Catholic authors general I'm feeling inspired, just finished

self bump

>>8339647
I've recently read François Mauriac's “The Enemy”. It has quite subtle shades if you're interested in Catholic struggles with male homosexuality.

>>8339835
4chan has an unproportional amount of Catholics with homosexual tendencies, strangely enough.
But, not right now, for me at least.

>>8339647
They've put Brandenburg twice on there

>>8339842
Many deviants were Catholics, and fortunately their innate struggles brought up among the best masterworks ever written.

File: Pierre Boutang.jpg (61KB, 638x440px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 638x440px

>>8339835
>Mauriac
Shit. If you want to read something good about stuggles with homosexuality, Julien Green did that better.

>>8339848
Is Julien Green in any way related to Graham Greene? I have the same edition of both.
>>8339847
It certainly isn't common, I've never come across it. But than again, I'm oblivious to it.

Flannery O'Conner

>>8339871
Obvious recommendation and she's great.

Most people are Catholic on this board.

Sad, really.

>>8339847
>innate struggles

Totally unrelated to Catholicism.

>>8341065
Why is that sad?

>>8341065
Aye, but you must distinguish between the "culturally" Catholic and the serious ones.

Still, I think a big chunk of the board if not the majority are atheists/agnostics

>>8341354
There are at least a few genuine believers on here. Some Catholic, some Orthodox. I think we even have a few Protestants.

>>8341067
In that particular case it was pretty fucking related.
>>8341354
Every time there was a survey, the Christian part was 25% at most.

Shusako Endo's Silence deals with all of the hard questions with none of the answers.

I'm sure the American movie coming out this year will be terrible since burgerpeople are incapable of subtlety and nuances.

>>8339846
Yeah, wtf.

>>8339647
What book is that image from?

>>8339647
You're obviously interested in philosophy, so:

Etienne Gilson

Josef Pieper

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange

John Senior

>>8341674
>Catholicism is "innate"

>>8341278
Catholics are very sad and guilt-ridden people.

Just an empirical observation.

>>8341354
To be fair, I don't think anyone on 4chan has all their ducks in a row.

>>8341725
And yet suicide was almost non-existent in the Middle Ages. Hmmm.

>>8341729
Guilt for Catholics is something you can get rid off, you go to confession and you are done.
Although a lot of women confess the same abortion(s) for decades, it's a pretty specific case.
>>8341721
The struggle with devicancy for a pious Catholic is.
>>8341695
Tell me more about them. I've read Leisure by Pieper and was hardly impressed, it was just mediocre.
For others here I'll highly recommend Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman and THE work on historical development of theology.
>>8341692
I found it here and use it as a desktop, I otherwise known nothing about it.
>>8341680
Well it is Scorsese, so you can expect a good, albeit blasphemous movie.
The novel was fantastic, if anything it's a fascinating historical period.

>>8341743
>you go to confession and you are done.

No, you sin again and go back.

Mathematically more time is spent with guilt than absolution.

>The struggle with devicancy for a pious Catholic is.

You don't understand the word, "innate."

>>8341729
I'm not sure of your psychological qualifications to equate guilt with suicide, but okay.

>>8341754
>No, you sin again and go back.
Yes but that's the thing. Confession is cathartic. It prevents excessive and unhealthy rumination, and helps to allow freedom from the sin rather than being tied to the act by guilt.

>>8341764
Freedom to sin again.

It makes the sinning more fun, tbqhf.

>>8341767
>Freedom to sin again.
Not to sin also.
>It makes the sinning more fun, tbqhf.
I've never had an experience where sin made me feel good long term.

>>8341769
That's why you go back to confession. I thought we went over this--your hamster wheel.

Cormac McCarthy, on confession

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWVQPID58pM

>>8341788
That wasn't "on confession," it wasn't "on anything" other than establishing character traits.

>>8341757
I wasn't equating guilt with suicide, in fact I agree with you, Catholics do indeed feel more guilt than other people (though less shame). However, what does it say that that guilt seems to result in less unhappiness?

>>8341743
YOU'RE mediocre! In all seriousness though, I thought "The Christian Idea of Man" and "Only the Lover Sings" were quite good. Pieper is German though, so don't expect British style analytic philosophy.

Gilson does a lot of history of philosophy, but meaning the tracing of ideas, not biographical histories. I thought "The Unity of the Philosophical Experience" was excellent.

Garrigou-Lagrange I admit I don't personally know that well, other than by reputation. However he is one of the most respected Thomists there is, so you can look up what others have said about him if you'd like.

Feser is the only one on this list who is currently alive (and relatively young, even). He's an American philosopher who converted to Thomism (and Catholicism) so he's very well versed in contemporary analytic philosophy, and is great at explaining Aquinas to those unfamiliar with him. He also has a blog which he updates frequently.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

>>8342041
I've only read one of his works, I don't doubt he wrote some better works. Leisure was picked for a short lived reading club as something for people who never read any philosophy and they might have found it more interesting.
I do have to admit I am leaning towards analytic philosophy that doesn't go full autism, as you say, Feser fits that really well. I've read 4 or so of his works, will read his Scholastic Metaphisics by the end of the year, after finishing the actual Aquinas past his political writings which were phenomenal (I postponed it because it isn't easy to carry around, A4 paper and 900 pages, hard cover).
I've read some Peter Kreeft who is also a contemporary author, but he is not terribly interesting, he takes a simplistic approach to Aquians and makes him seem banal.
I looked for Gilson and G-L, but didn't find any. In any case, I'm a long way form getting to them, Geach and his wife seem really interesting.
>As a young philosophy don, Anscombe acquired a reputation as a formidable debater. In 1948, she presented a paper at a meeting of Oxford's Socratic Club in which she disputed C. S. Lewis's argument that naturalism was self-refuting (found in the third chapter of the original publication of his book Miracles). Some associates of Lewis, primarily George Sayer and Derek Brewer, have remarked that Lewis lost the subsequent debate on her paper and that this loss was so humiliating that he abandoned theological argument and turned entirely to devotional writing and children's literature

File: catholics.jpg (28KB, 384x256px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 384x256px

>Catholicism
>Claim to hold the keys of Peter here on earth
>Ignores the first two commandments
Nice try, Satan.

>Exodus 20:1-6
>And God spake all these words, saying,
>2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
>3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
>5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

>>8342086
In that same Exodus God commands the Hebrews to make sculptures of cherubim for the Ark of the Covenant.

File: IMAG0253_BURST003.jpg (1MB, 1824x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1824x3264px

>>8342086
Didn't go to Medjugorje in a few years, should arrange it somehow soon.
I converted there.

>>8342086
>>8342092
>>8342096
>derailing OP's thread

Please, don't let every thread about something in any way religious transform into a discussion about shades of christianity or the existence of god.

>>8342102
Good point anon, that happens too often.

>>8342092
Exodus 25 at no point even implies that the statues are for the purpose of worshipping or grovelling.

Idolatry is absolutely forbidden.

File: IMAG0255_BURST002.jpg (2MB, 1824x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1824x3264px

>>8342102
I am a the op lad.
Pic related, this and the cross are in a 14th century monastery.
The new mass kind of made this altar pointless, it's not made for it.

>>8342102
Well it is the topic of Newman's best work, Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine.

>>8342072
Anscombe also had a really interesting friendship with Wittgenstein. She was one of the only women he actually liked, and he would come over to their house a lot.

>Ray Monk wrote that Anscombe was “…one of Wittgenstein's closest friends and one of his most trusted students, an exception to his general dislike of academic women and especially of female philosophers. She became, in fact, an honorary male, addressed by him affectionately as ‘old man’.”

