I want to be christian/have a religion

The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ - Maximos the Confessor
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith - St John of Damascus
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church - Vladimir Lossky
Nihilism - Fr Seraphim Rose
These are some of my faves and entry-level, you should be familiar with the Greeks to get the most from them though - Plato and Aristotle primers would be useful.

Catholicism vs Orthodox pros and cons?

Vlad the Impaler converted from Orthodox to Catholic so he could kill more turkroaches.

Catholics have the Rosary, the most sublime of prayers.

KJV is a fine translation. NKJV and ESV are okay too, less poetic but more accessible.

Check out the early church fathers,
1. St. John of Damascus' "exposition of the faith" is a good start: newadvent.org/fathers/3304.htm

2. St. Athanasius "on the incarnation"
newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm

3. St Justin Martyr "Dialogue with Typhro the Jew"
newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm

4. Kierkegaard "Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing" and also his "Practice in Christianity"

5. Frithjof Schuon - "The Fullness of God", edited by Cutsinger

6. The Orthodox Way, by Kalistos Ware

7. Lazarus, Come Forth! by Valentin Tomberg (warning Catholic, not orthodox, but still a great read)

8. The Imitation of Christ, by Kempis (again catholic, but very valuable)

9. The Philokalia

10. The Way of the Pilgrim, by anonymous russian

most if not all these books can be found on libgen.pw/

check out this podcast, "mysterium fasces" youtube.com/watch?v=1s0AlJntx0I
good ortho twitters to follow: twitter.com/valkpol
twitter.com/Rick_RIB4EVER
twitter.com/theillegit

Don't you dare NOT go to church every sunday youtube.com/watch?v=bPhDae6Pr2U

Not trying to tip my fedora or anything but why do you feel this is necessary? Aren't there other methods of fulfillment/moral guidance?

I mean, it's cool if it works out though. I know many good Christians who have used it as a moral guide and for spiritual reasons but I feel like there are other methods to feel fulfilled.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qdr7u6IP6sg

Catholics believe in original sin, that we are born morally guilty of Adam and Eve's sin, similar to most protty sects, while Orthodox believe in ancestral sin, that we are not born "guilty" for Adam's sin but we face the consequences of his actions.

We have different understandings of Heaven and Hell. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Romanides#Heaven_and_Hell

Catholics venerate Mary a bit too much, some call her "coredemptrix"
Catholic catechism 841 claims muslims and catholics worship the same God, which is blasphemy and heresy.
Vatican 2 as with most catholic innovations is "shit" after the 7th ecumenical council is null and void and not guided by the holy spirit.

Catholic church banned clerical marriage around the 10th century, which is actually against scripture since bishops/presbyters can/should be the husband of one wife. Also since monastics take vows of celibacy the ruling is quite redundant. Orthodox priests are allowed to marry/remain married, ortho monks are not.

We differ on the Nicene Creed, catholics accepted it originally but then changed it to calim that the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son, mostly this was done for political reasons, Pope Leo at the time tried to reject it but the emperor Charlemagne overruled him.

Catholicism is less true to tradition, protestantism is even worse.
The best liturgies are orthodox divine liturgies, catholic mass doesn't compare.

most sublime prayer is the one Jesus taught us "Our Father" ... followed by the Jesus prayer, see hesychasm.

morality not grounded in a transcendent and personal "Good" is not morality at all, but an idol of your own creation. Morality has to have teleology that transcends utilitarian motives, otherwise it falls into perversion and relativism.

Why are you theophobic? Seek and you shall find.

>The Orthodox Way, by Kalistos Ware
See

>clogging up your mind with vain repetitions
>not practicing silent contemplation, the purest form of prayer

can you mention which errors?

repetition itself is not a problem, neither is length of prayer, but vain repetitions, vain prayers are the problem, whether long or short, loud or silent.

>went and asked a local priest what he thought
How did that work out? Which church? How did you do that exactly? Did you go up to the priest, tapped his shoulder, cleared your throat and...?

>The Orthodox This
>The Orthodox That
That doesn't even sound biased at all.

