Is he the most redpilled philosopher..?

Newcomer to Buddhism: who are the most based Bodhisattvas? Also was Buddha a compassionate individual? Was he deeply moral? Any record of him abusing others?

No. When will Christcucks learn this is a pagan board?

you have to go back

Lmao /pol/ is home to Christian generals, it is the defacto Christian board

Yea Forums is a Catholic monastic board.

one off but still based

Believe that the Holy Spirit is at work throughout history, and that Christ left behind the Church to carry out His will--which it has, however much it's often filled with imperfect and sinful men.

Attached: 00D46FF2000004B0-3510414-image-a-13_1458992200061.jpg (962x769, 158K)

/pol/ is practically pagan. Any board that takes "meme magic" seriously is no friend of Jesus Christ.

Why does "belief" matter? Why does God need me to "believe" anything? Why can't I just be moral towards others? Why is "belief" some kind of currency, when it changes nothing regarding my actual actions? Isn't it better to act virtuously, regardless of what I believe in, than to believe certain things, but act less virtuously?

checked

>thinking religion is just morality

Attached: 1547390842098.jpg (400x400, 39K)

Because religion is about stepping beyond the bounds of the world. Religion is about encountering the Great Other--which, of course, is God.

Attached: IMG_20161206_224059[3723].jpg (674x674, 170K)

Sexual pursuits do nothing for the individual.
Intellectual pursuits raise him.

Not that, but I'm asking what "belief" does. Everyone has different beliefs in this world, and everyone's beliefs change over time too. Beliefs are such a flimsy and inconstant reality. To pair one such reality with the most constant and stable reality of all, namely God, seems a disservice to both, for me. If I believe in God, it won't the word "belief" in the ordinary sense, it'll be a fully-embodied reality within me that affects every inch of myself. Not some mental pseudoconstruct that I have chosen to cling to. So maybe I won't believe the above user regarding the Holy Spirit and its relation to Christ and the Bible, but could still be in a Heavenly Father who oversees us all. But that's probably "Christianity done wrong", proving that I don't yet understand how these religions actually work. For me, belief is silly and a source of division between people.

I don't know what this means. But those robes are kind of intimidating.

youtube.com/watch?v=C_zxtRrvTXA

take acid

Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
Mark 9:38-41 NKJV

Please guys we need to study the Bible and get as much as we can from it.

>claiming anyone is more redpilled than my boy Diogenes here

Attached: Diogenes.jpg (1920x1080, 487K)

Nice try, but Diogenes is the Rick and Morty of philosophers.

The Bible is, indeed, a very deep and fascinating book, and honestly, the more you read it, the more it starts to feel like everything in it is true after all.

It really does feel like the sort of book that God would leave behind for humans. It's got all this stuff in it that doesn't make sense or fit together at first glance, but when you think about it a while, meditating a bit, it all does come together.

Elrond Hubbard

Belief has never been destructive. Without belief, how can a man really have any hope in a world with such constant danger and calamity?
The reason for God's distance is said to be a result of sin, since everyone here is literally biologically sinful, then it's a place where people freely choose to indulge in hate and greed. However, God is the one with the power to remove sins from the people who have the belief, his requirement is to believe. For example, when you consider the thief on the cross, at what point did he believe? Or Rahab the prostitute?

>actually taking ‘meme magic’ seriously
No wonder you’re paranoid

>hurr if I meddle around with magical forces and constantly invoke strange entitites but don't believe it's real I'll totally be safe

/pol/ is like the idiot teenagers who fiddle around with Ouija boards. There's a reason those are banned by the Church.

lol no. Diogenes is like that crazy homeless fuck you hear screaming disparaging speeches across the street, that are half-part true half-part insane but you can't totally say hes wrong. Like those insanely wise hobos who hitch freights all day and have been everywhere

Attached: 1550703350607.jpg (1141x1554, 1.06M)

Sorry to interrupt this nice Jesus thread, but is Diogenes actually a philosopher worth taking a gander at or is he just sort of a meme at this point?

