My background is as an athiest but I feel called to Christ. What should someone in this position read? I'm interested in philosophy, no self help bullcrap. What literature gives the most compelling arguments for or against God or Christ? What are good introductions to religious philosophy in general?
>>25566976go and be a retard somewhere else.
I find it strange that salvation should be so heavily contingent upon holding the correct belief about something that is obscure. For example what if OP gets recommended unconvincing texts? And the complexity of the arguments at this stage are such that I wouldn't feel qualified to adjudicate who is right or who is wrong...
>>25566976Hume's first enquiry will set you aright and make you permanently immune to religious nonsense of every flavor
>>25566976You should check out "The Bible".
Being certain enough that a religion is correct to base your life around it is low iq behavior.
>>25566976Have you looked into G.K. Chesterton? His books Heretics, Orthodoxy, and The Everlasting Man might be up your alley. I have an apologetics set that contains all three.
>>255669761. read the Bible2. read the Catechism3. talk to a priest
>>25566976Choose radical, liberal, existential Protestantism. It includes the best of both worlds.
>>25566976God is something you feel. Ask the highest power to reveal itself to you
>>25566976This ought to be a good start.
There needs to be a study done into this weird "le tradcath" bullshit being pushed so heavily on this site for years
>>25567153Normal people convert all the time. You seem to think OP is some kind of twitter wannabe crusader type for some reason.
Read the bible and then lose interest in abrahamic religion.
>>25566976>Thinking of becoming Catholic, what should I readThe sticky.>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
>>25566976Unironically Anna Karenina or Crime and Punishment. Non-fiction is generally cope imo, but if you insist the work of René Girard should be right up your alley.
>>25566976The Bible and pic-related.
>>25567034Making up a position OP never expressed and then calling him low IQ for it is actually low IQ behavior.
>>25566976If you're interested in the philosophical side, start with Aquinas. You don't need to read the entire Summa Theologiae front to back; read the sections on the existence and nature of God, creation, evil, law, virtue, etc. He's also useful because he states serious objections to his own position before answering them.That said, becoming religious is also a feeling and based on faith. Relying purely on reasoning will only get you so far. I became interested in religion while listening to sacred music, especially Bach, so that part was already done for me and I only had to fill in the rest with logic.
>>25567229>thinking of becoming Catholic
>>25567284You said "certain enough that a religion is correct to base your life around", which makes a bunch of retarded assumptions and judgments not only about OP and his motives and rationale, but about religion in general. "Thinking of becoming Catholic" does not imply any of that. OP also asked for arguments for and against God. Your reading comprehension is shit.
>>25567083This. Your (prospective) priest will be able to give you recommendations in line with your personality and needs.
>>25567361My friend, he feels "called to Christ" and is "thinking of becoming Catholic". You can't enter the spin zone on this one.OP is literally saying he is seriously considering basing his life around a specific religion, therefore my comment is relevant.
>>25567034You are a midwit.
>>25567518Your are certain enough that your religion is correct to spend your entire life devoted to it because ______ ?
>>25567034The most important thing for a man is his religion, according to Carlyle. And honestly, I agree. If you have a view that the entire subject of reality has particular demands on you, why wouldn't you base your life around it?
>>25567897>If you have a viewview based on what certainty
>>25567900>certaintyWhy do you think religious belief involves certainty? Virtually everyone who has ever had faith had periods of doubt and debate.
>>25567640Because I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth, and in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Ponticus Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell, and on the third day, rose again from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the Resurrection of the body, and in life everlasting. Amen.
>>25567904Yeah so if there's something inside you telling you it's bullshit, from whence cometh the confidence to base your entire life on it?Why not just do your best to be a decent person without all the superstition?>>25567921Obama pyramid
>>25566976Read Brant Pitre's The Case for Jesus, it will answer many of your questions. Pitre is a CatholicAlso read these more practical works by various saints:>The Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales>The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis de Montfort>The Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux
>>25567897Just because something has demands doesnt mean you ought to follow them.
>>25567947>the confidence to base your entire life on itYou make it sound like this is some kind of huge sacrifice or burden or something.>do your best to be a decent person without all the superstitionWhat does it mean to be a "decent person?"
