Are you religious?

Do you pray to the almighty wombat in the Australian Anglician church?

Don't you feel like your meme pictures detract from the seriousness of your fatih by participating in a popular culture (Veeky Forums/internet/memes/anime) which is utterly godless?

Baptist here, independent churches carrying on the tradition of the first churches of the Christ with none of the borderline-blasphemous priesthood/sainthood/ritualistic practices of some denominations.

Go to bed Cletus.

Lol sorry, i suppose larping and shitposting is not really my thing

no, I'm a thinking man

Attached: 1500657894884.png (700x419, 57K)

No. The ritual is the most important aspect- and every part of it has a purpose. What you mean is preserving the autonomy of the Church- something the Catholics redacted for the purposes of defending Christendom during the desolation years prior to the Imperial era(Muzzie's were wiping the floor with Christians through sheer numbers and there simply wasn't enough centralized coordination and effort going into counteracting them). The original autocephalous Church preserved it's non-centralized style, designed to prevent Francis tier defilement. Prots are fucking up everything, removing all traditions, ceremony, leadership, etc. Look up the numbers of traditional churches going contemporary. It's disheartening. Showmanship was never what the religion was about, or it's cultivation of the human spirit.

Attached: orthodox church.jpg (1025x725, 337K)

No. I'm part of the culture, not separate from it. Trying to be "above it all" like some elitist snob isn't going to make me a better person.

Attached: 1515332602858.png (684x684, 209K)

Orthdox Christian

I'm agnostic but I lean more towards being theist than being an atheist. I feel like I should be more in touch with my religion but I don't know where to begin

Attached: 1024px-Christ_Pantocrator_mosaic_from_Hagia_Sophia_2744_x_2900_pixels_3.1_MB.jpg (1024x1082, 749K)

Practicing Roman Catholic.

I recommend checking out the books in the Orthodox section of this graph. You could probably also read some Catholic literature, seeing how there's a pretty large theological overlap.

Attached: Christianity, now with more sects.jpg (3000x2900, 1.68M)

If you had to recommend one or two books from that chart (other than the Bible) to an agnostic, what would you recommend?

two translations of the bible

Are there any translations you would recommend in particular? I haven't read right through all of them but I own the new testament in NJKV and NIV, and old and new in NASB. I also like NRSV from when I've read it online.

Honestly, I really enjoy the Bible, but believing it's the literal truth seems like a whole other thing.

bump for jesus

Yes
Calvinism

Did you really just call yourself an agnostic Orthodox? Now that's larping.

Went from agnostic to theist agnostic and now considering Catholicism

>tfw struggling with accepting chastity

yes
protestant

Anglican.

Vestryman at my local church. I'm considering leaving all together. But trying to keep and open mind about the flood of modernity.

Born and raised as a Catholic, but while still being Christian I'm starting to question my faith and trying to explore more of the Christian world to find my place.

Christian Agnostic.

Attached: 7802028d4effd792256c7fa6eafdecee.jpg (1024x768, 172K)

gnostic Christian here

I want to come out as a Marcionist but I don't want my homies to laugh at my.

NIV and a more literal or poetic one

As an atheist born and raised among atheists who haven't met a single religious person in my life, i still can't grasp how can people in 2017 first world countries follow some devotion. Are you by any chance immigrants?

you know I had to do it to em

Attached: 1486611294159.png (500x775, 27K)

Oh fuck, its 2018 already

No
None

No but i want to be. Tried reading the Qu'ran but it was written by a mad man. Tried reading the bible, but Paul and the old testament God ruined it. Read Dhammapada but it didn't leave an impression either way.

>Are you religious?

No, but I've grown to at least understand it, and appreciate it as a narrative a little more now that I'm older and have actually had it explained to me as if it weren't an insurance policy or a used car.

>What religion do you belong to?

I wouldn't be able to tell you, I'm still figuring that out for myself.

abrahamic religions are rigid, arbitrary and divorced from the human experience. Taoism is where it’s at.

>Tried reading the bible, but Paul and the old testament God ruined it.

Elaborate a little user, I'm interested in helping because I used to think the same way.
The Bible used to be confusing and uninspiring to me as well, but in today's society the bible is handled extremely out of context and largely ignorant to it's mythological narrative. I wouldn't say I'm a 'religious' person at the moment, but I at least understand whats going on to a better extent at the very least and can explain or rectify some very common/simple mistakes.

back2plebbit

Buy this, right fucking now

Attached: 9780913836316.jpg (268x430, 19K)

Are you Swedish? Because I am and just like you; at the age of 28, I've never met a single religious person in my entire life, nor do I know someone who knows someone that is religious.