Wittgenstein also apparently started meeting with a Dominican priest Anscombe introduced him to by his request before he died.

>>8339647
if you want some OG great christan philosophy and teachings I recommend Saint Augustine's City of God and his Confessions.

City being more a gigantic Q&A on his take on the religion (and his influence was huge in later centuries) and Confessions being more personal about his journey to becoming a Christian.

Check him out if you have the time, good reads

>>8341725
>guilt-ridden
Yes, I'll own to that

>sad
Now hold on there fella

>>8342041
>guilt seems to result in less unhappiness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDii69YCh_Q

>>8342164
I remember reading here something alongside those lines, Witty getting all sad about not having faith and trying desperatly to find it.

>>8343063
Nobody in reality gets sad about having faith.

They'd have to pretend they had it in the first place, then feel like they "lost" it.

That's fine. Dramatic entertainment is an understandable need to fill.

>>8343097
Le edgy troll man

>>8343214
hi meme

>>8343097
>Nobody in reality gets sad about having faith.
You mean not having it?
>They'd have to pretend they had it in the first place, then feel like they "lost" it.
How do you know they didn't? Faith is a sort of a deep worldview, which can change.
>That's fine. Dramatic entertainment is an understandable need to fill.
This isn't entertaining.

Evelyn Waugh was a Catholic. Brideshead Revisited is one of my favorite books.

>>8343276
People find quests for faith entertaining. Not me, but I don't judge other people's different tastes. That's petty.

>>8343324
Quests for faith are rarely sought due to a need for entertainment.
In any case, which author do you know who wrote about seeking faith as entertainment? Or rather which can be seen as such.

>>8343338
It's considered dramatic. If it was dull, why bother? To find salvation in the one true God--sounds exciting to some.

All activity in life is escapism, except for the basic biological needs to stay alive.

>>8339865

>It certainly isn't common, I've never come across it

Ever heard of Rabelais?

Plus literally anything written in the west between 500 and 1500 was written by a Catholic, there's lots of more or less deviant stuff out there, like De planctu naturae, or Roman de la Rose, or the Canterbury Tales

>>8343359

But of course these writers aren't just "deviants" any more than Pynchon is a "deviant". They wrote deviant things for a lot of reasons, not least to criticize and satirize the societies they lived in. But also certainly for the sake of lulz.

>>8343359
Catholics: It's better to say things that aren't deviant than abstain from doing them.

I love you guys.

>>8343365
Anything not of Catholic morale is suspect to deviancy and should be avoided.

I'm not into censorship, or even book-burning--just common sense.

>>8343349
>It's considered dramatic. If it was dull, why bother? To find salvation in the one true God--sounds exciting to some.
War is also dramatic, so is death and so is marriage and the history of medieval metaphysics. That doesn't mean it's done to escape anything, or rather that it's done for a banal reason such as escapism.
There are also dull things which people do also regardless of biological needs or a dramatic interest.

>>8341764

Catholic here but confession can definitely cause excessive ruminating where you want to confess every sin and spend most of your time monitoring yourself for any vestige of sin, etc. It's called scrupulosity and all the great divines have written on how to deal with/avoid it.

>>8343386
Tbh I must have missed it in all of those writings. Maybe because I've had the opposite problem tho.

>>8343384
Excitement, entertainment, level of escapism--it's all relative. Comfort itself, while not having emotions that explode like fireworks, is a form of escapism. Those things are outside the necessities of staying alive.

>>8343386
The best way to look at it, is abstaining from sin makes your inevitable sinning more delicious.

You know when you don't eat for too long, then the food is extra delicious?

You know when you stop masturbating for a long period then it feels extra fantastic?

It's just like that. Then you can feel all the guilt you want, go to confession and say and do what you're supposed to do...until the next delicious bite of sin. And so on, and so forth.

It's a workable system that I kind of agree with.

>>8343416
I don't know, I'm a practicing Catholic, and as much it can feel enjoyable to sin, it feels even more enjoyable to be absolved. It's really a physical sensation of relief, of joy and brightness flooding through your entire body. That's my experience, anyway. It makes me love God that much more.

>>8343510
Sure, to each their own. But you wouldn't have that joy without the sin to release from, would you.

Ergo, your sinning is a necessary element toward your enjoyment of life.

oops.

Catholicism is comforting because it let's you outsource your guilt and also despair towards the fate of the world.

>>8343528
It's a workable system, for sure.

Doesn't mean it doesn't break a few peripheral eggs in the process.

>>8343519
Not necessarily, you can get the same joy not sinning and just going to Mass. Not everything that makes you happy is necessarily sinful, that's just kind of a shitty idea proffered by modern culture.

I've felt more joy listening to a hymn at Easter than I've ever felt jerking off to porn.

>>8343534
The whole carton I'd say.

>>8343546
I was trying to go easy on them. They're very sensitive.

>>8343542
I'd say that relegating sexual peasure almost completely is a terrible way to enjoy life.

>>8343542
Ah, so you take back your statement about the enjoyableness of absolution from sin.

Okay.

>>8343549
This has to stop, Anon. Religion musn't be given a free pass that other sets of ideas don't enjoy.

>>8343551
That's their whole game plan, though.

Every religion's, really.

>>8343559
I just don't think it's my place to say "no" to religion. It's obviously fulfilling a need that the bulk of the world's population has.

They like it better than video games.

>>8343555
Don't put words in my mouth.

Absolution from sin is enjoyable precisely because it returns one to the state of grace one most feels in Mass, or at prayer. Being in a state of sin--or, at least, mortal sin--is contrary to God's intention for humanity. To return to a state of grace, and to be in a state of grace, is, in essence, to be ordered, as opposed to being disordered. It's bad to be out of it and good to be in it. So returning to it and actively being in it are both pleasant.

File: DSPT.jpg (11KB, 215x173px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 215x173px

>>8339647
m'boy Fesey

File: fatima-message-nm.jpg (46KB, 314x450px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 314x450px

>>8343567
There's also the small matter of it being completely real.

>>8343567
It's your place to state your opinion of it and debate with evidence in hand and good arguments.
Nothing should be free of criticism.

The need it fulfils is self-created. The good it does doesn't balance against the bad and certainly doesn't give any credit to its veracity.

>>8343562
Indeed. Some more than others. That's why a good part of middle easterns are hostages to Islam.

>>8343586
You wouldn't have absolution without sin. That's a fact.

Now, this makes one less analytical about the elimination of sin.

>>8343594
Provide evidence.

>>8343594
Denying reality can be fun.

>>8343603
You just responded to my opinion.

My criticism of all religions shouldn't equate my didactic need to stamp out all other opinions and religion itself.

I enjoy conversation, and without disagreement, I would have no fun.

Without discord, no concourse.

>>8339846
>>8341687
It's explained by the slogans attached to the end of the plumes,. One is the free city of Brandenburg and one is the margraviate of Brandenburg. Those are two different entities with the same coat of arms.

File: guadalupe3-13a.jpg (1MB, 1204x1525px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1204x1525px

>>8343610
>>8343612
Tag along with an exorcist for a day. Visit a Catholic hospital. Or just, you know, actually go looking for it.

>>8343551
Nobody has to, though. For some of the purest and most high-minded individuals, there is celibacy, but the rest of us are allowed to marry.

>>8343621
Yes, that's why I wrote «debate with evidence in hand and good arguments», which means not relying on mere opinions, but in facts and logic.

It could be argued that religion should become extinct with facts and logic. Even if you don't succeed and your argument is refuted.

>>8343416
>inevitable sinning
>inevitable

this is a heresy

>>8343416
>mfw nobody on this board knows that you cant actually sin

>>8343643
Generally what one looks for, they can find.

