Christian Lit

>that picture

The First Apology, The Second Apology by St. Justin Martyr
Apologetical Works by Tertullian
The Divine Institutes by Lactantius
On Illustrious Men by St. Jerome
Pensees by Blaise Pascal
Reason and Revelation by John Peter Arendzen
Celibacy and the Crisis of Faith by Dietrich von Hildebrand
Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed
Belief in God in an Age of Science by John Polkinghorne
Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft, Ronald K. Tacelli

Sweet. Thank you, user. Sounds promising.

Forgot to mention Summa contra Gentiles by Thomas Aquinas. John Polkinghorne has a lot of good books on faith and science, and there's a book The Polkinghorne Reader that might be good to get. If you're interested in magazines, I'd recommend First Things; Peter Hitchens has written for them before.

Thanks, I'm not sure if the magazine is an option as I'm living in germany, but I'll check out if I can get some older ones.

Kristin Lavransdottir or The Master of Hestviken by Undset

Sounds interesting. A religious-historical fiction. Would be a nice addition. Do you recommend a specific translation? It seems there are multiple out there.

...

For overviews of the general Catholic philosophy, God, Philosophy, Universities by Alsadair MacIntyre and the first three volumes of History of Philosophy by Frederick Copleston.
For a specific work on Aquinas, Feser's Aquinas: Beginners Guide.
For thomism in general and the defense of the core principles against modern (but not contemporary) attacks, God, His Existence and His Nature by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (only after Aquinas).
Before Aquinas at least Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics, Categories and Analytics from Aristote. From Aqunas himself, start with Summa Contra Gentiles.
Other contemporary and modern thomists worth reading are E.Gilson, especially for history, Jaques Maritain for political writings, Elizabeth Amscombe for analytical philosophy and ethics and David Oderberg for metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

Great, thanks.

Well, I sure will have enough to read till the end of the year. Thank you as well.

I've been reading thomism for about 2 years now, there's enough material for a decade.

Theology student or just interested in the topic?

Personal interest. Theology studies don't actually teach all that much on Aquinas and Augustine, they spend more time on trash like Lubac and Rahner.

hilarious pic, didnt read your post tho

Do they at least teach the greeks?

...

Depends on the direction, but mostly they pretend Christianity started in 1962, so none of those who are going for a teaching degree will read them.

Sweet list, user. Thanks.

What a waste, especially considering that as far as I know on it's peak christianity was quite fond of them. But it also explains all the bullshit comming from certain theological spheres.

The theological movement of the mid 20th century was anti-traditional (clearly seen in the banal liturgy you are probably familiar with, instead of the traditional Latin mass) and subsequently anti-aristotelian (a reaction against neo scholasticim, which was extremely rigid in teaching and content, as one needed to master the language and mindset behind it first so that theological reasoning may be built without error and with clarity). They tried mixing Aquinas with Heidegger and Husserl, Kant and Hegel, or reject him altogether, but it never really worked, so the largest body of the then popular theological authors completely failed to provide meaningful answers and are rapidly being forgotten by the young generation and again replaced by scholasticism.

that stamp. that's a nice stamp.

I'd recommend anything by Trent Horn and Scott Hahn. Peter Kreeft has a library of books that interesting too. Here's a couple more that I found very useful:

>The Protestants Dilemma by Devin Rose

The titles is pretty self explanatory, Devin explains what most Protestants believe and points out the logical inconsistencies and consequences of the things they believe.

>The Fullness of Truth by James Seghers

It's essentially a pocket book with a lot of ready made arguments drawing purely from scripture. It's great for refreshing your memory or referencing in times of need. It's good to read straight through too, it's not a dry read by any means.

>The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin

This is a great introduction to the writings of the early fathers. He explains how to read them, why they're important, and he gives important background information. That sort of thing.

>Bearing False Witness by Rodney Stark

This debunks a lot of the anti-Catholic propaganda that has been so prevalent over the centuries and even today. Things like the inquisition, the crusades, witch burning, anti-Jewish pogroms, and so on. Rodney Stark is a secular writer as well so you can easily cite him without having to worry about accusations of bias. He's a well respected sociologist and historian so you might want to check out some of his other books as well. He's very easy to read, I'm a fan.

That's all the books I can think of at the moment.

Out of curiosity, is there some list of books beeing thought in the early traditional education, like for example a medival monk would have enjoyed? "God's Philosophers" talked a bit about the greeks and the importance of the ancient languages, but having a more defined list would be nice.

Thanks, especially the last two sound very promising.

I really didn't expect to get so many great recommendations in this thread, cosindering all the fedoras around.

It's probably best to find a list of authors Aquinas references for authority or argues against. That would be late medieval, but still it would make for a nice reading list, ranging from Augustine to Muslim aristotelians.

