[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/lounge/ - Lounge

The Wizard's Lounge
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1650542830414.jpg (225.44 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, thumb-1920-142559.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

 No.288170[View All]

I am a former atheist. I decided to convert to the protestant faith and abandon all nihilism and pessimism in favor of salvation in the hands of Christ. now I pray daily and read the bible my goal is to achieve salvation through Jesus christ It might have started as a response to a general sense of nihilism, but talking to a priest didn't help move me anywhere in that regard. It might have started as a cry in a moment of despair, but when I did that, there was no response. It might have started as an acceptance of philosophical arguments, but while I find some of them viable, I don't think they're compelling enough to move me from one category to another. It might have started as an outpouring of welcoming from religious people, but I'd always received that welcoming.

Maybe I decided that religion (in its broadest sense) is intrinsic to humanity, and in order to have a human existence that made any sense, I'd have to give this religion thing another shake. Maybe I decided that, even if we are cosmic orphans, it is the role of the orphan to long and cry out. Maybe somewhere in the depths of my humanity, somewhere immeasurable and small but more there than anything else, my cries received a response and I have never been as happy and content as I am right now in my life faith is comfy
Anybody here has any similar experience with faith and religion?
152 posts and 64 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


hello mohammed.


I have absolutely no idea why trinitarians keep quoting John 1:1 since it literally proved that Jesus isn't God !

The statement “the Word was with God” indicates that TWO separate persons are discussed in the verse

It is NOT POSSIBLE for the Word to be “WITH God” and at the same time BE God Almighty.

The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God. John 1:18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.”

but people DID see the Word (Jesus,) because John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.”
>The Word was with God and the Word was God

That is where you are mistaken my friend. While many Bible translators render the verse to say that the word is God, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different.

In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant.

For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” (The Translator’s New Testament, page 451.)

Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.

Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.


I really love all of your posts.


File: 1651940335779.png (519.89 KB, 500x875, 4:7, yhwh.png) ImgOps iqdb



1600 BC: Egyptians enslaved the Israelites, but God delivered them

600 BC: Babylon took the Jews captive from their homes but God freed them

60 AD: Nero burned Christians and threw them to the lions but God put an end to the persecution

1940 AD: Hitler swore to exterminate the Bible Students but thanks to God he failed and his empire is no more

2021 AD: Russia targets innocent JWs because of their peaceful worship and adherence to the Bible, but just like in the past, God will see to it that their deliverance is near !

“Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. Happy is the one . . . whose hope is in Jehovah his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, . . . the One keeping trueness to time indefinite.”—Psalms 146:3, 5,


The relatively sudden appearance and disappearance of dinosaurs contradicts the commonly accepted view of slow evolution.

While the radioactive dating method is innovative, it is still based on speculation and assumption. In contrast, the Bible account in the first chapter of Genesis simply states the general order of creation. It allows for possibly thousands of millions of years for the formation of the earth and many millenniums in six creative eras, or “days,” to prepare the earth for human habitation.

Some dinosaurs (and pterosaurs) may indeed have been created in the fifth era listed in Genesis, when the Bible says that God made “flying creatures” and “great sea monsters.” Perhaps other types of dinosaurs were created in the sixth epoch. The vast array of dinosaurs with their huge appetites would have been appropriate considering the abundant vegetation that evidently existed in their time.—Genesis 1:20-24.

When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created by Jehovah for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.


citing the bible as evidence for your research makes you appear like an actual retard you know


Churches are a satanic creation made to make people overlook Jehovah, they removed his name from the bible and went to even put him as a part of some vague trinity. a lot of their heretical stuff was taken from pagan religions and philosophy. it seems like that because that’s the way it happened. The churches wanted to fill their pews so they started adopting pagan practices that people were used to and believed in. You’re very perceptive to pick up on that!
Have you ever heard of William Tyndale?
If not you should Google him and read his Wiki page. It’s pretty interesting.
One of the churches plans back in the day was to try and keep the Bible in Latin so most people couldn’t read it for themselves. They would actually kill anyone they found trying to translate the Bible into common languages!
William Tyndale was the first one to actually complete both the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures to English! He had to flee different Countries to avoid capture and stuff. But very interesting. He eventually was caught and killed and then his body was burned at the stake. All because he translated the Bible into English

Oh, and he used Gods name Jehovah too! Pretty cool.