>>8343646
Yet your sexual pleasure is extremely limited, you cannot perform certain acts, unless you're willing to sin. You have to wait until you get married, which is a choice not everyone makes. Marriage is not a need in life for everyone.

And if you're anything other than heterosexual or asexual you're life has to be completely without sexual pleasure, unless you're willing to sin.

>>8343646
>For some of the purest and most high-minded individuals, there is celibacy.

That's amazing that you're keeping track of these individuals sex lives. Thanks for informing us.

>>8343643
It's at least very interesting that as Schizophrenia and other psychoactive illnesses have been understood more in depth, the instances of demonic possessions have lowered dramatically.

I've been to a Catholic hospital and don't see the point you're trying to make. Charitable actions are not a monopoly of Christianity.

>>8343651
Thank you for the boring demonstration of your shit logic.

>>8343667
your* my mistake

>>8343662
YES!

>>8342096
>Medjugorje
Shit place, mate. It feels like the most fucking touristic, plastic church ever. Even the fucking Vatican is more touristic than Medjugorje, yet it feels authentic. That shit place is nothing but a scam to sell trinkets.

>>8343680
Provide a counter argument.

>>8343685
Thank you for your confession.

You are hereby absolved.

>>8343662
How is that heresy my dude?
>>8343672
They are priests, as far as he is concerned.
>>8343665
Unless he is a Calvinist trying to make sense of that shit.

>>8343679
One has to accept, which is hard, that every religion doesn't just think, they know they are the best. They are the only hope for good in the world.

It's harder for a member to accept and easier for an outsider.

File: Miracolo-eucaristico.jpg (24KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x334px

>>8343665
But that's not true at all with some atheists and skeptics, I've found.

I mean, with some of you people, what's the point? I could show you pictures of apparitions of the Blessed Virgin or pictures of bloody hosts. I could link you to stories of healings and exorcisms. I could talk to you about people who have had their prayers answered in ways both overt and subtle. But so often all this is denied. It's claimed that the photos are faked. It's claimed that the testimonies are from liars or lunatics. It's claimed that the stories are made up.

Just recently there was an article in the Washington Post, of all places, from a board-certified psychiatrist; in it, he talked about how the Church hires him to help them determine the difference between mental illness and demonic possession. This is expert testimony from a literal expert, but everywhere I looked there were skeptics and atheists claiming he was nuts and refusing to believe.

So why should I bother, really? If people don't want to believe, they won't, and all the evidence in the world won't convince them.

>>8343693
Oh, it was implied to use better logic. Maybe you'll get it next time.

>>8343708
Atheists aren't looking for anything. That's why they are, generally, annoying.

It's like the kid who points his finger right near your eye and says, "I'm not touching you!"

An honest atheist is just so by default. They don't make it a crusade or nothin.

>>8343691
>Shit place, mate.
You don't go there for a place
>It feels like the most fucking touristic, plastic church ever.
The Chruch and the area around it are quite nice and the path of the cross and the hill of the apparition are breathtaking at night, but the area around has been built in the past 20 years without a plan, so yeah, of course it is ugly.
>Even the fucking Vatican is more touristic than Medjugorje, yet it feels authentic.
That's because this place was not on the map 30 years ago and was built almost entirely for the needs of the visitors.
>That shit place is nothing but a scam to sell trinkets.
Shit place, great place to pilgrimage to, scam it is not, it has regular miracles and is the larges confessional in the world.

>>8343702
Indeed and that's why they don't take criticism. I understand how hard it is for a believer to realize that the very thing he has lived his life around is bullshit; but that doesn't mean you have to live in denial while your cognitiva dissonance grows.

>>8343590
He's an amazing author, I want to be the next Ed, honestly. Too bad I'm from a small country whose philosophy no one ever reads but ourselves,
Will read his Scholastic Metaphisics soon. Anyone got his Scholastic Essays maybe an is willing to share a pdf?

>>8343708
There's similar evidence for every religion in the world. Why should we take yours?

Evidence of the supernatural has crumbled every time under the scientific lens.

>>8343709
This is intellectually dishonest at best. Provide a better logic and I will concede defeat.

>>8343755
>Evidence of the supernatural has crumbled every time under the scientific lens.
He claims otherwise, in that very post!

>>8343721
Is it despicable to make it a crusade while every religion in the world is allowed to try to convert others?

Why is it ok for them to come knocking in my door, but reprehensible for me to do the same?

>>8343768
But atheism is just a lack of belief dude

>>8343763
I urge Anon to provide the evidence then. Once it's peer reviewed I will become the greatest believer.

>>8343773
Yes. The «crusade» is about denouncing faith as a nocive way of thinking.

That's not atheism indeed.

>>8343768
You're saying you're no better than they are.

Really, if you're against something, doing the same things that they do sounds illogical, doesn't it?

File: st__thomas_aquinas_icon_by_lordshadowblade-d5t99rt.jpg (255KB, 798x1001px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 798x1001px

>>8343755
Where in my post did I dismiss the reality of that other evidence? And, for the record, I don't. I'm perfectly willing to accept the milk-drinking statues of the Hindus and the non-eating monks of the Buddhists. It's all real, and it fits into God's plan somehow.

Again, if you don't want to believe, you won't, so I'm not sure how much good this does. But for me, the reality of the supernatural and the divine doesn't invalidate the reality of the empirical and the mundane. Aquinas, after all, devoted questions in the Summa to both witchcraft and ethics. You have to consider the supernatural and the natural, the mystical and the rational, all together, and I happen to think that Catholic Christianity does that better than any other sect. That may be my own biases showing through, but there's no helping that.

>>8343762
It's not my job to teach you how to think with common logic.

People get paid to teach and you might have a sense of entitlement for what you expect is your right to have.

>>8343739
Nobody takes criticism.

except me

>>8343795
Not necessarily, I don't roam the world preaching without taking criticism. I debate what I think are bad ideas wherever I can, I don't impose or threaten with eternal damnnation, I debate.

>>8343799
Then you accept other religions as plausible and do not claim your religion preaches the truth?

You are a theist agnostic.

>if you don't want to believe, you won't

Believing is not a decision, one simply believes or doesn't. I can't decide to believe there's an elephant in my living room.

Christianity has clashed with science repeatedly through history. It's not compatible with science, unless you create ad hocs ad infinitum.

>>8343811
Appeal to common sense fallacy.

>>8343843
Still putting words in my mouth. You keep doing that, and I wish you'd stop.

>>8343843
>It's not compatible with science
Science is not one monolitic idea moron

>>8343857

>I'm perfectly willing to accept the milk-drinking statues of the Hindus and the non-eating monks of the Buddhists. It's all real, and it fits into God's plan somehow.

That's very clear. How did I put words in your mouth?

>>8343872
Science relies on evidence, experimentation and sound logic. Most religions clash completely with that.

Ad hominems will only take you so far.

>>8343819
So, you're not *exactly* the same.

Great point.

>>8343899
I'm accepting the events themselves as real, the strange happenings as real. I don't accept the explanations for them offered by the Hindus or the Buddhists. As I mentioned, it's a union of the rational and the mystical. I know by faith the truth of Christianity. I accept supernatural happenings from other religions because they're plainly real. However, the explanations for them offered by the other religions are contrary to Christian thought, so I don't believe the explanations. I assume there is something else going on, and am open to considering what that might be.

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

I like christianity
i can do all sorts of fucked up shit as long as im in a big stone building on sunday on my knees drinking vine with some pedophile and eating some unsubstantial good for nothing piece of monkeyshit while ainging terribly shitty songs
all i have to do is love some kime nailed to a plank and i can literally go to the big guys pearl palace even though i raped and tortured like fifteen hundred children
it doesnt matter because i have faith

>>8342072
Kreeft is a professional philosopher but most of his books are aimed at a lay audience. This is something to keep in mind if you're looking for depth, though I generally like him

>>8343913
I understand now, I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position.