Thank you, I'll look out for it after reading his works.

You can read Boethius without much preparation and he's comfy and nice.

I'd recommend the Ignatius Critical edition for the Consolation. A lot of the pages have more notes than text, it's glorious.

Well, thanks for all the recommendations. You all have been a great help.

I'd certainly recommend Peter Hitchens.
'The Rage Against God' is a direct answer to the New Atheists(specifically Christopher's 'god is Not Great'), so you should probably read it since you've read their work. In the same category I'd also recommend 'Gunning for God' by John Lennox.

Thanks. The issue with Peters book seemed to be that he didn't really spoke about the why he has become a christian (which is promises on the first page). But I guess I should at least give it a try, once my to-read stack will look a bit smaller. I'll also check out Lennox. Thanks for recommending.

This chart is so shitty

Care to explain why?

It includes cheesy apologetics like "The Case for Christ" and "Reasonable Faith"
The City of God isn't "Advanced." It was written with non-Christians as its intended audience.

Half the "Theology" section should really be labeled "Apologetics"

The fiction section is huge mix of quality.

>cat used to go behind books as a kitten
>grew up
>still goes behind books
the smug little asshole doesn't even care that he knocks em all down, either.

Karlheinz Deschner's Criminal History of Christianity in 10 volumes, m8.

I actually have them them, mate. He's purple prose combined with autism. Doesn't make a good read. Hitchens is far superior.

>purple prose
your judgement is literally based on the colour of the book cover, right?

Does your fedore supress some circulation? As I said, I'm not religious, just interested in the cultural aspect. I know that the church has done some shit, but that doesn't mean that I need to read an autistic and frankly but really objective list of things a salty guy collected on it. He hated the church, so it's like reading the koran on atheism.

And it's obviously not the topic as asked for in the OP. I've been atheist long enough to know my chriticism on christianity. After all that I just wanted to see the other side, which is just as interesting to get the whole picture. If you can't understand that you're not long enough on your journey.

City of God is advanced because it's not written for unlearned people like apologetics and does require some knowledge of philosophy, especially Plato and Plotinus. The chart is garbage of course, but to someone new to the topic I wouldn't recommend as the first read.

Good to know, as I considered buying City of God next. What would you recommend of Plato and Plotinus?

Believing in any of the Gods is a very stupid thing indeed, unless it helps you in some moral or practical way in your life. If you're going to be agnostic, be a proper one and accept the true gist of agnosticism, which is that the only thing certain about gods or whether or not they exist is that its unknowable in our silly little worlds with our silly little lives and our silly little brains.

Why do you feel the need to interpret my beliefs? I'm not religious, on the contrary. I just have learned to cherrish the christian culture and want to learn more about them and the history. If anything I would call myself agnostic (with an apatheistic tendency) catholic.

Well, thanks for the bump, but try next time to read the title instead of getting all worked up on some buzzwords.

You're not an agnostic then. You're just confused and young as we all were at some point. Keep calm and carry one, read a lot. Also, bending towards any one sect, let alone something as provocative as Catholicism, is not a good idea, so if you're really bent on finding out if youre agnostic or atheist or a believer read the literature of all major religions without bias, it'll help you form better opinions for yourself. They have a lot in common and differ only on some things like social/ economic/ moral structures and such, so it shouldn't be that hard to do.

Graham Greene's your man, particularly ''the power and glory''

Agnostic only means, that I don't know either way from an scientific point of view. Apatheistic, that I don't belief it really matters and Catholic simply because that how I was raised and which is the main part of my culture. If you think that's already provocative you're not really in a place to take part in the discussion. But thanks for your opinion. Listen, I'm not here to discuss in what to belief in with some teenager which thinks he knows how the world roles because he has read the four hourseman.

Please stick to the main question.

Rereading, I find how wrong my opinion is here. Ob better introspection, in fact the major religions are distinct in quite a lot of ways, not least because of their origins, context or other historical reasons. I was very wrong indeed. Apart from obvious similarities between judaism and christianity other religions are at stark contrast. I was just babbling on that post without thinking like a stupid fool that i am.

>agnostic
You're a fucking atheist, get over it child.
>history
History is institutionalized mythology. Don't bother with theology, you will never understand it.

Thanks user, I already bookmarked it from some Chart. I guess I will have to list them all and think about a nice chart myself to go through them all.

THING I DONT LIKE IS STUPID BECAUSE I DONT UNDERSTAND IT
I HAVE ASPERGERS SO I REQUIRE CERTAINTY BEFORE ACTION. I HAVENT GOTTEN OUT OF MY BED FOR 20 YEARS BECAUSE I HAVE ASPERGERS AND CANNOT BE CERTAIN THAT I CAN GET UP. IS THERE EVEN A FLOOR? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'UP'?

