File: You.jpg (378 KB, 1080x1778)

378 KB JPG

>>39618565

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1877426358189457467.html

File: gaudí.jpg (196 KB, 740x918)

196 KB JPG

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790033823243046998.html

File: civilization_they_couldn'(...).jpg (195 KB, 739x986)

195 KB JPG

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1857135640871420233.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy-WI3gn6wI

How Medieval Interpreters Saw Mary EVERYWHERE in Scripture (w/ Dr. Rachel Fulton Brown)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37tmn99w5k

>>39618565
Videos on Gnosis, its various types (SPG, UPG & VPG) and Gnosticism:

https://youtu.be/0F7knBtLsNs
https://youtu.be/260L-DEZVQ0
https://youtu.be/diHf_Tup6tE

https://youtu.be/1zW6SRwwh0c?si=dy2q9JLlomweqLEC

So "aionion" doesn't need to mean eternal, yet every translation writes it as eternal. The latest translation confusion is this
https://biblehub.com/greek/1565.htm
It's the word used to refer to the Holy Spirit as "he" in John 16:13, but it clearly says in this link that it can be he/she or it. I've been investigating the idea that the Holy Spirit may be symbolized as feminine, just like how the Father is symbolized as masculine. It would make sense considering the mother relationship isn't represented in the Trinity otherwise, but I don't consider that to be good enough evidence. I'm going to post some relevant material from chatgpt in my next post and I'm interested in hearing your guys thoughts

>Aphrahat (sometimes spelled “Aphraates”) was a Persian-Christian writer, often called the “Persian Sage.” He wrote in the Syriac language, which was the dominant liturgical and literary language of many Eastern churches at the time.
>In his Demonstrations, Aphrahat occasionally uses language comparing the Holy Spirit’s activity to a mother’s nurturing role. This appears in contexts discussing baptism, spiritual birth, and ongoing guidance of believers.
>Because rûḥā (the Syriac word for “spirit”) is grammatically feminine, it was natural within Syriac-speaking churches for authors to use feminine pronouns and motherly images for the Spirit. Aphrahat’s maternal imagery is often tied to the Holy Spirit’s function as the one who “births” believers into new life.

>Ephrem was a prolific Syriac theologian, hymnographer, and poet. He is revered as a “Doctor of the Church” in Eastern Christianity.
>In some of his hymns and commentaries, Ephrem poetically portrays the Holy Spirit’s nurturing qualities. Themes like the Spirit’s provision of spiritual “milk” and tender care evoke motherly images.
>While Ephrem uses this imagery, he also emphasizes that God (and each Person of the Trinity) transcends human gender categories. The motherly language is a poetic device, not a doctrinal assertion that the Spirit “is” female.

Also the Hebrew word for spirit "ruach" is feminine.

File: 1714561834981414.jpg (32 KB, 517x524)

32 KB JPG

Heaven is forever baby!

>>39623904
Wading into the aionios translation thing made me eventually realise that the NT is too vague to be useful for a certain level of theological detail.

The reality is people like Paul or the evangelists hadn't figured these questions out when it was being written, so at times can appear to contradict each other on these points, if they're even that specific.

Christ taught the apostles for 3 years and never met any of the evangelists (possibly excepting John) or Paul. It's hard to know how much actual soterieological teaching Christ delivered in person, it certainly seems like the first 2-3 generations of Christians hadn't gotten those details fully figured out yet

>>39619657
He's right on this one to some degree imo

It seems like it was a small thing made by some guys in their youth that they later outgrew, but got larped back into existence decades (centuries?) later and became a catch-all term for (protestant) Christian esotericism.

Nothing wrong with that but I don't really click with the label

Pansophers do great work researching the history of it but I feel like the term Rosicrucianism got very associated with woo over time rather than secret christian alchemical brotherhoods

>>39623904
>I've been investigating the idea that the Holy Spirit may be symbolized as feminine
This is very interesting. Have you come across anything linguistically that would be a major argument against the idea?

>>39625687
The entire trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a He, God is one. Father of the Church, who is a she.
Now according to Church dogma the soul is a she, and is married to Christ, the head of the Church, at baptism. The Church and our souls, is always a she, married to Him, the head of the Church. Etymologically speaking, in other languages, where nouns take on pronouns and are either male/female/neuter, the soul takes on the female pronoun, usually, at least in the European languages.
So, mankind is male AND female, God made it this way. He is the head of the household, and she is his better half, the helper.

>why does it hurt when she not around
>what are dreams

You're asking the right questions about etymology,

>>39625687
No but tbd
I'll come back around probably tonight when I'm motivated to look into it more deeply
Was hoping somebody here would be able to shed more light on it

I think the Christian conception of The Holy Spirit likely arises as a combination of a few different concepts.

1) The Ruach Elohim, so the Spirit of God from Genesis 1
2) The Ruach HaKodesh, so the Spirit of Holiness that descends upon people or the earth depending
3) the very Hellenized version of Wisdom as understood by greek speaking Jews who would primarily read the Septuagint, specifically the Wisdom of Solomon but also Proverbs

From this, we get a particular understanding of Bridal Theology. Somehow, the Sons of God are also the Bride of God, in that Jacob IS Israel. The Bride is the Kingdom, but the Sons are the Kingdom. Paul understands this as uniting with the Spirit and therefore entering the Kingdom of Heaven: the Jerusalem Above is our mother.

Hebrew Ruach is feminine, but greek pneuma is gender neutral. However, "kingdom" remains feminine in both languages. Latin, where Spiritus is masculine and kingdom is neutral, comes way later. There would have been a very feminine connotation to these concepts during the most foundational period of development.

File: elly.jpg (194 KB, 950x1100)

194 KB JPG

>>39623904
Have you read Julian of Norwich? In one of her "showings" she describes Christ as playing the role of mother to us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwEJX8IJEE4

I remember looking into the "is the Holy Spirit feminine" thing and it pretty quickly became a dead end. Iirc while one word used to refer to the Spirit is neutral or feminine, another is masculine, so it's hard to say anything definitive. It does "feel" odd that there doesn't seem to be a feminine described in God, who made both male and female in "His" image. There is also some strange stuff around God's Wisdom in Proverbs being portrayed as feminine, yet Christ also being considered to be that Wisdom Himself.

Maybe it will just remain a mystery for now, and those who seek female divinity will have to fill the Mom gap with Mary and the female saints. Personally, I love reading the female mystics. It feels like they give me new, deeper perspectives and balance.

>>39626887
>another is masculine
Which word are you referring to, that refers to the Spirit in the masculine?
>It does "feel" odd that there doesn't seem to be a feminine described in God
Other than my current considerations that the Spirit may be the feminine, I've always seen the Church herself as the divine feminine of Christianity. This would also apply to
>There is also some strange stuff around God's Wisdom in Proverbs being portrayed as feminine, yet Christ also being considered to be that Wisdom Himself.
As we are the body of Christ, basically acting out his wisdom on earth. It would also encapsulate Mary and the female saints, as they're also obviously members of the Church through God's grace. One of the criticisms I had with Bulgakovs sofiology is that I felt he applies too much to Mary that could otherwise be applied to the Church, Christ's bride. (I hold this criticism against basically all of mariology anyways).

>>39625687
The Trinity is androgynous, as in, neither male nor female
>>39626020
Male and female terminology are used as synonyms for active and passive, the body is passive as it's acted upon the soul, the soul is female as it's acted upon the Intellect, the Intellect is passive as it's acted upon the agent intellect

File: barker_on_holy_spirit_as_(...).jpg (281 KB, 872x505)

281 KB JPG

>>39623904
>I've been investigating the idea that the Holy Spirit may be symbolized as feminine

>>39628378
>>39628398
>>39628416
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2OzJLI1pvY

I’ve never been this guy, but I have the sense that we’re almost at the end.

>>39619468
This is disgusting, this is the seal of lust and ignorance. Gaudi was one of the prophets of postmodernism, completely anti-sacred and is an outright medium of the Hellish Worlds, in fact, he vulgarized and committed an act of desecration of the Sacred. He dared to strangle and extinguish the Fire and Air of Gothic with a mixture of Earth and Water (that is, the Swamp). His "masterpieces" appeal to the moods of caves and underground grottoes. The transcendence of the Gothic Breakthrough is weighed down by stuck lumps and vulgarized by the sentimental infantilism of cheap prettiness, more appropriate in a candy factory than in the construction of Temples.

Real Architects acquired Knowledge of Form through direct Gnosis, or as a Transmission from Those who realized it. There is worldly architecture (the most precise and direct example is classicism) and there is Unworldly Architecture (primarily Gothic and Romanesque), the sum of its Forms is acquired inspirationally and not from our Dimension.

File: 1734894953433237.png (149 KB, 510x346)

149 KB PNG

>>39628715
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the spiky things on the ceiling or the oval things on the columns or the or the way the bricks are on the walls either.

File: bulgakov_and_'oikonomia'.jpg (98 KB, 870x563)

98 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQc0b5ir_44

>>39628378
Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly but why could the idea of personified Wisdom here not be the Church? Why does it have to be the Holy Spirit?

>>39629015
Could it be both?

i thought this tread could be a little cringe sometimes, but then today i decided to check out the orthodox thread.
Filled with nothing but schizo larpers trying to own the libs with creationism

>>39619657
>>39619650
>>39619642
>>39619630
Is this guy retarded? How do pseuds like this gain a following?

>>39629023
First we'd need to determine whether or not its more valid to assign the feminine pronoun to the Holy Spirit instead of the masculine. Whereas the church is explicitly referred to with the feminine pronoun.
It's interesting to note that the Hebrew word for spirit is feminine, but the Greek seems to be gender neutral, so it's a bit muddy. I hesitate to apply fringe attributes to God without good reason, but I'm open to it.
>>39629031
The biggest problem with orthodoxy in particular imo is that they take their claims of apostolic tradition at face value, and then read that tradition into everything they learn, and it becomes so complex and contrived with mental gymnastics that it's almost impossible to have a conversation about it. Tbf, Protestants have their biases and flaws too (in some cases worse than orthos) but it's inherently more free thinking.