I'm currently reading the Bible just for muh Veeky Forums points but frankly becoming Christian seems about as larpy as becoming a Pagan.

Attached: 1433160813355.gif (111x150, 21K)

Nope. If I were religiously inclined, I wouldn't be interested in Abrahamic faiths.

I'm a gnostic, achieved direct experience of God and thus validated my faith.

God is a way to make moral codes from the jewish society binding and from the highest authority. That is his primary function in the Bible, it’s explanatory function for how the world came to be is secondary to that function and yields to it every time, even at the expense of itself. Which makes me seriously question the merit that this work might have. It really makes God look like a human invention.

where would you land on this chart?

Attached: atheismchart.jpg (541x390, 35K)

Explain your experience.

I just can't grasp the idea of a reasonable man, born in western secular country in around 2000, can start believing in a bearded man in a sky telling him what to do. We have access to so much knowledge, so much science, so much philosophy, all of it disproving existence of religion, and yet people still chose it, what the fuck.

>can start believing in a bearded man in a sky
strawman

Also, Science, Philosophy, and Religion are not mutually exclusive. They never have been.

That's the Demiurge, a flawed, childish creature, claiming there is no more reality than himself, like a child throwing a tantrum. The Demiurge has created a flawed world, full of imperfections, for He is not a perfect creator.

Truth lies beyond the veil of this material prison.

Define "God".
I believe there must've been an outer force that started the Big Bang, but to proclaim this outer force must've been a Bearded Man who's biggest interest in life is the morality of my actions is fucking mudhut-dweller-tier retarded

Enough with the bearded man strawman, find respectable theologians who will break down god to being such a being.

Continuing on, I hold a philosophical theist world view but am becoming increasingly more and more sympathetic to the catholic world view.

Pic related is one of the arguments for the existence of a monotheistic god from Ed Fesers "Five Proofs of the Existence of God"

Note that this is a formal summary of the informal arguments laid out in the books.

Attached: The_Aristotelian_Proof.png (491x1976, 421K)

They ARE mutually exclusive, they are both telling men how life is, but one is driven my dogmatic faith, meanwhile other by experience. And their outcome is hardly ever same, just look at how world began according to Bible and according to science.

>It really makes God look like a human invention.

Ah, I can't help you there I'm afraid.
I have the same problem myself; strictly speaking.

Argument might have had some merit if physics doesn’t break down when you talk about the Big Bang and the start of the universe.

This only happens if you interpret the entire bible in a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. This is a strawman if applied to Orthodox or Catholics.

None of the premises rely on the universe even having a beginning, time is not a premise up until applying traits to the unmoved mover.

The very concept of action and potential breaks down too

>muh metaphor
I gotta love how ever since science was undeniably proven better than religion in 18th century, religionfags started using this argument so they could justify their simplistic world views, meanwhile there is literally nothing you can say against it. You can point out 300 wrong arguments, logical phallacies, and general stupidness of any religion, and they will always sweep it under the floor with "muh metaphor", twisting it so it fits the objective and logical truth that science has already shown.

The reason that non-heretics don't argue against science in general is because they are in agreement with the investigation of the material world for fundamental truths. They always have been.

And before you mention him, Galileo was a faggot that the church was assisting him in his discovery up until he turned his discoveries as an act of rebellion against the church. utterly unneccesary

Link?

?

Link to a book or post that breaks down why act and potency break down upon the inception of a finite universe.

They are concequences of physics, without them they are meaningless concepts like time

Demonstrate this, don't just posit it.

For starters they need a progression of time to happen and to have any meaning

Not necessarily, I can demonstrate this with numbers.

The number "1" has the potential to be any other number (with a few exceptions) because it has a built in potential. That potential cannot be actualized until it is put into an equation that will have an end result that is anything other than "1"

This does not require the passing of time, 1+1=2 even if all life was eradicated on planet earth.

fuck off fedora, thomas fucking aquinas thought it was a metaphor

That’s not an action, just a conception. In no way did these numbers interact and cause a sequence. An action needs a trajectory, a path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time.

For the old testament God it was Exodus. God interfered with the free will of the Pharaoh and killed millions, most of which were children, all for his "glory". That's the work of a monster.

Excellent bait.

Most scientific Nobel laureates (that is, in Chemistry, Physics and Medicine) have been Christians, fyi. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, one deals with the material world and the other deals with the spiritual world. The Potificial Academy of Sciences in the Vatican holds a membership roster of the most respected names in 20th century science, including such Nobel laureates as Ernest Rutherford, Max Planck, Otto Hahn, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, and Charles Hard Townes.

Attached: f6f6b24710965d5eda8af2a4cfec7bf7.jpg (850x400, 56K)

Act and Potency is an explanation for change, this MIGHT be temporal in nature but does not rely on it being a temporal act.