#
>haha dude this bum who has no effect on others nor wishes to raise up those around him and instead does nothing but shit on """""""""society"""""""""" with each second breath and fucks over his own life in favor of proving how above it all and """""""""craaaaazy"""""""" he is is totally worth mentioning111111!
>dude bipedzzz LOL hahaha

youtube.com/watch?v=h0UaamP6EWg

Not sure why you'd send me this but I like it. Susumu is always good.

not user but yes, essentially hes one of those people that are beyond Maslow's logic in reference to his chart, people like ghandi etc etc.

They placed physiological needs and everything else beyond his strive for self-actualization if you will. Essentially he flipped pic related upside down and although maslow's humanistic theories are pretty shit this pyramid is an example that not everyone can be reduced to a minimal category such as people like Diogenes and Ghandi are around

Attached: maslow-5.jpg (900x670, 103K)

Thanks for the explanation

...

Good response. My quandary extends to whether "belief" can be considered an ethically-weighted object, such that it could be considered "fair" for God to expect it from his subjects, and to compensate people on the basis for it. Reading the story of the Penitant Thief, do you consider it justified that he, despite a crimedoer, could literally enter Paradise simply for uttering a positive affirmation towards Jesus? If we take the story literally of course, meaning, Jesus was stating he would literally be joining him in Heaven. How can something like belief, which is merely mental, have an effect on one's moral standing, which is based on actions? This is where the troublesome views about terrible people who believed in Jesus being able to enter Heaven come into the picture. I know you're Christian, and believe in the Christian worldview. But discuss with me if you will, the issue I'm asking of here. I personally don't see why belief should mean anything, and if anything, should only be personally helpful to the person and their faith. I don't see how belief, which is mental, could absolve someone of sins, or add a star to their moral record. Comparing an extremely virtuous unbeliever, to someone of far less virtue but much more belief: which would you consider more righteous? Add to this the fact that one can't know of Jesus or the Father until they've come to know of the Gospel, which themselves have to be presented to a person for this to be so. It therefore requires a contingent event to help be fulfilled, while pure virtue itself is something everyone knows they should be embodying regardless of whether or not they know of any external theologies.

philosophy is useless

'For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?'

youtube.com/watch?v=t5hNgKroT6w

Have you done psychedelics?

What do you mean by compassionate? You need to figure out what compassion means to you, not looking for other people to tell you.
Maybe a good place to start is with the idea of paternalism. Do you believe paternalism is justifiable?

If you become 'enlightened' you will understand.

Joh 12:44-50 KJV
44) Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45) And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46) I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48) He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49) For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50) And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Joh 14:10-11 KJV
10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11) Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Joh 8:36-44 KJV
36) If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37) I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38) I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39) They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40) But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41) Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42) Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Joh 14:6 KJV
6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He's not really philosopher tier, more self help book tier. No really original ideas that can be accurately credited to him

One obtains wisdom by becoming a fool. What exactly does this mean? Is tarot based on Biblical precepts?

Unironically yes.

archive.org/details/lecturesonphilo03hegegoog

Of course they have common roots, wtf you think the Judgement arcanum is inspired by (in art at the very least). The World arcanum looks a hell of a lot like the vision of Ezekiel.
Ok I guess all these are assumptions based on the art of the MArseilles version. A psychoanalyst would certainly claim that they were related, and probably say that the Tarot is more primitive. Would a Christian thinker? who knows

btw the fool represents the inseminating energy of the God at the beginning of creation, without direction until it meets with the World. To be a fool is the purest form of rebirth, like what is meant in John 3. There are also references to becoming a child to enter the kingdom of God, these are all on the same theme of returning to aimlessness and pure potential so that one may be raised up by God.

as an anecdotal case, I have achieved much (not yet enough) wisdom by becoming a fool. It was the quixitic state of mind I had to enter to fight for the heavenly Ideal, and developmentally similar to JC's journey.
Only a fool would have faith in this decrepit world.

