/Catholicism/ general

Great literature thread guys

>until either you get rid of your sensory needs regarding reverence
The Eucharist is the most important part of Christian life, don't you think reverence is important?

I'm not even sure how these threads are allowed.

just to help out any of those who might be susceptible to the LARPers, let's just run through a few arguments christcucks are incapable of refuting:

There is very little that we can prove in this world. We can look for evidence to support claims people make and when there is robust supporting evidence, and no contrary evidence, we can conclude a claim is probably, but not definitely, true.

However, it is easier to prove something is false—all you need is one piece of contradictory evidence. So, what about Christianity? Is there evidence that contradicts, or casts grave doubt on Christianity? I think there is rather a lot.

To keep this post brief, I will describe the falsifying evidence without giving all the sources and details but, actually, most of it is so well-known, that even Christians should be aware that this evidence exists.

1) There is clear evidence that prayer does not work despite the Bible promising prayers will be answered.
2) There is clear evidence that humans invent gods. Humans have invented so many gods that the default assumption should be that a god is a supernatural entity invented by humans. Christianity would need solid evidence that the Jewish god is an exception to this rule but there is no such evidence.
3) There is clear evidence that religions and gods are propagated through culture by infecting children, and no evidence that they are propagated by gods.
4) There is clear evidence that Christianity has evolved as human understanding of the world has changed whilst a real, God-given religion, should never need to change.
5) There is clear evidence that humans on this planet have unequal access to Christianity so, if Christianity were true, billions would be condemned to hell for no fault of their own. This contradicts the Christian notion that God is omnibenevolent.
6) There is clear evidence that the Bible, supposedly inspired by God, is liberally sprinkled with the type of errors we would expect from its Iron Age authors but would not expect from the creator of the universe.
7) Christian theology is incoherent to the point of absurdity. God killing his son so he can forgive our future sin is like me breaking my son’s legs so I can forgive my neighbor in case she ever parks her car on my drive. It is quite ridiculous.
8) There is clear evidence that the arguments presented for the existence of the Jewish God are logically flawed—all of them have been shown to be unreliable. If this were not the case, all honest and intelligent people would accept that God exists, just as all honest and intelligent people accept that black holes exist.

All that is left for Christians is faith and their feelings. We know that faith and feelings can be used to believe in any god at all—including non-existent gods. So faith and feelings cannot help us determine if Christianity is true.

But that is all Christians have.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 24K)

Lol. I'm not going to read all that athiest garbage~
Enjoy hell sinner!~~

Attached: 2e8.jpg (680x483, 37K)

should i pierce my ears and wear cross earrings like this? would that be based?

Attached: il_570xN.1328407445_4mz9.jpg (570x570, 48K)

>there is clear evidence
>science has proven
>its the current year
get fucked, nigger. there is clear evidence that you are a faggot.

Attached: 2faa94c030144493c97b91594ade4b5533a934077585abca5e0d8e01e33347e9.jpg (960x918, 53K)

>All that is left for Christians is faith and their feelings.
I came back to Christianity from materialist atheism via Greek philosophy, but this is ultimately true and there lies the beauty of it. You cannot understand God, as He is beyond understanding; you can only experience His presence.

>including non-existent gods.
Spotted satan
he knows God exists, and just let it sip.
Nice try.

post evidence desu

cringe

that's exactly my point! because it is the all important thing, to let yourself be discouraged by irreverance during the Mass is not good for your soul. You either have to learn to bear it, or go somewhere else until you can. The Eucharist should be the focus of your efforts, so until you can achieve that focus in a irreverent Mass, go to a reverent one. Of course all Masses should aim at being reverent, but that's not the world we live in.

Attached: 214.png (811x964, 681K)

Does anyone know of any good crusader /crusader state fiction that isn't Templar mystery crap or romantic fiction aimed at women.
Something with wars, daily life stuff and the religious aspect.

This is quite possibly the worst argument/word ratio I have seen in such a debate.

Most of the points are literally refuted by thinking for half a minute, even internet atheist would be too embarrassed to argue them.

KEKEKEKKEKEKEK. THERE ARE ATHIEST NIGGERS TRYING TO ARGUE AGAINST BASED CATHOLOCISM ITT AND GETTING BTFOD
KEK

Attached: 32-320163_christian-girl-laugh-smug-smile-smug-christian-chan.jpg (920x1201, 223K)

I know this is bait, but to think that all the doctrines of the Church are based off faith and feelings is stupid. Those kinds of thoughts are how we get fedora-tipping contrarian atheists who as soon as they hear a religious person voice an opinion have to find the opposite one and figure out a way to support it.