>orthodoxy? biased and medieval
agreed. lets make Christianity "cool" and "diverse" again

>can you mention which errors?
Not specifically im abit drunk, but he quotes both the Babylonian Talmud, some Gnostic text, and a bunch of other heresies. Check out Patapaios' review/essay here: orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_tow.aspx

thanks brother, I'll have to read that soon, when I get time.

>Morality has to have teleology that transcends utilitarian motives

yep, because neither pleasure nor pain, nor the desires of the "majority" should enter as motives when one must do what must be done.

>being this ignorant
You could follow literally any other ethical system other than utilitarianism.

If you're basing your morality on actions that are reflective of a system of arbitrary divine laws (Divine Command), then that leaves you in a scenario where you cannot provide any reasoning for moral actions.
Since you cannot ground your reasoning in qualitative/quantitative 'facts' derived from the self or others, then a question such as “Why is this behaviour good?” cannot be answered in any way other than “because it reflects God’s nature”.
Your moral reasoning at this points becomes extremely impotent, and can't answer the immense amount of moral questions that exist beyond the contextual scope of those set laws.

Read the New Testament.
Personally I wouldn't trust any Christian advice unless it came from someone who dedicates their life to helping the poor in body and spirit.

You made the right choice with Christianity.

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have claims to apostellistic succession, meaning that their bishops inherited their offices from the Twelve Apostles. Stay away from the "liberal" or "modernist" or "cultural" followers. That goes for Protestant denominations, too.

If you want an old school apostellistic Bible, buy a Douray-Rheims. Reading Bibles translated centuries ago is a literary experience. Modern translations are lame.

Protestantism is a clusterfuck. Mainline denominations like Lutherism are dying. Evangelicals like Baptists are legit, though. At least the ones who aren't Israel worshippers. Anything else is pozzed to hell or cult territory. Anglicanism is dead. Thank God for putting it out of its misery. Then there are non Christian religions masquerading as Christianity, like Mormonism. AVOID.

If you want a Protestant Bible, get a King James Version aka Authorized Version. Not the 1611 reproduction version but the one from later with standardized spellings. Don't get a New King James Version, though.

Most KJV you get will have the Apocrypha removed. That's a minus.

KJV is based on the Mesoretic Text, which was edited by the Pharisees to remove prophecies relating to Christ and other shenanigans. DR is based on a different source, the Greek Bible I think. DR is the most trustworthy and has the same old timey cadence. It isn't as influential on the English language as the KJV though.

I suggest you buy both a DR and a KJV plus the KJV Apocrypha and compare them both. Also get yourself a book of Dore illustrations as a treat. Buy leatherbound bibles if you can afford it.

Modern translations are based on new manuscripts discovered in caves. These were written by Gnostics or other heretics and even though they are older than other surviving manuscripts they were doctored.

Modern translations have been carefully doctored to corrupt the text as much as possible for political reasons.

Stay away from study Bibles or reference Bibles. You just want the text itself. You don't want commentaries. Those are all written with agendas in mind. Just read the Bible. Then read up on the theology afterward.

Start reading with the Gospels. Then finish the NT. Then go back and read the OT plus Apocrypha. Then read the NT again.

When you're done with that read the Church Fathers.

Avoid the Pseudepigapha and Gnostic shit until you're mature in the faith.

Once you're done with the Fathers read the Catechisms of the various Churches you're interested in. Start Attending various services now.

Christianity is the one true faith. I don't know which denomination is right, so tread carefully. Best of luck to you, brother.

>Since you cannot ground your reasoning in qualitative/quantitative 'facts' derived from the self or others

morality says how facts "ought" to be arranged, and how we "ought" to relate to them -- it is not determined by facts themselves. So facts can tell us how to build a bridge or how to perform an abortion, but facts can't tell us where we "ought" to build a bridge, or whether we "ought" to perform abortions.

>If you're basing your morality on actions that are reflective of a system of arbitrary divine laws (Divine Command), then that leaves you in a scenario where you cannot provide any reasoning for moral actions.
they aren't arbitrary they are in accord with our nature which is made in the image of God, and the more we align ourselves with them the more harmonious our souls become. We are meant to be Lawful Good. Period. Not "utilitarian" or "pragmatic" or "consequentialist" or whatever modern nonsense has come up with that tries to undermine what is actually Good for man.