File: prodigal-son-christ-large-wide.jpg (203 KB, 1024x682)

203 KB JPG

Just become orthodox

https://x.com/HolyRomanVibes/status/1878502964890861699

>>39629031
The attitudes of many orthobros I have encountered reminds me of my time in western Buddhist communities. I tried lurking those threads on /x/ but found them unbearably pigheaded and prideful. Too much focus on culture wars.

File: saint_michael's_line.jpg (118 KB, 731x709)

118 KB JPG

>>39621397
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1840484174731338163.html

>>39629184
what a retard

File: Maffei Francesco.jpg (229 KB, 803x900)

229 KB JPG

>>39629031
You're probably referencing my post
>>39625099
but that's the thing, it's schizo LARPers. Actual Orthodox Christians (born and raised, not converts) aren't pushing biblical literalism or creationism. This only comes from Protestant neophytes like Jay Dyer, who tend to be the most vocal online.

>>39629546
>Actual Orthodox Christians (born and raised, not converts)
Folk religion

>>39629592
All religions are folk religions, what's your point?

>>39629639
Not all religions "consist of ethnic or regional customs under the umbrella of religion". I hope mine doesn't. This is something to be transcended, not embraced.

>>39629667
What do you suggest then? I've always held that religion is a cultural thing and spirituality is a form of self improvement.

>>39629684
I suggest pursuing universal, objective truth that transcends culture. For example, the historical data indicates Jesus probably resurrected from the dead, notwithstanding unfair cultural biases like materialism or hinduism. This would make it an objective truth unless shown otherwise.
I don't understand how you can believe
>I've always held that religion is a cultural thing and spirituality is a form of self improvement.
While criticizing protestant converts for presumably exercising their cultural influences the same way you say you're doing now.

File: 1720192827246106.jpg (162 KB, 564x804)

162 KB JPG

>>39627705
Get catechised

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4F2Qy4LaXE

File: moloch_sacrifice.webm (3.61 MB, 496x424)

3.61 MB WEBM

>>39629712
It's just that anyone who believes the Bible is an infallible history book and denies evolution is not to be taken seriously. Anyways if you want to know my personal belief it's that of Deism, I think that no loving God would allow innocent babies to be abused and tortured to death and have their bodies thrown in incinerators but it has happened and continues to happen to this day. To me the only possible way for a God to allow the abominations and horrors beyond comprehension to exist is if he's not present in this world or if he is non-dualistic and incomprehensible.

>>39629907
I deny evolution because there are too many gaps in the evolutionary models, and not enough evidence that the specimens we have aren't just deformed humans or separate species of animal. I think the similarities in DNA can be just as easily attributed to everything having a common designer, as everything coming from a common organism. People will say this is a projection of religious ideology, but it's no different than evolution being a projection of materialist ideology. I happen to believe the God theory answers more questions than the evolution theory. This being said, evolution doesn't need to contradict the biblical narratives, it's open to interpretation and many intelligent Christians believe in evolution.

As for deism, I think it's impossible to form a coherent definition of good and evil without ultimately appealing to a good God. By saying a good God wouldn't allow innocent babies to die, we place our own morality above God's. I believe a better explanation is the idea that all of this suffering has purpose. Which may sound insensitive, but I think it's more insensitive to imply that all this suffering takes place for no reason so we're just fucked.

File: karma_karmic_debt_elites_(...).jpg (1.8 MB, 1242x2036)

1.8 MB JPG

>>39629943
I believe in deistic evolution. On morality, I acknowledge that it was created by God like most 18th century Deists believed. Something like "karma" exists but can be abused which is why evil people have gotten so much power. Here's an image related to what I'm talking about.

>>39630006
There's some interesting stuff in the image, but how do you reconcile the "find Christ" and "experiences that come directly from Christ or God" parts with your deism? That seems like theism to me

>>39630027
I posted the image because it's gives context to what I said about elites absolving themselves of karmic debt.

>>39630051
Oh ok
Well I hope you aren't settled on your beliefs and continue learning, especially about the historical Jesus. God bless you and welcome to our general.

>>39630054
Thanks bro, take care.

>>39629907
>Anyways if you want to know my personal belief it's that of Deism
What does your belief in an uncaring or impersonal deity add to your life?

>>39629907
>>39629943
>I believe a better explanation is the idea that all of this suffering has purpose.

>non-dualistic and incomprehensible.


NTA's. The DBH video in the last thread, a good vid that has him addressing the problem of suffering right at the beginning. He has no answer, is more learned and likely more intelligent than I am.

Since I believe many (most?) aspects of God are incomprehensible, the most comforting belief is that the suffering has purpose that is incomprehensible to us now, so I figure why not hold it and be comforted?

It isn't necessary to be non-dualistic along with incomprehensible IMO, as this proposed incomprehensible purpose can be for the greater good in the end.

File: The indomitable human spirit.jpg (156 KB, 716x725)

156 KB JPG

>>39618565
YHWH pretends to be God just like Jews pretend to be white.

>>39630273
Intellect certainly has its limits, and I've been able to come to terms with that fact better since coming to believe in the fullness of Christ's sacrifice. We know God as he revealed himself in the man Jesus, and as he may have revealed himself to each of us personally. That's enough for me to place my trust in him.

>>39630361
you got it backwards, all jews of today are whites pretending to be jews

>stein
>burg
>er

these are german surnames

>>39623904
>I'm going to post some slop from AI
>about how God might be feminine

Please stop, this kind of shit is ruining this thread

God having feminine characteristics has never been a meaningful or useful concept, except for padding out academic theses on gender (where female saints are discussed at length for being women, but their theology is ignored)

>>39628378
>>39628398
>>39628416
Sophia is the body of God and the mother of the Logos, she is the eye of the Father, she is one with the Son and she is acted upon by the Holy Spirit
Saint Augustine calls Wisdom the Essence of God
>>39628715
Abbot Suger, father of Gothic Architecture based himself on the Light-Metaphysics of Dionysius the Aeropagite
>>39629015
'Ekklesia' is more akin to the 'Shekinah' in Kabbalah, you could say that Wisdom and the Church are the Orthodox Christian bersion higher and lower Wisdom in Gnosticism and Kabbalah
>>39629031
I still think that /ceg/ and the Orthodox general should be one thread really
>>39631319
>where female saints are discussed at length for being women, but their theology is ignored
Oh don't get me started, those feminists by trying to elevate pre-modern women just degrade them into nobodies, Hildegard von Bingen was one of the greatest Christians of all time, a Saint and recently a Doctor of the Church, who received visions from God (and a language) that Antoine Faivre calls a Proto-theosophy, but those '''scholars''' interpret her as some sort of sly fox who just pretended as if God revealed those things to her because she was smart but those were patriarchal times so she had to hide her witts from all those evil men in the Church
So the Catholic view of Hildegard is that she was a Saint, whereas the modern view is that she was a liar
Who do you think respects her more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVhnh-PZ4Dk

>>39631055
What does /ceg/ think of Khazar theory?

File: tomberg_and_mary-sophia.jpg (395 KB, 779x1054)

395 KB JPG

https://www.thecenterforsophiologicalstudies.com/post/in-the-name-of-the-mother-and-of-the-daughter-and-of-the-holy-soul

>>39631760
>any child raised a christian, I suspect, asks why the trinity lacks a feminine face
>any child can see something is out of whack

nope, I never asked that and never heard it asked from my siblings or friends. Seems like a wierd global pronouncement to make.

>>39631987
I guess I resonate with that line because it's quite similar to a concern that my father expressed to me.

>>39631055
The names come from when Ashkenazi Jews lived in the (German speaking) Holy Roman Empire, before moving to eastern Europe, where they got some Slavic name endings like 'sky'. You can google Ashkenazi DNA.

>Middle Eastern, levant + some European
>Genetic bottlenecks, unique population
>Not much German
>Small amount of Eastern Euro (12% R1a compared to gentile Polish who have 50+%)
>Some similarities to Greek and Southern Italians

>>39632130
did you consider it by yourself before he said something about it?

What did he say, if you don't mind me asking?

>>39632179
I don't remember exactly what he said. He was kind of ranting about how he thought that the veneration of Mary came in to fill a void, because the Trinity had no female figure. He wrongly assumed that the Jews didn't have a female divinity and was unaware of the Shekhinah. When I mentioned her, he handwaved her away as something fringe, possibly confined to the Kabbalistic tradition.

He seems to think about it in terms of Jungian archetypes (kinda cringe). Like a suppressed female archetype that comes to the surface in the form of Marian devotion. He would talk about how the Greeks had female goddesses and that they felt a need for something similar in Christianity.

He's a somewhat unconventional Catholic, but I think it's more of a cultural thing for him. He came back to it in his old age, but it feels like his core theology is a type of generic non-dualism, which wears a Catholic mask. And whenever the Bible or Catholic tradition comes into conflict with that, he holds fast to his non-dualism.

Did I ever consider it? I dunno. I'm not Christian and wasn't raised Christian, though I went to Catholic school from Kindergarten to fifth grade (loved it). And was later transferred to a secular GATE program (hated it).

I was raised with basic bitch non-dual ideas about God, "perennial philosophy", etc. I can't stand that stuff now.

>>39632171
Facts.

>>39631726
>khazar kingdom
>southern russia
>700-900 AD
more or less anyway?

the Khazar kings converted to Judaism for the sake of profit while most of the population remained pagan. This isn't a theory.