>just as all honest and intelligent people accept that black holes exist.
Just as all honest and intelligent people accept that racial differences in IQ exist.

oh, wait...

based

no, be a man and wear a crucifix, a dog collar, or a religous habit if you want to publicly express your faith. earrings are for women.

BASEDSTIANITY

Attached: 1fe3e1a43fd94b428c45beaf162da9da.png (680x879, 300K)

>earrings are for women
says who?

Attached: Park.Tae-soo.full.948739.jpg (870x1230, 218K)

Attached: 1560035255565.jpg (721x1039, 93K)

omg user you really got us good!! I didn't realize how lame Christianity was till I saw this!! :OOOO

>omg user you really got us good!! I didn't realize how lame Christianity was till I saw this!! :OOOO

Attached: 1516949549117.png (644x800, 21K)

is pic related sinful?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 41K)

I enjoy Melville’s musings in Moby Dick

XD

really it comes down to asking yourself what your purpose with the earrings is - is it to show off? Look cool? Is the cross the right symbol to attempt coolness with? Is the earlobe the right place to hang a cross off of? ~search your soul~

>Look cool?
this is the reason.
>Is the cross the right symbol to attempt coolness with?
seems pretty cool to me.

here's a nice little double-whammy: link for the cosmological and pic related for the logical refutation of your little 2,000+ year larp

youtube.com/watch?v=M1c_GlAjvy4

Attached: 68474_10151081213557283_312106152_n.jpg (500x400, 28K)

Attached: adqm4R2_700b.jpg (700x685, 109K)

>wlc vs actual scientist.
>thinking appeal to authority is an actual argument
lol go talk to an ACTUAL priest

>placing this much faith in reason

Man has other ways of relating to the Universe

trump is literally the opposite of a crusader.

St. Francis de Sales - Introduction to the Devout Life
"... Avoid all vanity, peculiarity, and fancifulness.
As far as may be, keep to what is simple and unpretending - such dress is the best adornment of beauty and the best excuse for ugliness. Saint Peter bids women not the be over particular in dressing their hair. Everyone despises a man as effeminate who loves himself by such things, and we count a vain women as wanting in modesty, or at all events what she has becomes smothered among her trinkets and furbelows. They say that they mean no harm, but I should reply that the devil will contrive to get some harm out of it all. For my part I should like my devout man or woman to be the best dressed person in the company, but the least fine of splendid, and adorned, as Saint Peter says, with "the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit" (1 Pt 3:4). "

So basically I prudentially disagree with your choice to wear earrings, but if you think you fit all the criteria for it being a good spiritual choice by all means go ahead. I would probably cringe if I saw a cross earring on a guy in real life. (Or honestly a girl for that matter either).

It's literally one guy posting this MIGA crap and "is pic related sinful? xD". No life.

I would not attempt to call myself a christian but I believe most of these don't hold water.
>There is clear evidence that prayer does not work despite the Bible promising prayers will be answered.
God would be participant in this study; God in christian theology is all knowing. In human form, God said "a vain and adulterous nation seeks after a sign". Prayer may work in other cases, but if God were to reveal himself in such a manner, he would be contradicting previous statements in the bible.
>humans invent gods
This is not falsifying evidence, you're just asking for Christians to prove their religion is correct.
>propagated through culture
This again does not falsify Christianity, you're just stating fact about how culture is passed down. Again you're asking for evidence, not disproving anything.
>God-given religion, should never need to change.
Really up to interpretation of the bible, some people take the text literally, most of the old testament (which I assume you're referencing) can be construed as historical allegory; intended to convey certain truths about the world in terms of morality and how people should live their lives, rather than an exact historical account.
>unequal access to Christianity
Knowledge of God is generally across cultural lines; it would be impossible to turn your back on christ if you never knew he existed, and therefore it would be impossible to reject salvation.
>we would expect from its Iron Age authors
Yes, the bible was written by man and (supposedly) inspired by God.
>It is quite ridiculous.
What's that quote atheists say? "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". If you came to theology from a place of legitimate searching, you would see that the issue you presented is much more complex than what you attempted to convey.
>Jewish God are logically flawed
Present evidence for your claim, otherwise you're just saying "there are arguments".
>But that is all Christians have
Every belief is based on faith; on one's individual perception, on the words and studies and perceptions of others. That does not mean science (or theology) is any less true. If you make the positive claim that Christianity is false, you need to provide evidence. Instead I recommend you do as I do, take the agnostic position, search for truth with an open heart, not starting from a place of prejudice. Wherever that search might lead you.