Act and Potency was used to explain why change was possible by means of rejecting Parmenides argument for why it was impossible.

Parmenides argument went something like this:
1. Change requires that an object changes from one state to another.
2. This is an example of something coming from nothing.
3. Change is impossible.

Act and Potency shows that change is NOT something coming from nothing. That thing that is going from potential to actual is something. That something is potential

Attached: ActAndPotency.png (1404x677, 203K)

Well, my first gnosis was simply seeing my true spiritual self, so during meditation (it was actually more concentrating on feeling than meditation) I saw an image, it was a girl, white, brown haired, naked in a night forest surrounded by white wolves.

My second gnosis was direct experience of God, henosis, wherein I experienced god within, my mind expanded, my body became lighter and more agile, my perception of time was altered, there was a sense of timelessness actually, my mentality changed a lot, I perceived and saw things differently, there was a divine pressence that felt higher than the god of the bible, the hardest thing to explain is how my mind changed, it was superior in every way to the usual human experience ,a divine mind, more intelligent, more able, my movements became perfect, more precise and accurate, it was amazing.

Action is fundamentally a physical concept and there is no way to meaningfully divorce it from time. But I’m more interested in dialectics than ‘winning’ a debate so I’m just going to posit my fundamental concept on why the universe exists. The idea that nothingness is inherently unstable. That axiom in itself I posit would be the supposed ‘prime mover’ ie the reason things happen in the first place

You are trying to add qualities to "nothing" that cannot be said other than brute facts such as devoid of "something".

I am also interested if you would reject Parmenides argument and how you would achieve this?

Nothing cannot do anything. It is nothing. Your posit that it is your axiomatic 'prime mover' is incoherent.

No.

Dad was raised Roman Catholic, mom was raised JW. Dad was never really spiritual. Mom distanced herself from the JW church but she wasn't ostracized by her family. They never did push me towards religion, I was never part of any congregation.

I suppose I might join a congregation if I get a spouse that is part of one. I've prayed when I was weak, but I'm really a philosophical quietist.

Agnostic catholicboo.

If you are putting Tolkien there, how about other fiction like Canticle for Leibowitz?

Same.

Dude the Bible is full of obvious bs. Just stop. You “believe” in it for social, political and cultural reasons, that’s it (unless you’re an actual retard).

Attached: 1472378597061.png (2560x2739, 3.35M)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Is the „Bearded Sky-Man“ some sort of adversarial deity of the nuAtheist faith?
I'll admit, I'm not well versed in these new age religions.

Why is Soren Kierkegaard in the Orthodox/Protestant category ?

I mean, I understand for protestant, but does Fear and Tremblic thematics are somehow related to Orthodox thought and theology ?

Bible-believing fundamental Christian who believes in paleo-conservative values and free market capitalism.

And no, I'm not American.

It is unstable, it cannot exist, that’s the point. We’re operating outside of physics here, theists assume physics where it doesn’t exist all the time.
Also nothingness before physics is definitely not the same as what this ancient greek sitting under an olive tree would have thought of. I’d like to know what he posits nothingness is and what he thinks a state is and how they are impossible to unify.

I suppose The Children of Hurin is too pagan (feels like a norse saga) to join Tolkien's other works on that list.

Thanks for the chart, anyway. Much appreciated.

The Bible is factual and scientifically accurate, affirmed by tons of archeological discoveries.

Atheists hate the Bible, it makes you seeth and froth in anger, because you hate God.

By the way the defining trait of nothingness to me is that it cannot exist, has never existed and will never exist. Things emerge to spite nothingness.

No.

Baptized Protestant.

I believe my god has a bigger dick than all your gods!

"Protestant" is not a denomination, it's an umbrella term referring to Bible-believing Christians that don't their orders from Rome.

You're a Baptist, i.e the Charles Lawson oldschool preaching hellfire type.

if hitluh had let some juden in his physics team I'm sure this fantastic lad would have made that nuke

>Are you religious?
No, I'm not.
>What religion do you belong to?
None whatsoever.

The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Bible should not be taken literally but as the Word of God inspired into the hearts of man through revelation.

So why are you strawmanning this hard?
The Bible is a beautiful book, with some very good lessons, beautiful prose, some strange and terrible verses as well, but overall it holds immense spiritual, ethical, cultural, historical and artistic value for all of mankind. I bet you have never read it entirely, you are simply prejudiced against it.

Attached: 5dda47cc4d10c534d239814d1eb4520f.jpg (467x700, 127K)

Do you think God ever pulls so hard he rips the skin?

narnia is literally below shit tier
How can anyone write such a boring shit World is beyond me