Just finished Bernanos' Sous le Soleil de Satan, it was incredible. Together with Leon Bloy it gives me another image of christianity than "le tolerant and optimistic believer"

>muh psy ants
Fuck off, teenager.
>the fate of humanity doesn't matter
JEJ

Don't be so angry. Although I don't believe and this is what's called atheist, the scientifically accurate word is agnostic, simply because I can't prove my position. Get over it kiddo.

>History is institutionalized mythology. Don't bother with theology, you will never understand it.

Read Louis Rougier's translation and commentary of Celsus as well as his dissection of Scholasticism, both of which are available on Libgen. Yes, they're in French.

>agnostic
You're a fucking atheist, get over it child.

You might be right, but its not blameful to sometimes suspect science, big bang and all, and accept the possibility of there being much more to it than what is apparent. Would depend on the definition of god also. But yea most agnostics are mostly just atheists that humble enough to not be too hardcore on their opinions.

>history
History is institutionalized mythology. Don't bother with theology, you will never understand it.

I disagree. It's not really mythology. But of course it never gives the full picture and is just a guessful (if that is even a word) picture of the past from the few things that are known. Same could perhaps be said about theology. But history is definitely not just mythology. But its also not the ultimate truth as some assume, or in other words history is quite bad and incoherent and opinionated.

Care to explain further? As I said, I'm less interested in somehing with shock value as more the historic and biographic events.

>MUH PSY ANTS
Irrelevant meme ideology. No, you're an atheist. Those that reject God are atheists. You are not agnostic because you believe in countless things and are certain about them. No, 'science' does not 'prove' anything. It then would have to prove itself, wrangle itself up by its own damn bootstraps. You children struggle to do so, little do you know that the quicksand is swallowing you.
>kiddo
I'm twice your fucking age you soft-balled adolescent.

Oh forget it then, those are novels
Anyway I think these are great books about faith

Agnostics are disgustingly arrogant and pretentious. Stop sucking yourself off, atheist.
>its not really mythology
Yes it is, stop deluding yourself. Nothing is known. You're sinking in the quicksand of ideology.

>I'm twice your fucking age you soft-balled adolescent.
Considering your emotion outbreaks and inability to read the OP I dare to doubt that. Just cease it, you're not bringing anything to the table and make atheists just look bad.

Read about Plotinus through secondary lit (Copleston), but for Plato, Republic, Laws, 4 Trial and Death dialogues, Symposium, Timaeus.

>emotion is bad
Fuck off, teenager.
>'bringing to the table is good'
Fuck off, teenager. You're fucking insufferable, down to that absolutely pretentious way you phrase yourself. Soft balls, get out.

>French
Sorry, I'm already trilingual and although I had french and spanish as well, I'm not learning a new language for that. But I'm sure they are somewhere out there in a civilized tongue.

Wow hi Myrmex

All people can be disgustingly arrogant and pretentious, only differs on how hard and for how long until everyone comes to there senses at last (hopefully).

>Stop sucking yourself off, atheist.
I cant figure out what you mean here.

>its not really mythology
Yes it is, stop deluding yourself. Nothing is known. You're sinking in the quicksand of ideology.

I see you have been firmly entrenched into fantastical conspiracy theories and trumpism, or at least the misunderstood bits of trumpism. Nobody can help you now in this regard, sadly.

Thanks, I'm already working on a nice chart if all those recommendations and will probably make a new thread asking for opinions once it's done.

Oh look, more secular arrogance. Find a dick and suck it, maybe you're good enough to escape drowning for a while!

Unless I am Noah, amirite? LOL
"secular arrogance" - please grow up.

Stop arguing with the retard, you ain't going to win.

i suppose i'm the retard here then huh? :D

Yes, ancient Greek and Latin, since Rougier bases himself largely on the primary sources, you silly churl.

Which topic invites more butthurt, religion or politics?

Politics is tied to religion, one invites the other in discussion. Even if right now the media is massively butthurt about Trump, so politics is leading right now.

would like an answer to this also.

how is politics tied to religion? wasnt there something called Reformation or was it just mythology?

If you want a break from non-fiction there's a mountain of fun Christian literature which I find far more interesting than straight theology and politics.
>Flannery O'Connor (objectively best womeme to ever write anything)
>Gene Wolfe (objectively best living genre-fiction writer)

Easily politics, religion is pretty much dead in the minds of most people while politics are forced into everything.

Never heard of O'Connor. Do you recommend something specific? And I just looked at Wolfes "The Shadow of the Torturer" but somehow that strikes me more like something Stephen King would produce in terms of gore, or do I have the wrong picture in mind?

>religion is pretty much dead in the minds of most people
I don't think so. That's what everyone says but the levels of butthurt near any religious discussion are astonishing.