>>39632171
In Genesis (10 I believe?), Moses gives us the genealogy of the gentiles. Ashkenaz, the progenitor of the Germans, is the son of Gomer, the son of Japheth.
Proselytes, converts... traitors to some. One thing they will never be is blooded Abrahamists, because the Semites (sons of Sem/Shem) are, how to put it, Mongol/Turk/Indian/Chinese types. Abraham is from Iraq.

>judaism is a faith and not a race
yea..

>>39632389
>2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

>3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz

Genesis 10

>>39623904
I think translations like everlasting and eternal are still going to be the most reliable for conventional translation taking the etymologies of "ever" and "aeternum" into consideration. Perhaps also "to the (age of) ages" and my own coining with the Semitic olam/alam in mind of "world-perduring".

>>39632474
>This isn't a theory.
I guess I thought that Khazar theory (KT) puts forward more than just a conversion of some Khazars. Isn't the core KT claim that modern Ashkenazim are primarily descended from that root population, and thus have little to no Middle Eastern ancestry? And don't modern DNA studies seem to contradict this assertion, despite what Shlomo Sand writes?

>>39632517
Even in modern times you are the son of your father who is the son of his father. We can all see whom your fathers are, and not were. Because death is only the beginning.

DNA is sacred. This is why the whole thing about holy, matrimony

>>39632544
So Khazar theory is horseshit?

>>39632550
Everything that isn't truly Biblical is. Jesus warning of hell and hell's torments is solemn, everything in the world will fade away. His words only will remain

So any theory is just a theory, i can theorize all day too. But the facts going to always remain facts, and they been here before us.
We got lied to by the Rockerfeller education system, what we all need is a classical education which is the seminary, and the ancient classical languages (Greek and Latin !!!), for starters.
Rockerfeller budget did not include religion, the science of all sciences.

>>39632474
>judaism is a faith and not a race
Isn't it a religion with a strong racial/ethnic element to it, resulting in selective breeding and genetic clustering? Sort of like how Christian Identity is a religion with a strong ethnic/racial element to it.

>>39631319
>Blind hatred towards a utility
I don't care
>God having feminine characteristics has never been a meaningful or useful concept
Its meaningful if it's true, which is all I'm trying to figure out.

>>39632816
>Sort of like how Christian Identity is a religion with a strong ethnic/racial element to it.
Mostly just Orthodox 2bh

>>39632266
Thanks for answering. Grass is always greener I guess because it feels like I would have liked to have interactions like that with my dad, and exposure to things outside my beliefs.

I had one exposure which was Catholicism and one interaction with my dad about religion when he said "You know you can take this stuff too seriously", which I didn't know whether it was life advice or a dig at my mother.

>>39633208
That's not really been my experience. There's a significant percentage of "atheist jews", who identify strongly as jews, but don't believe in God or care about religion.

That's not something I've really encountered much in other traditions. Despite John Murray Cuddihy (semi-jokingly?) referring to himself as an "atheist Catholic" , I haven't met a lot of atheist Methodists or atheist Presbyterians.

Ethnic identity seems to be the glue that hold the Jewish community together, independent of their level of level of religious observance.

I once dated a Jewish girl who's family was Reform. They were also very leftist and performatively antiracist. But they didn't feel even a little bit uncomfortable in unironically making disparaging comments about shikshas, right in front of me.

She eventually confessed to me that her parents didn't like me, not because I wasn't Jewish, but in large part because of my ethnicity.

My experience is not an anomaly. This kind of stuff is fairly common for folks who have been around a lot of Jewish people, or lived and worked among them, or had a lot of them as friends. The Orthodox simply mix their ethnocentrism with more religion. Members of more liberal denominations may be less religiously observant, but they’re not necessarily any less ethnocentric. Even when they’re politically leftist or identify as “antiracist”. In the case of the latter, there may simply be a bit more self-deception going on.

File: Exvotos.jpg (67 KB, 500x752)

67 KB JPG

Im the reality shifting poster.I'm believing less and less, that shifting is even possible, even if it IS; Im doubting I would choose to ,deliberately, undergo such a process.
I remain interested in lucid dreaming, but I firmly believe all ethical norms of IRL also apply in dreams..I would only LD stuff I can't do here because of financial\geographical reasons, but not (i cant do because) legal fears

>>39633950
They literally call their churches "[ethnic group] Orthodox Church", even when they aren't geographically located where that group comes from.

>>39634132
I think we may be talking about two somewhat different things. I thought I was responding to an anon who was referring to the religious ethnocentrism of Orthodox Jews.

If I follow your meaning, you're referring to Orthodox Christian groups that also function as de facto ethnic enclaves. Am I getting it right? I have no idea if that’s the case. It may be. I haven't ever really been in such environments.

I do know of one group that literally calls their church "[ethnic group] Catholic Church", even when they aren't geographically located in Rome. And I haven’t found them to be particularly ethnocentric. I guess one could argue that their Church name refers to a city or to an empire, rather than an ethnic group. But it’s also true that historically most of their Popes have been Italians.

>>39633177
>Its meaningful if it's true, which is all I'm trying to figure out.

Describing God as having any characteristic at all means his nature has escaped you (see pseudo-Dionysus' Mystical Theology)

The description of 'Father' is mainly just a traditional convenience, but fails to accurately describe his nature. 'Mother' would be equally wrong as a description, which is why I say it's not meaningful.

>>39618565
>Jane Lead

I saw something a while back that suggested someone was nefariously editing Lead texts to be wrong on that site or something, not sure what that was about

File: church.jpg (90 KB, 487x473)

90 KB JPG

>>39624467

File: temporarily_closed.jpg (111 KB, 491x652)

111 KB JPG

>>39624467

File: Lincoln with Bilble.jpg (159 KB, 960x719)

159 KB JPG

.

>>39637743
Based.

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

Does this general believe in 4 gospels or 30 gospels

>>39638649
4 Gospels

>>39638649
Imo most gospels/acts from the first 2 centuries probably contain some legit oral tradition.

e.g. Gospel of Thomas is pretty unintelligible without the oral explanation of some verses, and was probably specific to some minor community, but also contain some canonical material.

Bear in mind when Paul was writing it was *entirely* oral so there was no set phrasing for anything. E.g. he quotes Christ at the last supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, just off what he had heard (presumably)

But I do think the later they were written, the more questionable or sect-specific content gets in there. The proto-orthodox tendency was to reign in people's tendency to generate mythology when explaining the incarnation (this is how you end up with the Aeons etc).

So while the Synoptic gospels are just copying each other to some degree, they do appear to be fairly restrained accounts from the tradition of Christ's immediate disciples, maybe 1-2 generations removed. John comes from a different school of thought but seems to have also been accepted very early

>>39638936
*rein in

>>39638649
1 Gospel. Or did not St. Paul preach the good news in his epistles?

>>39638936
>Gospel of Thomas
I'm sure that was an ancient form of pamphlets that every church always gives out. They're full of Biblical verses as well as non canonical material, this had to start somewhere.

>>39634077
>Im the reality shifting poster.I'm believing less and less, that shifting is even possible, even if it IS; Im doubting I would choose to ,deliberately, undergo such a process.
Let me be clear: You don't even know what planet you're on, literally.

THE FINAL REDPILL ...

Read this thread:

https://x.com/elitefeat/status/1742924942151438589

Keep in mind that both Christians and atheists do not like what I have to say.

Also, here's a supplementary post that contains some important details:

https://x.com/elitefeat/status/1799553063390154856

I can't tell you exactly when Jesus will arrive to destroy this planet (I can't even give you the year, let alone the month). But here's one thing I do know with 100% certainty: this planet is Bozrah, not Earth.

>>39635254
>Describing God as having any characteristic at all means his nature has escaped you (see pseudo-Dionysus' Mystical Theology)
This is cringe pseud shit that people who only just discovered Dionysus would say
There are both apophatic and catophatic ways of perceiving God. Only appealing to the former like you're doing would make God mostly unknowable for any practical worldly pursuits (like determining ethics and his character).

This would be a complete irredeemable nightmare reality if Eternal Torment or Annilihationism were true.

Imagine having to 'into' manuscript evidence and trust numerous layers of secondary sources in order to be saved from eternal damnation.

I don't know where my head was. I don't know how I just casually believed that and was smiling still.

>>39638649
1 Gospel

>>39640913
>This would be a complete irredeemable nightmare reality if Eternal Torment or Annilihationism were true.
Well no, if it were true then it would automatically be redeemed incidentally by virtue of it being true. Just like the amalakites being wiped out by God's command is true regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you.
I understand the human response here, but I really wish you guys wouldn't act like having a emotional repulsion to eternal torment is an argument in itself. I believe scripture teaches apokatastasis but this is regardless of whether I want it to be true or not.

>>39640970
I already wrote a paper on it for myself so I know that it is true.

I don't think the strong moral disgust at this doctrine is something that should just be thrown away or ignored. We should be able to call evil as evil.

And I do not grant you that God commanded people to do something contradictory to what Jesus spoke to us. To love neighbor as your self and to love your enemy.

We're allowed to use our God-given objective morality.

ground breaking realization that if Jesus fulfilled no Tanakh prophecies, it wouldn't even change my belief in him.

>>39640995
>I don't think the strong moral disgust at this doctrine is something that should just be thrown away or ignored. We should be able to call evil as evil.
Sure. But "moral disgust" is not in itself an argument or reason to believe
>And I do not grant you that God commanded people to do something contradictory to what Jesus spoke to us. To love neighbor as your self and to love your enemy.
Oh you're a cringe gnostic. Very little point engaging further. Regardless, life and death belongs to God ontologically, not to us. There is no contradiction.

>>39640970
>it would automatically be redeemed incidentally by virtue of it being true
as long as something is true, then it is redeemed?