Attached: 1556068834895.jpg (451x399, 157K)

>No life
Lmao roastie
what next?
Incel? Have sex?

oh man the cosmological argument dood got #WRECKT by an ACTUAL SCIENTIST?? AS IN one of those guys who has REAL KNOWLEDGE?? RELIGION BTFO XD

oMG EPICURUS btfo'd religions ~~2000+~~ YEARS AGO TOO>>>??? what an UNAppreCIATED GeNiUS

is pic related sinful?

Attached: 23697 - Christianity Virgin_Mary noistar religion.jpg (300x425, 29K)

Is this a joke thread or..... id kinda like to discuss Giovanni Pico’s concept of humanities unique gift of change.

Not if you gain metaphysical worth from it instead of simply base material pleasure.

Epic based

Attached: 1559954613241.jpg (836x608, 130K)

How do we return society back to the days of pic related?

Attached: tom-of-finland-750x563.jpg (750x563, 102K)

Systematically applied Kantian epistemology to the nads.

so are cross necklaces also bad? what about the miraculous medallion?

>half an hour of women LARPing as being ordained
You definitely weren't at a papist mass

Is pic related a sin?

Attached: 08-art-philpot.jpg (600x300, 95K)

Would this displease God?

Attached: 20190613_182728.jpg (567x1008, 405K)

He's talking about Susans lector-ing and extraordinary minister-ing. Possibly also female altar servers, but at least those girls most of the time don't know what it is that they're ruining.

Elaborate then user, give us a meaty wall of text to digest

Lectors are male, and extraordinary ministers aren't ordained. FFS deacons aren't de facto extraordinary ministers and they are ordained. Is he complaining he doesn't understand canon law or something?
>female altar servers
aren't most altar servers in communion but not confirmed? This is making even less sense than if he accidentally walked into a Protestant service.

>Lectors are male
not at my parish. not that user either

Lectors are male by canon law. It's an office, not "people who read shit at mass".

doesn't make my parish any less pozzed. there's literally a boomer rock band with drums and everything and they play while everyone is receiving communion.

go to FSSP Mass retard

But if they are making females lectors, your bishop would be calling Rome.

>there's literally a boomer rock band with drums and everything and they play while everyone is receiving communion.
That would honestly be OK if it was heavy metal.

Attached: 58a.jpg (573x591, 108K)

technically, even under the Novus Ordo Mass, the reader is supposed to be an installed Lector, this by defintion they can only be male. I don't exactly know what excuse is able to be used that facilities the current ubiquity of Susans reading at Mass, but there it is

go to Latin Mass if you can, find a more reverent parish if you can't

>Latin Mass

Attached: AdLlAGy.jpg (1296x1296, 282K)

>AAVE Mass

Attached: 1559993657255.jpg (1473x1061, 280K)

how tho?

idk, look around at the ones in your area to see if you can find one that is more reverent. Preferably though you could find a parish nearby that offers the Latin Mass, which are celebrated reverently 99.9999999% of the time (dare I say 100%?)
latinmassdir.org/
fssp.com/locations/

Is Catholicism just 2016 tradpolfag: The Religion?

rec a good prayer book

no, its just the final redpill, and more anons are arriving at it every day.

Attached: 8163ede7723ab026f7d6f0962a19eccd2a3aee587bea5f2035b087acbe04cc16.jpg (1024x714, 224K)

if you want a missal also, get a Fr. Lasance, St. Andrews, or Angelus Daily Missal, they all have prayers in there as well.

>no, its just the final redpill
So it is 2016 tradpolfag: The Religion?
I'll pass, that shit is kinda cringey and obnoxious now
Thanks for the reply tho

This is a bit off topic, but my friend is cristian(baptist) .
He goes as far as calling chatolics as satanists.
Also he belives the only requirement to get to heaven is to belive in Jesus, nothing else matters.
Now how much of that is true?

think about the truth or untruth of a religion, not whether you think its adherents are fags

none of it and that man is not your friend.

>the reader
There's usually more than one, even when a lector is available. Readers != Lectors, just like Lectors != Psalmists though they may read the Psalm if no Psalmist is there. A lot of roles of acolytes would be filled by women since before V2, because otherwise nuns couldn't lay an altar or read psalms.
What diocese are you in? For any of them to be installed lectors, you bishop needs to sign off on their office.

>think about the truth or untruth of a religion
Daoism it is then :)

wew

Attached: c37218fc2791dc86ab233990fe29cc3f4ec0914273959c23fc0d611c78758eb7.png (1280x720, 459K)

You find Daoism particularly embarassing? Or are you just an immature anime poster having a knee-jerk reaction?

Attached: ctet-2.jpg (501x756, 249K)

Honest question lads, how do I free myself from sexual degeneracy? Every other vice is more or less under control/removed from my life altogether, but it seems like whenever I'm super disciplined and hitting a good stride in my spiritual life, all the latent desire to transgress gets channeled 100% into my sex drive, and next thing I know I'm engaging in all sorts of degeneracy with women that I should be distancing myself from instead.