Why must we take your explanation instead of theirs though?

We could accept the supernatural without tying it to any deity and you were arguing that those events were evidence for the existence of the god you believe in, am I wrong?

>>8343927
Can't divorce though.

>>8343904
>Science relies on evidence, experimentation and sound logic.
Also axioms and specific arguments in specific fields such as law which largely rest on tradition.
Now do you mean natural sciences only?
>Most religions clash completely with that.
Most religions is also not a unified term, like your "science".
So which religions where clash with these? Theology uses axioms and logic and philosophy. Evidence too, not so much with experimentation.
Now which specific religion clashes with which specific areas of the sciences? I'm pretty sure Islam doesn't clash with food technologies or mathematics as far as I know. And which of these clearly dogmatic proofs of the monolithic science make religious arguments completely invalid?
>Ad hominems will only take you so far.
Are you originally from /sci/? Because I feel I've read your comment there at least 30 times.

>>8343963
Eh, we'll overlook it.

>>8343852
Listing off fallacies in lieu of argument fallacy

>>8343931
Which is a shame honestly.
I knew that, but he makes it too simplistic to the point of teleology being completely banal and not really something you can support.
I wish there were more people like Feser.

>>8343972
Guys I love your chain.

>>8343951
Well, as I said, I feel no religion encompasses the breadth of reality the way Catholic Christianity does. Between all the saints, mystics, theologians, philosophers, and clergy, we've managed to come up with a body of thinking and believing that can explain everything from the reason the universe exists to whether it's ever okay to cheat on a test. It all coheres, it all works together--at least, if you accept its basic premises. I think it can explain strange things, and mundane things, in a way other religions aren't fully capable of.

>>8343697
denial of free will. "inevitable" implies fatalism

>>8343965
Scientific axioms are subject to change when evidence arises, religious axioms are not.

Islam clashes with science repeatedly, for example:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran

Also, the Qu'ran has a very crass mathematical error, so your statement is not exactly true.

I'm not gonna go into every religion in the world.

It is entirely possible to create a religion that doesn't clash with science by simply filling the gaps, but most religions do clash with science.

>>8343972
«Argument fallacy», please clarify, are you referring to a specific logical fallacy?

>>8344025
I don't think it does. Sin is part of the human condition and there has been only one without sin. You are going to sin to some degree, due to your flawed will. It doesn't mean you can't help yourself with a lot of it, but you will succumb to temptation sooner or later about something, big or small.

>>8343999
You said in your first post that you couldn't understand how we unbelievers cannot believe even when presented with evidence. Nonetheless, we've agreed that said special events are not necessarily evidence of a theistic god, since you reject the explanations of other religions the same way I reject yours. I think we're finished here.

Have a good (hopefully eternal) life, Anon.

pd.

> I think it can explain strange things, and mundane things, in a way other religions aren't fully capable of.

Why is Christianity superior to Islam regarding this?

Don't reply anon, it's rethoric.

>>8344025
Well, Christianity believes in an Omniscient god and that's not compatible with free will.

Incompatibilism is but a succesion of non-sequiturs and tinkering with the concept of free will.

I see a bunch of Catholics trying to argue that Catholicism is logical.

Cute!

>>8344069
Sure it is, God doesn't have to practice omniscience in order to have it.

Just like you may be intelligent, but it's just not showing up in your postings.

>>8344031
>Scientific axioms are subject to change when evidence arises, religious axioms are not.
Depends on the religion.
Protestant churches often change their dogmas.
>I'm not gonna go into every religion in the world.
You didn't go in the one this whole subject is about.
>It is entirely possible to create a religion that doesn't clash with science by simply filling the gaps, but most religions do clash with science.
Science clashes with science and modifies its views accordingly.
This is the case with most religions, they aren't dead, rock like things, they adapt and change certain views depending on the (((evidence))).
The Catholic faith may have held that the world was created x years ago or that the bible was finished around the year y, but they were changed accordingly.
Not all topics are open to discussion like this, such as for example existence of Christ in history, but you for some reason have a view of it as if it were some huge monolithic unchanging dead tradition.

>>8344041
It is one thing to say from overwhelming probability "you will sin"; it is another to say "you will sin inevitably"

seriously be careful right now, you're definitely speaking heretically when you deny the possibility of a victory over sin. our failures wouldn't be failures if success wasn't possible.

>>8344041
Since (sins, hehe) Catholics are pro-life, tell me how an miscarried embryo has sinned, or a newborn if it dies.

>>8344073
>God doesn't have to practice omniscience in order to have it.

Citation needed. Christianity preaches that god knows everything that's been, is and ever will be.

>>8344073
He can practice it, omniscience doesn't logically follow into fatalism.
I've never seen anyone connect the two beyond a basic assertion that knowledge of the future of subject a somehow makes subject b not have a will of their own.
>>8344079
Victory over sin is final in the resurrection as something complete.
Victory over all sin in our life is I would say impossible. You got any recs on the subject?

>>8344096
Original sin.
Now I was wrong, a newly baptized child who dies really soon did die without sin.

>>8344127
Really?

So, those are like Jesus, too.

Wouldn't it be better to die without sing, ergo all newly baptized people should be murdered.

>>8342934
I base that on the empirical observation of comparative suicide rates we were literally just talking about.

>>8344114
I guess we're not here to serve your needs, babby.

>>8343691
>the Vatican feels authentic
Any more pearls of wisdom bro? Is water still wet?

>>8344156
Then the murderers would go to hell.
>inb4 confession
You can't cheat God, we are assuming an omniscient, all powerful being of pure justice.

>>8344103
That was in response to someone say that since God was omniscient He couldn't have given men free will. I was speaking to include their point of view. Not to make an empirical statement that should be permanently stamped in stone.

That's the point I cared about. If you wanedt a tangential convo, sorry to disappoint.

>>8344160
It's a common objection, but I fail to see the logical connection.
One anon a long time ago pointed out an interesting thing about how God ordered the universe in the first place, but it's coming from a naturalistic versus aristotelian conception of reality.

>>8344076
Agreed that depends on religion.

You're arguing for Catholic religion then.
The Bible has been proven to be assembled quite arbitrarily, yet the church doesn't acknowledge the fact. Some of the NT's book have been outed as forgeries, yet the church ignores the fact.

Most of the events in the OT are disproved by archaeology, yet the church adopts a position of unsure balance between preaching literalism and metaphors.

That's Catholics, they have at least accepted evolution. A lot of other Christian churches haven't

>>8344187
Yes, we heard you the first time. Now go play.

>>8343386
I would say that people who have scruples can use confession excessively, but I wouldn't say that "confession causes scruples," just like doctors don't cause hypochondria. Not to mention most priests can recognize scruples in the confessional and will do their best to discourage them.

>>8344114
Omniscience follows into fatalism when the being that possesses it is the same one that creates everything.

>>8344171
It would be so honorable to sacrifice one's soul to Hell so that an innocent, newly baptized child may ascend to the highest of heights in heaven. It brings a tear to my eye.

>>8344185
I see. I'm arguing against the Christian god, so yeah, have a good day.

>>8344159
>just

You have an interesting concept of time.

Do you like the time travel episodes of Star Trek? Which is your favorite one.

>>8344208
You're arguing with nobody. Basically hitting yourself.

My day was, is and will be good, stranger.

>>8344204
You would be doing it thinking you would go to the highest Haven with a tear in your eye, making you a murderer due to self interest.