NTA but this doesn't check with my dictionary. If god is so cruel as to torment people eternally for finite sins, then that is not redeemable in my eyes.

>>39641000
Yep, I wouldn't even bother with this religion if I thought ETC was actually part of it.

>>39641042
>If god is so cruel as to torment people eternally for finite sins, then that is not redeemable in my eyes.
Then you're placing your finite morality above the morality of an omnipotent God
If it were true and it makes us uncomfortable, we would need to humble ourselves and understand there are aspects to this grand scheme that we don't understand.

>>39641026

Moral disgust is not a formal logical argument, I made those in my paper. But it is still valuable.

Also, I see a contradiction between Jesus commanding people to love their enemies and the tanakh god commanding genocide and making rules for conquest.

I also see a contradiction in Jesus claiming that no one has seen the Father, but numerous people in the Tanakh are said to have seen the tanakh god.

I'm still looking into it. But on the face of it, some things do seem contradictory if we are saying that these are the same gods.

>>39641055
If it were true, I'd believe that there is a higher God than the one orchestrating such. And I would seek to free everyone.

>>39641055
I could doubt his mercy and omnipotence instead of humble myself if that were the case

>>39641054
I didn't even realize that post was commenting on ETC
I don't see that the necessity or privilege of appealing to objective morality unique to apokatastasis. Muslims believe in objective morality too, and when there's disagreement I'd hope we appeal to reason and God's word before our emotional responses
>But it is still valuable.
Sure, from a human to human level. But it needs to unpacked logically
>Also, I see a contradiction between Jesus commanding people to love their enemies and the tanakh god commanding genocide and making rules for conquest.
Different commands for different times. Ecclesiastes 3
>I also see a contradiction in Jesus claiming that no one has seen the Father, but numerous people in the Tanakh are said to have seen the tanakh god.
Nobody has seen God in all his glory. 1 Corinthians 13:12
>>39641080
We are getting into "if I had wheels I'd be a bike" territory. Regardless you're committing a methodological error here and putting the cart before the horse. You don't get to say "if I come across something I don't like in scripture, I will assume it's wrong and find a way to undermine it". The issue is not simply your error in itself, but you will also encounter atheists who "reason" away the parts of scripture that they dislike the same way you're doing.

>>39641095
I forgot to link
>>39641065

>>39641055
I think you might consider that for you, you would humble yourself, but others have a different opinion. Is there anything hypothetically that would make you doubt? What about punishing good deeds? What if god was punishing you for healing sick babies, just because he enjoyed it?

I know that is a bizarre and crazy analogy, but for some people ECT is just that bizarre and crazy.

>>39641117
>Is there anything hypothetically that would make you doubt
Probably if I encountered some sort of archaeological or historical evidence that contradicts what I know about Jesus. I do doubt sometimes when I encounter confusing portions of scripture, but this is a human flaw on my part. It isn't logical. Like I said, I understand the human repulsion to it, but that isn't in itself a good reason to not believe it (I might not argue this way with someone in person, but I assume anyone who finds their way to this type of thread would expect more of themselves).
>What about punishing good deeds? What if god was punishing you for healing sick babies, just because he enjoyed it?
"What if God did an evil thing" is impossible to answer because it's an ontological contradiction. It's like asking "can God make a stone that he can't lift". The problem is the presumption by itself that eternal torment is evil based on subjective emotional merit instead of reason.

>>39640913
Agreed. It's like how I see everything has changed since I accepted Apokatastasis as the most plausible option. If Christians who claim to believe in Eternal Torment or Annihilationism ACTUALLY believed those things and didn't back-file them in their mind as incomprehensible, they would likely be too filled with dread to ever have children.
>>39641000
Trips confirm. That anon playing Baal's Advocate has already had this pointed out to him, not sure why he has such trouble grasping this. Has he read Genesis? What about Romans? This idea of God's morality being totally incomprehensible to us is Gnostic in origin (Mani -> Augustine -> Calvin).
>>39641025
Amen.

>>39641149
Yes, eternal torment is objectively evil, especially if the same God has the omnipotence to change hearts by the Spirit.

>Can make the most evil of people Good ( look at Apostle Paul who was persecuting Christians ),

>still has an eternal trash bin.

It is evil.

>>39641174
>This idea of God's morality being totally incomprehensible to us
I never said that
ECT is comprehensible for many of the people who believe in it, but obviously we'd argue that their comprehension is incorrect. But that argument can't stem from emotional response, or someone could argue for practically anything in this way
>>39641177
God is not entitled to change anyone's heart simply because he has the ability. Now for the record I want to restate that I do believe in apokatastasis, I just don't agree with the methodology you folks are using. I think you guys might be wearing the Hitchens-esque dbh influence on your sleeve too heavily by arguing this way.

>>39641149
Logic is only goes so far, as you pointed out "can God make a stone that he can't lift' proves that logic has its limits, because the question is not logically answerable if god is omnipotent.

Logic is human and finite, but you elevate it above morality and expect others to as well. You have to consider that not everyone thinks the way you do in regards to considerations like this. Not everyone is keeping score in the way that you do.

>(I might not argue this way with someone in person, but I assume anyone who finds their way to this type of thread would expect more of themselves).

You expect more logic from us, we don't necessarily expect more logic from ourselves in this particular question.

>>39641202
>God is not entitled to change anyone's heart simply because he has the ability.
I misphrased this. I meant to say we humans aren't entitled to having our hearts changed.

>>39641205
>we don't necessarily expect more logic from ourselves in this particular question.
But you should. Logic indeed has its limits, but this isn't one of those cases. You're placing a glass ceiling on your own logic. You're right, but not necessarily for the right reason, and applying this same methodology can lead you astray or shoot yourself in the foot, especially if you dialog with atheists (or other non christian groups).

>>39641226
>this isn't one of those cases
It is for me.

>>39641264
Ok well
Just wanna say you're totally right for feeling repulsion at eternal torment, it just isn't the right reason to reject it. The danger is trying to apply this reasoning to those who believe in eternal torment, effectively shaming them for being wrong. Ironically not knowing that your own methodology (not your conclusion) is wrong, and we're all in need of mercy.
That's all, I hope you don't think I'm lecturing you or anything.

>>39641202
>ECT is comprehensible for many of the people who believe in it
No, it's not comprehensible to anybody. People claim to believe it, but don't, because they can't. We can't comprehend eternity, and we can't comprehend how a God of Love would condemn somebody to eternal torture (or allow them to torture themselves, another bad argument) for finite crimes, when He has the power to do otherwise, which has been demonstrated in scripture.

"This doctrine has existed, therefore we have to entertain it if it seems deeply contradictory to scripture, philosophy and theology" is not any more of an argument than "this doctrine seems morally wrong and insulting to God, therefore I can no longer believe it to be plausable."

>>39641292
Yes their arguments for it are bad. And some people's arguments for apokatastasis are bad too (like ITT), in spite of ultimately being right.
I do not believe we should "correct" their bad arguments with more bad arguments. Arguing in this way, like I said before, is effectively a shame tactic (which DBH seems to resort to regularly. Don't know how related he is to this).

>>39641202
>God is not entitled to change anyone's heart
It's not about entitlement or "owing" anybody anything. I'm tired of this Calvinist (not that you are one, but this is an argument used by them to defend their doctrine of predestination) diversionary tactic that tries to make it seem like we're being insolent and making demands of God rather than simply making inferences from His character (as revealed in scripture and the man Jesus Christ) as to what seems plausible for Him to do.

>>39641306
>rather than simply making inferences from His character (as revealed in scripture and the man Jesus Christ) as to what seems plausible for Him to do.
>as revealed in scripture and the man Jesus Christ
Now THIS is all I'm asking for.
Not this
>If god is so cruel as to torment people eternally for finite sins, then that is not redeemable in my eyes.
Or
>This would be a complete irredeemable nightmare reality if Eternal Torment or Annilihationism were true.
Among other fallacious remarks. I understand these statements on a casual, human level, but they shouldn't be used against people who do believe in eternal torment. It should be argued from scripture and the person of Christ, not how we'd feel if the scripture taught something (hypothetically) that disgusts us

>>39641324
Where are you getting all of your "shoulds" from?

>>39641332
You mean that we should argue from scripture and shouldn't shame people into believing like us? I think both of these could be extrapolated from scripture. I guess I wouldn't be able to argue for scripture from scripture, but I think the person of Jesus and history of early Christianity makes a good case for what it says.

>>39641324
>Among other fallacious remarks.
So your soul is Annilihated or you are being eternally tormented, but it cant be ireedeamble to a person because it doesn't follow a logical principle?

Must something be logical in order for it to be redeemable/iredeemable?

>>39641376
Well if it's *true* then it can't be irredeemable, as God ontologically cannot fail to do good, or rather he cannot perform evil acts.
Now we don't believe its true, so we don't want to get too deep into "what if I had wheels and was a bike" territory.

The irony is universalists believing that they're highlighting God's mercy, while demonizing ECT believers as believing in an evil or nonchristian God

>>39641390
>God ontologically cannot fail to do good
You don't seem to realize that people in this thread are hypothesizing "what if god did fail to do good?" They aren't binding themselves by your above supposition.

By using logic they decide that by failing to good, it would no longer be god.

>>39641439
If scripture taught eternal torment is true and you decided that this is evil so therefore God is evil or not God, to what are you appealing to for this moral assertion? If you are appealing to your own emotional/moral response, you are making yourself to be God.

>>39641460
No, I am deciding that my own morals do match this religion, and it's time for me to go elsewhere. I don't have to "make myself God" to do that.

>>39641467
From what would you be drawing your morals from in this case? If it isn't God, and it isn't yourself, what would it be?

How do you really know when the Satanic psyop began. Is there a scriptural basis for this. He probably knew this would happen.

