/lit/ - Literature

>>22288326
>Where does evil come from in the Bible?
>>22288595
>Bible and theology places the origin of evel in man and original sin.
The evels of man; original sin, is what the highly intelligent authors of the story of eden (probably persian fire-worshipers wearing false beards and eye-liner) decided was "Mans inherent desire to differentiate Good from Less Good,"

the rest of the religion is a cope for this obvious barbaric origin, except for jesus, who recognized how terrible this was for the jews, and attempted to reason with them about it. it went about as well as the later christians who were tortured to death for noticing the same things.

fluff:
Satan in imagery is Faunus, or Pan to the Greeks, the God of not taking yourself so seriously and enjoying life.

later fluff and punchlines:
Satan was considered by lots of later thinking people to be like Prometheus "only trying to help humans", but the punchline is that Prometheus was actually a very bad guy in the original indigenous religions; a trickster, and that he was very bad because he tricked humans into becoming meat-eaters, which angered God so much that God invented false hope i the guise of a Womans innocence; these things being considered highly virtuous things (faith, innocence, hope) by the later Christians in paradoxis.

challenge: prove me wrong in this correctly and I will join the church, whichever you choose, and mend the schism as Pope Augustus the First - by honos and virtos.

Once upon a time in the valley of Yams
there lived a little anon who coveted Hams,
"I can see it, I can see it," the anon would claim
with his head by the rectum of a scurrilous slave,
"one more push, anon," the anon would say,
"i can't wait to suck this for days upon days,"

But see, the anon who coveted this shit
had been the victim of an editors trick,
and actually the Ham was another Mans dick.

Too late we realize such things from afar
as the horses ride by and gaze 'pon the car
in the meadow of tarmac rutting and idle
"look at them," says the horse, "in their natural wild."

I wrote as a child and read as a child, and recall the 'character' of my early childhood writing being just a series of impressions fed to me from other things and other peoples opinions, the conclusions I thought my own were easily predictable as the opinions I had been fed would have led to no other outcome...

...I did not break this mentality nor, beforehand, think anything wrong with it until I was at least 25, and there were a good few years leading up to that point where I had internalized all sorts of put-downs or echoes of past criticisms that would spring to mind when thinking to deviate from this simplistic 'habit' which they are rewarded for engaging in by the people who are happy to see their own internalized beliefs repeated blindly by other humans.


My question here is whether persons who have not "escaped" in this fashion can be said to even be capable of thought, if all they do (as we observe all the time) is to regurgitate things given to them by 3rd parties, as: when they form ideas in their heads these ideas are not really ideas at all nor are they derived from real life and so they could not either be called 'true reports'.

RHETORIC, LOGIC: PROOF OF A FALSE POSITION IN ARGUMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS OF THINGS
kal.iul felicitas.

If a people exist who refuse to admit when they're proven wrong about a thing, then what does this tell us? I think the inclination of some is to "give up" on reason entirely for the seeming proof that "talking to people gets you nowhere (or causes enmity as consequence)", but I do not think this is really the case.

Rather: by talking to such people we can actually learn far more about their minds then if we had had an amicable discussion. These are two different things of course but I would not be so hasty to dismiss the irrational argument or to consider it, when it is the outcome, to be a waste of time or a loss.


Refusal to engage and attempts to derail a sequence of logic in conversation provides a solid proof in and of itself; when encountering such opposition (i..e people who cannot make a case and refuse to concede to the logic; to never admit being wrong if they are shown to be wrong) demonstrates, I think, this:
1) the person knows you are right and knows they are wrong

Refer back to 'politics as anti-discourse'.

As more experience is gained this perspective becomes more apparent; bad discourse itself,though they may not realize it, constitutes a proof that such a person "knows" they are in error in what they say or what they seem to argue for, perhaps this does not entirely translate to them "knowing" you are right 'but' it demonstrates that they are not solid at all in their reasoning.

Could they pass a lie detector test? Consider the sequence of thought from where anger (even as a false affectation) arises; anger to realize one is in error, this occurring in speech or argument or in response to lie detector conditions would produce the same result: their response the moment they cease to engage amicably on the subject constitutes, therefore, the exact moment whereupon they begin to lie. This shows us, then, that they have understood the argument which has shown their position to be false; they have followed it, foresaw the outcome of it, and that was when they decided to try to derail it by .... changing the subject, pretending to be angry, spooling backwards to reinterpret a thing that you had said, etc., finding any excuse, that is, to derail the train of thought from taking them to the logical conclusion.


I find this, as "total proof" to be not scientific, obviously, to confirm whatsoever 'your' case was; I mean: simply because someone may try to derail what you say does not mean that you were correct in what you were saying - but it is a proof that even if you are not correct that 'they' realize that 'their' position was illogical or false.

We can learn a great deal, even from these sorts of encounters.


val.
kal.iul felicitas.

Unanswered points against the Zealots from yesterday,

Prime: The people in your holy books are unaccomplished do-nothings by comparison to the Greeks and Romans, therefore they have nothing useful to tell us.
>>14912348
>We can also tell how you're lying or how you don't see the point of the comparisons because there are 1,000 more Archimedes, Galens and Hadrians for the 1 Solomon or David.
>Galen, as with other physicians, understood that actually focusing upon the diet and nutrition of the body itself s key to maintaining health and avoiding disease. Prayer may be beneficial for the mind in addition to treatment, yes, but the treatment itself is far superior and the results infinitely more tangible.
Unanswered.


Prima Munda Incorporam:
The Church never learned the lesson of Jesus because they constanstl tortured and killed people for imaginary religious crimes, which is exactly what the Pharisees did to Jesus, therefore the Church (Organized Religion) cannot be said to have even studied properly their own sourcebooks in 1,700 years - or they never really cared about Jesus in the first place.
>>14912348
>then why did the church of jesus do to people what the pharisees did to jesus?
>>14913760
>"then why did the church of jesus do to people what the pharisees did to jesus?"
>Referring of course to the fact the Church and Early and Later Christians were going around torturing and killing people for religious crimes just as the Pharisees did to Jesus. Missing the largest point of the story.
Unanswered.


Derailed into tangent about "Materialism"
and met by insults
>>14913787
>There are actual children posting on this board now, aren't there?

Unanswered response, derailed
>>14913978
>Too bad it's a shit context that draws back to the no dogma for me, all the dogma for you argument.
>>14916963
>what were you saying there?
What was he trying to say? Unanswered.


My last three responses on the thread before derailed into 'materialism' and circle-jerking by religiots,
>>14916943
>>14916945
>>14916963

So far I've been called a Jew and a "Filthy N*gger" :) by Christians on this thread.

>Go on you fucking filthy nigger, swallow all the shit and cum

very christ-like