.5% of prot heretics
Most educated Catholics have heard of Aquinas. Rural Catholics may not.

[Anonymous No.14520645]

>>14519896
There is far, far, far less evidence for Alexander the Great than for Jesus Christ, and the first extant history on Alexander was written hundreds of years after the fact. Everyone acknowledges that Alexander existed and did everything that was said of him.
The Gospels were written between 33AD and around 60AD by people that either knew Jesus Christ personally or were able to talk to people who did. The historical reliability of the Gospels is very high.

[Anonymous No.14520647]

>>14519741
>implying there is no historical basis of the post-crucifixion skeleton dance

Just admit you hate God

[Anonymous No.14520650]

>>14520623
So Peter, a random illiterate fisher from Galilee, took time off church duties to study literary Greek?
Anyway, the authors of the epistles were using the Septuagint, which again makes little sense for Jews from Judea who would have been more familiar with the Hebrew version.

[Anonymous No.14520656]

>>14520645
https://celsus.blog/2013/08/24/another-case-of-apologetic-dishonesty-in-lee-strobels-the-case-for-christ/

[Anonymous No.14520680]

>>14520650
>So Peter, a random illiterate fisher from Galilee, took time off church duties to study literary Greek?
The epistle flat out tells you he dictated the letter to a scribe named Silas.
>With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.
Paul also used a scribe.He writes in his own handwriting at the end of Galatians.

[Anonymous No.14520684]

>Sophistory about how a "perfect being" must exist.
>And BTW, this being is exactly the vengeful god described in the old testament.

[Anonymous No.14520687]

>>14520656
>blog
you had your chance to make me keep responding, but you've blown it

[Anonymous No.14520728]

>>14520687
It would have taken you five minutes at most to read.
The major point is Alexander had his own personal biographist (Callisthenes), and there were several others professional historians writing about Alexander while he was still alive (and they were independant, not half-assedly copying off each other like the gospel writers did).
Thus reliable details about Alexander are far better attested than for Jesus, which is exactly the opposite of what you wrote. And the first extant biographies of Alexander did not take centuries to write, they just didn't arrive to us intact.

[Romans 1:27 No.14520753]

>>14520650
So? Christ himself spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. He wasn’t a Jew’s Jew. Christianity supplants Temple practice and gives replaces the old covenant.. It’s not trying to be a new Judaism.

[Anonymous No.14520775]

>>14520650
Greek and Aramaic were the common tongues, not Hebrew.

[Anonymous No.14520780]

>>14513513
>apply the principle of sufficient reason to free will
I'm asking sincerely for my own understanding
Do you mean that doing so implies there is an explanation for free will other than the brute fact of it (being given to humans by god), and that's why Christians dont apply it?

[Anonymous No.14520785]

>>14520647
Are you telling me the new testament says there is a skeleton dance? People actually believe this shit in 2020 the year of not my Lord?

[Anonymous No.14520794]

>>14513533
Kant actually showed that any proof of God always falls short of the requirements, criteria and goals the God seekers set for themselves.

[Anonymous No.14520838]

>>14520785
A bunch of zombies appear and walk into Jerusalem

Matthew 27:51-53
>The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

[Anonymous No.14520846]

>>14520838
>not a single record of this or even a reference to it

[Anonymous No.14520853]

>>14518988
There is nothing I hate more than pretentious little christcucks who read a blogpost and think they understand philosophy now. God is not self caused in Christianity, stop larping as a theologian if you don't understand basic shit.

[Anonymous No.14520868]

>>14520846
You just read a record of it fuckwit.
>B-but the bible doesn't count
The bible is one of the most reliable historical records from that time. Deal with it

[Anonymous No.14520872]

>>14518988
The Bible also says that all human beings died in a Deluge, which is proven wrong by mesoamericans. Also, chinese and japanese people have no record of a flood

[Anonymous No.14520874]

>>14520868
>such an extraordinary event in a city of hundreds of thousands has zero impact on that city or anywhere else

[Anonymous No.14520875]

>>14520868
None of the other gospels mention it. Paul doesn't mention it. Josephus doesn't mention it. That's a poorly-attested event that probably didn't happen.