>>8344215
I am indeed playing table tennis against a wall. But ideas are put in people's minds, even if no one is gonna concede a defeat.

>>8344239
Tennis balls don't stick to rubber, friend.

>>8344229
No, I accept my Hell. Your viewpoint is not mine, not everyone else's.

Someone has to go to Hell. Why not me?

>>8344239
>I am indeed playing table tennis against a wall. But ideas are put in people's minds, except mine, even if no one is gonna concede a defeat.

>>8344247
Don't be so sure. People can start to question their beliefs even because of light stuff like this. Not necessarily the Anon arguing, but other readers.

>>8344258
Irony at its finest.

>>8344258
Point to a good argument I've ignored.

>>8344271
>people can question their beliefs

*mind blown*

Thanks for admitting your concession to me, alone. I accept it, humbly.

>>8344279
You're ignoring the argument that you're not open to being wrong.

>>8344293
I am. But in order to concede I need to be presented good evidence. Prove me wrong and I'll happily admit defeat.

>>8344284
You're very welcome, Anon.

>>8344300
>I am indeed playing table tennis against a wall. But ideas are put in people's minds, except mine, even if no one is gonna concede a defeat.

>>8344300
You can't judge whether evidence is "good" because you know you're right.

The only way you can prove me wrong is to tell me how you're wrong.

>>8344315
Oh, but I will happily concede defeat if I am proven wrong.

>>8344329
But that comes after going through the pain of reorganizing your stubborn belief system.

No one expects you to do that. Even we are not that unkind.

>>8344329
Do you truly fail to see the ironing?

>>8344326
I am regarding good evidence as verifiable, subject to peer review and logically sound.

Is that not a good definition of good evidence?

I'm not making any bold claims, therefore I freely admit I can be wrong.

I simply reject claims to the supernatural because of the absence of evidence. It is not the same to reject a claim than to assert the opposite claim.

>>8344339
Believers can't into irony, for the obvious reasons.

However, they provide us with observable irony, so for that we can be glad.

>>8344336
I don't have a belief system Anon.

I acknowledge the pain you talk about. It is definitely hard to throw away a belief system that has been with you for your whole life.

>>8344348
You sound wide open to all viewpoints.

You're like a basketball player, not knowing where the ball is, ready to catch it from any angle.

I truly admire you. Truly.

>>8344358

I'm glad you're open to believing the Earth is flat.

>>8344354
>>8344339
I'm not a believer. I fail to see the irony you talk about, I admit I can be wrong, but as I'm not making any claims of absolute knowledge, I don't see how that factors here. I'm certainly willing to admit defeat, given evidence and sound logic.

>>8344361
I don't know if you're being sarcastic, Anon. In the case you aren't, thank you.

>>8344371
I am, if presented with evidence. So far a staggering amount of evidence points to a somewhat spherical Earth. Therefore I regard Flat Earth as incredibly highly unlikely.

>>8344378
You are excellent at repeating yourself.

I have a belief: You are a gramophone.

>>8344394
WHOAH

>>8344378
>>8344348
>>8344382
>I am indeed playing table tennis against a wall. But ideas are put in people's minds, except mine, even if no one is gonna concede a defeat.

>>8344418
He cannot look at himself as evidence.

>>8341725
Are you a Protestant?

>>8344405
When the same question gets repeated ad infinitum I'll reply the same answer ad infinitum.

I don't see the need to say something different if what I say answers the question.

I am an idiot for replying to every question Anon writes, though. I realized I'm being trolled by Anon and by myself. Nonetheless, Anon debates seriously sometimes, therefore I reply seriously.

I'm not a gramophone, I'm an idiot with nothing to do since my writing stalled yesterday.

>>8344428
No, I don't protest Catholicism, or any religion.

It's a waste of my time.

>>8344431
Thanks for confirming your roboticism.

Somebody, somewhere must be proud.

>>8344418
I've put all of these ideas in my mind. That doesn't mean they're good, as my ideas might not be good either, but it's worthy to ponder them.

Maybe, I'm an imbecile Anon. I fail to see where I have been incoherent. If any Anon has a better definition for good evidence, I'll gladly consider it. Unless you're going towards Solipsism Anon, which is pointless.

>>8344449
I reject your claim of roboticism. I'm willing to change my answers once presented with good reason to do so.

>>8344465
That's what a good robot would do. Reprogram software.

*pats your mainframe*

>>8344460
>I've put all of these ideas in my mind.

How delusional.

>>8344477
Aren't we all robots anyway? Reprogrammed by life experiences.

>>8344481
In which way Anon?

>>8344465
>people are like walls, no one will concede defeat, except me, the only ultra-rational exception who will truly read a book and instantly change his mind according to super-duper objective truth judgement
>>8344490
You sound like a copy pasta. Everything you said has been said by someone else, yours was not even eloquent in any notable way.

>>8344484
I know that's what you think, but if you actually used your robotic thinking to its maximum, you'd see what a silly statement you just made.

>>8344490
100% control is self-delusion.

Sociopath definition?

Don't worry, the bad guys are always cooler than the "good guys."

>>8339647
OP here, what a shit thread. At least I got 2 recs.
Won't get around them in a while tho, Catholic philosophy, or rather general writings of quality, is pretty massive.
I didn't even read more than 5 Hilaire Bellocs.

>>8344500
I did say «no one»; but I admit that's an absolute statement with no basis. I'd rather say «most Anons here» after reading your argument. This is my opinion based on my experience here and therefore it can be very easily be wrong, just there's still no reason to think it is.

The fact that someone has said something before doesn't mean one cannot say it. Why must I postulate a different statement than «I think, therefore I am» if I agree with Descartes and don't think it's necessary to rewrite it?

I admit I'm not specially eloquent, which can make reading what I state a pain.

>>8344533
It's a factor in judgment of what you say.

This is a reality you cannot avoid.

>>8344503
My statement presupposes there's no free will (which I'm open to discuss). If that's not the reason you think it's silly, I beg you to clarify.

>>8344517
I certainly don't think I have 100% self-control, but I try to have as much as possible.

>>8344540
What is a factor in judgement?

Sorry, I didn't get what you were referring to.

>>8344548
Your writing is shit. No wonder you're having so much failure in this thread.

You might have great ideas, but your lack of talent belies them.

>>8344533
You assume you are somehow different to those wall people, but simultaneously ask for evidence that will confirm with you.
This is not different from me or anyone else, but you make the annoying statement and general stance that you are somehow outside biases and will gladly have your mind enlightened.
You are also not quoting Descartes or any thinker in general, you are mostly speaking in common internet atheist phrases.
If you agreed and parroted thinkers, it would show. Maybe it does for some other topics, but here you are just parroting the now dogmatic naturalism from second hand sources.

>>8344555
This is getting to where you're just a sponge saying, "Teach me! Teach me!" You're more trouble than it's worth the effort to put into. Sorry, not sorry.

The rest of us are communicating concepts well enough to carry a conversation, a dialogue.

Lurk and learn.

>>8344073
God is pure actuality. He can't potentially be something, which is what you're suggesting.
>>8344069
Why should it be?

>>8344557
My writing is shit. I strive to improve it, but I admit I'm not very succesful in that endeavour. My poor handling of English is a big factor, but shouldn't be used as an excuse. Thank you, Anon.

>>8344541
You're "willing to change your views" but at the same time you're presupposing there's no free will.

*dies laughing*

You're good for making fun of, so at least you're of some use.

>>8344568
Not him, but I have heard often than Christ limited his knowledge and that God Father could do also something like that.

>>8344568
If you look up omniscience, it's a state of existence, not action.

He doesn't have to interfere with human's free will to be omniscient.

