Is this a good guide? I've read:

Is this a good guide? I've read:

>The Bible
>Mere Christianity
>The Everlasting Man
>Brothers K
>Divine Comedy

I'm about to start Fear and Trembling. I want to learn everything I can about Christianity. How should I go about it?

Other urls found in this thread:

docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
scotthahn.com/ignatius-study-bible/
youtube.com/watch?v=8u3aTURVEC8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Just read the Iliad instead.

Aristotle Ethics + Augustine City of God are pretty much all of Christian thought and are not hard reads.

The guide is good, but I'd probably throw in Gulag Archipelago by Solzenichen, especially if you're already interested in existentialism.

Not at all.

Yes, it's actually, somewhat surprisingly, pretty excellent.

Skip Chesterton, he's a fat weak submissive beta.

Zizek has a really interesting perspective on Chrisianity and religion in general - I was surprised how reverent he is toward Jesus, while criticizing the ideology of fundamentalism

>skip one of the greatest English language essayists of all time

Retard

>you've read the whole of the bible
just reading the gospel of st matthew doesn't count, faggot.
>you've read the divine comedy
read =/= understand
if you understood the divine comedy you'd need little else to get to the heart of christianity.

you're being too eclectic. Narrow yourself down to an author or two and work your way through all of their corpus. I wouldn't touch Kierkegaard with a fifty foot pole until you've dragged yourself from the pedantics of Kant through the murky dirt of Hegel's shallow protestantism round to Soren. He also loved to write for writing's sake and goes off on tangents further than Proust.
Stick to Dante and secondary literature about Dante and you'll be ok. Maybe some Samuel Beckett to strike the fear of God into you.

Very interesting. As a Catholic I'm always warmed when atheists are respectable toward the faith, or even admire it.

I have an atheist buddy who didn't think he could do a film project on faith because he's atheist. Of course he can! When I told him that The Seventh Seal, one of the greatest films on the search for faith was made by an atheist, he was delighted. His short film is also going to compare Christianity and Islam, showing Islam as cruel (revenge) and Christianity (repentance) in a better light. So of course I supported this...

This is the plan I did based on OP's chart and the Veeky Forums's 1.2 Philosophy Project:

I'm gonna follow the Philosophy Project up untill Medieval Philosophy.
In the Project, it only mention Aquinas and Augustine in Medieval Philosophy, so instead of jumping straight into them I'm gonna pause the Philosophy and read the 'Theology' piece of OP's picture, because when I get to Aquinas I'm gonna have a decent base on philosophy, mainly on Aristotle (which is base for Aquinas), and an introduction in Theology and Apologetics from the Christianity Guide.

Also, as I am starting with the greeks, I'm reading The Bible along, finished the pentateuch today.

I think its the best way to go. r8/tips?

>Veeky Forums Philosophy Project 1.2
docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

Gulag archipelago wasn't particularly existentialist.
He also wasn't a beta.
Read History of Philosophy volumes I and II by Fredrick Copleston and God, Philosophy, Universities by Alasdair MacIntyre. They cover philosophy up until William of Ocham and all major figures in Catholic philosophy until the 2000s (it doesn't have political philosophy like Hilaire Belloc, Tocqueville and de Maistre). Having this basis you can start covering ground by reading authors mentioned in it. I'm still going through this, although not 100% since I read fiction and other philosophy as well and it will take you at least 2-3 years to complete the course, but with it you will have an exceptional knowledge of Catholic thought.

Also no, the philosophy part does not function very well. You will fuck up Aquinas and Augustine.
The fiction part is good, the works themselves are solid in themselves, but need a wider preparation to understand.

Thanks, will look it up.

>His short film is also going to compare Christianity and Islam, showing Islam as cruel (revenge) and Christianity (repentance) in a better light. So of course I supported this...
top kek i can just imagine you rubbing your hands jewishly when you typed this

I'll admit I read the divine comedy years ago and didn't understand everything, but I have read the whole of The Bible, and I plan to re-read both again and again.

Yes, me too, friend. I've read it one time in high school as an agnostic, didn't care for religion and philosophy back then, now, after reading the bible and aristotle + aquinas I plan on re-reading it, studying all the references possible.
Also, I've read it in english and my first language is portuguese, its MUCH closer to italian than english, so I plan on reading it in portuguese and later, hopefully, in italian.

The English translation I shortly checked was really lifeless, it sucked out the beauty of the Croatian translation

Kierkegaard a false notion of faith. He thought it was irrational, when it is in fact super-rational, i.e. it does not contradict reason, it surpasses it.
My favourite work of Kierkegaard's is Sickness Unto Death because of his psychological insight into despair. His Purity of Heart is To Will One Thing is also quite good.

Kierkegaard's irrationalism is partly his own over-reaction to Hegel's ultra-rationalism, partly his Lutheran background.