[Anonymous No.14520884]

>>14520868

[Anonymous No.14520902]

>>14520780
So the principle of sufficient reason basically says that for everything that exists there is an explanation for its existence. If we apply it to human actions, we are lead to the conclusion that there is always some definite explanation for every action someone takes. But if every choice can be explained as arising from certain causes, it follows that the person could not act otherwise because the causal chain determines his behavior to be such and such. If the idea of libertarian free will is true and we can always pick this or that choice, there wouldn't be an ultimate explanation that necessitates the choice, but it would be an action that just happens with no reason. Reasons are biding.

[Anonymous No.14520919]

>>14520868
>The bible is one of the most reliable historical records from that time

[Anonymous No.14520993]

>>14516904
>emotional female vocal training

[Anonymous No.14521179]

>>14518478
>Scale Yahweh back to Zeus-level power
>scale back

'Now look at the wisdom of the Greeks, and examine it as follows. The authors of the Orphic hymns supposed Zeus to be the mind of the world, and that he created all things therein,containing the world in himself. Therefore in their theological systems they have handed down their opinions concerning him thus:'

Zeus was the first, Zeus last, the lightning's lord,
Zeus head, Zeus centre, all things are from Zeus.
Zeus born a male, Zeus virgin undefiled;
Zeus the firm base of earth and starry heaven;
Zeus sovereign, Zeus alone first cause of all:
One power divine, great ruler of the world,
One kingly form, encircling all things here,
Fire, water, earth, and ether, night and day;
Wisdom, first parent, and delightful Love:
For in Zeus' mighty body these all lie.
His head and beauteous face the radiant heaven
Reveals and round him float in shining waves
The golden tresses of the twinkling stars.
On either side bulls' horns of gold are seen,
Sunrise and sunset, footpaths of the gods.
His eyes the Sun, the Moon's responsive light;
His mind immortal ether, sovereign truth,
Hears and considers all; nor any speech,
Nor cry, nor noise, nor ominous voice escapes
The ear of Zeus, great Kronos' mightier son:
Such his immortal head, and such his thought.
His radiant body, boundless, undisturbed
In strength of mighty limbs was formed thus:
The god's broad-spreading shoulders, breast and back
Air's wide expanse displays; on either side
Grow wings, wherewith throughout all space he flies.
Earth the all-mother, with her lofty hills,
His sacred belly forms; the swelling flood
Of hoarse resounding Ocean girds his waist.
His feet the deeply rooted ground upholds,
And dismal Tartarus, and earth's utmost bounds.
All things he hides, then from his heart again
In godlike action brings to gladsome light.

Zeus, therefore, is the whole world, animal of animals, and god of gods; but Zeus, that is, inasmuch as he is the mind from which he brings forth all things, and by his thoughts creates them.

[Anonymous No.14521203]

>>14518616
>and the faith is much more exciting when you imagine God's power is actually under threat from Satan.

[Anonymous No.14521228]

>>14520631
Kill the king.

[Anonymous No.14521462]

>>14519557
Eternalism entails nothing actually changes the way his metaphysics presuppose. The point is moot.

[Anonymous No.14521465]

>>14520853
Where did you get that idea from?

[Anonymous No.14521507]

>>14520597
How careful an examination can it be if it contradicts the careful study of millions of monks and priests in multiple languages over two millenia? Why do yoi consider that the differences between the gospels are by accident and not by design? Have you ever actually read any strong Catholic exegesis?

[Anonymous No.14521526]

>>14520536
Patterns demonstrate rules. Rules are limits. It's the rules and limits you have to explain. How can order come from nothing? If everything is arbitrary, how is there any coherent pattern at all?

[Anonymous No.14521644]

>>14521179
Interesting that you take from a protestant scholar's modern translation and presentation of Eusebius, who was one of the chief Arianists, who was himself of a similar type, thinking that by reason and conjecture over forgotten works tradition could be reinterpreted.

[Anonymous No.14521650]

>>14512762
>what is The Will to Power

[Anonymous No.14521651]

>>14520919
What is more reliable?