Well, for one, political beliefs are largely determined by your worldview, no? Which is, in turn, intimately connected to religion, or lack thereof

I understand you are retarded, but separation of state and religion as a constitutional value comes directly from Protestant countries, so much that the Spanish Constitution, which is almost a word by word copy of the Dutch Constitution contains it pointlessly and only because they didn't pay attention while copying.
Wolfe doesn't have much gore, he doesn't describe the tortures except when necessary and even then it's wrapped in fine language.

O'Connor wrote a lot of fantastic short fiction and two novels. 'Wise Blood' is a perfectly good introduction to her work, as is the short story 'The Chrysanthemum'. Her stories were mostly set in the American south and were an odd combination of humour and razor-sharp insight. Her stories are mostly about miserable people of weak moral character.

And as for Wolfe, he's kind of like the middle-ground between Chesterton (who he seems to idolize at least a bit), Tolkien (who had a mail-correspondence with before he died) and Robert E. Howard (Wolfe uses lots of classic science-fiction and fantasy tropes as foundations for his big stories, such as space colonization and buff guys fighting monsters with huge swords). His work is extremely Catholic but many of his stories are also great on a surface level taken as relatively straight science-fiction or fantasy. Book of the New Sun is kind of like Tales of the Dying Earth crossed with the Summae Theologica. I don't think that I've ever heard of anybody being put off by the violence in Wolfe's work, it's there but he doesn't revel in it. He actually seems to have something of a distaste for it, and only really seems to write about it to convey how unpleasant it can be (he was conscripted to fight in Korea). What tends to upset people about his work is the sexuality, he doesn't write weird fetishes or wish-fulfillment into his work or anything tasteless like that, he just often writes characters who are heroes in the more classical sense, by which I mean, powerful and virile men of flawed character. I personally find this very interesting and a refreshing change from the norms in genre-fiction (either oversexed weirdness or asexual weirdness).

>That's what everyone says but the levels of butthurt near any religious discussion are astonishing.
When do you see religious discussion outside of Veeky Forums? On the news all I ever see is Islam apologists and Catholic pedophilia hysteria. Whenever Christianity really seems to come up as an issue it's treated like a quaint insanity like sun-worship (only example I can think of is Margaret Court, a former Australian tennis champion, being shit on by our country's disgusting pinko media for not supporting gay marriage on account of being a Christian. Only a matter of time before the stadium named after her gets a facelift.)

*my mistake, O'Connor's story was called 'The Geranium'. I knew it was something flower-related.

Thank you both, I certainly will get both of them for some lighter reading in between. I'm really curious about Wolfe especially, beeing quite fond of classic SciFi.
Thanks again.

A couple of things that should probably be told to everyone about to read Book of the New Sun; first, it's very dense and nobody can put it all together on their first go through, on your second reading you'll be amazed at all of the intricacy put into place from the start, second, it's written in the first person as a memoir, it's easier to understand if you keep in mind that you're getting the truth as far as the protagonist is willing to tell it, he doesn't necessarily understand everything he's seen he want you to know everything he's done. Last one, there are the four main books and then 'Urth of the New Sun' as something of a coda to the main story, I don't recommend Urth until you read the main text twice, a lot of the nuance of Book of the New Sun is hammered right into your face in Urth to make sure you understand it by the end, which I consider to be a less fun way of getting it.

And the series continues with 'Book of the Long Sun' and 'Book of the Short Sun'. These don't directly tie into 'Book of the New Sun' but are fantastic stories in their own right which tie into it nicely in their own ways.

I've seen it floating around here a couple times but know I'm really eager to get myself a copy.

> Bernanos and Bloy

my nigga! which Bloy's have you read? Gonna start La femme pauvre soon.

I was thinking about watching the Pialat adaptation but I'm weary. Pialat was atheist, Bresson was Jansenist and later atheist. Have you read Monsieur Ouine by any chance?

That's not me, I haven't read Sous le soleil, but I did read Mouchette and it was beautiful.

Hi Desespere is the only good thing he wrote. The others, not so good, with the possible exception of his book on popular expressions. The book of short stories is not bad either, Histoires Desobligeantes or was it Sueur de Sang, I forget which.

Villiers called him "a volcano of shit" and it's pretty much true. His diaries are pure autism.

I was the og poster, I read le désespéré and then sous le soleil de Satan

Have you read La Femme pauvre? I've heard it's better than Le Désespéré.

> Villiers called him "a volcano of shit" and it's pretty much true

Bloy wouldn't deny this nor would he consider it his biggest weakness. He references in Le Désespéré his critics who accuse him of being too edgy and scatological and says he doesn't give two fucks and he won't tone it down.

What the fuck did you bump it for?

wrong thread