>>25567953If that 'something' has created me, and has oriented me towards various goods, the achievement of which leads to my flourishing and happiness, then it is rational and desirable to love and desire to know about the nature of that 'something'. It is open to you to not wish to follow that being, but just like how you are 'free' to commit all nature of grievous crimes against society, you will bear the penalty for your actions in the form of the wrath of God.
>>25567956Detaching yourself psychologically from observable/evident reality is a huge decision, yes.>What does it mean to be a "decent person?"Not a serious question, I hope.
>>25567963He professes without evidence. Even if the blanket term of God as a the mystery of the warmth inside of us exists which i also believe to be so the demands are man made.
>>25566976Brideshead Revisited because of the meme
>>25567466My friend, your reading comprehension is shit and your comment is based on assumptions. You know nothing about OP and his motivations, and his post is way too vague for you to start tipping your fedora this harshly.
>>25567967It's a very serious question. Do decent people abort unborn children?Is it decent to be gluttonous if it doesn't directly harm someone else?Does a decent person lie when it is convenient to themselves and no one else suffers for it?A vague definition of decency leads to uncertain positions on moral acts. On what is your morality founded? Do you even know? Or do you accept whatever is commonly socially accepted as decent?
>>25567967>>25567974>evidence is only empirical/observableYou are a midwit.
>>25567999Nice reading comprehension. >o I got told it was man in sky therefore it can only be man in sky o
>>25566976So I would present this as a difference in worldviews, the main "arguments" against God or Christ are that all of reality is reducible to mechanical physical processes. The best book that covers a response to that and responds to other athiest points in general is "The last superstition" by edward feser. He has other more academic books exploring the underlying philosophy of nature and other points. His introduction to religious philosophy would by Five Proofs for the existence of God probably but that book is more academic but still somewhat accessible I think. If you want an intellectual introduction to Catholicism "The Light of Christ" by Fr. Thomas Joseph White covers it well.GK Chesterton is more a matter of taste but his book "Orthodoxy" (has nothing to do with eastern orthodox, the word orthodox just means "right belief") and it explores sort of coming to understand Christianity as a modern very well. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130-images.htmlsee if you like his writing style, I love it personally, and he captures the ideas in an accessible way that still has a ton of philosophical depth.An important thing to emphasize though is the purpose of "athiesm". It's essentially so the state/powers that be/capital can have no barriers to their power, if everyone is just atoms you have no means to argue against the state. It's basically training people to lose any ability to dispute against the powers that be. There is no ethnicity, no culture, it's all just atoms we mistake for people so if the state decides to rewrite who you are you have no means of disputing it. What "athiesm" actually is in essence is just assuming "science" is a unified worldview and that anything not captured by science is not true. This is manifestly false, science is for one not unified and doesn't have a coherent worldview it's a mix of a bunch of different models that dont' really correspond at all. The act of doing science also requires you being a rational human being so using science to undermine your ability to be a rational human being is self-undermining. For general philosophy of science Nancy Cartwright, and Paul Feyerabend are great.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ar9AyE1poYou can hear feser on the laws of nature here it might be helpful. For actually learning about Christ your local Catholic Church has an OCIA program for you to learn, it takes about a year of going to even become Catholic and that's the means of learning about it. The catechism is also quite good https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM you can get a copy or just read the relevant articles here, they will have something on most of your questions. But Christ is physically present on the altar. If you want to see if He is real go to your local Church and meet him it's not something you need to read about in a book. Going to OCIA classes is also not a commitment but is meant for people inquiring but who are not sure.
>>25568007There are innumerably many arguments for the existence of God. Each of the standard taxonomic divisions (cosmological, ontological, teleological, moral, etc.) come with a million permutations.Personally, I think all of the aforementioned types of argument have very sophisticated variants that a respectable philosopher could defend. I find classical arguments (from Plato to Scotus) most appealing, but that reflects my own sectarian commitments and shouldn't be taken as any kind of objective assessment of the state of the philosophical literature.You, on the other hand, have no idea what I'm talking about, because you are an intellectually dishonest midwit.
>>25568023>I can appeal to authority with thesaurus words and speak of large numbers such as millions therefore I winOkay. Good job.