Every step I take, it bites me back twice as hard. Comes out in weird ways too. This is my final stumbling block and its a really rough one.

Nice bait

no, no. i think all religions are epic!

Attached: REDDIT.jpg (956x768, 164K)

i wish i could transcend my dick. i wish it didn't hold the reigns of my will. even if i cut it away, that wouldn't change a DAMN THING! don't you see that if i severed it, that would only cement his victory? Ah! Castration is merely the formal acceptance of defeat. how much masculine energy has been wasted on w*men? imagine the total freedom of not being tethered to the pursuit of that soft and plain gender, imagine all the things capable of coming to realization by your unhindered hand, gliding swiftly and resolutely across the waters of life unswayed by the dips and throws of temptation. to cast it away my dick would be to cast away any potential of this divine freedom, as the very organ responsible for my downfall is the same organ which fuels man in all he endeavors toward. but how to harness it?

I see.

>ALL RELIGIONS ARE EPIC DUDE, IM THOMAS MERTON AND A MASSIVE REDDIT KEKOLD

Attached: 1528819639003.jpg (378x378, 31K)

As a crossposter (inb4 fag) I can assure you Catholicism is hated by most of /pol/. The only acceptable form of 'Catholicism' is 'based' and 'redpilled' Eastern Orthodoxy because they don't a 'cuck' Pope who kisses black people feet. Shit you not, that's literally one the main stumbling blocks for those people to even consider looking into 'Roman' Catholicism is pictures of Pope Francis washing a migrants foot.

>Neoplatonism is cringe

pope francis is a cuck and a hypocrite though. he'll make sweet love to a black man's foot, but won't let the faithful kiss his ring.

You know what, fuck rehashed Stoicism, it doesn’t make me feel good.

How the fuck do I pray properly?

however you like
it's not as if it's doing anything

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 9K)

epic :)

thoughts on fear and trembling?

Attached: Po_vodam.jpg (1200x1568, 182K)

I'm doing some research on the Renaissance/Reformation period and am trying to find specific accounts of daily mass for different regions and cultures that still followed the liturgy specifically 1490-1550. Does anyone have any good recommendations. I'd prefer more informational stuff to devotional stuff.

Have you tried the old fashioned technique of mining other people's footnotes? A just-related-enough article or book can get you in the ballpark of your target, and then you can dig through footnotes when they say something relevant. Just searched "liturgy mass reformation" on JSTOR and found this footnote in the second or third article:
3. Among modern historical treatments of the mass see Dix, Shape of the Liturgy; Josef A.
Jungmann, S.J., The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, trans. E A. Brunner, 2
vols. (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1951-55); T Klauser, A Short History of the Western Liturgy,
trans. J. Halliburton (London: Oxford University Press, 1969); and John Bossy, "The Mass as a
Social Institution, 1200-1700," Past and Present 100 (1983): 29-61.

Valuable accounts of portions of
the mass or other liturgical rites include Robert Scribner, "Ritual and Popular Religion in Catholic
Germany at the Time of the Reformation, "Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35 (1984): 44-77; Hans B.
Meyer, S.J., "Die Elevation im deutschen Mittelalter und bei Luther," Zeitschrfft fur katholische
Theologie 85 (1963): 162-217; Peter Browe, S.J., Die Verehrung der Eucharistie im Mittelalter, 2nd ed.
(Rome: Herder, 1967), chaps. 1-2; Charles Zika, "Hosts, Processions and Pilgrimages: Control-
ling the Sacred in Fifteenth-Century Germany," Past and Present 118 (1988): 25-64; John Bossy,
Christianity in the West 1400-1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985): 66-72; Jacques
Toussaert, Le sentiment religieux en Flandre a lafin du Moyen Age (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1963), 124-
204; and Mervyn James, "Ritual, Drama and Social Body in the Late Medieval English Town,"
Past and Present 98 (1983): 3-29. Keith Thomas and G. C. Coulton offer particularly unsympathe-
tic views of lay participation: Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1971), chap 2 ("The Magic of the Medieval Church"); and Coulton, Ten Medieval
Studies (1909; rpt. Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), 116-1.

Some of the articles look worth mining. I recognize Bossy as a really good scholar of Reformation Christianity who worked during the cultural/social history boom so he might be a good place to start for loci classici on the liturgy?

Another guy who is apparently one of the leading figures, from a different article:
Mack Holt, "The Social History of the Reformation, "Journal of So
cial History 37, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 133-4.