>>39641475
In this sad case, I guess like other traits, my morals would be a combinatin of my genetics and upringing, combined with free will. This is kind of steering off the subject. Also I'm exhausted. It was fun talking to you. I would rather have you debate for our team than me. Bye.

File: 1736036986814694.jpg (90 KB, 1220x1121)

90 KB JPG

>>39641509
Nice talking to you too, thanks for taking the time

From a chain of reasoning based on assumptions they find to be self-evident, one person arrives at the conclusion: "I should trust this scripture above my own moral judgment." However, yet another person arrives at the opposite conclusion.

From a chain of reasoning based on assumptions they find to be self-evident, one person arrives at the conclusion: "Eternal conscious torment is wrong." However, yet another person arrives at the opposite conclusion.

No matter what you do, you can't escape from the influence of your own intuitions. All you can do is try to be as honest about them with yourself as possible and try to make sure your reasoning is from them is sound.

>>39621397
Why is the 3 of Cups is in that image?

>>39641571
I think the scripture pretty clearly leans towards apokatastasis, but it's easy to get hung up on the translation of aionion as "eternal"

>>39618565
Can anybody tell me why there's a trend recently to say that "meditation is not religious"?

Or for that matter any religious practice?

>>39641700
I don't know.

>>39641571
Weird false dichotomy. You make it sound as if one view is scriptural and the other isn't. What *could* be argued is that one is more scriptural than the other, and I think apokatastasis would win out against eternal conscious torment if the latter didn't have the (undeserved?) weight of tradition behind it.

https://ucatholic.com/blog/did-you-know-medieval-catholics-celebrated-the-feast-of-the-ass/

>>39642058
I wasn't trying to create a false dichotomy, I was trying to point out a false dichotomy, namely the false dichotomy between arguments based on "subjective emotional merit" and arguments based on "reason" that one anon was making. I don't think moral reasoning is necessarily so different from other types of reasoning except that it starts from directly intuited "ought" statements instead of directly intuited "is" statements (usually called observations), although I would say you need to be careful about accurately describing the specific "oughts" you think you're intuiting, and most people usually aren't at all careful about it.

But I agree that apokatastasis is both scripturally defensible and considerably more morally defensible than eternal conscious torment. (I also find annihilationism to be defensible and not especially morally offensive, though obviously apokatastasis would be best.)

File: final_conclave.jpg (84 KB, 590x664)

84 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB3i-dyMkrw

Imagine if new excavations were made soon which revealed early 2nd century manuscripts that tell us Marcion was right.

>>39641460
NTA, but

I'd be appealing to God.

File: pilgrim's_path.jpg (41 KB, 590x403)

41 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i2axheFgtc

>>39643645
Would be cool.

>>39643656
if you aren't appealing to God as revealed by scripture, then which God?

>>39641460
>If scripture taught eternal torment is true and you decided that this is evil so therefore God is evil or not God, to what are you appealing to for this moral assertion
Who says "scripture" is true? Scripture?

>>39644237
>Who says "scripture" is true?
The historical and archaeological data on the new testament documents and events surrounding it seems to indicate that they are telling the truth. For example, the early testimony of the witnesses, the spread of the church among persecution (and the regional manuscripts left behind), the accusations of "magic" by its enemies (as opposed to asserting that the documents are simply lying), the inexplicable conversion of Paul, among other things. The new testament documents are more well attested than any other documents of antiquity by far
>Scripture?
I can't infer what you meant by this.

>>39644346
Does "scripture" include "The Wisdom of Solomon"? Does "scripture" include Paul as the author of Hebrews? What about Ephesians? What about Timothy? When you say "the New Testament," does that include the Shepherd of Hermas?

How did you decide? Who told you? Is that a consistent metric?

>>39644417
I'd generally appeal to the providential canonization of the church, but there's a bit of ambiguity yeah.
But as far as making a case that scripture is indeed recounting a true miraculous event and therefore validating itself as the word of God, only a few portions are truly necessary. As an example, 1 Corinthians 15:6 is a credible, unquestioned historical witness (obviously we'd read some biases into whether those 500 witnesses really saw what Paul is claiming, but this is a separate discussion). Luke and acts are also well attested documents. Something like Hebrews or Jude are more accepted on faith.

>>39644208
If scripture taught that ( I don't believe it does ), then I guess I'd just direct my attention toward the philosophically derived God and ask for answers.

But in reality, eternal torment is not found in scripture and the proof texts are confined to certain texts. It isn't even spoken about in the Apostle Paul's Epistles. So I'd really just remove the proof texts which 'teach it' and simply say they're not canon.

But if it was taught all over scripture and I couldn't remove it, I'd do what I said in the beginning of this post.

>>39644635
If it was found in the scripture, (I agree it isn't) you'd still need to contend with the historicity of the biblical text that seems to validate it
I assume this would be part of your philosophical seeking, but if it rang true then you'd be obliged to believe it I hope. This is just a hypothetical so we can't look at it too deeply. "if God did an evil thing, would we need to look at it as good?" I don't know, but the categorical error is deciding that a thing is evil, aside from God's (hypothetical) perspective on the matter.

the question is, are early 2nd century manuscripts of Marcion's Gospel and Apostolikon contained within the Vatican's Secret Library?


Will Early 2nd Century manuscripts of Marcion's Gospel and Apostolikon turn up soon?

Those are the questions. Pray for it.

>>39644482
>providential canonization of the church, but there's a bit of ambiguity yeah
So yeah, something other than "scripture." Or rather, what differentiates "scripture" from "non-Scripture", to you, involves such and such decision back in the year the year so and so, not that "scripture" is a term with some objective meaning. No book falls out of the sky teaching XYZ, people choose books written by people that they like.
>But as far as making a case that scripture is indeed recounting a true miraculous event and therefore validating itself as the word of God, only a few portions are truly necessary
Okay. How do you pick what is necessary, and what is not? Under what circumstances might "scripture" "necessarily" "teach" this or that model of Hell, and that is definitely Something We Need To Believe Lest We Make God Ourselves but other models such as universal reconciliation are not?

You use Paul as a justification, but Paul has no concept of Hell at all, merely a wrath that destroys the world and a cleansing fire that is a step in the process towards obtaining immortality. Paul, read for what he wrote instead of what we can force him to mean if we want to preserve some collection of books as "scripture" that therefore MUST agree, would appear to be an annihilationist. Why would that be secondary, a part that can be easily ignored?

Luke Acts are also not great historical documents. We can see that directly with a comparison of how Paul and Luke tell the same events and controversies, such as the meat sacrificed to idols issue.

The point is, all of this is much more complicated than there being this magical "thing" called "scripture" that can "teach" this or that model. We have books that some people think are more sacred than other books, but even a close reading of those books reveal disagreements and competing models. The "scriptures" cannot teach the way you say they do, which is why EVERYONE is appealing to their moral response when they read.

>>39644734
Supposedly its so poorly catalogued that it's hard to know what's actually in there

Personally I feel like those malding about Marcion in the early days of the Church may have been looking at random MSS that he didn't necessarily use.

E.g. one commentator says he basically ignored Marcion's Philemon because it was so garbled, another one 170 years apart (Eusebius? I forget) said that Marcion didn't make any edits to Philemon due to its length, so what were they both looking at?

I think it stands to reason that there were proto-Lukes before what we know as Luke was finished. What would be interesting is to see how much of the infancy narratives they have - e.g. the omission of the virgin birth in Paul, Mark and John is odd

Also could be helpful in dating Luke as iirc if Acts is a sequel to Luke but doesn't mention Paul's death, it makes sense that Luke was written before 62AD (again, completely possible but needs better corroboration)

File: JMU_01038-696x1024.jpg (79 KB, 696x1024)

79 KB JPG

Besides "preparation for death" by alphonsus liguori; what are some good catholic books, on facing mortality\near death, specially for terminal disease patients? Or, modern documents on the legality (theological) of various types of medical intervention? intubation, morphine up to sleeping state, resuscitation, coma measures, etc?
Does the traditional approach include such this-life items as settling accounts in order, last wishes\bucket list, righting your wrongs, etc?

>>39645751
>The "scriptures" cannot teach the way you say they do, which is why EVERYONE is appealing to their moral response when they read.
If "everyone" appealed to their moral response for making these decisions, then a different decision could be made on virtually every topic that exists, and they'd all be equally viable. Each of the issues you brought up are subject to debate and discussion but that doesn't automatically make "moral response" a viable objective means for doctrinal assertions

>>39648041
Yes. This is because the objectivity you seek by invoking "the scriptures" is illusionary. There is no kind of objectivity like that, only personal conviction. Whether or not that means "all are equally viable" or not is yet more personal conviction, based on what heuristics, evidence etc. one finds compelling. No amount of fossil evidence convinces the young earth creationist, no amount of tradition convinces the atheist, and in between we walk through the Athenian market in blinding daytime with lanterns lit seeking an honest truth.

>>39648361
>This is because the objectivity you seek by invoking "the scriptures" is illusionary.
Only if I pretend it's a infallible mathematical certainty. I only appeal to probability through whoever means the field in question utilizes. Whether that's experimentation, or archaeological evidence, etc. and all of these can be demonstrated to show why they are relatively more reliable metrics for truth than, idk, "it hurts my feelings" or "I saw it in a dream".
>Whether or not that means "all are equally viable" or not is yet more personal conviction, based on what heuristics, evidence etc. one finds compelling
Not all these things are held equally, this can be demonstrated as I said. Ie, compare historical data to my dreams, and I'd say you're a crazy person if you think my dreams are equally viable.
>No amount of fossil evidence convinces the young earth creationist, no amount of tradition convinces the atheist,
This has no bearing on whether the evidence is viably worth consideration or dismissal. We surely can interpret the evidence differently but even the interpretative methodology needs to be unpacked.
Most of the human experience is characterized by feeling rather than logic, so most people default towards their emotions because it's the path of least resistance. I believe a balance is possible because the God who created logic is also emotional and compassionate, but the logic should precede emotion... For reasons that can be demonstrated.