File: 1651965667372-0.png (8.76 KB, 326x209, 326:209, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1651965667372-1.png (48.74 KB, 278x245, 278:245, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1651965667372-2.png (1.91 MB, 1024x665, 1024:665, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

JHVH (YHVH) is the Titan Kronus wearing a slightly altered mantle.


File: 1651965831695.png (1.78 MB, 781x1200, 781:1200, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

Christ's father was not JHVH, he was slaughtered by the JHVH cult which ruled the Jews and the Roman empire. Christ was a very powerful Ascendant, the demon cube corrupted his teachings so that people began worshiping the act of slaughtering him rather than the divinity which was innate to her personage.


>Nihilism only means that there is no objective value to things, how is that a bad thing?

I suppose that it all depends on what you are personally capable of accepting. If all things lack any objective value then all things are inherently meaningless and all actions are inherently absurd. Yes, you can project your on subjective sense of order, meaning, purpose, etc onto the world around you, but if you have a drive to rationalize your existence, then nihilism is a pill that is pretty much unswallowable. It's nice you can live your life not minding that it is (from an objective standpoint) worthless and absurd. You can choose to "live irrationally," a life predicated on subjective meaning you know is not true meaning. But there are people like myself who need to have some line of logic to rationalize their existence. If you are a nihilist, you can break down any form of rationalization to its roots, which are always meaningless and absurd, which undercuts anything you have ever and will ever do with or in your life. I think it is only logical that subscribing to the nihilistic line of logic tends to lead to depression (for many though not or you).

>You can enjoy the absurdity of existence and derive joy from it.

This is the issue that it all boils down to. Though you may have this capacity, I don't; this is a matter of identity. Its great you are able to live a happy life while being a nihilist. I truly envy you. After a decade of though, introspection, and exploration, it has become clear to me that I do not have the capacity to do this.

>You don't need a master or some "higher" principle or ideal you can serve.

You are right, I don't need a master and I don't need to be a supplicant to be happy. And I wouldn't be taking on catholisism in the context of enslaving myself to anything/anyone. Rather, it would offer me a framework of greater purpose and value that would rationalize living my life.

>If anything, I was depressed when I was in my christian phase. Because I always stressed about the shitty laws, dogmas and norms I had to adhere to.

And if I were planning to involve myself in all the minutia of the dogma, laws, and norms then I would be just as unhappy as you were. I plan to be a cafeteria catholic and approach the faith on my own terms in a fashion I think is in keeping with the principles Jesus espoused, while enjoying the overall culture of the faith itself. If you want to debate the merits of being a cafeteria catholic and whether or not that is a life of true "faith" then that is a different discussion.

>It is super liberating, not having any authority above you.

Liberating in one context, a curse in another.


Rationality is overrated. If we inspect carefully all thought systems and philosophies, no matter how rational they may appear to us on the surface, we will find they are motivated by some emotional agenda or desire in their core. We aren't machines or abstract concepts, we are humans for a reason. I think your problem and many others similar to you is that you let rationality to suffocate you and try to build your whole worldview on being objective and rational, while people are always subjective and irrational. Nature itself is irrational, look at the origins of life itself. Sexuality, there is nothing rational in it. Yet it is where all life comes from.

I read somewhere, I don't know where exactly now, that if we are talking in nietzschean terms then there is simply no meaning to be found if you follow the path of Apollo, that is, the path of rationality. If you go down that route and look for an objective meaning to existence and for objective values then you will always arrive at a dead end sooner or later. However, "meaning" and more importantly joy and happiness can be found in the dionysian way, in the irrational path of life. I think this is spot-on.

Your cafeteria catholicism sounds like existential catholicism/christianity to me. In which case Kierkegaard is a must read for you (though I never read him myself).
Personally, I think it is just some lukewarm middle path what you or people like you want. Wanting a general direction for your life but refusing to accept other things associated with faith and religion. It is like agnosticism, which I find to be in bad taste. Either be an atheist or some religious man, going for the middle path leaves a sour taste in my mouth. But maybe that is just me. Anyway I see no value in that, picking out the parts you like from religion and disregarding the parts you dislike. I tried that myself in lots of forms and variations when I tried to invent my own kind of christianity until I realized that I never cared about faith that much to begin with and that I only tried to twist the Church's/Christ's teachings to fit my own desires.