Also, the worst thing about Kierkegaard is his existentialism/individualism, which is to say his super-Protestantism. It's not an accident that he picked Abraham for his muse in Fear & Trembling: Abraham is the only man in salvation history where his "lone individual knight-of-faith" idea actually works. After that, faith is held in a community of believers. Kierkegaard denies the Apostolic Creed which confesses belief in "the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints". Kierkegaard more or less denies that there is a Church and a Communion of Saints, and says that faith is something that every man has to make up and work out for himself. This is extremely against the spirit of Christianity, which is that "nobody is saved alone" / "nobody saves themselves" - the saints relied constantly on the prayers of others. Kierkegaard's individualism is partially his own nature as something of a loner, partly his Lutheran background, partly his disgust with the Lutheran church in Denmark, partly his disgust with the totalitarian social doctrine of Hegel.

Any Satanic Recommended Reading?

Hannah Arendt is right in her assessment of Kierkegaard. There is no reason to be a Christian if it is something which relates only to the self and not the world.
Kierkegaard was the final bullet in foot of Christian philosophy, a self refuting work which claims that really Christ is just like your opinion man.

nonsense.

History proved her right.

>history proved her right
No, we're just in the end of days which has been predicted by multiple cultures for millennia.

Add on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius if you haven't already.

Don't read modern "takes" by other authors, read the source material.
One of the greatest thing about reading the classics is that they actually educate you precisely because they modernist thought is utterly alien to them.

For example if you listen to the "Jesus was a good person, unlike Christians" secular theists you'd be prone to believe Christ was some social-justice economic-redistributor type, a conclusion you could absolutely never come to by reading the source material.

The shack is a piece of crap

>Don't read modern "takes" by other authors, read the source material.
Considering that both Kant and Hume fucked up their readings of Aquinas, expecting someone who doesn't have extensive education about medieval philosophy to get it right without help is naive.
>One of the greatest thing about reading the classics is that they actually educate you precisely because they modernist thought is utterly alien to them.
That makes you misunderstand them easily.
>For example if you listen to the "Jesus was a good person, unlike Christians" secular theists you'd be prone to believe Christ was some social-justice economic-redistributor type, a conclusion you could absolutely never come to by reading the source material.
Readings of MacIntyre, Newman, Feser, Coplston or Oderberg are hardly something that can be equated with the reading of some retarded liberal.

Arendt is the last person on earth to listen to on Christianity.

The Book of Mormon
The Quran

>Considering that both Kant and Hume fucked up their readings of Aquinas
Due to their biases and misunderstandings of Catholicism.
>That makes you misunderstand them easily.
A misunderstanding is far easier to correct than deliberate misinformation and actively works the mind in ways that "fact checking" by "authority" does not.
>Readings of MacIntyre, Newman, Feser, Coplston or Oderberg are hardly something that can be equated with the reading of some retarded liberal.
The biases inherent in retellings are so numerous and of so little value that reading the source material should always be the first choice.

if you read someone like Aquinas, even without anti-religious bias or whatever, with no preliminary knowledge and a modern conception of metaphysics and modern terminology, you will misunderstand him

Why? In any case her analysis of protestants is on point.
OP is not a Catholic as far as it goes. On top of that, Catholics misunderstand Catholicism due to extremely poor education in the faith since the Vat II.
Now, of course I have to ask, why are their retellings wrong? As far as it goes, they are all in themselves correct and Copleston was the seminal figure in revival of thomism and correcting the centuries of misunderstanding.
Getting the modern conceptions out of your mind is in itself a feat I'm still working on it. The authors I listed were enlightening.

Any recommendations on how to understand Catholicism and learn more about it?

At which point the question becomes "Should I read this for myself or should I let someone else read it for me". The answer to me is obvious and it should be for any would-be intellectual.

Papa Ratz is the man for you to read

Introduction to Christianity by Benedict XVI
A lot of fiction, Flannery O'Connor, Shusaku Endo, Gene Wolfe, G. K. Chesterton, Dante
Conversion stories by John Henry Newman, St Augustine
Spirituality and mysticism, Thomas Kempen, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross

Are you a bit retarded?
Reading the overviews of Aquinas serve to enhance the understanding of the man himself, they are not the end in themselves.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

After that you can complement it with the Bible, the Church Fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, Plato, Aristotle and Boethius.

>Reading the overviews of Aquinas serve to enhance the understanding of the man himself
Or misunderstandings if the author in question is defensive of his modernist mindset, which almost all modern people are.

I'm going to guess your friend jerks off to Sam Harris yes?

Thanks.

So your own already existing modern mindset will understand him better than your mindset on people who have spent large parts of their careers fighting the modern mindset? Interesting.
While we are at it, where exactly do MacIntyre, Feser, Copleston and other prominent thomists fuck up their understanding of him?

>So your own already existing modern mindset will understand him better
It will allow the reader to internalize said mindset in ways that a tertiary reading is incapable of inducing.
>Interesting.
If anything is interesting here it's the vehemence in which you try to dissuade people from reading the source material for themselves.