I've mostly been interested in philosophy and theology by extension and Catholicism has a lot to offer here, while Orthodoxy seems to be completely barren in comparison to reading material. But from the theology I've read I can recommend Jesus of Nazareth by Benedict XVI, probably the best theological text of the century and valuable to anyone trying to understand how to think like a Christian.
John Henry Newman has been of great interest to me by extension, because he provides the best overview of religious epistemics and has in many ways anticipated Wittgenstein and influenced MacIntyre, his Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine, Apologia Pro Vita Sua and Essay on Grammar of Ascent are incredible. His mediations on the suffering of Christ are superb as well.
From novels, I think that The Book of the New Sun, as strange as it might be, provides the clearest aesthetic experience of faith of men across the ages and explores how Providence works superbly.
Bible translations aren't 'perverted' unless we are talking about bad translations from the time of Reformation or contemporary attempts to make it accessible and female friendly or whatever. Any edition Ignatius Press has should be good.

Without the Eucharist, outside of special situations, one can't really have a relationship with God.

>utilitarianism
>pleasure
>desires

>So facts can tell us how to build a bridge or how to perform an abortion, but facts can't tell us where we "ought" to build a bridge, or whether we "ought" to perform abortions.
This is highly debatable from the perspective of Christian philosophy- all facts are teleological and contain final and temporal ends. Abortion is an act which necessarily breaks the factual ends of reproduction and life, therefore morally impermissible.

yes but that assumes natural law which is really just an extension of Divine Command embedded in nature itself: an action is bad because it contradicts the purpose it is "meant" to have by design, it is not immoral because of utilitarian considerations about the mob or and whats pragmatic for it.

either way "utility" is not a moral category, neither is happiness nor pleasure nor pragmatism.

utilitarianism is hedonism dispersed among the mob, the fact that it sometimes renames "pleasure" as "utility" does not hide this blatant fact. It is not a moral category.

Ignatius Bible or Didache Bible.

>happiness is pleasure
>utilitarianism is welfare hedonism

>most sublime of prayers
>not the prayers Jesus himself told us
Catholics, I swear. This is why protestants say you worship Mary

NKJV is a pretty pointless translation, it uses the same outdated textual sources as the KJV but updates the language. The point of the KJV is the beautiful language, and the point of new translations is better sources and modern English, NKJV fills a niche that doesn't need to be filled.

ESV is very good, but you may as well get the RSV, which it's a revision of. RSV doesn't have the ESV's evangelical protestant bias and you can get an edition with all the Catholic and Orthodox deuterocanon. There's also the NRSV which has some odd readings but is the most up to date academic translation out there.

As always, several translations cross-referenced is the way to go. Personally I use the NRSV, ESV, NASB, NABRE, and NJPS.

>guys listen utilitarianism is really special and complex and totally NOT hedonism for the mob or pleasure based!

"The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value."
plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

>DR is based on a different source, the Greek Bible I think
No, it's a translation of Jerome's Vulgate, which is itself a translation from Hebrew manuscripts.

Congratulations, you played yourself.

Do you not know that the rosary is made out of Pater Noster which is that prayer and the Ave Maria which are the words of the Archangel with the ending being a contemplation of Christ? This is why Protestantism is the reddit of Christianity.

Yes, hail Mary, the fourth member of the trinity

>Hebrew manuscripts
But not the Mesoretic Text (the Pharisee Edition of the OT), which is my main concern with the KJV.

Looked it up and DR is translated into English from the Vulgate, which is Latin, which was translated from Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).

>thus all generations shall call me blessed...except protestants
Look you can venerate and sing praises to Mary and say the hail mary prayer without worshiping her.

>JSM utilitarianism is the only ""true"" one
>being autistically contrarian after getting btfo
>using wiki summaries to argue about something you don't understand

Read these.

When shopping for a Bible try to get a large print one.

It's ridiculous the tiny text they expect you to read.

religion threads are the cancer of this board

>JSM and Bentham can't be trusted to define Utilitarianism
>Stanford university can't be trusted to define MY special brand of new-age Utilitarianism either!
brainlet

Ah yes, the accursed words of the Archangel from the New Testament, we must never speak them for they come from the Devil.

mfw your pic.