Imo you would benefit much more from abandoning religions of all vareties and kinds. Maybe study catholicism as a secular man if you find it interesting and draw inspiration from it to build your own worldview and thought system? Without pretending you are a believer and one of Jesus' followers.


>Rationality is overrated. If we inspect carefully all thought systems and philosophies, no matter how rational they may appear to us on the surface, we will find they are motivated by some emotional agenda or desire in their core.

I think you might be misunderstanding me. I need something to rationalize my existence, but that doesn't mean I plan to live rationally. I think those two things are distinctive. I agree entirely that when you get down to it, pretty much any religion is irrational in one way or another (which is why I am reduced to cafeteria catholisism). But a philosophy doesn't have to be entirely rational for you to use it to rationalize your existence.

It seems to me that your own system of belief mirrors this. You know that the meaning and purpose you attach to life is subjective, and that to live by such subjective values and reasoning is irrational, however, it offers you a way to rationalize continuing to live your life.

In our own ways, we are both living irrationally and we both depend on a greater framework that allows us to do this. The difference is just the substance of the our frameworks.

>Imo you would benefit much more from abandoning religions of all vareties and kinds.

As I said, we are different people. Though we both see living life as an irrational enterprise that we are choosing to partake in anyway, we must rationalize living irrationally in different ways. You benefit from abandoning religious systems, and I am glad that works for you but it does not work for me. When I was a true believer I was extremely content, and these last ten years as a nihilist I have been miserable. It seems to me you aren't making allowances for our different identities.

Anyway, in general I think our overall approach to life is very similar, we just differ in the particulars.


Redpill me on the nuns? Particularly on the sisters of charity


all nuns are lesbos




>Redpill me on x
Go away.


Still better than being number 555321 /pol/ epic redpiller dude or being a christian.


It's pretty much the same thing as being a Christian. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you'll find that the preached ethic is the same. Unreachable. Look elsewhere, and just stay away from anything that will develop into pathological guilt later on.


I feel so bad seeing people taking the Christpill. I've never met a single happy Christian.


Like 99% of commie groups I've been in have been filled with trannies and depressed people.

Aren't religious people statistically the most happiest people in the word?


>Aren't religious people statistically the most happiest people in the word?
They lie in polls because they are delusional and want to push their evil agenda


It's sinful not to be. If that doesn't work start seeing life as a transitory battleground in which you'll be rewarded when your body is rotting.


>They lie in polls because they are delusional and want to push their evil agenda
Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you a seething commiefag making shit up?


He does seem to be seething but he sort of has a point. Christianity is a missionary religion and people, even in Wizchan, will go out of their way to get you to believe in Christianity cause it's a moral obligation.

In my case I have just never encountered a healthy Christian and there's many reasons for that to be the case.
Constant judgement and vigilance from some sociopathic entity unless you comply with non-achievable ethical standards is one.


Haha, no. People who think communism is just secular christianity don't understand these ideologies and the differences, very big differences they have.

This comparison is usually drawn by /pol/types or/and fascists, who want to label all their ideological enemies under one umbrella. If anything, I'd say Christianity and Communism are polar opposites of each other and mutually exclusive for good reasons.

Christianity is always pro-system and anti-revolution or counter-revolutionary. It teaches exactly the path of no resistance and superficial pacifism. That you should accept your place in society given to you by God and you shouldn't complain at all, you need to fulfill your moral duties, obey your superiors of all kinds, etc.
Communism on the other hand is the path of the warrior who isn't satisfied with being a slave and dares to question the system and authority. It is about revolution, wars and fights in order to achieve a world where you will be freer and have more rights. People often mistake Communism for a collectivist ideology but at its root it is an amoral, egoist ideology. The individual is encouraged to fight against all his oppressors. It is an ideology for only the strongest and bravest of men because the natural consequence of Communism is social darwinism. A world ruled by the strong and people who possess real power, not by all these weak, scared rich people who hide behind others constantly and need to manipulate the law and system in order to protect themselves and their wealth.

Indeed, many don't understand the true nature of Communism. The smell of gunpowder, gulags, mass executions by vigilantes, bloody revolutions and constant struggle, ah a world where it doesn't matter what family you were born into or what status you are, only what you can get with your own two hands through violence and force - this IS communism. And it makes me feel very excited to think about it. Even though it is a materialist system there is something unexplainable and mystic about Communism, something Esoteric and infinitely poetic about gutting rich people and smashing their heads with baseball bats.