[Anonymous No.14521656]

>>14521179
I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. The Orphic hymns are late Hellenistic/early Roman heretical crap. Go read Hesiod or any classic myth involving Zeus: Zeus created nothing. Chaos begat Gaea, She begat Oranos, the Titans, and then Cronos begat the elder Olympians. Zeus claims to be the strongest deity in Homer, but he was never portrayed as "all-powerful" (he's often fooled and sometimes defeated) or all-knowing. The Greeks weren't stupid enough to create gods that had no limits. Remember when Zeus was being too arrogant and the other gods stole his thunderbolt and bound him with hundred-knotted cords? Remember when Prometheus fooled Zeus at Mekone? Tantalus and Pelops? Greek deities are just like us humans, but amplified: stronger, sometimes wiser (not always) and always horny.

[Anonymous No.14521669]

>>14521651
Cross-referencing from propagandistically opposed documents that weren't destroyed by abrahamic zealotry.

[Anonymous No.14521682]

>>14520846
Use your brain, man. Everyone who saw such an event or believes such an event wpuld have converted to the faith, and therefore the account in tbe gospel is sufficient for them. Everyone who did not see it and did not believe it would disregard it, meaning it would be forgotten. And how can you take Josephus as reliable? He was born after these events to a Jewish priest. Christ dispensed the Jewish priesthood. Josephus helped lead rebellion against Rome, blamed it on Christians and messianic prophecies, and then said the Roman emperor was the fulfilment of the prophecy in order to be granted Romam citizenship. This is exactly the kind of person the gospels speak against.

[Anonymous No.14521691]

>>14518616
>all-for-a-good-plotline-ism

[Anonymous No.14521708]

>>14521669
That's bad logic. If you call to the stand two witnesses who lie, you can't take what they agree upon as truth. That there testimony is unreliable means it cannot be taken as reliable in any part. Maybe it's suggestive of some truth, or maybe it does even have some truth to it, but that truth can only be discovered by material fact. Consider, the United States and the Soviet Union both gave pretense for their presence in Afghanistan. Should we accept those parts where the pretense agreed as the true reason why they were there? Or should we judge their reliability by their actions?

[Anonymous No.14521724]

>>14518616
The struggle isn’t between God’s power and Satan’s power, the struggle is between your soul and the powers of Hell. So the fight is actually more intense than shallow gnostic cosmology.

[Anonymous No.14521727]

>>14521708
Precisely my point. If you want to figure out a truth, and your only access to it is a liar's words, you damn best think and rethink those words from a "what does he want or need me to believe" pov.

[Anonymous No.14521736]

>>14516297
What the fuck? Have you read the Critique?

[Anonymous No.14521749]

>>14518988
>God reveals his name as "I am who am."
It's "I am who I am", and he's not making a statement about his essence, but simply refusing to give his real name. Confer the episode in which Jacob wrestled and angel who also refused to give him his name.

[Anonymous No.14521771]

>>14512892
IT

[Anonymous No.14521783]

>>14521727
No, you should not do that. Your conjecture of a liar's mind is no more reliable than his words. Look at the facts that can't be denied. If ground is wet, it was raining. How does the same story get to Alexandria, Rome, Ethiopia, Herculaenum, and so on if there is not a group of people to bring it? Where did they come from? How have the physical practices they instituted survived? The early church was poor and had no power. They did not try to convert kings and merchants, but beggars and slaves. These things are certain. It can be seen in the art that adorns their graves. The faith spread quickly and far. You say the powerful made no account of it. It is certainly more consistent with what must have been that they found it beneath them, that they simply may not have heard it in the same way that today a Nantucket lawyer has probably never heard of the top rodeo rider. Satan lives in the invisibility of deceit. God lives in the invisibility of humility. Consider the invisible history of the world's poor and Christianity is brought into new light.

[Anonymous No.14521793]

>>14521749
It is not. Look at the actual Greek and at the Hebrew and the Latin.

[Anonymous No.14521796]

>>14521783
That's nice.

[Anonymous No.14521803]

>>14521793

[Anonymous No.14521859]

>>14521783
???
The rich and the powerful were often very worried about the behaviour and beliefs of the lower, out of political and religious reasons. And the notion that the early church was ultra poor makes little sense when you remember that the the main christian centers were the wealthiests parts of the roman empire.

[Anonymous No.14521893]

>>14521656
>Greek deities are just like us humans, but amplified: stronger, sometimes wiser (not always) and always horny.

No, read Proclus.