A lot of good recomendations already would

The Miracle of Theism by Mackie
The Coherence of Theism by Swinburne
The Cloud of Unknowing
The last supersition by Feser
Suma Con Gentiles by Aquinas

What are your views on Catholicism?

You known its not a dichotomy

>only classic utilitarianism is utilitarianism
>I can't even read the very articles I link
>moore, sedgwick, hare and singer didn't exist
>/pol/ pictures, contrarianism and buzzwords
It's nice to see who's really behind all the pseudointellectual religion pushing around here.

>morality says how facts "ought" to be arranged, and how we "ought" to relate to them

Doesn't this also mean being selective with the truth? How are facts, being facts, arranged?

I would say that it is facts which direct the functioning of morality.
Let us take the example of opening a door and walking into a room, to which someone says 'that's rude'. Your understanding of moral violation then relies on the deliberate hunting through of memory to find evidence of something that warranted that person's statement (in this case, opening the door).

If the person made this statement without any contextual reference, then it means nothing. For this reason it seems that the familiar social fact is necessary for the moral statement to make any sense.
Morality in this sense, is learned from interaction.

Consequently, couldn't an ethical system of Divine Command, which points to a list of arbitrary rules rather than familiar personal evidence, be swapped for (or just as valid as) another system of arbitrary rules?
I mean, the core practitioners of these systems gravitate towards it because it aligns with their own cultural and spiritual upbringing, rather than being correlative to any objective truth.

For this latter point, one could argue that natural law tries to fill this objective gap. Yet at the same time we run into a whole sleuth of other problems once we try to equate the good with natural phenomena.

>>moore, sedgwick, hare and singer ;)
the negative hedonism of "minimizing suffering/pain" is still hedonism.
traps are still gay.
any form of "utilitarianism" is amoral and never approaches what is "good" and there's nothing u can do about it lmao

>how do I into morality and find out what is good?
first read Plato. then read the bible.

I don't know of a single Catholic philosopher who endorses the divine command theory for example and do not understand the focus on it as opposed to any other theory that actually has worthwhile representatives.

I was very close to converting to Catholicism because I thought between the two main apostolic Churches there weren't enough meaningful theological differences to forego the massiveness and unity of the Catholic Church. I never really cared superficial theological contentions, such as the papacy, purgatory, infant baptism...etc. But before committing to Catholicism, I started reading up on how each church approached the things that are theologicaly significant to me, such as eternal hell, original sin, divine mystery, theosis, the problem of evil, and the status of reason. The Orthodox theology was superior on all accounts. It astonished me that not nearly as many people talk about the important differences as much as they talk about pointless shit like infant baptism.

Divine command simply reflects what is already natural law due to the fact that we are made in God's nature and are supposed to imitate him and his ways.

"For Christians, natural law flows not from divine commands, but from the fact that man is made in God's image, man is empowered by God's grace. Living the natural law is how man displays the gifts of life and grace, the gifts of all that is good. Consequences are in God's hands, consequences are generally not within man's control, thus in natural law, actions are judged by three things: (1) the person's intent, (2) the circumstances of the act and (3) the nature of the act. The apparent good or evil consequence resulting from the moral act is not relevant to the act itself." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

> fact that we are made in God's nature
*made in God's image, not in his nature
oops

>>moore, sedgwick, hare and singer ;)
>the negative hedonism
None of them are related to negative utilitarianism.
>le ebyn "traps are/aren't gay" meme
>I'm rite ur rong haha btfo xD
Stop shitting up my board and go back to /r/Veeky Forums, autistic child.

Man, that edition of Catcher in the Rye has got to be one of the most iconic book covers of all time.

>singer animals have rights! because they suffer! ummm lmao
>we're obliged to reduce the suffering of everything uhhh because reasons
ya, negative hedonism is shit

BORN TO ANATHEMATIZE
FLORENCE IS A FUCK
鬼神 kill em all 1431
I am an Orthodox Pillar
410,757,864,530 dead Thomists

I think Mere Christianity is a great entry point and easy to read in a day if you want.

I'm sorry but for someone trying to play an enlightened utilitarian here you have provided no reasons to think the other user is wrong, in fact he at least linked to a quality article from an encyclopedia.

>babby samefagging
Already told you - back to /r/Veeky Forums, my lad.