I would add GEM Anscombe to the advanced tier. She's known more for being a devotee to Wittgenstein but her theological writings are quite good. For balance I would also add in Luther's Bondage of the Will (I'm Lutheran) and maybe Bonhoeffer.

>It will allow the reader to internalize said mindset in ways that a tertiary reading is incapable of inducing.
I disagree. My first reading of Aquinas and large parts of Aristotle was completely off the mark. It was through help of commentators of Aquinas that I understand him better.
It is close to reading of the gospel of John with and without st. Augustine and Benedict XVI. Reading it after the commentary helps you understand it better and more fully than just jumping in it without preparation.
>If anything is interesting here it's the vehemence in which you try to dissuade people from reading the source material for themselves.
The source material should be read, but reading the most complex philosophical systems completely alien to the modern liberal mechanicistic mindset almost everyone has will not bear much fruit.

Here's some good entry level Catholic apologism

>Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties
>Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity
>The Spirit Of Catholicism
>The Fullness of Truth: A Handbook For Understanding and Explaining The Catholic Faith Biblically

If you're starting with the Greeks, then read the New Testament after you're done with the Hebrew Bible, Plato and Aristotle

can anyone confirm on how legit this is?

Never heard of any of these and he didn't provide an author.

In other news, Francis continues to spread heresy.

Why don't you just Google the books?

Interesting. I'm not going to read ALL of Plato's and Aristotle's works, so I guess naturally, when I'm done with them I will be near the New Testament.

For Catholic Bibles, I recommend Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (the Old Testament isn't out yet). It has good binding, paper (not thin), notes, essays, maps, charts, etc. The page number being low helps with reading quality. Oxford's Catholic Study Bible has over 2000 pages; Ignatius will be about 800 pages each.

what about the didache or oxfords annotated study bible with apocrypha NSRV ?

I have the Jerusalem Bible.
It's around 1400 pages, thin paper, but a lot of great commentary.

>the Old Testament isn't out yet

It's not? You can buy the individual books online.

Nevermind, they haven't all been released yet.

scotthahn.com/ignatius-study-bible/

The 4th edition of New Oxford has had some criticism for having too basic notes and removing a lot of good articles from the 3rd edition. Didache (also published by Ignatius) is out of print, so you'd have to find a used one, and only has hardcover. I'm not an expert or anything but just from glances at the notes and extras I'd say the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible looks the best. Ignatius is also the most readable, in my opinion, especially since it's not a huge tome like all the other Catholic Study Bibles.

It's not a bad list, most of these are pretty much classic texts and would be great for anyone to read.

It has a few annoyingly apologetic texts (namely CS Lewis) and some that straight up don't belong (LOTR, Narnia... wtf?) and contains generally too many original works to be of great use to a neophyte.

It would be better to start off by reading single-volume overviews of different chunks before gradually working up to original texts. For example, one should definitely check out an intro text on Catholic theology before diving into Aquinas.

If one becomes interested in practicing Christianity it would be better to study within the tradition (IE, with a congregation/Bible study).

Overall, it has some great stuff in it. The fiction section needs some Waugh though.

>and some that straight up don't belong (LOTR, Narnia... wtf?

They are Christian in every way.

The man who was thursday was fun.

They will shed very close to no light whatsoever on Christianity.

Except that Tolkien will shed light on the ideals of Christian duties and the Christian view of how society should work.
Lewis is pretty basic so yeah, he probably won't shed much light.

Why do I get the feeling you typed "Except that" before thinking up what followed it?

They have no value if you're stupid. You were wondering why they should be considered Christian literature so it makes perfect sense why you would think that. I don't think any books would "shed light" to you.

No I'm just saying they're out of place on this list, in the same way they'd be out of place on a list of suggested reading for an "Introduction to Christianity" course.

They might be fun and practical reads for a "Christian literature in the 20th century" course, or maybe on a "Christianity and fantasy" list.

Not knocking the books specifically or anything but I definitely read LOTR as a kid and learned nothing about Christianity.

That's because you read it as a kid.

Shut up wiener breath, it's because you can't notice the Christian elements of the book without knowing a thing or two about Christianity first.

DO YOU GET IT NOW SIR MUST-ARGUE?

Why is The Stars My Destination on here?

>He thought it was irrational, when it is in fact super-rational
Can you elaborate on this?

This post gave me Déjà vu. I'm a bit worried now.

Reminder that Islam is the only true reliigon and anyone who don't worship Allah (C.C.) and his prophet Mohammad (may he be blessed) will be damned for an eternity.

Why isn't there any redwall book on fiction? They are the ultimate jesus approved books.

"Ummeti Kad Laha Fecrun Intensifies"

>Gulag archipelago wasn't particularly existentialist.
Except that it was youtube.com/watch?v=8u3aTURVEC8