Looking at the Mack Holt essay, it's an historiographical review, so there's lots of good "state of the field" stuff (ca. 2003, anyway). See footnote 18:

Other scholars have focused on specific rituals, especially the sacraments,
which John Bossy has called "the skeleton ofthe social body."17 The most central
as well as the most controversial of the sacraments during the Reformation
was the Eucharist. The doctrine of transubstantiation separated Catholics from
Protestants, while the issue ofthe real corporal presence of Christ in the elements
separated Lutherans from all other Protestants. The Eucharist lay at the heart
of the theological dispute over salvation that divided Christendom during the
Reformation, and these divisions even forced the otherwise like-minded German
Protestant reformers, Luther and Zwingli, to part company at the Colloquy of
Marburg. Nevertheless, despite the theological wrangles over the Mass that so
divided contemporaries in the sixteenth century, social historians have shown
that for Protestants and Catholics alike the Mass, or Lord's Supper as Luther
and Calvin preferred to call it, was actually perceived by the laity as a site of
peace-keeping and reconciliation of the parish community. Not only did many
refuse to attend and partake of the consecrated elements if they were feuding
with another member of the parish, they also used the ritual as a symbol that
they had resolved their differences and were now ready to rejoin the community
their feud had threatened to disrupt.18 This shows us how much contemporaries
considered attending Mass as a thoroughly social occasion. It is impossible to
deny that the spiritual efficacy was real for them and that, for Catholics at least,
the very act of ingesting Christ's body was an act engendering grace and wholly
connected to salvation. But we also know that Mass and the Lord's Supper were
just as enfolded with communal solidarity based on Christian charity. It was
Calvin, after all, who wrote that one ofthe principal benefits of partaking ofthe
sacrament "consists in our having a vehement incitement to holy living, and
above all to observe charity and brotherly love among us ... and especially that
we have to one another such charity and concord as members of the same body
ought to have.

Footnote 18 from this:
18. On the Catholic side, see John Bossy, "The Mass as a Social Institution," 1200-1700,
Past & Present 100 (1983): 29-61 and also his Christianity in the West, 66-70. And for the
Protestant side, see David Sabean, Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse
in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge, 1984), 37-60. For other work on the social history
of the Eucharist, see Virginia Reinburg, "Liturgy and the Laity in Late Medieval and
Reformation France," Sixteenth Century Journal 23 (1992): 526-47 and Mack P. Holt,
"Wine, Community and Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Burgundy," Past & Present
138 (1993),

Thanks, I was reading stuff more pertaining the general history and the nobility/manners so the footnotes and text were pretty sparse on the mass' exact conduct and just talked about them as a general social event. The primary source assumed you already knew everything that went on and the histories skimmed over the social details.

I'll pen down a few of those that look useful. You have done well user, you raised the esteem of this thread that I thought was perhaps just shitposters or children.

Starting a theology twitter group chat, leave your @ if interested

Has the world ever had anything else remotely close to the apostolic succession? It's easy to take for granted, but a 2000 year line of succession is pretty amazing.

Thoughts on this lil nigga?

Attached: thomasmerton.jpg (280x355, 13K)

thoughts on
>on the reincarnation
>on the holy spirit
>on the cosmic mystery of jesus christ

Nope, the CC is the oldest, longest lasting, 'institution' for lack of a better word, in the history of the world. Not just the apostolic succession but also the line of Popes. Empires, dynasties, and heresies rose and fell but the Papacy remains.

Attached: List of Popes.jpg (1200x1685, 478K)

any good catholic romance?

The Letters of Abelard and Heloise

Any of you guys ever read Meditations on the Tarot? I’ve been reading it and It’s honestly amazing and changing basically every way I think but I feel like it’s kind of midwit tier at some parts

Attached: 8D1DB9C9-9F16-4C76-AEC5-C3FB2F3ABCBA.jpg (300x433, 22K)

What's the deal with pre-Christian gods and spirits? Are they all demons? What about the local spirits people have been seeing forever? What about dreams that tell the future? What about the "mark of death" soldiers can see on each others faces? How do these things fit in a catholic cosmology

Pure cringe. Merton was a student of other religions but a faithful Catholic.

/pol/ sounds based on this one desu.

/pol/ is full of retards and boomer colonist from r/_Donald. It's a shadow of it's former self. I only check back to see the Christian threads and the occasional happening(s). Can't believe anons are still using 'based' and 'redpilled' jargon. It's embarrassing.

What are some good books on Mary/Mariology?
It's one aspect of the faith that's interesting because of how much importance saints and mystics place on it, yet modern laypeople rarely get much guidance past "say some Hail Marys once in a while"

Vocation question: if I were to join a monastery as a monk and obviously I would have to leave my worldly possessions behind, is it possible to donate my worldly possessions to the monastery to avoid having to part with them?