>morality not grounded in a transcendent and personal "Good" is not morality at all, but an idol of your own creation
>implying God isn't an idol of your own creation

idols only exist relative to the one true God.

Are you “walking amidst dismay and hope”, as Tolstoy (the other Tolstoy) wrote?

youtube.com/watch?v=mXIltZCAaxE
youtube.com/watch?v=WtE3VozRymM
youtube.com/watch?v=n-XHIjuUFvo

I've read all of Plato's available work, maybe you should try reading your Aristotle?
Plato's form of the good has no standing here because it explains nothing in the physical world, hence we have no reason to believe in it. It adds nothing to our day to day ethics.
As a form it is both defined and unknown, at contradiction with itself.

And which Bible would be the right one?

>And which Bible would be the right one?
Wasn't this answered like 6 times in this thread?

>Plato's form of the good has no standing here because it explains nothing in the physical world
>doesn't understand how the physical world is a transient shadow, a moving image of eternal forms
oh I thought you said you "read Plato"

>And which Bible would be the right one?
the Koine Greek

>there are people who still have emotional ties to christianity
Literal babies. I have no idea why it's so hard for people to accept that Christianity was a mistake, and that the entire thing is nothing more than metaphysical nonsense.

If you're really in need of a religion, however, I recommend paganism. Christianity owes all of its major philosophical thought to pagans.
Check this guy out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemistus_Pletho
>Zeus as supreme sovereign, containing within himself all being in an undivided state; his eldest child, motherless, is Poseidon, who created the heavens and rules all below, ordaining order in the universe. Zeus' other children include an array of "supercelestial" gods, the Olympians and Tartareans, all motherless.

Nice try.
If you are going to identify the good with the eternal form, then you must explain how it relates to reality. In order for any real action to belong to the Form of the Good, it must participate in the eternal form and have the properties characteristic of wholeness in order to be in its proper form.

>*hits blunt* the good exists in a state of being and non-being bro
You're living in delusion

There he is! The neofagan LARPer. We've been expecting you. Please go take a seat next to the gaytheist.

>>Zeus as supreme sovereign, containing within himself all being in an undivided state
Zeus has parents, Cronus and Rhea, and they ruled the Ancient World after taking control from Uranus. And they're all petty and conceited small 'g' gods.

if you want to learn good paganism go read Plato and Plotinus, they were paving the way for monotheism and the "true God" aka Christ.

>tfw controlling the ancient world with my anus

deep, deep, deep is the hole of philosophy

heh

I have no problem with "venerating" Mary, I don't think anyone does, really. The issues other Christians have with Catholicism begin with *prayers* directed to people. Mary, all the Saints, whatever. How do you reconcile praying to dead people with Christianity, exactly? I'm genuinely very curious. I see no Biblical basis for this whatsoever.

By dead people I assume you are trying to change it up rethorically from saints in Haven looking at the face of God. As far as biblical sources we have both Macabees that Luther removed from his own Bible because it didn't fit the narrative and the Acts having numerous mentions of people praying for each other and no reason to believe they would stop once reunited with God. That as well as the practice of the first Christians, as shown in the writings of the Fathers.

>I see no Biblical basis for this whatsoever
Yet you see Biblical basis for believing in a Biblical basis based on a Bible compiled by Orthodox and Catholic bishops? The contradictions are enough to make my head spin!

For the Bible, the Douay–Rheims seems good.

Aquinas' Catena Aurea to get a compilation of the commentaries made by the early Fathers of the Church on the Gospels.
dhspriory.org/thomas/CAMatthew.htm

I'd say start with the Holy Gospels (with the commentaries from the Catena Aurea if you want to deepen your understanding).
Then move on to the Old Testament if you feel like it.
The Pentateuch and the Historical Books may seem a bit rough, but make sure to read Tobit.
I strongly advise you to read the Poetical Books of the Bible and the Prophets.

I also strongly suggest that you go to a (SSPX if possible) Holy Mass. It's important.
sspx.org/en/mass-locator here you can find the closest one.

You can deepend several different things after that :
-Philosophy. The "three tutors of the Medieval West" were saint Augustine and Dionysius the Areopagite (platonician/neoplatonician side) and Boethius (more aristotelician).
You can move to several different others after that. The best, as he does a synthesis of all the best, is of course saint Thomas Aquinas. But some other are very interesting, for example Gerson.