Nobody is actually a relativist. If they see someone going on a stabbing spree in a mall because they think everyone is a demonic orc from Mars, no relativist (except the insane) will say "well his view is just as viable as ours". When a relativist wakes up in his house in the morning, he doesn't wake up and go "let's see, do I want to act out the self evident truth that I'm in my house, or do I want to consider that perhaps this is a hallucination and I'm in a mental hospital right now". Relativism is ultimately an excuse to disregard observational, testable truths when convenient so that the relativist can do what he/she wants in that moment without criticism or guilt.
It can also be taken to it's (ill)logical conclusion to make skin grafted penises out of forearm skin and marry kids. Relativism is a spiritual disease, it's like a deliberate numbing of the human capacity to rationalize their experiences with both instinct and reason.

>>39648455
>and all of these can be demonstrated to show why they are relatively more reliable metrics for truth
Okay, great. Then there is just one problem. When we start applying those metrics, "scripture teaches that..." becomes an incoherent statement, given the basic problems with defining "scripture" and historical difficulties such as Paul's self-report vs Luke's characterization in Acts.
>I'd say you're a crazy person if you think my dreams are equally viable.
And again we come to a problem. Someone could very easily say the same about the claims to the resurrection. We do not have 500 individual witness accounts, we have an account that claims that 500 witnesses saw something, and from context we assume that this account is at least considered credible to the immediate audience. That does not mean, for example, that someone could not as easily dismiss those claims as you dismiss dreams (eg: "they were hallucinating due to social pressure, the way modern charismatics believe they speak in tongues according to social convention but do not produce intelligible morphemes from any language.")
>This has no bearing on whether the evidence is viably worth consideration or dismissal.
It has all the bearing. People choose which types of evidence they do or do not accept much more arbitrarily than you expect. Consider something as basic as the reliability of induction vs deduction: how many observations of a phenomena are needed before you can incorporate a notion derived from induction into deductive logic validly? We choose p < 0.05 completely arbitrarily, for example.

>>39649760
>here is a strawman of how you should act, given my wild mischaracterization of your position
>you do not act like that
>therefore, you do not really hold such a position
Alternate view: your wild mischaracterization is a wild mischaracterization. When you invoke an objectivity that you do not actually have, someone pointing that out does not make them insane.

>>39650105
>When we start applying those metrics, "scripture teaches that..."
Well no, scripture itself is not the metric unless we operate under the assumption that you are a Christian who accepts it as scripture (which I assume everyone else I was discussing it with does). The means that we use to determine what counts as scripture is different. If you apply this "problem" to undermine the validity or either Luke or Paul, well this is a separate issue, but you remain appealing to the coherency of the historical documents and not your moral/emotional response.
>Someone could very easily say the same about the claims to the resurrection. We do not have 500 individual witness accounts, we have an account that claims that 500 witnesses saw something, and from context we assume that this account is at least considered credible to the immediate audience. That does not mean, for example, that someone could not as easily dismiss those claims as you dismiss dreams (eg: "they were hallucinating due to social pressure, the way modern charismatics believe they speak in tongues according to social convention but do not produce intelligible morphemes from any language.")
Yes, these are all projections of biases, including my conclusion that Christ rose from the dead. I would appeal to other evidence for Christ's resurrection that does not necessarily apply to the examples you stated (unless you're willing to educate me). For example, the rapid growth of the Christian church, the assertion of miracles being a byproduct of "magic" by the churches enemies, and the conversion of the enemy Paul to a believer. Now all of these are again subject to biases (maybe Christs resurrection really is a byproduct of a magic spell, eh?) and these are all subject to deconstruction. Once again, projection of moral or emotional response remains mostly irrelevant.
One last thing to add but I'm approaching the character limit so I'll make another post

>>39650105
Ok just wanted to ask
>It has all the bearing. People choose which types of evidence they do or do not accept much more arbitrarily than you expect. Consider something as basic as the reliability of induction vs deduction: how many observations of a phenomena are needed before you can incorporate a notion derived from induction into deductive logic validly? We choose p < 0.05 completely arbitrarily, for example.
Are you by any chance the same person I argued with who asserted that Hindu oral tradition could be as viable as the archaeological/historical evidence that Christianity uses?

>>39650105
If selections of evidence is arbitrary, explain why someone who is stabbing babies because they genuinely believe they are demons from hell is in any meaningful (not arbitrary) way worthy of condemnation or punishment? Is this person worthy of punishment only because the majority of society decided so, thus might makes right?

>>39650228
>If you apply this "problem" to undermine the validity or either Luke or Paul, well this is a separate issue, but you remain appealing to the coherency of the historical documents and not your moral/emotional response.
Yes, but why do I appeal to the coherency of historical documents? Why is my response "the differences between how Paul and Luke deal with meat sacrificed to idols reveal Luke's bias, and therefore undermine his credibility as an accurate historian" instead of responding with "oh come on, Paul says to avoid doing it if you can help it in public and someone brings up the issue, Luke says Paul said to never do it, and those are basically the same thing!" There is nothing "out there" that I can appeal to that is the objective line between "actual difference that demands explanation" and "being pedantic about trivialities." It is only within the social situations of, say, historical investigation, where groups of people draw whatever lines in the sand that work for whatever they are trying to accomplish.

But they are just lines we draw. And where the line is drawn is, again, largely arbitrary based on whatever it is we want to accomplish. Operational definitions are useful, but they are useful based on the operations we Just Decide matter to us.

>Once again, projection of moral or emotional response remains mostly irrelevant.
It is not, though. One's emotional responses determine one's biases. What one considers naturally ridiculous and not worthy of consideration is only partially based on the evidence in and of itself, and is in large part a response to "do I as an individual want to consider this"?

>>39650228
>>39650236
>Are you by any chance the same person I argued with who asserted that Hindu oral tradition could be as viable as the archaeological/historical evidence that Christianity uses?
That was not quite my position. Rather, it was that different cultures value different things, and consider different things "naturally" self-evident or naturally superior forms of evidence. My point is that there is no bedrock you get to if you dig far enough, and this valued objectivity is sitting there waiting for you. We do not have access to the noumena. We only have access to phenomena.

>>39650303
Because we as a society value "babies not being stabbed," we create punishments for such actions to act as deterrence. Whether I personally agree with such punishments has to do with my personal emotional and moral reactions and other such biases. Whether or not that is true is some Objective, "out there" sense is not a question I can answer, I can only offer personal conviction.

>>39650315
>>39650327
So what should stop me (or anyone) from dismissing 100% of what you (or anyone) is saying on an arbitrary or emotional basis?

>>39650341
>should
Classic "is vs ought" problem. I have no control over your emotional reactions. You are free to any reaction you deem fit. Within a social context, I can suggest actions that may he more fruitful for a given desired outcome, but there is genuinely absolutely nothing I can do to stop you from dismissing 100% of what I say. Do so if it pleases you, I may think that it is against your interests but that is my assesment only.

>>39649760
NTA but for a minute there I thought what you meant was that nobody is actually a *moral* relativist (except the insane), since that would fit with what you're saying as well, which kind of brings me back to the point I tried to argue for earlier here: >>39641571 >>39643345 that choosing something based on your moral compass shouldn't be conflated with making a wholly arbitrary or very idiosyncratically emotional decision. But just like how a lot of differece of opinion comes down to people being more or less skilled at reasoning based on physical observations, I think a lot of difference of moral opinion also comes down to people being more or less skilled at reasoning based on the combination of practical observations and moral intutions. I don't think we're by default wholly in the dark morally just like I don't think we're by default wholly in the dark as far as perceiving the physical world goes.

>>39650364
I meant, is there any *real* reason that I shouldn't dismiss you? Is the idea that I'm dismissing you because it hurts my feelings 100% as viable as your appeal to the alleged discrepancy between Luke and Paul? If it is, then why would you arbitrarily appeal to it in the first place? Just stop studying altogether and become something of a hedonist?

>>39650401
>I meant, is there any *real* reason that I shouldn't dismiss you?
It depends on what you mean by "real" and "should." I think dismissing me completely would be disadvantageous for you if you value clear thinking, in the same way it would be disadvantageous for me to completely dismiss you if I value clear thinking. But that statement is quite distant from *real* and "should."

>Is the idea that I'm dismissing you because it hurts my feelings 100% as viable as your appeal to the alleged discrepancy between Luke and Paul?
Depends on what you mean by "viable." What are you attempting to accomplish, by dismissing me because I hurt your feelings? (For the sake of argument, we'll treat this as your actual reaction.) What am I attempting to accomplish by being pedantic about the minute differences between Paul and Luke's description of a historical event? Those are two completely different goals, which are in turn different from your goal in juxtaposing them.
>Just stop studying altogether and become something of a hedonist
Why "should" that be my next step, based on my implied goals?

>>39650303
Generally people who commit crimes under the influence of psychosis do get different treatment from people who commit crimes without being under the influence of psychosis.

>>39649760
Relativism is one of the modern manifestations of Gnosticism.
>Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Many forget one or two of these three means of loving (and seeking for) God, and end up with a distorted perspective.

>>39650476
Gnosticism is definitely not relativist, at least certainly not all of Gnosticism. You can't judge the Jewish god to be evil while being a relativist.

>>39650431
>I think dismissing me completely would be disadvantageous for you if you value clear thinking,
How is "clear thinking" not arbitrary by your standards?

>>39650445
But are both of these objectively evil (for all intents and purposes) and is the difference between them arbitrary?