>>8344572
Yes, you should not use it as an excuse as if it were a disability.

You can learn, improve and fix it. Meanwhile, accept your temporary limitation and don't accept accommodation.

>>8344562
I do not evidence that will confirm with me, simply evidence.

I don't think I'm completely outside biases, I try to, but I'm sure I'm not.

I don't completely understand your other criticism, you dismiss my arguments as «common internet atheist phrases», yet you don't offer counter argument to any of them, nor care to point why are they flawed.

I fail to see naturalism as dogmatic, I only think it's the most likely case.

>>8344577
Well, when he said, "Why have you forsaken me" like a bitch, he lost it for a bit.

>>8344579
Unless I am misreading you both, you agree on that part.

>>8344566
Point taken, I didn't understand Anon statement. Mea culpa.

>>8344591
Thank you.

Your statements have been received.

Message is being processed.

Please stand by ...

>>8344568
My mistake Anon, I meant Compatibilism in that post.

>>8344594
Agreements are like an oasis around these parts.

>>8344574
Yes I presupposed it while making that statement, it's impossible to make statements without presuppositions, that doesn't mean I'm not open to see them challenged.
I'm very willing to change my view of free will. Let's argue Anon.

>>8344587
I accept it and try to improve it. /lit/ is helpful to improve one's writing.

>>8344614
While arguing with you may be as delightful as nude swordplay, I'm a little busy right now.

>>8344579
I agree with that Anon, but if god created everything while knowing all the events that were going to take place, where's the room for free will?

>>8344631
You're implying that free will is omniscience.

>>8344630
Nude swordplay is widely underrated. Have a good day, Anon.

>>8344591
>I do not evidence that will confirm with me, simply evidence.
Which is another way of saying evidence which fits into my view of how evidence should look like. It strictly excluded philosophy, unless you changed your mind.
>I don't think I'm completely outside biases, I try to, but I'm sure I'm not.
You are just as biased as I am, maybe even more as a position of a Catholic will in almost all cases be a minority one forcing you to even unwillingly learn the arguments of the other side from peers and the media.
>I don't completely understand your other criticism, you dismiss my arguments as «common internet atheist phrases», yet you don't offer counter argument to any of them, nor care to point why are they flawed.
I simply do not see the point of going over endless discussions over the internet about why x is proof for y. It's too vast of a subject and you kept jumping from one to the other anyway, a focused on topic dialogue only ever happens on very specific places, 4chan not being one of those.
>I fail to see naturalism as dogmatic, I only think it's the most likely case.
You are in your posts taking it dramatically like most of everyone else as it's a general dogma of the western society. Most of all university programs are strictly naturalistic, as opposed to aristotelian or Buddhist. You are a product of your education and you don't have to consciously acknowledge it as a dogma to act as if it were one.

>>8344640
Am I? Well, let me rephrase. If god creates you while knowing every action you are going to take in your life and every thought you are going to have, do you have free will?

I don't think you do. What's your opinion?

>>8344656
God has the will to choose not to use His omniscience.

I thought we covered this.

>>8344631
God created the world so it can accommodate free will in man from our side.
On his side he does not interfere in a way which would deny you free will.
He knows what you will do, but the decision is yours.
>>8344666
I don't think that's the case, even if we assume it's possible.
God knows the information, but you of your own volition do whatever you wish to do, with given limitations, such as upbringing, etc.
Am I oblivious to some logic chain or what, because no matter how much I try I fail to see the causal relationship of x knows what y will do thus y will not do it out of its own will.

>>8344647
I'm open to challenges to my definition of evidence. Philosophy can make logically sound arguments, I'm certainly willing to accept them.

I agreed I must be biased, I fail to see how you can claim I'm as biased as you are. Neither of us has enough information to make such a claim.

I agree naturalism is mostly dogmatic in western society. I disagree in that I personally act as it is; I act according to my judgement that naturalism is what makes more sens, given the evidence and scientific experimentation, but I don't claim that it is the absolute truth. I am nonetheless, open to hear other arguments. I only reject arguments that appeal to solipsism, as it leads nowhere.

>>8344683
It's a concept called "not-knowing" things.

You've probably never heard of it.

Anyways, if God is omniscient, then he knows how to do it.

>>8344688
Yes, we've heard you say a million times how you're "open."

It's starting to create some disgusting visuals.

Spare us. Please.

>>8344666
If this is true, I agree there's room for free will. I don't think it's a Christian teaching that God uses or not Omniscience. I think it has an internal contradiction though, how can God choose to know what he doesn't know he doesn't know?

>>8344683
I disagree with you, God was the one that decided to make you exactly how you are, while knowing exactly everything that was going to happen to you and how you were going to react to said experiences. I fail to see how there's room for free will.

>>8344699
Anon keeps stating how I'm not, so I keep giving arguments.

I guess I will have to strive to be open to not being open.

>>8344688
>I'm open to challenges to my definition of evidence. Philosophy can make logically sound arguments, I'm certainly willing to accept them.
You aren't, because the fact that something is logically sound in it doesn't mean you'll agree with it. Aristotelian philosophy is very much logically sound, but that in no way means you or anyone else will accept it because of only that.
>I agreed I must be biased, I fail to see how you can claim I'm as biased as you are. Neither of us has enough information to make such a claim.
I think we can tell a great deal from these posts, especially the phraseology one uses. You can always tell what the person has been reading on the subject, or rather a lot on it, assuming you are familiar with the text, or the media which has fed it to the person.
>I agree naturalism is mostly dogmatic in western society. I disagree in that I personally act as it is; I act according to my judgement that naturalism is what makes more sens, given the evidence and scientific experimentation, but I don't claim that it is the absolute truth.
The claim that x is correct is hardly different from y is absolutely correct for the sake of any argument in my experience. The "it isn't absolute" is just rhetoric to make your stance seem more fluid when in fact it isn't, especially when it comes to worldview.
>I am nonetheless, open to hear other arguments. I only reject arguments that appeal to solipsism, as it leads nowhere.
That's where you take books you disagree with and read them. After all, this is the literature board.

>>8344708
I'm saying you're open! Please believe me! Ignore the other anons saying your not!

*tears of desperation*

>>8344703
You agree?! I feel like I just scored a three-pointer.

Where normally the highest ideal in discourse is to "argue" no matter what until exhaustion, these are pleasantly surprised moments.

To speak to your point about Christian teachings about God, I'd just have to say that there is no consensus and those who say there is will find out there's not.

And to answer your question on "how", that's where the cool mystery of the all-mighty surpasses us mere mortals and we sit here in awe.

>>8344703
See, you are saying it, he made you knowing what you will do, but it's still done by you and not by God's hand forcing you to do it. There is an x number of situations that happen and you do y number of actions in response, but the response is, within certain limits I mentioned earlier, yours. God knows what you do and who you are, but, and I'm running in circles, if anyone has a book I can read up on or a specific chapter in Aquinas or Augustine I've missed, does not make you do whatever it is you internally chose to do.

>>8344717
I certainly don't think Aristotelian philosophy is logically sound, I side with Bertrand Russell's arguments against syllogisms and I reject natural teleology, I find no reason to consider it probable.

I think the different between «most probable» and «absolutely correct» matters a lot. I fail to see your point in this. Are you arguing that one must say all things are equally probable? That is a retreat to solipsism. Logically sound, but impossible to argue for or against. Unfalsifiability is a logical fallacy.

>>8343590
He got me into Steely Dan (specifically the blog post where complains about Chesterton and Scruton hating jazz and rock)

>>8344730
I don't accept «mystery» as a valid argument. But we can't argue any longer, given that we've reached that point.

Good conversation, Anon.

>>8344736
If I make an AI capable to make decisions. Does it have free will?