-Monastic writings. The Apophthegmata Patrum are a great source of spirituality. You can add to that the different monastic Orders' rules as they can be inspirational. Also, the writings of saint Francis of Assisi.

-Mystics. Dionysius for a start, but then there's a lot of others. You must keep in mind that they had a very good grasp of the dogma and of the Scripture in order to avoid interpreting them bizarrely as some tend to.
The Imitation of Jesus Christ is a basic and will always be of good help. Saint Thérèse of Lisieux is probably the most adapted to our modern era, focusing on sanctity and simplicity. But older mystics are very good too. Saint Hildegarde, Hadewijch, Tauler and Eckhart (even if he made theological mistakes) for the Germanic side ; saint Angela of Foligno, saint Catherine of Siena, saint Teresa of Avila, saint Joan of the Cross for the Latin and Spanish side.

>Orthodox
>Schismatic
You can't be both.

>Schuon
please...

>I don't understand what ORA PRO NOBIS means

That's very cool and all, maybe they do pray for us in Heaven, but again, I don't see how that justifies praying to a human being. It's utterly redundant at best - you have direct access to God in prayer - and contrary to Christian teaching at worst. Jesus himself makes it pretty clear how one should pray, and: "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

I don't think there's any contradiction in believing that God has, to a significant extent, guided scripture through the ages.
I don't hold any one denomination or human organization to be infallible, or perfectly true to all of scripture, however.

>I don't hold any one denomination or human organization to be infallible, or perfectly true to all of scripture, however.
Who said anything about infallibility? The point is, if you're going to talk about "Biblical bases", then you need to first figure out which version of the Bible you hold authoritative (and why), because the various Bibles certainly didn't fall down to Earth from God's lap, they were compiled by certain real-world persons belonging to real-world denominations.

Praying to a human being is asking for his or her Intercession. A saint has no power per se, but asks God in our stead because they are more worthy than us.
And line up a list of things Jesus was clear about, get 20 people and you'll get 20 interpretations on what he was clear about, that is to say nothing about the Bible is clear, hence after you remove God granted authority of his Church, everything becomes rather arbitrary.

Is it possible to be Orthodox and not a follower of Palamas? Like how not all Catholics are Thomist.

Yes, and I'm perfectly fine with Catholic/Orthodox bibles. I'm fine with their churches as well. I do take issue with some of their teachings, but, as I said, that applies somewhat to any denomination/larger body of believers.
Do you mind explaining what any of this has to do with my original claim that there's no basis for certain beliefs in the Bible, Catholic or not?

>Praying to a human being is asking for his or her Intercession
There is already one who acts as the intercessor, hence we pray in his name.

>A saint has no power per se, but asks God in our stead because they are more worthy than us
[citation needed]
Seriously. Again, I am not aware of any verse in the Bible that teaches or condones praying to another human being. Happy to be corrected.

>they are more worthy than us
No, we're perfectly worthy.
>Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
>For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
>Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The one clear set of instructions Jesus gives about praying is, as you know, "Our Father, which art in heaven.."

>that is to say nothing about the Bible is clear
I strongly disagree. I think just about all that really matters, as far as salvation and all that is concerned, is perfectly clear. Otherwise, the very basis of the religion is gravely undermined. Arbitrary indeed, and where is your basis for this claim of authority, and authoritative hierarchy if not in the Bible? Bit circular, no?

And:
>this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
>And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Plato's God is pretty different to Jewish monotheism, it's more like an ultimate intelligent principle that everything emanates from, not a willfull creator who is also personal.

>I strongly disagree.
Disagree all you want, but comparison of doctrines between Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, Unitarians, Baptists, Calvinists, Albignesians, Arians, Gnostics, Lutherans and so on speaks to this.
>I think just about all that really matters, as far as salvation and all that is concerned, is perfectly clear.
And in these groups how many would agree with you? Catholics for example would say that you as a heretic cannot be saved at all and they've been the largest group of Christians across history, as you are not a part of his Church and are thus closed from the sacraments.
>Otherwise, the very basis of the religion is gravely undermined.
Yes, the epistemic basis of Protestantism is shallow and cannot sustain itself without constant ruptures and changes.
>Arbitrary indeed, and where is your basis for this claim of authority, and authoritative hierarchy if not in the Bible?
The claim for authority need not be in the Bible at all (even if it is) because the claim is mostly historical- the God Man Jesus Christ had 12 apostles who then had their own apostles, based on the authority Christ had given them and which they passed on. If there was no mention of it at all it would still be true because the second and third generation of apostles and every other after them testified to this and this is the historical Christian belief.