>Like 99% of commie groups I've been in have been filled with trannies and depressed people.
New post-modern leftists have barely anything that ties them to original communism. The New Left is the monster child of capitalism and liberalism, it is very much anti-revolutionary and pacifist. No wonder it attracts so many weak individuals.

Genuine Communism thinks along the lines of what Mao thought: every generation needs to fight its own revolution and wars, otherwise it will grow weak and soft. Communism is the manliest ideology ever. Shame hippies and such gave leftist ideologies a bad reputation in the west.

>Aren't religious people statistically the most happiest people in the word?

Statistics can't be trusted at all. And the happiness religious people have isn't the good kind of happiness, it is the empty peace Christ gives to his followers and people find on their way to nirvana, religious happiness is about killing your "self/ego" in some way, always. It's not different from the peace alcohol addicts or drug addicts feel when they are high or drunk.


take your meds you larper

I personally think all people are religious, if they don't follow a formal religion like Christianity, they start projecting their religiosity onto other things like >>289369 is doing to communism.


you gotta serve somebody


>Communism on the other hand is the path of the warrior who isn't satisfied with being a slave and dares to question the system and authority.
ahahahaha! good one man.


>take your meds
Oh yes, how can someone be unironically a communist in our capitalist liberal utopia?

I am unironically an esoteric communist. What will you do about it?

Serve yourself.


It is the truth. Right-wing ideologists never managed to come up with anything brave, new, creative and original. It is all just feminine shit about obey, obey, serve, serve! Serve who - you ask? The State, The Church, The King, The Aristocracy, The Capitalist Exploiters - serve your Master! Only cucks, homosexuals or wymen can be right-wingers.

Everything related to egoism and self-interest came from the left side of the political spectrum. Right-wing fanatics hate this life ultimately, that is why they always need some kind of organized religion to support their shit systems and to preserve the status quo. And this is why they are all little fags fantasizing about policemen or soldiers day and night, because they are closet homos who want a strong Führer to anally satisfy them.


>b-b-but marx said….!!
cool, practice matters more than theory which renders what you said untrue lol


So if deeds matter more for you than just observe communist and fascists/nazis, how they rose to power and etc. You will find that fascists were always bootlickers of some variation and they got power by preaching their herd morals to normals. While communists fought revolutions and wars bravely and seized power via brute force, which is the only just way of seizing power.

And it's not about Marx. Communism transcends people. It is the spirit of revolution and violence that counts. Marx was only the Light Bearer who showed us the way while right-wingers obsess over Hitler even today and masturbate to his pictures like he was god.


oh, you're trolling. carry on.


Oh so you don't even know basic history, all right. How Hitler and the nazis were officially elected for government by normals in the democratic fashion, while in Russia commies actually fought for power and won. Same in China.

Fascists bark loud but they are scared little boys with daddy complexes at the end of the day. Communism is about raw power and setting us free.


You're a pretty good troll, I can see how you could make people sperg out.

Anyways I'm glad wizzies don't have any say in politics, so they won't ever further their viewpoint cause there's really not an audience for us, so, yeah…
Anything about politics spoken here seems to be purely hypothetical except, maybe, for the suicidal wiz with "non-verbal autism" that's in a "position of power". Probably a county major into lolicon or something of the sort. If at all people will like him more due to that


I am not trolling. I developed the ideology of esoteric communism and want to spread it.

You can't escape politics because humans live in societies, that's the sad truth. Everything matters on some level. It's not about being popular but achieving your goals and not being a cuck to the system.


Isn't esoteric communism just organized religion though? Half-joking..or less than half joking. Got anything good written up on it? Would be nice to skim through it, at least


communism is religion


You gotta up your troll game, try stuff like "the future is BLACK" and "feminism is an integral part of wizardry".


My esoteric communism stresses the point for a need of constant revolution and war. Both in spiritual and physical meanings. Battle with yourself day after day, debate with others, challenge your views and others' again and again, inspect your thought system whether it is correct time after time. And fight anyone who poses the threat of oppression for you.

I don't think it is similar to organized religions at all. Because I advocate for everyone to find Enlightenment on their own. It's not a dogmatic system of thought where everything is set into stone.

Basically no form of government is right in any way. Especially if it was voted and elected in the democratic way. True rulership needs to come from force, might and tyranny. And if the government shows the slightest signs of weakness then it should be eliminated and overthrown. When I say government I simply mean that those should rule who got power through revolution and wars. Our leaders, if we have any at all, should be experienced warriors and strong individuals. Leaders shouldn't be defined by their wealth or connections but by their individual merit and strength.