>>39650487
Relativists are nothing if not inconsistent.

>>39650487
>You can't judge the Jewish god to be evil while being a relativist.
You can judge anything as anything while being a relativist
Although I have no dog in whether or not gnosticism is relativist, I don't know about that

>>39650527
It is. It is a goal that people choose based on their own values, and it is a definition of a goal I have invented within our social context based on my assumptions of a shared culture. One that, in all likelihood, differs from yours.

>>39650537
Well, for psychosis, you could take it to the extreme and suppose that, say, one day you woke up and you thought you were just making some toast, but, unknown to you, overnight your toaster had been wired to detonate a nuclear bomb a hundred miles away. Would you be evil and worthy of condemnation and punishment for making your toast as normal despite that, because you misapprehended the situation?

I would say that stabbing babies because you think they're literal demons falls somewhere between that and stabbing babies even though you know exactly what you're doing. Although in the second case, you might take pity on the person for having a malfunctioning sense of empathy and/or right and wrong, which might still be regarded as a type of insanity.

>>39650569
So you don't think your definition of a clear mind is "truly better" than someone struggling with psychosis, or a member of al qaeda? The differences between each, on an objective level, is arbitrary and therefore equAlly true (or equally untrue)?

>>39650589
It depends on what you mean by "better." It is more aligned to my individual values and moral reactions, yes. I tend to prefer my values over the values of others, because I believe they result in outcomes that I prefer.

The noumena is not accessible. That is the basic issue here.

>>39650614
Do you infer the real existence of the neumena through reason? Why apply reason here to assert that this concept is real, but not apply reason to seek truth about reality elsewhere?
Or are you just going to say the neumenas existence is ultimately subjective and arbitrary so there was no real reason why you're even bringing it up?

>>39650578
To clarify, I would say the action is equally evil whether the person is insane or not, but I wouldn't think of the psychotic person as being comparably morally guilty, assuming that if they had been able to think and see clearly they wouldn't have done what they did. If their psychosis were cured so that they could be expected to never do such a thing again, I think ideally they wouldn't be punished at all, though there might be practical justifications for it, like wanting to deterr other people from thinking it's really easy to avoid punishment for crime by pretending you're insane.

I might actually use the same reasoning on psychopaths, if their psychopathy could be cured. So I guess overall my tendency is to think that actions can be evil and situations can be wrong, but I'm very wary of calling a person innately evil except to mean that they do lots of evil things and I don't understand why.

>>39650661
I do not actually assert that it is real, I suspect that the tool is useful. I use words to communicate with you. Another way of phrasing it would be "the bedrock you are digging for does not appear to be there" or "the objectivity you invoke is illusionary."

>>39650702
So "for all intents and purposes" is it real?
Just like "for all intents and purposes" I can infer that you are objectively typing in English intentionally and not just mashing your keyboard and being coherent by chance?

>>39650717
Within this specific shared social context where there are certain implied agreements, certain barriers to entry, certain patterns of behavior etc. it is a *reasonable inference* for you to make. In a different situation, such as five years from now where AI is more ubiquitous, that may no longer be a reasonable inference to make. The bedrock you seek is not there, just more and more dirt.

File: 1733370567541458.png (162 KB, 836x504)

162 KB PNG

>>39618565
Did he actually do the magic, was he doing magic like david blaine, or is it a euphamism like santa

>>39650747
The bedrock is God. It must necessarily be God, or else we are left with coherence and incoherence being nothing more than social contracts. You might say this is fine, but it's only fine until it isn't. It's only fine until the current social contracts are overtaken by isis or Nazis or whatever other group, and then suddenly when you present your evidence for why you believe their morality is wrong, "it's dirt all the way down chud" suddenly won't be so agreeable. I hope this doesn't sound like an appeal to the masses or emotions, since that's what I was sort of arguing against from the beginning. I'm saying that you act out and behave and "borrow" from reason and logic, like when you referenced Paul and Luke, but then ultimately render your own appeal arbitrary by referring to appeals to evidence as "dirt" repeatedly. It only "works" until it doesn't.

>>39623904
mate that site is not so good, don't take it for granted.
As a Native Greek Speaker, εκείνος is meant for males/neutral , for female εκείνη is used and εκείνο for neutral/it. Μale is usually the default.

But in the same passage you say and in every other it uses το Πνεύμα, το is used to refer to the spirit almost everytime. το means that one and is neutral 100% . Truth is not hiding it shines

>>39650778
>The bedrock is God.
Which is a leap of faith up to the individual. One chosen, freely, but the leap is not completed on this side of the cliff.
>It's only fine until the current social contracts are overtaken by isis or Nazis or whatever other group, and then suddenly when you present your evidence for why you believe their morality is wrong, "it's dirt all the way down chud" suddenly won't be so agreeable
Whether or not it is "fine" under duress is a completely different issue to "what do the mechanics seem to be"? I am more interested in describing mechanics than I am the social implications thereof, because my interests are, well, arbitrary.
>I'm saying that you act out and behave and "borrow" from reason and logic, like when you referenced Paul and Luke, but then ultimately render your own appeal arbitrary by referring to appeals to evidence as "dirt" repeatedly.
My appeal is arbitrary. It is just more dirt. Again, there is nothing I can "do" to you that will make you decide that the differences between Paul and Luke are serious rather than pedantic, other than making an appeal to shared definitions of historicity etc.

>>39650816
>Which is a leap of faith up to the individual. One chosen, freely, but the leap is not completed on this side of the cliff.
It's an ontological necessity, one that you borrow from freely as you make coherent appeals to your assertions
>It is just more dirt.
This is nothing more than rhetoric. You don't truly believe that your personal convictions are nothing more than arbitrary dirt. You don't act out your life this way. I would agree that ultimate, perfect, objective truth is unattainable, but certainly not all truth claims are equal, and I think even if you rhetorically resist this, you practically act out this fact as you live your life rationally and formulate reasonable criteria for what you believe. We had this discussion before and you conceded that oral truths many hundreds of years later weren't as viable as archaeological data several decades later, but it seems you failed to integrate this into your worldview...

>>39650871
>This is nothing more than rhetoric. You don't truly believe that your personal convictions are nothing more than arbitrary dirt
I kind of do. Ecclesiastes is far and away my favorite book of the Bible for a reason, even with a recent re-focus on New Testament study. I have come to accept how arbitrary all of this is, how the certainty people chase or assume is not there, and try to navigate within a stormy ocean that has no beach in sight

>We had this discussion before and you conceded that oral truths many hundreds of years later weren't as viable as archaeological data several decades later, but it seems you failed to integrate this into your worldview.
Not as viable...for me, given my values. I do not remember the specifics of the entire argument, but I do remember presenting Papias as someone who viewed the immediate oral tradition as something much more viable than the textual tradition, and how for him the superiority of the oral tradition was self-evident. This is an example of how arbitrary these decisions can be, that two exactly opposite positions can be treated as self-evidently superior based on the cultural and social context.

>>39650919
>how the certainty people chase or assume is not there
Ok but you seem rather certain that "therefore all metrics for truth are arbitrary". I agree that "certainly" is not there in most cases, but probability is. But if you think the only reason archaeological data is more viable than what I see in my dreams is due simply to arbitrary standards like societal influence then there isn't anything I can say.

File: 51m5ooch8sL.jpg (54 KB, 730x1032)

54 KB JPG

First they came for the epistemology... We don't know what happened after that.

>>39650946
>viable
Again, it depends on what you mean by "viable." For what purpose, in what context, communicating with who, about what, in what timeframe, under what social contexts. In a hardcore Evangelical KJV-only church, if I say "erhm, ackshually, if you compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text, then none of what you are saying about eternal inspiration makes any sense" and someone else says "I had a dream about this guy, he's clearly demon possessed," which of us will the crowd trust more? What does the word "viable" mean, in that specific context? Can I force any of them to accept my values, or is every single one of them free to value whatever they value? Why "should" they care about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Because I do?

>>39650988
>Why "should" they care about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Because I do?
Well, is that what your genuine answer would be? "Because I do"? I know from this interaction that you're more thoughtful than that, but you only pick and choose when to apply reason.
Like here you are, trying to appeal to my reason over and over, and same from me to you. At no point have you stopped replying or said "well clearly you're from a background that prioritizes different standards for truth so I'll just stop", no you are *acting out* a different behavior than what your rhetoric implies. You are borrowing from the idea that these coherent points you're making matter to you, for whatever reason good or bad, so therefore they could or should matter to me. You demonstrate that truth isn't arbitrary, you just undermine it arbitrarily (in rhetoric but seemingly not in practice).

>>39651018
>Well, is that what your genuine answer would be?
My genuine answer would be something to the effect of "I think your attitude is counterproductive to your stated goals, that being the pursuit of truth, and believe the Dead Sea Scrolls provide archeological evidence that directly undermines your thesis." I hear the response "obviously the Holy Spirit has guided the text from time immemorial" and so on.

>At no point have you stopped replying or said "well clearly you're from a background that prioritizes different standards for truth so I'll just stop"
Yes, but why would I do that? Why would that be the natural response? You might believe that would be the natural response, but that is based on your assessment of how someone should distribute their effort, their time, the nature of discussions, etc. I have all of those concerns also, mine just differ from yours, such that even though you expect I ought to have crossed such a line already from my own perspective I have not.

>You are borrowing from the idea that these coherent points you're making matter to you, for whatever reason good or bad, so therefore they could or should matter to me
As I have said, under the shared social context, I believe so far that, to achieve my personal goals and my model of what your goals are, the discussion remains fruitful in that specific context. If I have misjudged your goals or the social context, well, that's on me. But I have never denied that goals exist, only that bedrock is attainable in this life.