>comparison of doctrines between Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, Unitarians, Baptists, Calvinists, Albignesians, Arians, Gnostics, Lutherans and so on speaks to this
I don't follow. Does the existence of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also speak to this? Or, to bring it further.. oh. You already mentioned Gnosticism. That's a very curious addition to the list.
What it mostly speaks to is human fallibility. I would also say that actually significant doctrinal differences among the main denominations are few and far between(if you have anything specific in mind, do say, but that of course opens a whole separate discussion). Mostly, they are essentially just varying flavors on top of the same basic truths which constitute "Christianity". Some can even be reduced to differences in temperament. And yes, interpretation - again, mostly in matters that don't concern the core beliefs.

>Catholics for example would say that you as a heretic cannot be saved at all
Oh, well, good thing conditions for salvation are laid out clearly throughout the Bible, and none of them have much to do with any human governing body, as far as I can tell.

>I don't follow. Does the existence of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also speak to this? Or, to bring it further.. oh. You already mentioned Gnosticism. That's a very curious addition to the list.
Yes, it does. It is a strong argument against the it's "clear teaching". We can't agree on almost anything and to pretend somehow it is is nothing but digging your head in the sand and pretending the Bible alone somehow is a non-ambiguous about just about everything once removed from a set mode of thought, or rather tradition.
>What it mostly speaks to is human fallibility. I would also say that actually significant doctrinal differences among the main denominations are few and far between(if you have anything specific in mind, do say, but that of course opens a whole separate discussion).
Oh man, the differences between Orthodoxy, Catholicism on one side and Protestantism on the other are so vast it's quite possible to argue we don't belong to the umbrella term of Christianity together. Sacraments, salvation, the number of bloody books in the Bible, nature of sin, social teachings, relations of the persons of the Trinity, veneration of saints, the entire theological framework. There's chasms separating apostolic Christianity and the post-reformation denominations. If you think the fact that the Orthodox and Catholics see Protestants as closed from salvation for the mortal sin of heresy and rejection of Christ and his body and blood, damning you to Hell is somehow a small difference of interpretation, I don't know what to say. It's like saying the difference between the Arians and the Catholics/Orthodox at the time were small.
>Mostly, they are essentially just varying flavors on top of the same basic truths which constitute "Christianity". Some can even be reduced to differences in temperament. And yes, interpretation - again, mostly in matters that don't concern the core beliefs.
This only speaks to a complete ignorance of Catholic (and I'm assuming Orthodox) theology. Any apostolic Christian would say that the Eucharist is the absolutely most important event in our lives, where we live (participate in) the sacrifice of the Calvary and eat the body and blood of Christ (the very literal substance) as that substance is the key to our salvation and confession, the remedy for our sins, without which salvation is almost impossible, if somehow you never commit a mortal sin.
>Oh, well, good thing conditions for salvation are laid out clearly throughout the Bible, and none of them have much to do with any human governing body, as far as I can tell.
Ah yes. Clearly, so clearly that the way you see salvation is completely different to how it was seen in the say 6th or 11th or 14th century and it appeared somewhere after the 15th, probably being at least a few hundred years later.

>Then Muhammad stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Who is on Allah’s side? Come to me!’ And all the sons of Abu Bakr gathered around him. He said to them, ‘Thus says Allah, the God of the believers, “Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.”’ The sons of Abu Bakr did as Muhammad commanded, and about three thousand of the people fell on that day. Muhammad said, ‘Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Allah, each one at the cost of a son or a brother, and so have brought a blessing on yourselves this day.’
Man, the Quran is trash
Oh wait, that's Exodus 32:26-29 with the names changed

>Oh wait, that's Exodus 32:26-29 with the names changed
Is there anyone who couldn't tell?

what about the meme catholic starter pack?

swinburne is orthodox lol