[Anonymous No.14521908]

>>14513301
>every religion is just a different flavor of icecream in the same store

[Anonymous No.14521915]

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheists

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

Daily reminder most philosophers are atheists

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

[Anonymous No.14521938]

>>14521796
Wasn’t this guy retroactively refuted? Delete this trash.

[Anonymous No.14521955]

>>14521915
Holy shit the tipping

>Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheists
Wasn't true throughout history.

>Daily reminder most philosophers are atheists
Current year+5 philosophers are completely irrelevant.

>Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human
And fedoras don't breed at all.

[Anonymous No.14522069]

>>14516835
some another psy-op or counter-initiation

[Anonymous No.14522073]

>>14512762
Persevere anon I know it's hard but persevere. I wish the best for you and God bless you.

[Anonymous No.14522080]

>>14521915
Kek Christians are basedboy faggots

[Anonymous No.14522100]

>>14521955
>Wasn't true throughout history.
Only because there weren't many atheists throughout history, often because it was outright illegal.

>Current year+5 philosophers are completely irrelevant.
Dont pretend it isnt true that nearly all philosophers are more atheistic than the society which birthed them.

>And fedoras don't breed at all.
True, religious cults produce more people than secular society. You got me there.

[Anonymous No.14522116]

>>14522100
> often because it was outright illegal.
Nice excuse you got there. Face it: the ancients had higher morals and therefore never needed atheism to do away with objective morals. The onset of homosexuality and promiscuity has resulted in a sea of moral excrement, the stench of which offends all. Yet when the stench is pointed out, the righteous rebuke is taken as offensive, and the offended party seeks to postpone the judgement of their character by pretending there is no God so they may continue to wallow in their filth.
This is you. A reprobate neck-deep in a pool of unspeakable issue from the ceaseless discharge of your own inequity. But you too may be washed clean in the Blood and Name of Jesus Christ. I am here today to offer this to you.

[Anonymous No.14522123]

>>14522116
Yeah, the ancient Greeks knew nothing of homosexuality or promiscuity.

I used to work in a home of adults who have DDs, like schizophrenia. Have you ever spoken to a psychiatrist? You may have some issues, regarding the second half of your post there.

[Anonymous No.14522132]

>>14522123
I was trying to emulate Rorschach's speech from Watchmen actually.

[Anonymous No.14522140]

>>14522116
nice meme

[Anonymous No.14522210]

>>14512777
Santa Claus?

[Anonymous No.14522215]

>>14512777

[Anonymous No.14522245]

>>14522116
Bro, you just posted cringe

[Anonymous No.14522265]

>>14521955
>Wasn't true throughout history.
What a fucking retarded point. There are far, far more scientists alive now than there were during the entirety of the pre-enlightenment era.

>Current year+5 philosophers are completely irrelevant.
Peak cope

>And fedoras don't breed at all.
Religion is dying off in every developed society.

[Anonymous No.14522350]

>>14521656
Many Orphic Poems are dated to the same period as Hesiod and Homer (800 NC). Ever heard of the Derveni Papyrus? And the section I posted was Eusubius quoting Porphyry, and while Poorphyry is the lowest of the Scholars, he was still the student and teacher of the two greatest masters of the late Roman period; and even wrote his own inspired work (Cave of the Nymphs).
Orpheus was the origin of the Ancient ways in Europe who gracefully was given the revelation that the Egyptians and Chaldeans long have enjoyed, the first of the Hellenes to enter the cave and return [since the Golden Age].
Zeus is "merely" a name.

>One Zeus, one Hades, one Sun, one Dionysus, one god in all.

[Anonymous No.14522778]

>>14516352
>Jesus is kinda more important than any other prophet. He stablishes a new and definitive Covenant, after all.
This is the same logic Muslims use to support Muhammad's revelations superseding the Torah and the Gospel. Someone coming along later and totally contradicting the prophecies they're claiming to fulfill is a point against them, not for them.

>He just fulfills that with his Body as the third Temple. Why do you need a third
I've explained why that doesn't make sense. Ezekiel describes a physical temple with cultic sacrifices by priests descended from Zadok.

[Anonymous No.14523212]

>>14513108
The rise of Christianity is prety good proof that Jesus did rose from the dead.