Free will is not the act of making decisions, but to make them freely. If God created you and knows what you're going to decide, you never had a choice but to decide what you decided.

Maybe you have another definition of free will and we're actually arguing semantics.

>>8344783
Well, giving up quickly is suspect to protecting one's weakness.

Assuming that "God" has some unknowables is pretty common.

But, since you asked, and there are those naughty folks who try to be more "God-like," the concept is fairly simple.

You've lived however long you've lived. You've gone "around the block" however many times. You have instincts. You can predict things you didn't before. You can easily make assumptions how some things will turn out. That, in itself, is a slice of the pie of omniscience. Now, to "not-know" is deceptively simple. When you have an assumption, based on instinct or experience, you can logically "know" that you won't really be able to predict the outcome. You might be wrong. All you have to do is stop thinking about it (computing in anticipation) and just accept where the cards land, whether you would've been "right" or "wrong."

It's entirely possible God created us to have a "game" so that absolute knowledge wouldn't bore him and He wouldn't have the option of death.

Again, omniscience includes everything, which would include the ability to forget.

>>8344815
Anon's argument was «mystery». Which leads to either take it on faith or not, I don't see how it's useful to argue about it.

I'm not arguing against God's ability to «not know». I'm arguing about how can one decide to know, what one doesn't know one doesn't know?

Your definition of Omniscience is rather arbitrary. Omniscience is widely accepted as the capacity to know everything that there is to know.
You're talking about Inherent Omniscience, which indeed is the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.

But as I said, how can one choose to know what one doesn't know one doesn't know?

>>8344847
Why do you assume omniscience comes with the power of choice?

Speaking of arbitraries, your choice of symbols used to emphasis a word is ... unique.

>>8344882
I don't. I said Inherent Omniscience does come with the power of choice. Omniscience does not.

Yeah, I know. It's because «» are the first choice quotation marks in Spanish, which is my mother tongue. I know I'm writing in English, but I simply prefer them.

>>8344913
>I simply prefer them.

That's great because that's so your posts. You have a ball. You throw it to me. I look at it. Throw it back to you from my viewpoint. You bat it away. Throw me a new ball or the same ball again. Repeat. It's an interesting way to play catch and is indicative of not having played catch with dad growing up.

This technique is effective on me because boredom is my kryptonite, not that you aren't endlessly fascinating, as your mother told you.

Again, it's just the technique of verbal concourse. *snores*

File: pope-johnpaul.jpg (3MB, 1905x1569px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1905x1569px

>>8344058
I'll reply anyway because I have an autistic urge to have the absolute last word in any argument.

Moreover, you're being pedantic, and I think you've moved the goalposts a bit. First you seemed to assert there was no evidence for the supernatural at all. When I presented it, you shifted to arguing that it didn't provide evidence for God's existence.

However, how is God defined? Let's look at the dictionary:

>God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

Given that definition, I believe supernatural occurrences do indeed strongly point to the existence of God, or at least to some entity functionally identical. For it would have to be some being of supreme power that could appear to violate basic laws of physics, of perception, and of causality in a way that humans are not capable of. Who could violate such laws but their author?

Now, if we ourselves someday figure out ways to heal at a touch or turn water into wine, this becomes a much less compelling proof, but thus far we have not.

>>8344977
I don't know which Anon you are, Anon; but can you point out to the reply of mine you're dissatisfied with?

I agree I must seem insufferable. I'm benefiting from /lit/ to see the flaws in my arguments, which I found rather useful. Ignore me if you find me annoying Anon, I can't blame you.

>>8345067
I didn't find the evidence compelling. I said that taking the evidence as valid, for the sake of the argument, would point out to the existence of the supernatural. To say it points to the existence of god is a non sequitur in my opinion.

That definition of god is rather deistic. Are you arguing for a deist god or for the Christian theistic god?

In the past you would have been able to argue that since we cannot explain thunders, there must be a god.

Laws of physics are not laws as in the common understanding of the word law, they are merely descriptive. If they are disrupted, they must change to describe said disruption.

>>8345077
I do blame you, though, for being focused on self. It's disgusting.

Myself and other anons can tell who we are speaking with because we are listening as much as we are responding.

>>8345121
Well, I've been arguing with different Anons. I suppose I do need to improve my listening.

If you're free will anon, please point out to the argument that dissatisfied you.

>>8343708

> a board-certified psychiatrist; in it, he talked about how the Church hires him to help them determine the difference between mental illness and demonic possession.

link to article, or more material on how to determine the difference between mental illness and demonic posession

>>8345140
I am self-satisfied. You understand that feeling.

File: haveyouheardgodsfreegift.jpg (86KB, 318x475px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 318x475px

>>8339647

Catholicism's greatest achievement was Calvinism

if you don't know the founding story of the latter you aren't qualified to speak about western theology

fight me

>>8345183
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/01/as-a-psychiatrist-i-diagnose-mental-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/

>>8345205
TULIP is petty, why didn't god elect me?

>>8345220

«god works in mysterious ways»

>>8345217

"She could tell some people their secret weaknesses, such as undue pride. She knew how individuals she’d never known had died, including my mother and her fatal case of ovarian cancer. Six people later vouched to me that, during her exorcisms, they heard her speaking multiple languages, including Latin, completely unfamiliar to her outside of her trances."

so demons cause people to speak Latin and diagnose dead people?

really can't tell this from "buy my book and go to my church", here's the response from the same site

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-self-possessed-psychiatrist-should-exorcise-his-delusions/2016/07/15/556b78e2-4877-11e6-8dac-0c6e4accc5b1_story.html

>>8345267
Anon, those are letters to the editor. Of course they're going to be crankily opposed to the article.

>>8345217
The article was originally posted in the New Oxford Review.

>The New Oxford Review is an orthodox Catholic magazine that explores ideas concerning faith and culture.

>>8345278

Do demons fight against other demons? Has the catholic church done deals with lesser demons to combat higher ones for the glory of God and redemption of the lesser? I'm not trying to be a fedora here, where's the defining, contemporarily accepted literature on demonology or "modern demonology/psychiatry" that goes into some of the finer details of what demons do that God and his angels don't? Have there been cross-studies with schizophrenics who often claim to be assailed by demons or that others have demons in thim? How does the Church find good Demonologists and how do they pick them apart from functioning schizos? How do they maintain that process so it isn't itself corrupted by demonic influence or schizo false-positives?

>>8345301
I'm not a demonologist, Anon, nor am I an exorcist.

Really, I'm just a fucking layperson, albeit a particularly devout one who's somewhat well-read. I'm not a priest, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not an exorcist. I can't answer your questions.

If you're really curious, why not go to your local church or cathedral, go to the office, and ask them? You know we're not some creepy secretive cult like Scientology, right? Everyone in the Church is perfectly happy to answer your questions regarding this stuff, and they'll be able to do it much better than I can.

>>8345310

>I'm just a fucking layperson

so how do you even trust yourself to believe that your Church does know these things better than you

It wasn't too long ago that the Church said practicing Yoga can attract demons.

Now, I hate Yogis, too--but it's still pretty funny to state that with a straight face.

>>8345301
>functioning schizos

A "schizo" is not a functioning human being by definition. William Blake saw visions and heard voices but he was not a "schizo". Same for Joan of Arc, Hildegard von Bingen, etc.

>>8345330
That's because they think things through, Anon. Given yoga's origins, it attracting demons isn't so far-fetched an idea.

>>8345335
Psychotic symptoms are not always schizophrenia. But for the argument Anon makes, I don't see your point.

>>8345336
>Given yoga's origins

primitive physiology? There's nothing demonic about controlling blood flow and if there is I would keep that in mind the next time you sit and stand in sync during Mass

>Discussing demons as if they really exist.