>>39651061
>the Dead Sea Scrolls provide archeological evidence that directly undermines your thesis
See there you go again acting out the fact that truth isnt arbitrary
>Yes, but why would I do that?
Because if all truth standards are arbitrary, what could you possibly gain from knowing mine or anybody else's? Are you collecting truth standards like Pokemon cards?
>I believe so far that, to achieve my personal goals and my model of what your goals are, the discussion remains fruitful in that specific context. If I have misjudged your goals or the social context, well, that's on me. But I have never denied that goals exist, only that bedrock is attainable in this life.
If only bedrock is attainable, then where is the value in your goals? You do not act out that your goals are equal to bedrock. You act out as though your goals have real value. You prove to yourself, just like 99% of humanity, that the value of purshing truth is real. In spite of, not because of, our flawed human attempts to find it. The stuff about bedrock is lip service man.

>>39651088
>See there you go again acting out the fact that truth isnt arbitrary
And immediately afterwards, they hit back with the "Holy Spirit preservation" line. What should I do, in that context? I
Here, in /ceg/ where the social context is already one of questioning the mainstream, there may be more wiggle room for people to decide what is and is not relevant, but in the social context of a tightly knit church with a rigid theology there is nothing I can or should do but to leave them be.

>Because if all truth standards are arbitrary, what could you possibly gain from knowing mine or anybody else's? Are you collecting truth standards like Pokemon cards?
A little. Filling out the binder helps me understand the shape of the game, as best as I can determine. I personally value breadth and exchange. That's a personal value. Other people view breadth and exchange as heresy or even contamination. What can I say, other than to affirm my values differ from those of others?

>If only bedrock is attainable, then where is the value in your goals?
Sorry, I denied only that bedrock is attainable in this life. Ambiguous wording on my part, my bad.

>You act out as though your goals have real value.
Value...within a specific context. Not a value "out there." That is the difference.

Radiant star on the mountain, like a miraculous sunbeam,
hear the divided people.

All joyous people come together:
rich and poor, young and old,
climb the mountain to see with their own eyes,
and return from it filled with grace.
Radiant star…

Rulers and magnates of royal stripes,
the mighty of the world, possessing grace,
proclaim their sins, beating their breast,
and call on bended knee: Ave Maria.
Radiant star…

All these groups assemble here to present themselves,
To remember their vows and keep them as well
By enriching this temple, adorning it with jewels
So that all may see and return in joy, partaking of salvation.
Radiant star…

https://youtu.be/2lw8nH6dQIo

>>39651139
>What should I do, in that context?
>Here, in /ceg/ where the social context is already one of questioning the mainstream, there may be more wiggle room for people to decide what is and is not relevant, but in the social context of a tightly knit church with a rigid theology there is nothing I can or should do
See, once again, you continually appeal to reason to make these decisions. Even as you reference this "Holy Spirit preservation" line, you don't dismiss it arbitrarily, you continue to appeal to reason. Your reasoning for having the conversation here instead of there is not made arbitrarily. I'm having trouble seeing exactly where your desire for reason ends, and everyone's (including yours) perspective being an arbitrary byproduct of the human condition starts.
>What can I say, other than to affirm my values differ from those of others?
But see, you are still not acting this out. You've had plenty to say with me. Obviously you don't walk into a church to start a debate, but that isn't for arbitrary reasons or because their biases are as valid as anyone elses.
>Sorry, I denied only that bedrock is attainable in this life.
The point remains. You say it's all dirt, but you don't act out that your goals are dirt. You see, self evidently, that your goals have value. But, only rhetorically, you undermine them, ignoring that you prove their worth to yourself by doing things for your goals that you would not do for dirt.

>>39651211
>I'm having trouble seeing exactly where your desire for reason ends, and everyone's (including yours) perspective being an arbitrary byproduct of the human condition starts
My desire for reason, my definition of reason, things I do and do not consider reasonable, all of these things are personal definitions that are, in large part, arbitrary. I know they are arbitrary because they seem to differ between just about everyone, they have differed across my life, they have differed historically, etc. Again, I did not deny goals and values. I denied that bedrock is accessible in this life.

>You've had plenty to say with me
Because, again, the social context differs. /ceg/ is not a KJV-only Evangelical church.
>but that isn't for arbitrary reasons
It kind of is. It is just a social agreement, that gives me information about what is and is not likely to be in there, and what likely outcomes are. But there is no reason "out there" that prevents me from doing it, beyond my own goals and assessment of the situation, which are personal.
>You say it's all dirt, but you don't act out that your goals are dirt. You see, self evidently, that your goals have value.
Value...to me. Value, to whom I assume you to be. I am not bedrock. You are not bedrock.

>>39651232
>My desire for reason, my definition of reason, things I do and do not consider reasonable, all of these things are personal definitions that are, in large part, arbitrary. I know they are arbitrary
How can you "know" all this is arbitrary, while also knowing that the dead sea scrolls undermines that kjvo church? Is your knowledge about the dead sea scrolls not subject to change? so why assert it? It seems like this is all arbitrary, until it isn't, but then it is again, and then it isn't.

>>39651269
>undermines
The fact is, it ultimately doesn't. It shows that the KJVO church is incompatible with what I assumed would be a shared cultural value, that of attempting to engage with all available data. The fact that even in my own description, my assertion is immediately defeated by the assertion of an opposing cultural value is evidence of my consistency.

It is all arbitrary, based on personal values. Sometimes those values are shared, and fruitful work can be done. Sometimes those values are not shared, and one is reminded that they are in a storm clinging to a log and not standing on solid ground.

>>39651300
>all available data.
But the data is subject to change and therefore arbitrary, so why assert it? Why appeal to it in any measure?
>The fact that even in my own description, my assertion is immediately defeated by the assertion of an opposing cultural value is evidence of my consistency.
LOL no, man. You are inconsistent because you are showing data, and reason to have value. You are demonstrating it. If you truly wanted to be consistent, you'd realize the ultimate worthlessness of your endeavors and stop caring. I know you'll mention "personal values" or whatever, but it's all dirt to you. You seriously have hours long conversations for dirt? Are you a buyer and seller of compost? You don't really believe yourself man.

>>39651314
>you'd realize the ultimate worthlessness of your endeavors and stop caring
Okay.

>>39651347
LOL have a good night man. You're a smart guy, don't undermine yourself. I don't want you to stop caring.

>>39651300
>sometimes those values are shared
>sometimes those values are not shared
Maybe so, but I would never assume that something as abstract as 'attempting to engage with all available data' is liable to be a terminal value that someone either has or does not have. If someone doesn't want to do that, they have reasons why, and those reasons can be discussed. Just keep going down the ladder of abstraction until you find a shared value that can serve as a basis for building back up. Sometimes that's a hopeless effort in practice, but in principle it might not be. Maybe all of our true terminal values, which maybe even we ourselves are not fully aware of, are arbitrary and floating on nothing, aiming in random directions, but maybe they aren't.

Incidentally, I really like this song: https://youtu.be/gnBuu_7THMk

>>39651429
Maybe abstract/abstraction aren't the right words there. Specificity? Non-fundamental-seemingness? There we go.

God has a sense of humor
The FDAs deputy director for human foods is named Jim Jones

>>39644734
>Pray for it.
We will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0itTpuzzcQ

>>39644734
Why would I pray for something false to be right? Should we pray that a ancient Pauline manuscript that says porn is ok is also found?

File: the_amish_flipped_the_election.jpg (227 KB, 1246x811)

227 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buJE4hI13ZA

It seems there are men who have Christian values and interests, who also devalue material wealth and worldly interests.
But there are almost no Christian women who are the same, at least not in the USA.
It kind of makes sense. If a woman, even a good woman, can have a Christian husband AND the material wealth/worldly interests that women often desire, then why shouldn't she have both right? But for men, it isn't like we have the same option of getting everything we want in a woman. It's more likely that we either need to compromise a part of who we are (in the sense of devoting our life partially to hording material wealth and pursuing worldly interests to attract most Christian women) or we have to settle for a woman who simply doesn't think she can find better and settles for a "boring/poor" guy.

>Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (MacCulloch)
Is this book any good? I'm looking for something comprehensive that gives a broad overview of everything related to Christianity.

>>39655088
I don't know if there's ever been such a thing as a married ascetic.

>>39655088
Women I imagine are more likely to seek worldly security for biological reasons. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find otherwise outside of celibate nuns, or perhaps among some Mennonites and Amish.

File: Screenshot_20250117-135844.png (471 KB, 1440x2880)

471 KB PNG

>>39655681
He says in chapter 2 that all the Psalms are accredited to David, which is such a elementary error that I dropped it and donated it. It's in the Amazon preview if you don't believe me. I've been reading Justo Gonzales books instead, I haven't noticed any glaring mistakes in them.

>>39655704
It‘s difficult but there are some like Anna Maria Taigi who had a husband and children but was also a mystic and lay member of the trinitarian order
I‘m thinking about becoming a lay carmelite

>>39655797
Thank you fren.

>"The Story of Christianity" by Justo L. González
Is this the book you're reading? I'm looking for a big overview of everything.

>>39655830
Yes he also has "the history of Christian thought".
I don't have any recs for an overview of everything 2bh, that would encapsulate a lot and historians unavoidably tend to insert a lot of their bias. So no matter what you choose, you're going to want to read multiple books for a real overview (or use google vehemently).

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

>>39654505
conditional prayer. If it is true, then may be it found.

>>39658136
Amen.

>>39658125
where's this from anon?

>>39658165
It's from Georgina Rose's substack. But it's a premium article, so all I have access to is this preview.

https://daatdarling.substack.com/p/was-pre-islamic-arabia-actually-christian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZwNP8JVJE

>>39658125
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z9utXT2RCw

File: peter-j-peters.jpg (14 KB, 360x360)

14 KB JPG

Take the pastor peter j peters pill