Attached: 2B297087-03A2-42D9-B6BD-89D11AC5C92E.png (225x225, 6K)

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary - Brant Pitre
The Imitation of Mary - Thomas Kempis
True Devotion to Mary - St. Louis de Montfort
Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God - Scott Hahn
Behold Your Mother - Tim Staples
Introduction to Mary - Dr. Mark Miravalle
The Life of Mary As Seen By the Mystics - Raphael Brown

>'based' and 'redpilled' jargon
It's sort of ironic meme now.

This is also great.

Attached: secretrosary.jpg (1000x1000, 198K)

I heard it is borderline heretic. What can you say about it?

Jesus would have kissed black people on the feet you dumb racist

Merton was a pop star in his days and that's an antagonistic state to be when you choose a path in life that asks you to be isolated from society. That messed with his head. He had many people visiting his monastery and later in his life he got enamorated by a nurse. He was monk with a lackluster faith and that shows when he made a speech on Thailand moments before his death showing regret about his ideas and life choices.

Pray the rosary every day. I do not masturbate since September and that correlates with when I started praying it.

Why are you calling ME a "dumb racist", I'm Catholic, you dingus. I'be merely stated why THEY don't like Catholicism.

a dog collar?

>“There is no question I love her deeply ... I keep remembering her body, her nakedness, the day at Wygal’s, and it haunts me ... I could have been enslaved to the need for her body after all. It is a good thing I called it off.”

irishtimes.com/culture/books/thomas-merton-the-hermit-who-never-was-his-young-lover-and-mysterious-death-1.2422818?mode=amp

This is a great post, user. Thank you for writing it. Me personally, I'm a spiritual individual who despises Abrahamism, which I consider a political institution pretending to be a spiritual one. It bothers me greatly that Abrahamic religion has become the de-facto spiritual institution of the West, such that many people consider the concept of Theistic God and Spirituality synonymous, and if one is false, both must be. For this reason, and because these political cults have been engaged in a centuries-long war against the scientific sphere, the intellectual domain of the world has fractured itself into a childish binary - namely, that there is either a personal, transcendent, masculine, anthropomorphic personality who created the whole of reality, left us his counsel in a set of human-penned scriptures belonging to one culture of the entire world, answers our prayers and expects we follow his human-curated institution from now till the end of time - OR, all of reality has it's origin in strictly natural causes, whereby a group of chemicals somehow accidentally formed into a rudimentary biological byproduct, which then progressively developed into every species of life we see today, all of which are nothing more than a set of programs that helped them survive and reproduce, with there being nothing to the whole of existence beyond these two domains. That's it. Take your pick, intellectual - it's one of the two.

Except it isn't. Pantheism ("you are the universe experiencing itself", etc), and panpsychism (awareness and intelligence are fundamental properties, not emergent products) explain our reality far better than either of the nonsensical doctrines of Theism or Evolutionism. If consciousness isn't a biological phenomena, then it necessarily existed before our biological birth, and will continue after our biological death. I believe that DMT entities are real too, and that we may eventually incarnate as them one day.

Why couldn't Buddhism become popular in the Western world? Why is the West such an intellectual powerhouse regarding the sciences and ordinary philosophy, but an absolute joke when evaluated for its theologies? I really can't answer, save that Abrahamic cultism has shut people's minds to the full range of reality's possibilities for 2000 years, and only continues to this day. Non-dualism is the future of our species.

I know that Buddhism isn't exactly "pantheistic" or so on, but I simply mean that a spiritual culture which rejects external deities while retaining the immortality of the soul (I know there's no "soul", but the point is that we don't end with death and go on to live more lives so that's all I mean by a "soul") and every other spiritual reality, is all that our culture has ever needed. But it'll never happen, because the Abrahamic footsoldiers will always continue dedicating their lives to spreading their political ideology as devotedly as they can, since that's what the ideology has told them to do.

Lust is only one of the cardinal sins, I don't think it's helpful to become obsessed with your own sexual sin like a lot of christians do.

Remember the reason you feel guilty is because you had a choice. Admitting your sins can be very liberating, because you are recognizing your own freedom by the grace of God to sin no more.

Same user as earlier. user, you waste your time writing posts like this out here. Christians genuinely don't possess intellect enough to understand anything besides the very few, incoherent concepts which serve the bedrock of their religion: transcendent masculine parent, eternal life if I'm obedient and listen to my pastor, some Jewish character from a scripture sacrificed himself for me before I even existed and if he didn't do that I would be damned forever despite not having been alive, God is always good because the scripture says so (even when he's killing literal babies), the Old Testament is literally true because it's a few thousands years old, even though I'd never believe any other great work of literature was historically true, God is not simply an abstract "first cause", he came down a few millenia ago to meet some Mesopotamian tribes and become their warlord because he was bored of being the abstract first principle of the universe, this is my first lifetime because scripture says so and if I don't become a Christian during it I'll be going to Hell forever because God loves me so much, etc, etc, etc.