I plan to write up a basic introduction to it sooner or later. Until then, this is the core of it.

If it is a religion then at least it is a successful religion, unlike fascism and natsoc-core literature which is full of all the boring clichés the Führer himself copied from others.

Communism is much more colorful and full of variety than right-wing ideologies.

Nobody mentioned blacks or females.


>Communism is much more colorful and full of variety than right-wing ideologies.
Dunno man, I see delusions of grandeur in both and then it's a boring pastiche.


>True rulership needs to come from force, might and tyranny.
You probably know more Marx than any given internet communist, I'll give you that.


Not going to lie, even if it is ridiculous but what opened my eyes to the value of violence and how it is just was the Shin Megami Tensei series. The Chaos paths and factions in those games present really good points when it comes to anarchy, freedom, violence, survival of the fittest, etc.

I always liked Communism but for a long time I was the pussy type commie you speak of, because I fell for neoliberal new-leftist pacifist garbage. Then I played SMT games and also read Stirner and Nietzsche and learned more about what Marx and other actual communists taught. And I became Enlightened in my own way.

There is no reason people should give up their right for violence to any state or government, unless they are forced to do so by the might of said rulership. Power is the basis of all laws, morals, norms and customs. If you are powerful you can do anything. And if you build a strictly anti-violence system then people will be forced to compete with each other on unjust terms, like in capitalism.

What is better? Sucking up to rich people to employ you and give you some money for wageslaving for them or robbing them and taking whatever you want through force?

Nat-Soc and right-wing ideologies are usually tied to "social darwinism" but that isn't true competetion or survival of the fittest. Because they rely on laws and regulations always and concentrating the right for violence into the hands of the few.

The left will always have this going for it, that it is about becoming your own master, while right-wing politics is about serving the few privileged people. Left is about primitivism while the right is about civilization. And we had to learn that civilization only benefits the circlejerk who rules at the end of the day.


Both left and right have their pitfalls into tribalism and collectivism so I'm glad you sorted your shit out to avoid most of that entirely and reap what satisfies and empowers the self.
To be fair though, just taking a look at the tribalistic left these days makes even the extremes of the far right look well adjusted.


>If you are powerful you can do anything.

It makes sense, but only on the surface. If you study history you'll realize that to be powerful you have to become part of a 'chain of wills' because nobody is powerful alone or become powerful by doing anything you want. In fact, you have to play a very strict game of power, doing all sorts of shit you don't want in order to climb the chain of wills, appeasing here, forcing there, scheming endlessly. And then when you're at the top, you still don't get to do what you want, you do what you have to do because even at the top you're not free from the chain of the collective wills of all the people you rule. It's almost like you don't get to decide what to do, but how it's going to be done.

I hope I'm not too vague here (probably am), but read about the lives of Roman emperors and kings, it becomes very clear how pernicious power is and how it's nothing at all to do with doing anything you want.


If you have power you can do anything so maybe those roman emperors weren't actually all that powerful at the end of the day? It doesn't matter if you are in a high position or not if you are too afraid to live out your desires and to shape the world into what you'd like it to be. To be really powerful you have to be brave and cruel, ready to fight anyone who opposes you.

That is exactly why I said our leaders need to be strong warriors and people who claimed power through violence, confrontation or war. If you hand people the staff of rulership then they will be weak emperors. The Roman Empire suffered from the same disease we suffer from nowadays: civilization.

If someone can't do what he wants then he is obviously not free. What I dream about is a society where you don't suck up to people in any form or way but take what you want by force.

Collectivism is always the safe solution that leads to corruption while individualism is harder but has better rewards in the end.
Meh, /pol/ and the liberal left seem pretty much the same to me, both argue on the grounds of slave cattle morality just in different ways. Both care about "justice" and other spooks like that a great deal. Both dream about some utopistic society where people will help each other and obey the CORRECT laws and morals, heh, which is ofc their laws and morals.


Caligula and Commodus disagree


It's too narrow and influenced by ancient middle eastern desert cults. Life is more universal than any single ideology or religion.


Yet everyone is locked into his own subjective experience of life and subjective view of things. Life is just what life is like for you at the end of the day.

[View All]
[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]