>>>/x/

>>8345335
Some schizos can function, with medicine, to varying degrees. Don't malign a whole group with an unfortunate condition, anon.

>>8345381
But Anon, this is a thread about Catholicism and Catholic writers, we have to do that.

It is impossible to divorce the literary and philosophical dimension of the Church from the supernatural, mystical dimension of the Church. You can't just split the normal, everyday part off from the weird parts, because without the weird parts the normal part doesn't really work. It's all of a piece.

To paraphrase Paul, without the supernatural Christianity is a colossal waste of time.

>>8345420
For example, we can discuss books on Big Foot, without pretending that big foot exists.

Get a clue.

>>8345330
Uhh...isn't it a known thing that western people get all psychologically screwed up when they attempt intense yogic/buddhist meditation?

>>8345432
Religion and a fuzzy upright ape are not quite the same thing.

>>8343378
>Anything not of Catholic morale is suspect to deviancy and should be avoided.

You must be joking.

>>8345515
I accept that you believe in scurry Demons, idiot.

>>8345519
Trust your senses.

>>8342092
just "sculptures"
>>8342105
agreed.
but it doesnt matter, bc religion is bs

>>8345515

>fuzzy upright ape

this is the kind of shit I'm talking about

Big Foot sightings and lore, and other similiar phenonema such as Yeti have led pretty conclusively that they're induviduals of a more archaic offshoot of Homo Sapiens or som other Homo species, they are as apes as much as we are,

>>8344432
Ah, now I understand.

>>8345205
>protestant "theology"

lol

>>8345681

>hasn't read early American treatises on democracy and theology
>hasn't read Institutes of the Christian Religion or know the event that inspired Jean Cauvin to quit training for the priesthood
>doesn't know the events of the French Wars of Religion or the 30 years war
>hasn't been to at least 10 different types of Christian services under different denominations

>>8343778
What empirical evidence did you use to come to the conclusion that empirical evidence is a valid means of pursuing knowledge?

Surely you realize that empiricism by necessity cannot encompass all forms of knowledge or of obtaining knowledge?

>>8344792
>If I make an AI capable to make decisions. Does it have free will?
We are no AI tho, we aren't like computers.
>Free will is not the act of making decisions, but to make them freely.
You make it freely given the situation.
>If God created you and knows what you're going to decide, you never had a choice but to decide what you decided.
No, he merely knew what you will do.
>Maybe you have another definition of free will and we're actually arguing semantics.
Free will isn't some kind of angelic freedom outside of all context.

>>8344778
>I certainly don't think Aristotelian philosophy is logically sound, I side with Bertrand Russell's arguments against syllogisms and I reject natural teleology, I find no reason to consider it probable.
It's perfectly logically sound, the conclusions follow from the premises.
And it is easily seen as probable as it stuck around in biology. The organ x does y for z is simple aristotelian teleology. They can't shake it.
>I think the different between «most probable» and «absolutely correct» matters a lot.
Most probable is often incorrect and the probability argument stuck around mostly in economics for a reason, which is because they have no actual idea how things will happen, hence they are left with probability.
>Are you arguing that one must say all things are equally probable?
I am arguing that probability here is simply saying "my bias is x, from it y seems strange".
>That is a retreat to solipsism. Logically sound, but impossible to argue for or against.
I never brought up any solipsism, why do you keep returning to it?
>Unfalsifiability is a logical fallacy.
Logical fallacy is a logical fallacy too, but what does that have to do with anything?

>>8344579
In the Aristotelian sense, a state of existence IS an act. To exist is to be actualized in some regard, or, if you're God, to be infinitely perfect, which means to be infinitely actual, with no potentiality. That's what "perfect" means in Scholastic philosophy, to be fully in act, and not at all in potentiality.

I agree that omniscience doesn't interfere with free will, though.

>>8345067
You are not on point on the supernatural and the laws of nature.
You are working, unknowingly, from a naturalistic starting point, so your theism and naturalism mix.
The thomistic miracles aren't breaking of the laws and the supernatural in itself does not imply God, it could be some platonic form or whatever.
>>8345324
How do you trust anything you ever hear from anyone telling you something if you don't completely understand it?
>>8345920
Dogmatic naturalism. Which in itself can of course be held.

>>8345715
Yes, unfortunately I'm a Catholic, so I have to make do with Augustine, Anselme, Boethius, Aquinas... you know, minor theologians like that.

Every night I lie in bed and think, "If only we had someone like John Calvin to teach us!"

>>8346535
I yesterday argued with a Calvinist. He always retreated into how I'm prideful and unelect because I think Calvinism makes no sense whatsoever when I asked him why God created billions of humans incapable of being judged by a just being because they lack guilt as nothing was of their volition and will suffer for eternity in the most awful torture possible, due to a whim and why Jesus is in it at all as a player.
I'm so happy that shit is marginalized and almost extinct, few things annoy me as much as calvinists.

File: chester.jpg (22KB, 356x450px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 356x450px

>ctrl-f "Chesterton"
>1 of 1

Jesus, /lit/.

>>8347027
We've all read him, some extensively.
Also, it stopped being a literature thread after 50 posts.

>>8344354
Kierkegaard would like a word

>>8345330
Yes. Yoga positions in the yogic tradition are best described as baptismal poses and a fundamental part of some hindu sects. Western watered down yoga exercise DVDs are a trap card into a weird and harmful spiritual practice. "Hidden Fire: Orthodox Perspectives on Yoga" is a very good article.

>>8346511
Not just biology, but things like physics, really any natural science. If you want to make sense of anything which seeks to understand change then you need to believe in final causes.

>>8348022
Sorry, I'm not into the supernatural, because I don't believe in it.

I hope you can accept that.

>>8347048
>50

>>8346523
So, you're saying God started existing at some point.

Interesting, but dumb.

>>8348202
He is more or less directly to quoting Feser.
If you believe he is in this wrong, ask him on his blog, you'll probably get a response.
>>8348149
I'm not as versed in any of those, my primary field of study is law, but from what I understand physics is moving away from it a lot.

>>8348275
I don't believe in people's "quotes." I think on my own.

You should try it.

>>8348299
Thinking on ones own is a shitty internet meme for people who believe themselves the chosen enlightened ones.

>>8348314
Don't be defensive. I'm sure you can find a shiny new quote somewhere to protect yourself.

>>8346566
>>8346535

>because I think Calvinism makes no sense whatsoever

read up on protestant history starting with The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre; the word massacre was first written for this event, ask yourself why even to his death Jean Cauvin considered himself a good catholic and would have never associated himself with mainstream portestanism, now read The Institutes in that context

calvinists and other protestants thought that catholic theology made no sense whatsoever too, except in this case not because they were arguing peacefully on a college campus or because they had a rich history of their own theologans but because the most skilled tradesmen and the town lunatics alike were being burned or tortured with knives for the same reason by church officials and dumb angry catholic mobs alike

>>8348676
The fact that it had a historical point of start or that it was pretty messed up doesn't make its international logic any more consistent.

>>8348748

>doesn't make its international logic any more consistent

except you haven't read up on it yet

you're like one of those atheists that shout CIRCULAR REASONING CIRCULAR REASONING before having ever read aquinas

>>8348762
Are we talking Calvinism or modified Calvinism which rejected the hard determinism like Barth?

>>8348275
I don't know what you think teleology is, but it doesn't (necessarily) mean intelligence, or anything that people normally associate with it. So a rock can have a final cause, even though no one thinks a rock "wants" anything. If A causes B then that's an example of a final cause. If you don't believe in final causes then you can't make sense of anything causing anything.