Just look at the responses you've received. Quite shameful. Christians insulting you, and not even responding coherently to the criticisms you've politely left for them. This is why I say that Christianity is pretend-spirituality. There isn't really much spirituality within its fold, and certainly NOTHING which trumps the refined spiritual cultures born from ancient India. It's just a control-cult, which uses spiritual concepts in order to help others be kinder towards it rather than remove it from their societies like they would Naziism or any other ideology bent on total domination. It's impossible for a Christian to even conceive of the idea that this is not their first lifetime, and that they've been alive before Christianity was even formed in the most basic sense. It's impossible for them to conceive that whether you join a political club or not, the nature of yourself remains constant, and that if your consciousness is eternal in nature, this remains so regardless of which book you've dedicated your entire life towards. Don't feel anger towards them in response to your post, user. Have pity on them. They are extremely narcissistic individuals, caring only about their own "salvation" and "eternal life", hoping their enemies and anyone in their outgroup all go to Hell forever, and assuming that anyone who does not support the Abrahamic institution must be some kind of savage beast with no spiritual connection in them at all (when really, Abrahamic spirituality is the system which lacks in spirituality more than any other major one). Don't be upset at them, but at the same time, don't waste your time writing to them again. Just help spread non-Abrahamic forms of spiritual ideology if you believe in any, like I do with pantheism and panpsychism. That's the best way to bring down this cult for good. Take care user.

I mean, that's a pretty fun caricature of a neurotic christian I suppose, good for you.

Why do you disparage Abrahamic ideas as "incoherent" when you yourself have views that can be seen as just as incoherent - specifically that "DMT entities are real and that we may eventually incarnate as them one day" ?

I wish it was a caricature, user. I wish. The world would be a much better place were that true. Heck, one can find specimens in this very thread who embody what I wrote of.

muh superior eastern religions

Careful, you're "insulting" that poor user. Sit down! Be humble!

Attached: 1511224026636.jpg (908x539, 71K)

We should let in refugees tho, and send them back when it's safe.

btw that post was tl;dr incarnate but if there is "DMT entities" in that post there's a Catholic perspective on that

youtube.com/watch?v=tETZpw7sX98

pic related kinda related, it's more of the smug anti-christian attitude is why i post it

Just to clarify, I post it cuz it's closet thing to that smug anti-Christian attitude. I agree we should help real refugees but not have open borders that lets any and all migrants in.

Yeah, who needs 2000 years of theology and philosophy when you can sit criss-cross applesauce and take drugs to see a blue elephant man.
Your self-righteous syntax suggests you're the same person as the poast you replied to, don't get so pissy when people can't be assed to write essays in response to your r/atheism tier ebin takedown.

b-but what about the West user! (((they))) are replacing us! we have to go back to tradition and culture, according to the virtuous and productive men who post on this japanese animation forum!

Uh oh, asking Catholics to read anything outside of what the Pope or Cardinal X or Y shits out is asking for trouble! (The Word of God included)

What's incoherent about that? There's no reason to presume that our dimension is the only one that exists, and that intelligent lifeforms must be biological in nature (after all, demons form a staple figure of Abrahamism, and I do believe demons exist but they have no relation to a God or to Jesus Christ). If so, then it stands possible that the entities encountered on DMT are autonomous lifeforms(which I believe on the basis of their completely unalikeness to the elements of our experience, and thus impossible for the user's minds to have simply constructed through the combination of familiar items), inhabiting a different spectrum of being than our species is familiar with. And if reincarnation is real, which there's plenty of evidence to suggest for, then it remains that you either remain your own species forever, or can migrate between species. And I consider the latter far more plausible than the former. What among this, then, do you consider implausible? Christian theology has innumerable incoherencies within itself, which I gave some examples of earlier (and the other user did too), but what do you consider illogical about my own propositions?

I'm not that user, but instead of accusing my post for such, you should be courteous enough to that other user to actually respond to his criticisms instead of simply adding ANOTHER post to this thread which accuses his post of '"poor quality", while not even having the decency to respond to its arguments properly. Then again, you Christians have long revealed your character to the rest of us by now - you're political ideologues, not spiritual aspirants. Discussion is not your domain, conflict is. Also, the "summary" of Eastern religions you wrote demonstrates typical ignorance of Christians, and I don't expect better from you at this point. Heck, the Buddhism and Hinduism threads on here can't convene in peace, your tribe needs to invade and try it's best to derail from their discussions.