Is Hegel's master not a fool? A Belief in ultimate pleasure for himself? Is the slave not a fool for believing that material reality will gift it ultimate pleasure without work? Would the dialectic function if master and slave did not come to the agreement necessary to bring the greatest pleasure?

reddit

lol

>le redpill

Ewww

Psa 16:1-11 KJV
1) Michtam of David. Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.
2) O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee;
3) But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.
4) Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.
5) The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.
6) The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.
7) I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.
8) I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
9) Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
10) For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
>11) Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

Diogenes

Jesus is the Son of God, not a mere prophet. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which all true Christians have indwelling in the temple of their souls, to serve as a guide and comforter, who is also God. You're viewing Christianity through a materialist lens that doesn't consider the spiritual side of things. Christianity isn't just words written in a book, it isn't just an idea. Those are only vehicles for the Holy Spirit, who is alive with a will and personality of his own, and is working out his designs in history to this day. This faith is supernatural in origin and existence. You're only looking at the surface and dismissing it for looking commonplace. Look deeper.

Hell is not forever. Jesus saves all mankind. Free will is a lie, some are destined to go to hell other are destined to go to heaven. There is no afterlife. The trinity is a lie. Those that go to hell will eventually get out and go to heaven.
Martinzender.com
Bible-truths.com
Godsplanforall.com

Attached: 1551983205388.png (1018x763, 294K)

hmmmm

Anyone can be forgiven if they truly repent for their crimes. Good can tell if someone is sincere in their belief, simply saying that you believe in Jesus Christ and asking for forgiveness will not get you into heaven. You need to understand the weight of your sins and feel sincere guilt over what you did to receive forgiveness. I don't think it would be moral for God to damn someone for their sins if they understand what they have done and sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness

You are like a little baby

Attached: heraclitus-abraham-janssens.jpg (740x900, 140K)

How is he redpilled? A kvetching jew that wanders endlessly, builds nothing and preaches what for betterment of mankind? The churches that emerged from him built civilisation but this guy rages at a dog tree because it doesn't give fruit out of season. It's almost as if the Catholics were Europeans who knew how to keep civilisation going post Roman empire and their main guy was a lunatic that had a conveniently inspirational death.

>builds nothing
Being a carpenter he literally built things for a living.

Yes, but all of it has been passed down through culture by means of paper and ink. One cannot know of Jesus without having read of the Gospels. Was there not a better way for God to send humanity a vital, universal message than through paper documents written by a group of men in one language, around the teachings of a single man similarly found only in one small region and culture of the world? Why couldn't it have been spoken to everyone, at once? Why couldn't messengers have been sent all over the world, or the message communicated directly to every population, through their very soul? This is what I'm asking of. Why such an inefficient method of communication?

But do actions still outweigh repentance, whereby a person who is without both major sins and explicit repentance would still be in better moral standing than a sinner who excessively repents? Is there no punishment of any volume for those who have repented, just as if they hadn't sinned at all?

Ken and walking around in rags really set an example for th3 world and how to live

could you expand?

My quality of life increased so much after finally submitting to Christ. It's almost mind-blowing desu. I spent years chasing Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche but none of them satisfied me. Finally rediscovered Christianity, read NT Wright, the Bible and the Church Fathers. They literally have all the answers and a beautiful phenomenology.

Attached: 1550112329054.jpg (347x1023, 23K)

Care to expand how he did that?

Christ is in a different league from any other philosopher because he makes no attempt to prove himself. You can't come to the conclusion that his teachings are true through any logical, historical, or analytic approach. The only way is to actually live the teachings and gain a personal testimony through experience.
No other philosopher is as sure of their own teachings.

This isn't exactly a good thing, anonpai...

Why is it not a good thing?

Abandon your materialism; it's a "free-thinking" veil which completely shackles your brain from thinking metaphysically.

Because in this domain, having some kind of backing to one's assertions is essential. Buddha, for example, encouraged his seekers to realize personally everything he spoke of, and not just believe it blindly. If I follow Christ, and find no experiential revelations brought to me, does that make him a false prophet? You'd say no, but the question is what basis do I have to assess his validity? If following his teachings brings nothing to me, and his own assertions unprovable by reasoning, then I'm pretty empty-handed at that point, nothing else I could do further.

Philosophers need to have existed

Quick. Whats your favorite Jesus portrayal?