>>25568020Oh yeah if you want something more academic from an actual athiest this is considered the gold standard. A thiest and athiest philosopher exchange on the different views. It's quite academic though https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Theism-J-C-Smart/dp/0631232591https://youtu.be/XoVDutpB4Cwhttps://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOsThere's also this conversation between feser and oppy a respected athiest philosopher of religion which covers the points well. And if you want a series exploring the most common Catholic "worldview" in general this series is goodhttps://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/It's videos of dominicans explaining the basic principles and also has some short assigned readings with each videos, with additional further reading resources for each one. You can also see the related videos on YT hereEveryone in this is serious academics/priest it's not shallow yt stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Eg6UUBqqo&list=PL_kd4Kgq4tP8e1BBGrC-eFlp86fqyvGex&index=30
>>25568030Misidentifying fallacies while sneering at perfectly ordinary vocabulary is not the intellectual flex you seem to think it is. A little modesty might suit you here; this subject is clearly above your pay grade.
>>25568042True, smug condescending rather than making the arguments is the mark of a true intellectual who is attuned with God.
>>25568044>open with smug condescension>dismiss the entire subject out of hand>misidentify a basic fallacySpare me the sudden concern about intellectual manners.
>>25568047>n-no dont observe and ridicule my behaviorWhat a curious case for existence of a bearded white guy in the sky dubbed God. Is that Plato?
>>25568051Who are you quoting?
>>25568056Oh I am sorry I assumed triple digit iq. Don't worry about it anon. Oh my goodness, that's why blind faith. Brain blast.
>25568061Here's your (You), buddy. You deserve it!
>>25566994This is a good question and I think what makes Catholicism actually stand out. It's well understood by the tradition that in order to properly understand the arguments for God it requires some substantial philosophical training and it just not accessible to many people. Just for a rule of thumb I think it makes sense revelation, whatever it is, should be accessible to people with an 85 iq. (Any arbitrary number could be used but 85 certainly precludes philosophy).It is noted Christ never wrote any text, and at the time of early Christianity barely anyone could read. (The bible itself was not collected and put together for several centuries) The whole point of Christ is God became man and incarnate. People who encountered Christ were not given arguments for God they had an encounter with a person. The Catholic Church works in much the same way you are not called to say "take on a worldview" but to encounter the Church as something that Christ founded as an institution. Christ himself is present on the altar the Church exists to provide the means of encountering Christ, the philosophical and theological guidelines are not what you need in order to convert but are more for those who do convert to get guidance on what is the right way to think about God. The primary thing is Jesus Christ was God incarnate and died for us, and set up the Church as a place for helping us to restore ourselves into right relation with him. There isn't really any other institution that makes this claim. Protestant Christianity and Islam but make reading a primary part of it and coming up with interpretations and where you are is determined by your ability to interpret some text, as I said for most of human history where people couldn't read this makes no sense. The whole point of the mass and cathedrals is to bring people into the Church so they can be shown the revelation in a way that is accessible. The cathedrals were filled with art to make this more accessible (groups like islam and many protestants are against this kind of art). The whole point of Catholicism is it isn't simply another ideology or worldview, but it's an incarnate thing we encounter. This thing we encounter points us the way to Christ that by corresponding with it and the graces that God gives us we can be converted and brought into proper relation with God. The idea any religion requires people to understand literature or follow technical arguments to me just undermines it's plausibility. With the huge variety of cultures, intellectual abilities, and everything it's just absurd to expect that to be a reliable way to convey anything. (The huge variety in protestants and other groups reflects that)Catholics talk about the "Four marks of the Church" which refers to the things that make it stand out.
Oh he big mad.
>>25568079cont.It's One (we can clearly say who is and is not a part of it), Holy (actually has the means of conveying grace through the sacraments), Catholic (universal and applies across languages to all people you do not need to learn arabic or hebrew or latin to be a good Catholic), and Apostolic (meaning there is direct organic lines back to Christ's incarnation and direct lines of successors) These make it stand out as a thing which make it so it is not merely an ideology or worldview you are argued into, it's an actually existing thing in the world. The Churhc is a thing you encounter and it gives you the means of testing if it's claims are accurate. You can sit before Christ on his altar, the throne of the king of kings at any Catholic Church it is not something you need to be argued into. This allows it to function across different languages and cultures. We have a much better idea of the limitations of languages and propositional thought nowadays. One thought in one language does not mean the exact thing in another language and culture, there is no universal translatability. If you want a universal religion it cannot be an ideological one that depends on understanding arguments as all language is tied with your own language and background. The only means of having an actual universal revelation that applies to all people is if it is determined by relation. All people regardless of their background can encounter Christ in the Church and then through that follow God's grace to conversion or deny it.(Another central Catholic idea is the idea of sufficient grace, that all people are given sufficient grace and internal light by God to convert if they correspond with it, however they are also given free will such that they can reject the call to conversion.)