Also, I know you won't respond to that other user. In every thread where someone stands up to the cult of Abraham, almost nothing besides arrows of insults are sent their direction. Very few among you are kind enough to respond properly, and this remains even after others repeatedly ask you to do so. Prove me wrong, if you'd like.

I've seen this comment so frequently on here. Is this all Christians are capable of? Why do you pretend to be an intellectual body, when your only behavior lies in insulting ideologies foreign to your own?

Am I smug? If so, I'm doing so with properly-written sentences, that attempt after arguments - whereas you guys are not merely smug, but haven't the slightest interest in properly responding to another person's criticisms, preferring insults and accusations instead. That's all I've received, and almost all that the earlier user has too (only one person was kind enough to respond to his post, point by point).

Accurate.

Excellent post retard

You know that Buddhists and Hindus also have scriptures, right...? Ones that are even older than 2000 years, actually...

I'm too lazy to read the exact details of your posts but I broadly agree that the false dichotomy between no-metaphysics agnosticism and sky fairy jew daddy is cancer, and that it is just a broader result of the counter-enlightenment. Now I don't mean this in the sense of le "Dark Enlightenment" where just alt right people reject the teachings of the period, but more generally where via mass media useful knowledge from it is drowned or destroyed and replaced by cults, ideology, and idols. So both the normies, the academics, and the people crying about the effect of the liberal enlightenment all just throw away the very useful metaphysical conclusions it came to leaving everyone to be screaming retards. A complete backslide in logical thinking about existence on all sides.

What are the best books on christian apologetics?

Attached: shroud_of_turin.png (1292x8757, 3.91M)

Nice post. Didn't quite understand all of it, based on a few phrasing choices of yours which I couldn't penetrate, but yeah I agree. I'm not even a religious person, actually - I'm not advocating for Buddhism or Hinduism here. I believe very much in spirituality, but consider it completely in step with rationality. The scientific method, for example, is an extremely important achievement of our species, and should be extended to the investigation of spiritual realities wherever it can possibly do so. Personally, I'd define myself as a spiritual-rationalist, and have no interest in anything besides Truth. Anything which is not of the above category has no value to me. It would be really nice to see a universal, rational spirituality be cultivated in the Western part of the world, where I live, instead of observing materialistic atheism (not even aware that you can be atheistic and still very spiritual, since Christianity has unfortunately brought the two domains to seem inextricable in people's minds) to run so rampant for us despite there being absolutely no reason for it to be this way. I also despise the very notion of "cultural spirituality", namely the concept of Buddhism and Hinduism as "Eastern traditions", since I don't see the world in terms of cultural hemispheres, only in the cultural ideologies themselves - Buddhism and Hinduism have cultivated practises which are universally and objectively beneficial to a spiritual aspirant, and should be followed by anyone who would benefit from them. Just clarifying my positions here.

Nothing would make me happier than to see rational spiritualism form the bedrock of every major culture on Earth, such that all of us live "on the same page" as it were, in harmony with eachother and with the reality around ourselves.

The term rational spiritualist would probably describe my stance pretty well which is an extension of Spinoza, arguably the first that would fit under that label. As far as the revival of that style of thinkers being broadly embraced, I think is impossible because it is not in the interest of leaders. One can certainly promote it through art and writings but it will never see support from top down which is what drives cults, ideology, and idols.

True, but I also feel that religion is on the decline, and spirituality becoming more scientific, what with the latest explorations into the nature of consciousness, psychedelics, near-death experiences, past-life memories and so on. I think that scientific materialism is transitioning into something which incorporates spiritual realities into its fold, and this is bound to spread out to larger culture once it does so. Just my opinion. I agree that our leadership certainly wouldn't like it, and for a long time I've felt that the scientific materialism hanging over our culture was partially in service of a consumeristic/capitalistic agenda (the extension of materialism into the sphere of lifestyle), and thereby greatly in service to the largest powers of our world. But I do feel it is beginning to wane now, as more people question the narratives which previously dominated, and also experiment with unfamiliar realities like DMT and so on, and return with an altered system of belief. I haven't read Spinoza, but personakly I consider Siddhartha Gautama to be a figurehead of rational spiritualism - he championed personal inquiry and experience above blind allegience to the fixtures of one's cultures, disavowing many former practises in doing so like the sacrificial aspect expected by the Vedas, and overall I find the tenets of Buddhism to form a believable theology, even if unverifiable in certain areas.

>1) There is clear evidence that prayer does not work despite the Bible promising prayers will be answered.
I stopped reading here

Attached: 1504549933140.jpg (330x281, 21K)