Attached: crucifixion.jpg (988x860, 143K)

epic

that's literally your own personal problem

I'm no materialist, not slightly. I believe in spiritual realities quite strongly. I'm an /x/ user, if that doesn't embarrass me. But my gripe is why an infinite, omnipotent being could do no better than instruct fallible men to write words paper to spread so important a message, intended to reach all corners of the world. It just doesn't add up, to me. Either the Gospel was only a secondary reality, and not needed to be spread, or God seems to follow methods of communication which we ourselves do when needing to communicate to eachother. I can't believe the conventional narrative, that these scriptures NEEDED to be brought to everyone in the world, and everyone had to learn of Jesus through this manner, and be "saved", and all the rest. I just can't buy that, sorry. The reach of the method doesn't match the scale of the matter. I could believe that Jesus was special, and his message authentic, but not that a person who hasn't heard this message, or reads it and rejects it, is going to face some kind of cosmic punishment.

Attached: crucifiedchrist.jpg (700x1237, 83K)

If you're claiming that Jesus's claims being unprovable and unfalsifiable are some kind of "virtue" on his part, then I'm just highlighting the flip-side of such kinds of claims.

Christian imagery really disturbs me. I could never find an image of a naked man, hung from a cross and left to die, to be poignant or profound. It's just morbid to me, regardless of the mythos behind it.

What's the difference between creating a good idea in theory to then act out in reality vs. practicing a good action in reality and abstracting the idea behind it later on for theory? The Bible says to live like Christ because he's the son of God, therefore the greatest Man to ever exist. Theologians have spent thousands of years philosophizing why people should be Christian. You should read the Church Fathers user or even Charles Taylor's A Secular Age.

As an aside, the whole concept of using reason to deduce a value structure prior to action is nested in the notion that human beings are capable of tapping into the Logos to determine truth. The mythos underpinning that notion is deeply Christian user

you said that having a backing to ones assertions is essential. If the backing to the assertions Jesus was making are backed by the application of the assertion, then why would you worry if the teachings are going to bring nothing to you? you can make that conclusion yourself, after fully grasping the EXPERIENCE of the assertions, instead of dwelling solely in rhetoric
yes, the assertions are standing on their own merit, but then that makes it easier for the individual to practice his teachings honestly, without the constant doubt and distracting statements from a third party
i dunno how to explain but it seems so obvious

>regardless of the mythos behind it.
well then you're basically shooting yourself in the foot

>ignoring the ideal behind the art
what's your opinion on post-structural art user?

>ideal
please, tell me what's the ideal behind the art? meaning, emotion or?

I could live like Christ, simply because I agree with the moral tenets espousef and embodied by such a figure. But I was referring to all the "supernormal" claims surrounding his person and the rest of the Bible, involving his being the "son of God", about Satan, about Angels, and whatever else, and how these are not claims which a person could simply "believe" for no reason other than being told to. And yet, in the Gospel of John (3:18), it clearly states that anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God is condemned by virtue of their disbelief. And I don't think Christianity was the first culture to invent the concept of "using one's reasoning to deduce the truth-value of something", I think that's just universal human behavior, and as I said, there are aspects of Christianity which seem to support the very opposite: believe because you have been told to, and not doing so will be bad for you. With so many other religions making claims of such natures, it becomes even more tantamount there be a basis on which a person can sort among them.

I'll check out the Church Fathers though, and that A Secular Age book. They're on my list.

>and then expects a handful of fallible men to write down this message on paper
Citation needed.

What else occurred? Are men not fallible? Did Paul condone slavery, or did he not? Why can't God write his own scriptures? What else is he busy doing?

Jesus was a real person

Same as OP. It’s one I’ve never seen before but the only one I can connect to

Wht did jesus refuse satan's proposal?

yes

see peter kreeft's the philosophy of jesus.

>I've seen the Shroud, and I consider it legitimate.
It's been carbon dated to the 14 century. The first recorded mention of it is someone in the 14th century saying it's a recent fabrication.

not him but
>le carbon dating meme
search more into it

Even if that were true, it has actual x-ray details on it. Of teeth, skull, spine, ribs, and fingers. You really can't fabricate that, centuries before x-rays were even invented. Even if I'm not Christian, I can't dispute the Shroud being special.

not to mention no one could've forged all the wounds AND the correct blood flow from each one of them made by the flagrum

>I spent years chasing Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche but none of them satisfied me
Satisfy you how? What were you looking for when reading them? Were you seriously looking for a purpose and how to live a good life by reading the works of 200 IQ virgins?