>>25567995Why do religious people have no idea what decent means without skydaddy defining it for them? Decent means in the ballpark of what any random well adjusted healthy person would answer when asked the question. For example, if someone randomly attacked you, not decent. If they try their reasonable best to do right by others and not bring bad vibes to society, decent.Golden rule predates Christianity, etc. >>25567999>my evidence goes to another school
>>25566994I will say following further the main impediment many people have to Christianity at least rationally nowadays is that everyone has been conditioned and trained into essentially assuming a sort of physicalism. So part of the broad apologetics does kind of have to lean into arguments showing how "faith doesn't contradict science" and how we aren't all atoms or something since those are views people already have. I do think it's important not to stress that too much.Many people fall into the trap of spending a ton of time reading and evaluating arguments for if it makes logical sense enough, and put off just going to Church to encounter Christ directly, which is an issue. The arguments are there and they are helpful but people should be clear Catholicism is not an ideology or worldview, but a thing.
>>25568090>what any random well adjusted healthy person would answer when asked the questionSo decent means whatever normal people currently think is decent?>try their reasonable best to do right by othersAnd what does "right" mean?>not bring bad vibes to societyTruly formidable moral philosophy.
>>25568090>Decent means in the ballpark of what any random well adjusted healthy person would answer when asked the questionSo your morality is based on consensus? The average "well adjusted healthy person" in the Roman Empire would have considered slavery to be morally acceptable. Such a person in the year 1000 would likely not have seen a problem with child marriage. If what is right is based on the opinions of such people, are slavery or child marriage as morally acceptable today as they were in antiquity? If not, what is the foundation of morality? A civilization 200 years from today might find behavior we find commonplace to be reprehensible.
Catholicism, it's vauger than you thought.
>>25568104Have you considered the fact that living conditions and life expectancy change the equation? I imagine going to those times and pitching a gender fluid lqbt acceptance is just as asinine as your slavery/child marriage question.
>>25568103>>25568104Morality has changed over time. This is a fact of history. What does that have to do with my point?The Bible is fine with slavery anyway, so this whole thing seems like a bad argument, since evidently christian morality changes over time according to the state of society as well.
>>25566976Become Orthodox instead.
>>25566994The point is accepting Christs blood sacrifice which wiped the sins of the world away. It did that because it was perfect blood made by one who was sinless. He was sinless because only God can be sinless. To obtain the salvation of the blood sacrifice you have to believe and repent. That's a lot easier than doing a bunch of stupid rituals. God just wants his children to look at him and have a relationship with Him. He will reveal himself to you. No "arguments" needed
Hey, think twice about becoming Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant. Please learn more abut the faith first. I actually hope you ask in good faith as I'll take some time to answer you and find fitting books. First of all, either there are no morals as everything is only material or there are morals but we derive them from a metaphysical plain of existance. This is largely it. Either everything is a power struggle or you have to actually live accordingly to some God if you want to be consistent in your worldview from beginning till end as you can't have both (meaning objective morality but not believing in anything transcendent) and still be intellectually honest to yourself.You already feel called to Christ. This is good as it should help you with not comparing religions for a few months and trying to find the right one.Now the book list:1. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. This will explain to you what the term God even means as most modern people got a very childish view of the divine concepts. It also shows why atheism can't work as you need the infinite to explain the finite (very simplified)2. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Here you'll get almost a detective story where the author (N. T. Wright) is asking the fundamental question, how a scared sect of Jews could form such a big movement and that there is no other explaination that Jesus literally rose from the dead.3. The Everlasting Man. Chesterton needs no introduction and he is basically there for you to finish this arc as he beautifully shows why we need God. As it's common knowledge, this book converted C. S. Lewis so maybe it'll work for you too.Note: This list is very brief and created by a Protestant (me). It should be general enough and not biased. Before becoming anything, you should become a mere Christian first. Everything else can be found out later.I hope this helps you and God bless
>>25566976Read the Thora (better known as the Old Testament) first and be done with that semitic shit. Jesus himself is ok he just built his house on sand.
