Let us come together and discuss Christian themed literature

I'd rather discuss nonfiction.

>>8531186
is there such thing as christian nonfiction?

anyone else in love with Paradise Lost?

Its probably the best poetry of the English language

>>8531198
>christian non-fiction

Of course there is. What kind of question is that?

>>8531170
LOL FUCKING FEDORA RETARD LOSER


FEDORA

>>8531186
>le funny hat meme

Laurus
The Way of the Pilgrim

its pretty, but i am just to smart too believe it *hat of shameful fools descends*

>>8531170
What is the purpose of a secular individual reading Christian works written in a non-fiction manner? Is it purely aesthetics? Or to get a feel for the influence it has had on philosophy/literature?

has this board been infested with reddit? some of the greatest writers where christian, and their faith is reflected in their work. whats up with these fucking dumb comments?

What a qt
Where can I find me one like that?

>>8531407
get thee to a nunnery.

>>8531419
But they dont give the fucc

Anyone read any of the esoteric Christian thinkers like Boehme, Swedonborg and Eckhardt? Thoughts?

>>8531436

Heretics

>>8531450
There's no such thing as heresy.

>>8531186
>fucking edgy

get out

>>8531244
I kind of meant more focusing on the art of it rather than focusing on the religious side of it just so its not just a thread debating religion.

Sort of like we read the Greeks

>>8531469
Spoken like a heretic

>>8531485
What makes those thinkers heretical? They're all grounded in Christian philosophy, they just reach different conclusions.

The real heresy is the way extreme fundamentalists have nearly destroyed Christianity and Islam by twisting spiritual texts to prop up their far right political beliefs.

>>8531503

Aren't the right wing fundamentalist's beliefs grounded in Christian philosophy too?

>>8531518
No. Theology is meant to inspire discussion and create understanding, not policy.

>>8531528

What in the fuck do you even mean

>>8531789
Esoteric Christianity is more spiritually sound than the religious right.

File: 2-frionel-a4.jpg (198KB, 632x424px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 632x424px

>Christianity
>a way of life

It was the most subjective and opinionated book iv ever read in my life. You interpret it how you want and fall into this deluded idea of Christianity.

Wheres the unity at if the foundation is subjective

File: jiggy.jpg (29KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x460px

>>8531235
>to smart too believe
sure you are

>tfw talking to a 10/10 Christian qt
Really no better feeling lads

>>8531244
To expose yourself to the arguments

>>8531949
How is it subjective? Look through the Gospel accounts and notice how Jesus always asks "have you not read..." and "have you not read what was said to you by God..." This is because there is a single correct meaning presented by scripture. This is the absolute opposite of subjective, since the words of scripture are the words of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

>>8531503
>What makes those thinkers heretical?
I didn't read them, but the same thing that makes anything heretical, denial of dogma in one way or the other.
They're all grounded in Christian philosophy, they just reach different conclusions.
Different conclusions in which way about what?
>The real heresy is the way extreme fundamentalists have nearly destroyed Christianity and Islam by twisting spiritual texts to prop up their far right political beliefs.
Like what?

File: 1457411707144.png (747KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1440x810px

>>8532056

>greentext pining over having a simple conversation with someone

good one, flanders.

>>8532179
That's got to be the weakest argument possible on the objective/subjective scale. "Read" has never meant "understood the same as I". You're subjectively (in the most painful way possible) interpreting what he said to fit your own view.

"Have you not read..." sounds much more like Jesus is incredulous that this is basic stuff people should know and he is questioning if they had actually read it to have got it so wrong. It doesn't matter if the bible is objectively true, we are all subjective beings interpreting that truth differently which is why there has been centuries of bible scholars and priests setting people straight on the correct interpretations.

>2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

It doesn't say "read the bible and you'll instantly get the truth". It says it can be used to eventually get you to the correct view: training, not revelation.

>>8531170
>The Bible
based
>Confessions of St. Augustine
never read desu
>Divine Comedy
based
>Paradise Lost
next on my list desu
>Silence
never read desu
>Brothers Karamazov
never read desu
>Faust
never read desu
>The Name of the Rose
couldn't get into it desu, might try it again

>>8532566
>"Read" has never meant "understood the same as I". You're subjectively (in the most painful way possible) interpreting what he said to fit your own view.
Have you actually read the New Testament? Jesus uses scripture to rebuke his society and he refers to the scripture as something that was "said by God", who is objective truth. God cannot lie and is always right. You literally cannot get more objective than that.

>It doesn't matter if the bible is objectively true, we are all subjective beings interpreting that truth differently
That goes for literally everything that humans observe. No two people even perceive anything the same, let alone interpret it.
Now, you said that the foundation is subjective, but it simply isn't. The foundation is scripture and it is completely objective. This is why the reformers stressed sola scriptura, since it completely rejected the idea that the Church can enforce its understanding and interpretation of scripture as indisputable and perfect (which was what the Roman Catholic Church was doing). The view of sola scriptura is that the objective truth of God is in scripture and that subjective men (which you clearly recognise) have to interpret the meaning. If the interpretation is wrong, this can be proven and is then disputed. This is just like science, where you need to use the foundation of truth to prove what you're saying, i.e. the scientific method. In specific fields, this method is applied to specific things in the real world. A neurologist makes a claim - he has to prove it using evidence from the nervous system. A theologian makes a claim - he has to prove it using evidence from the Bible. Actually, out of the two, scripture is a better foundation of truth since it is language. Language always has logic to it. Sentences have objects, adjectives, predicates etc. which are all used in scripture to make truth claims.

>which is why there has been centuries of bible scholars and priests setting people straight on the correct interpretations.
The same goes for science, philosophy, politics and economics. The problem isn't the foundation, it's us. We're subjective. The Bible itself teaches us this.
If you can, show me a foundation for truth that can be universally interpreted the same way without disagreement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3OaQ2QrGxw