Attached: 1551393241690-tg.png (675x450, 368K)

Special it may be, but it ain't Jesus's burial shroud.

>>>/answersingenesis/

Faith is acting courageously without certainty that it’s all real. Knowing you may be wrong and are vulnerable but courageously acting in faith anyway. Good luck and god bless you my brother.

My point was that any personal benefit gained by following his teachings does not itself prove anything else regarding the nature of his person. And it's not wise, in my view, to believe many things on faith. Not because I'm not open to the possibilities of resurrections, angels, Satan, and the rest of the Judeo-Christian mythos, it's merely that believing things on faith is an arbitrary practise and if I were to go that route, I'm not sure where I'd reasonably start or where to justifiably end. I could just as easily believe in many other religious mythos at the same time, by that principle. I try to keep myself as free of such kinds of beliefs as possible. I'm sure that following Biblical teachings lead to a better life; I'm not sure that this confirms everything (or some things) in the Bible to be literally true.

Why did Christ destroy that tree because it did not give Him fruits, when it wasn't the season?

What is your personal theory? I'm open to any explanation. Since I'm neither aligned with Christianity or atheism.

explain

About halfway through Matthew and my impression is
>some of Jesus's moral teachings are good but none a huge improvement over what's in the OT amd apocrypha, certainly nothing special by world history standards
>if he isn't the son of God, his behavior is extremely arrogant
Of course this is assuming his characterization is accurate.

Why did Jesus pray to God if he is God?

What's your source that it's true?

dr. zugibe and STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, which is composed of scientists from various fields)

>Of course this is assuming his characterization is accurate.
Jesus behaviour is actually fairly inconsistentin the NT. Depending of the book, he can be just a guy that claims himself to be the Messiah and faces some legitime concern from conventional jewish priests, and in others people figure him to be the son of god by just looking at him and everyone that is against him is either a dupe or a Jack Chick's caricature. It generally goes hand by hand on how over the top his ressurrection is, too.

There is also a number of inconsistences, though, such as weird proportions, modesty elements, as well as the front and back images having different sizes.

I thought only certain denominations believe that Jesus is literally God in the flesh

That's true. Needless to say it's a unique document.

It's actually clearly said in the bible that people who do not know of the message, may still go to heaven, if they try to do as much good with all the goodness they have.

Nope, the holy trinity is a central pillar in catholicism, orthodoxy, and protestantism. It's some serious doublethink

Attached: trinity_diagram1_zps7f076cfboriginal1.gif (272x286, 17K)

You mean reddit?

Not exactly. I believe that's hyperbole for "you don't really know shit compared to me".
Honestly man you just have to read it. Even the stuff about the snake in the tree that just seems like a simple little fable, is on a completely different level with all the subliminal indications about human behavior. And when you add the NT, it all makes even more sense. Revelation was foreshadowed in Genesis. Seriously. It's literally better than any other book.
Integrity and the knowledge that the things of this world are fleeting

pol has a lot of "pagans", reddit has a lot of pic related

Attached: 1551811428415-lit.jpg (646x960, 48K)

Eww yuck a subjectivist yuppie

I had to translate a selection of gospel texts for my Latin exam, and one of the verses was Mark 8:36:
>For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Somehow it really stuck with me and touched me. It's hard to explain. Doing the translation, digging away, making the puzzle and suddenly, having fully translated the verse, seeing it before me.

>It's just morbid to me.
That's the point. He's carrying the sins of the world. He's literally carrying everything morbid in the world on his shoulders at his moment of crucifixion.

pretty sure this classifies as blasphemy under some orthodox interpretations/doctrines of Christianity

Jesus wasn't seeking enlightenment or wisdom. He already found it because he was wisdom and enlightenment.

he was basically a proto-social democrat

I'll counter with this:

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
You're not special because you read some ancient book you moron.

>translating a translation
what's the point?